Home > Archive > Cobol > August 2005 > OT: Authorities
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-09, 8:59 am |
|
On 8-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Thus words are symbols that allow us to share perception and 'create'
> reality. The danger is that the "word authority" (Dictionaries) become an
> end in themselves and become the dog instead of the tail (maybe that's where
> 'dogma' comes from :-)) The tail does not wag the dog. Dictionaries are
> intended to help communication, not to restrict meaning to whatever their
> definitions cover. That is why there is a wide diversity of such references.
> But, if you look across all of them for a given word, you will derive a
> 'concept' that is agreed by all of them. Selecting any given one as "The
> Authority" is risky at best.
Some people prefer the function of dictionaries to act as authorities. Heck,
at least one country does this.
Authorities are comfortable - if you know what is right, you don't have to
think, and certainly don't need to understand.
One trouble with dictionaries is that they don't adequately show context - look
up "database" and see what the general public thinks of this word compared to
what programmers use. Or learn why someone says "evolution is only a theory".
Authority has scope, and authoritarians don't want scope.
| |
| Richard 2005-08-09, 4:59 pm |
| > Or learn why someone says "evolution is only a theory".
That is like saying "Gravity is only a theory".
Evolution is observable (except to those that s 'enlightenment' on
their knees with their eyes closed), 'Natural Selection as the main
driving force of evolution' is a theory, 'Sexual selection as the main
driving force of evolution' is a theory. 'Neanderthals were a
sub-species of Homo Erectus' is a theory.
| |
|
| Richard wrote:
>
>
> That is like saying "Gravity is only a theory".
>
> Evolution is observable
How so? I've observed gravity many times, and I've observed the slow
animal being eaten. It doesn't mean I extrapolate that to come up with
my own ideas of how this world came to be - especially since all the
"proof" I've ever seen for that theory is based on shoddy or
now-discredited science (aka "junk science").
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-09, 9:59 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b3084$42f92a35$45491c57$13663@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Richard wrote:
>
> How so? I've observed gravity many times, and I've observed the slow
> animal being eaten. It doesn't mean I extrapolate that to come up with my
> own ideas of how this world came to be - especially since all the "proof"
> I've ever seen for that theory is based on shoddy or now-discredited
> science (aka "junk science").
Dan, I know this is sensitive and I have utmost respect for your beliefs and
your right to believe them. But I feel pretty strongly about the Scientific
approach so I would be very interested to see what, in your opinion,
constitutes "junk science". Not looking for trouble, have no intention of
starting another religious debate, but, if you have the same respect for my
beliefs that I have for yours, you might post a link. Do it privately, if
you'd prefer.
Pete.
| |
|
| I _may_ be wrong...it happens less in real life than it appears in CLC...but
nonetheless
<DISCLAIMER - this has the potential to be all completely bullshit. Best
case is just an opinion>
I think my other post stands...
The failure of discussion with evolution is that we as a group of
ape-descended humans cannot separate evolution from "in the beginning...."
Evolution <> Anti-Creationism......Why can't there be many theories....Why
does it matter what was there before the beginning? As a famous voice box
said once...it's like asking what's north of the north pole.
Despite what "anti creationists" say, creationism is not your apple pie view
of: there was Adam and there was Eve and there were many incestuous unions
leading to you and I.....there are Gap Creationists, and Old Earth, Flat
Earthers and even Progressive Creationists (I kid you not).
Similarly, despite what "anti evolutionarists" say there is evidence to
support the theory that has been seen in a single generation. I don't
understand why we cannot just say God invented evolution and it's not
random..and just all get along.
I do suggest you go to Talk.Origins if you want to continue the debate
though...they have forums to discuss this kind of crap.
Besides, the proof for God is far more solid than the junk science proving
....well, pretty much anything else actually - I read it somewhere...the name
of the book escapes me. It's either Old something or New something, I
forget.
JCE
Top Post Only
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1123645561.235262.32580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> It is observable by anyone who's mind is not shut tight and locked up.
>
> For example a few thousand years ago there were only a very small
> number of breeds of dog. Now there are hundreds of them. That is
> evolution, but it is not 'natural selection' because it is primarily
> 'artificial selection'.
>
>
> I very much doubt that you have _any_ 'my own ideas', you seem to only
> have ideas that you have been indoctrinated with and by reading 'the
> book'.
>
>
> Demonstrating that you completely fail to understand what science is
> and what 'theory' is and what would happen if there was 'proof'.
>
>
> And your thoughts on 'creation science' [sic] would be ?
| |
| Richard 2005-08-10, 3:59 am |
| > there are Gap Creationists, and Old Earth, Flat
> Earthers and even Progressive Creationists (I kid you
> not).
And Brahmans, and Maidu Indian Wonomians, and Chiminigaguans, and
Awonawilonans and Gaiaists, and dozens or hundreds of other myth
believers. Or perhaps it was Xenu and the Thetans.
> the proof for God is far more solid ...
Oh I believe in gods, all of them (well most anyway), Khonvum, Chin,
Herohito, Zeus, Rama, ... I just don't deify them, they were chiefs,
warlords, generals. It is very likely that some Moses met some Jehovah
maybe even on a mountain. Jehovah was the local warlord and granted the
Jews some land.
Interestingly, Jehovah (or Yehwah) was, according to the Caananites,
the son of their 'god' El and brother to Baalim, the first of the
dynasty of the Baal family (of which Baal Zebub was one).
> I don't understand why we cannot just say God invented
> evolution and it's not random.
No, you probably don't understand that.
Why don't we all just say: "Before anything , there existed Shuzanghu
and his wife, Zumaing-Nui. In time she gave birth to a girl (earth) and
a boy (sky). Sky and earth mated and gave birth to the mountains. Then
they produced two frogs who married and made the first humans. These
humans were covered with thick hair, but when they mated they produced
people as they are now." and just all get along ?
> I read it somewhere...the name of the book escapes me.
Perhaps you should read somewhat wider.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| In article <1123661617.794438.163150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Why don't we all just say: "Before anything , there existed Shuzanghu
>and his wife, Zumaing-Nui.
Ummmmm... because it posits a conditon prior to existence ('before
anything') when things existed? Because it posits time ('before') in
the absence of the possibility of motion? Because 'we all' don't share a
common language and a bit of a racket might result?
Oh... you're talking about *religion*, here, not logic... sorry, my
apologies... I'll go back to pondering how it is that a reptile without
voice-mechanisms can speak - and share a common language with - human
beings.
DD
| |
| Richard 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| > I'll go back to pondering how ...
> and share a common language with - human beings.
Was that some pre-Babel language or is it that "If English was good
enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas."* ?
That would of course be the King's English as spoken by 'The King of
England'.
* Texas governor Miriam "Ma" Ferguson picked up a Bible and famously
declared, "If
English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas."
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 8:59 am |
| In article <1123666388.477013.136680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Was that some pre-Babel language or is it that "If English was good
>enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas."* ?
I wasn't dere, Charlie... but the earliest versions I've see report it in
some form of proto-Aramaic.
DD
| |
|
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1123661617.794438.163150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> And Brahmans, and Maidu Indian Wonomians, and Chiminigaguans, and
> Awonawilonans and Gaiaists, and dozens or hundreds of other myth
> believers. Or perhaps it was Xenu and the Thetans.
>
>
> Oh I believe in gods, all of them (well most anyway), Khonvum, Chin,
> Herohito, Zeus, Rama, ... I just don't deify them, they were chiefs,
> warlords, generals. It is very likely that some Moses met some Jehovah
> maybe even on a mountain. Jehovah was the local warlord and granted the
> Jews some land.
Well that's one view....just as Jesus was a prophet who stained his
sheets...
> Interestingly, Jehovah (or Yehwah) was, according to the Caananites,
> the son of their 'god' El and brother to Baalim, the first of the
> dynasty of the Baal family (of which Baal Zebub was one).
>
>
> No, you probably don't understand that.
I'm glad you understood the words "I don't understand". I hope you didn't
need a commonly accepted source of information to help you there :-)
> Why don't we all just say: "Before anything , there existed Shuzanghu
> and his wife, Zumaing-Nui. In time she gave birth to a girl (earth) and
> a boy (sky). Sky and earth mated and gave birth to the mountains. Then
> they produced two frogs who married and made the first humans. These
> humans were covered with thick hair, but when they mated they produced
> people as they are now." and just all get along ?
Exactly! Now you're getting it. It's amazing how hard this concept is for
some to grasp.
> Perhaps you should read somewhat wider.
Perhaps.
JCE
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 9-Aug-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> How so? I've observed gravity many times,
What does gravity look like? I've never observed it myself, only its effects.
> and I've observed the slow
> animal being eaten. It doesn't mean I extrapolate that to come up with
> my own ideas of how this world came to be - especially since all the
> "proof" I've ever seen for that theory is based on shoddy or
> now-discredited science (aka "junk science").
I expect gravity has more to do with how this world came to be than evolution.
But at any rate, the discussion is about semantics - the word "theory" means
different things in different contexts.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 9-Aug-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> For example a few thousand years ago there were only a very small
> number of breeds of dog. Now there are hundreds of them. That is
> evolution, but it is not 'natural selection' because it is primarily
> 'artificial selection'.
This assumes that human action is not part of nature. I've never been able to
separate our actions from those of other animals the way many people do.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Oh I believe in gods, all of them (well most anyway), Khonvum, Chin,
> Herohito, Zeus, Rama, ... I just don't deify them, they were chiefs,
> warlords, generals. It is very likely that some Moses met some Jehovah
> maybe even on a mountain. Jehovah was the local warlord and granted the
> Jews some land.
Just show me proof that the Hindus (or even Muslims) are wrong.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddd30j$mf4$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> On 9-Aug-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> What does gravity look like? I've never observed it myself, only its
> effects.
Huge amounts of money are being spent even as we speak to try and detect
"gravity waves" and gravitons (the theoretical -that word again :-) -
particle which exchanges the gravitational force. So far, no dice. To be
fair, it is extremely hard to detect as there is nowhere you can go that is
outside the field. I believe there are some underground experiments being
carried out in the US which have a chance of doing it. The theory is that
the exchange of gravitons between two bodies causes them to be attracted
towards each other. I doubt it, myself, but if it proves to be so, it will
cause a number of other puzzles to fall into place. Superstring theory
predicts the existence of the graviton as a complex vibration of a string,
described by Euler's equations.
I'll believe it when I see it... :-)
>
>
> I expect gravity has more to do with how this world came to be than
> evolution.
> But at any rate, the discussion is about semantics - the word "theory"
> means
> different things in different contexts.
>
Very succinct, Howard. I think you are right on both counts.
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddd343$ml6$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 9-Aug-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>This assumes that human action is not part of nature. I've never been able to
>separate our actions from those of other animals the way many people do.
Hmmmmm... not too many other species I know of have managed to change
their longevity like them human-being type folks have.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm... not too many other species I know of have managed to change
> their longevity like them human-being type folks have.
One way to change longevity is to become a pet or prey of people. The basic way
is to either die or survive. Some do this individually, and some do it
collectively.
Sure I can find characteristics that make humans unique. But I can find
characteristics that make beavers unique as well.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| In article <ddd87u$p8t$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>One way to change longevity is to become a pet or prey of people.
It would seem, by this, that it is people who are changing longevity of
the pet/prey species.
>The basic way
>is to either die or survive.
Ummmmm... given that 'longevity' is 'the length of life' then dying or
surviving might have something to do with it, aye.
>Some do this individually, and some do it
>collectively.
>
>Sure I can find characteristics that make humans unique. But I can find
>characteristics that make beavers unique as well.
Oh, those beavers... may all their habitats be dammed!
DD
| |
| Richard 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
| > It would seem, by this, that it is people who are changing longevity of
> the pet/prey species.
It seems to me that cats (the ones that live in my house) view their
relationship with man as one of master/slave with the cats being the
master.
There are ants that 'farm' aphids. They keep them as domestic animals
to be milked and protect them. This may be viewed as the aphids paying
for protection or as ants enslaving the aphids. In either case both
probably live longer.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 4:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddd87u$p8t$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> On 10-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> One way to change longevity is to become a pet or prey of people. The
> basic way
> is to either die or survive. Some do this individually, and some do it
> collectively.
>
> Sure I can find characteristics that make humans unique. But I can find
> characteristics that make beavers unique as well.
Dammit! You reminded me that one of the things on my "to do" list (before I
die...) is to see beavers in the wild. My experience of beavers, while
pleasant enough, has been limited to an alternative meaning for the word.
Pete.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
| In article <ddd684$89o$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <ddd343$ml6$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm... not too many other species I know of have managed to change
> their longevity like them human-being type folks have.
>
> DD
One could argue that common household pets have managed to do so.
Dogs and cats, by being cute and cuddly, have convinced a very dangerous
predator (man) to give them protection, shelter and sustenance. This
allows them healthy and happy geriatric years they would not enjoy
living with their own kind in the wild.
(I took my nine year old tom for his first geriatric physical this
morning. In the wild he would be long dead at the claws of a young
upstart or a dread disease)
Cows, on the other hand...
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Dammit! You reminded me that one of the things on my "to do" list (before I
> die...) is to see beavers in the wild. My experience of beavers, while
> pleasant enough, has been limited to an alternative meaning for the word.
>
> Pete.
Must....Resist....Temptation....Must....Resist.....
Oh, well, I was never strong willed. Here you go:
http://www.girlsgonewild.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-55DA48.20570310082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Must....Resist....Temptation....Must....Resist.....
>
> Oh, well, I was never strong willed. Here you go:
>
> http://www.girlsgonewild.com
ROFL! Thanks Joe, made my day... :-)
Pete.
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
| In article <1123701695.906884.54600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>It seems to me that cats (the ones that live in my house) view their
>relationship with man as one of master/slave with the cats being the
>master.
You feed a dog, the dog thinks you are God. You feed a cat, the cat
thinks *it* is God.'
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-B7190B.20542210082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <ddd684$89o$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>One could argue that common household pets have managed to do so.
One has... and it has been countered that the humans make the animals live
longer.
>
>Dogs and cats, by being cute and cuddly, have convinced a very dangerous
>predator (man) to give them protection, shelter and sustenance.
Dogs and cats, by having traits that can be reinforced by human
manipulation of their breeding, have shown that they can be of use to
humans without being too much of a drain on resources.
DD
| |
|
| "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-B7190B.20542210082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <ddd684$89o$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> One could argue that common household pets have managed to do so.
>
> Dogs and cats, by being cute and cuddly, have convinced a very dangerous
> predator (man) to give them protection, shelter and sustenance. This
> allows them healthy and happy geriatric years they would not enjoy
> living with their own kind in the wild.
In the West.
I guess the dumb dogs live in Asia?
> (I took my nine year old tom for his first geriatric physical this
> morning. In the wild he would be long dead at the claws of a young
> upstart or a dread disease)
>
> Cows, on the other hand...
In the West.
I guess the smart cows live in Asia?
JCE
| |
|
| "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-B7190B.20542210082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <ddd684$89o$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> One could argue that common household pets have managed to do so.
>
> Dogs and cats, by being cute and cuddly, have convinced a very dangerous
> predator (man) to give them protection, shelter and sustenance. This
> allows them healthy and happy geriatric years they would not enjoy
> living with their own kind in the wild.
In the West.
I guess the dumb dogs live in Asia?
> (I took my nine year old tom for his first geriatric physical this
> morning. In the wild he would be long dead at the claws of a young
> upstart or a dread disease)
>
> Cows, on the other hand...
In the West.
I guess the smart cows live in Asia?
JCE
| |
| Jeff York 2005-08-11, 8:59 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <1123701695.906884.54600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>You feed a dog, the dog thinks you are God. You feed a cat, the cat
>thinks *it* is God.'
"Oy loike pigs... Dogs looks up to you... Cats look down on you...
But pigs is equal." (Old, anon, country saying..) :-)
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-11, 8:59 am |
| In article <cajmf1hin56bgo72of49edasqtjmag53fg@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>"Oy loike pigs... Dogs looks up to you... Cats look down on you...
>But pigs is equal." (Old, anon, country saying..) :-)
McAfferty got high and he fell into a sty,
And the parson-priest walked by and then did say:
'You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses.'
.... and the pig got up and slowly walked away.
(as heard from Benny Hill)
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-11, 8:59 am |
|
On 10-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Dammit! You reminded me that one of the things on my "to do" list (before I
> die...) is to see beavers in the wild. My experience of beavers, while
> pleasant enough, has been limited to an alternative meaning for the word.
Let me guess:
# noun: a hat made of beaver fur or similar material
# noun: a movable piece of armor on a medieval helmet used to protect the
lower face
# noun: a full beard
# noun: the soft brown fur of the beaver
# noun: a man's hat with a tall crown; usually covered with beaver or silk
# verb: work hard on something
# name: A surname (common: 1 in 14285 families; popularity rank in the U.S.:
#1757)
Maybe Don Adam's son-in-law.
| |
| Alistair 2005-08-11, 9:59 pm |
| I could almost swallow this theory but for the incestuous aspect of it.
What religion do Zumaing-Nui, etc., derive from?
| |
| Richard 2005-08-11, 9:59 pm |
| > Zumaing-Nui
Non Hindu northern India.
The point being that american fundementalists seem to consider that
'creationism' is only that of the bible and everyone else's are just
ignorant pagan myths. All these myths are very territorial with the
biblical one coming from a small area at the eastern end of the med.,
other territories have their own, probably based on deification of
their own charasmatic leaders of the past.
The process can be identified quite easily: see how locals write about
Idi Amin, or the Kim dynasty, or Pol Pot. These too may one day become
gods just as Chin and Herohito did.
I was stuuned to see in a documentary about 'the unnamable German
leader' with film and writings of the time how he was regarded as
god-like, even with comments that 'he created the world'.
It seems that people will believe almost anything, especially if they
are indoctrinated at an early age, or there is a purported benefit. If
you really believe in the Tooth Fairy or in Santa Claus, and are good,
then you will get a reward later. Well Santa Claus is just a deified
Saint Nicolas, Bishop of Myra, given supernatural powers and painted by
CocaCola.
I've been reading up about the Rastafarians recently. My grandfather
was in the Indian Army and in 1922 was presented with a Lion skin in
Aden by Tafari Makonnen which my father remembers as hanging on the
wall in the house. That would be valuable now, but it was thrown out as
being moth eaten decades ago.
"""According to Rastafarian belief the only true God is the late
Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie (originally known as Ras Tafari), and
Ethiopia is the true Zion."""
I see little or no difference between Rastafarians deifying one leader
and Jews 3 and a half thousand years ago doing that to theirs.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-11, 9:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddfkap$85o$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 10-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Let me guess:
>
> # noun: a hat made of beaver fur or similar material
> # noun: a movable piece of armor on a medieval helmet used to protect
> the
> lower face
> # noun: a full beard
> # noun: the soft brown fur of the beaver
> # noun: a man's hat with a tall crown; usually covered with beaver or
> silk
> # verb: work hard on something
> # name: A surname (common: 1 in 14285 families; popularity rank in the
> U.S.:
> #1757)
>
> Maybe Don Adam's son-in-law.
None of the above... :-)
I think (from memory) Don Adams was Maxwell Smart? I have no idea who his
son-in-law was... can you clarify, please?
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-12, 8:59 am |
|
On 11-Aug-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> The point being that american fundementalists seem to consider that
> 'creationism' is only that of the bible and everyone else's are just
> ignorant pagan myths. All these myths are very territorial with the
> biblical one coming from a small area at the eastern end of the med.,
> other territories have their own, probably based on deification of
> their own charasmatic leaders of the past.
There is a subset of American fundamentalists who point to the fact that a wide
variety of peoples have legends of great floods as support of the Noah story.
The problem with this is that it is evidence of a wide variety of peoples
*surviving* great flood(s). This means (if those floods are, in fact THE
FLOOD), that the Noah flood did *not* kill everybody in the world except for one
Jewish family - at least not by the definition of "world" that the literalists
demand that we accept.
So many people know that their interpretation of the Scriptures is correct, and
that others are manifestly wrong, that they only read to confirm what they
already Know and are unwilling to learn what God wants.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-12, 8:59 am |
|
On 11-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> None of the above... :-)
>
> I think (from memory) Don Adams was Maxwell Smart? I have no idea who his
> son-in-law was... can you clarify, please?
http://imdb.com/name/nm0064769/
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddi8v1$nf9$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> There is a subset of American fundamentalists who point to the fact that a
wide
> variety of peoples have legends of great floods as support of the Noah
story.
> The problem with this is that it is evidence of a wide variety of peoples
> *surviving* great flood(s). This means (if those floods are, in fact THE
> FLOOD), that the Noah flood did *not* kill everybody in the world except
for one
> Jewish family - at least not by the definition of "world" that the
literalists
> demand that we accept.
See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory . I
recall an expedition to detect evidence of human habitation at the old
shoreline (supporting the idea that this was really Noah's Flood, covering
all the world the tellers of the story knew about),, but it came up empty.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Russell 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in
news:ddigoi$1ou6$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com:
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:ddi8v1$nf9$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> wide
> story.
> for one
> literalists
>
> See the article at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory . I recall an
> expedition to detect evidence of human habitation at the old shoreline
> (supporting the idea that this was really Noah's Flood, covering all
> the world the tellers of the story knew about),, but it came up empty.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>
If you want a world wide flood, how about the end of the last ice
age, when the ocean rose as the ice melted. All of the people that lived
close to the ocean would have seen this as a flood, albeit a slow flood.
And for local floods, they say that their was a huge lake, west of
the current great lakes and much larger that was created by a great ice
dam. When the ice dam broke, their was one of the largest floods in known
history.
I am sure that their must be many other examples. Was the
mediterranean sea ever dry? There is some evidence that it might have been
dry at one time. Might have been a LONG time ago though.
I do agree that the black sea flood has the best chance of being the
biblical flood - it happened in the right place at the right time, and
would have been very fast, but not so fast that you could not survive. As
with most "Holy books", it is ultimately local, not global. Without modern
communications, this is not surprising.
If you want a non survivable flood in that era and area, I believe
that an island blew up a la Krakatoa. Destroyed a nice civilization.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
|
On 12-Aug-2005, Russell <rws0203nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> If you want a non survivable flood in that era and area, I believe
> that an island blew up a la Krakatoa. Destroyed a nice civilization.
The point isn't whether or not there was a Noah's flood - it's that some people
want to have it's definition of destroying everybody except Noah's family to be
everybody on the planet Earth. So evidence of partial floods and remembered
floods doesn't support their pre-conceived beliefs. Which doesn't matter if
their beliefs are strong enough. These don't s Truth,they already Know it.
On the other hand, there are many people who believe there is Truth in the
Scriptures - but don't have the conceit that they have the One True
Interpretation of how to read everything in the Bible - which parts don't matter
anymore - which parts are literal. These people are willing to learn.
Same thing happens with other religions such as Islam and Patriotism.
| |
| Jeff York 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>There is a subset of American fundamentalists who point to the fact that a wide
>variety of peoples have legends of great floods as support of the Noah story.
>The problem with this is that it is evidence of a wide variety of peoples
>*surviving* great flood(s). This means (if those floods are, in fact THE
>FLOOD), that the Noah flood did *not* kill everybody in the world except for one
>Jewish family....
If it did, we're all horribly inbred... Which may account for a lot.
--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."
Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
| |
| Richard 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
| > If you want a non survivable flood in that era and
> area, I believe that an island blew up a la Krakatoa.
> Destroyed a nice civilization.
Thera, now called Santorini. It blew up around 1650 BCE several times
larger than Krakatoa. We have a large picture of it on the wall since
my daughter did her Gr Islands trip. The island is just a crater rim
now.
It has nothing to do with floods. However, it is estimated that the 70
km high blast would have been visible from northern Egypt as a 'pillar
of fire' and the ash and dust clouds would have given several days of
dark, though I doubt the 'sun stood still'. The ash fallout would have
turned water red and killed fish in the rivers and streams and lots of
dead fish would have led to much more than usual fly breeding which, in
turn, would have been food for an abundance of frogs (also the fish
were not there to eat the tadpoles).
It is also likely that this is Plato's Atlantis, not 9000 years before
500 BCE but 900 (or so).
As for the flood there are many examples of local flooding that may be
dragged in. However it is more likely that it was an exlanation of the
world as they found it. In the moutains one can find fossils of fish
and, especially, shell fish. We now know that this is the result of
tectonic plates meeting and scraping the seabed into piles, and
especially at subduction zones. As The African plate moves north into
Europe it pushes up the Alps and causes volcanoism through Italy,
Greece and Turkey.
The peoples of the time had no idea about plate techtonics so, instead
of the land now being pushed up above sea level, their explanation was
that sea level must have been somewhere up the mountains at some point
so that the fish as shell fish could be buried there.
That is: they came up with an early scientific theory to explain the
evidence of the fossils they saw about how they came to be there. As
often happens some stories were woven from local flood experiences and
new ideas.
The theory changed when more detailed studies showed that over millions
of years the land moved and folded. Tectonic plates were shown to be
one of the mechanisms involved, I recall following the arguments each
way in New Scientist in the 60s. Now they can measure the movements in
millimetres.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-08-12, 4:59 pm |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1123876774.923643.248360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The theory changed when more detailed studies showed that over millions
> of years the land moved and folded.
Impossible! *Everybody* knows the Universe was created at what would have
correspond to the nightfall immediately preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004BC
had there been light (or, for that matter, days and nights) at the time.
;-)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| icycalmca@yahoo.com 2005-08-12, 9:59 pm |
|
Russell wrote:
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in
> news:ddigoi$1ou6$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com:
<snip>
Not "empty" at first announcement, but soon after
the National Geographic trumpeted their supposed success.
Note that that National Geographic site has not
been updated for about five years,
e=2Eg. no mention of the refutations of the hypothesis,
and no mention of the disappointing 200-year-old date
for the supposed "habitation site", and no mention
that Ballard didn't revisit the site when he went
back to the Black Sea to look at submerged shipwrecks
again.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/b...a/ax/frame.html
[color=darkred]
> If you want a world wide flood, how about the end of the last ice
> age, when the ocean rose as the ice melted. All of the people that lived
> close to the ocean would have seen this as a flood, albeit a slow flood.
Agreed.
> And for local floods, they say that their was a huge lake, west of
> the current great lakes and much larger that was created by a great ice
> dam. When the ice dam broke, their was one of the largest floods in known
> history.
That would be one of the (recurrent) floods that carved
the Channelled Scablands in Washington, as Glacial Lake Missoula
broke through the glacial ice tongue damming its outlet valley:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/scabland.html
http://users.aber.ac.uk/daa04/scab.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt5.html
> I am sure that their must be many other examples. Was the
> mediterranean sea ever dry? There is some evidence that it might have be=
en
> dry at one time. Might have been a LONG time ago though.
The last time was 5.4 million years ago:
http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/...ian/history.htm
> I do agree that the black sea flood has the best chance of being the
> biblical flood - it happened in the right place at the right time, and
> would have been very fast, but not so fast that you could not survive. As
> with most "Holy books", it is ultimately local, not global. Without mode=
rn
> communications, this is not surprising.
>
> If you want a non survivable flood in that era and area, I believe
> that an island blew up a la Krakatoa. Destroyed a nice civilization.
That was Santorini:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_vol.../santorini.html
Re: the BSFloode, please allow me to grace you with
my standard rant on this subject:
Those who came up with the claim of catastrophic flooding
of the Black Sea have retreated from that claim.
It was based on the "sudden" appearance of salt-water shelly
organisms deep in the Black Sea, but the claimants now agree
that the "sudden" immigration of such shells just marks a change
from freshwater to salty water deep below the surface of the Black
Sea, and didn't involve any change in the level of the surface of
the Black Sea, i.e. it does not mark any "flooding" of the Black
Sea at all. And there is abundant evidence that at the time of
the supposed "BSFlood" the level of the Black Sea was the same as,
or higher than, the level of the Mediterranean Sea (which was
supposed to have broken through an imaginary dam in the Bosphorus
and overflowed into the Black sea basin). Ergo, the Black Sea was
overflowing into the Mediterranean Sea at the time of the supposed
"catastrophic flood", i.e., the water was actually flowing in the
opposite direction.
Ryan and Pitman got it backwards. At best.
<ENGAGE RANT MODE>
Sorry, there was no sudden flood in the Black Sea basin.
It was all a publicist's dream.
Parts of the modern Black Sea Flood claim are total
fantasy, like the imaginary dam that supposedly broke
7500 years ago. Somebody wrote that down, and suddenly
it was established as a "fact".
The trouble is, altogether too many people have the
mistaken idea that a catastrophic flood in the Black
Sea was the inspiration for the Noah's Flood story in
the Bible.
The TV programs on that topic are outdated and overly
sensational and can be safely ignored.
Sadly, you, and maybe millions of other people,
have been misled on this subject.
Alas, there was no "Noachian" Black Sea Flood, and
the science in William Ryan's and Walter Pitman's book
"Noah's Flood: the event that changed history" has in
several cases been superceded by better information that
indicates that there was no such event, and was in most
cases preceded by evidence that indicated that there was
no such event.
Ryan and Pitman set out to overturn the orthodox view
of the history of the Black Sea, but they have apparently
abandoned their hypothesis, if more recent articles
co-authored by Ryan are any indication.
The orthodox view has prevailed, subject to some recent
modifications.
There is evidence that there was an _outflow_ southward
from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus into the
Mediterranean from more than 10000 years ago
(well before Ryan and Pitman's initial 5600 BCE flood date),
continuously until the present day, though there may have
been a relatively short interruption.
And evidence from the south shore of the Black sea shows
that the level of the Black Sea was only 18 m below the
present level at the time of the supposed flood.
The more recent claim by Ryan puts the flood date at
8400 BP, or about 9000 years ago, but then the "floodwaters"
through the Bosphorus channel would have been only about
5 metres deep. 9000 years ago is when everybody else
always thought that Mediterranean saltwater first entered
the Black Sea. At about that time, the last phase of
Glacial Lake Agassiz, in central Canada, finally found an
outlet to the sea through or under the remnants of the
Laurentide Ice Sheet, and so out into the North Atlantic,
raising sea level an appreciable amount, and _perhaps_
triggering a sudden inflow of saltwater into the Black Sea
basin.
But probably not sudden or great enough to inspire a
Noachian Flood myth.
Better candidates are widespread inundation of low-lying
parts of the Persian Gulf associated with the final draining
of Glacial Lake Agassiz, and similar flooding of the Tigris-
Euphrates delta, and (most likely) simultaneous flooding of
the Tigris and Euphrates, which would have looked like a
flooding of the entire world from the viewpoint of a person
near present-day Baghdad. These candidates could each or all
have inspired the flood myth in the epic of Gilgamesh, which
predates the first known appearance of the Noachian Flood myth.
Check this out, for a layman-friendly synopsis of the
refutation:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bs=E2=9...91=ACeaflod.htm
On the draining of Glacial Lake Agassiz:
http://tinyurl.com/csmaq
And here's a fairly recent news item on refutation of
Ryan's and Pitman's hypothesis:
<BEGIN QUOTE>
January 14, 2003
Scientists are seriously challenging a recent, fascinating
proposal that Noah's epic story -- setting sail with an ark
jam-full of animal couples -- was based on an actual
catastrophic flood that suddenly filled the Black Sea 7,500
years ago, forcing people to flee.
In a detailed new look at the rocks, sediments, currents
and seashells in and around the Black Sea, an international
research team pooh-poohs the Noah flood idea, arguing that
all the geologic, hydrologic and biologic signs are wrong.
Little that the earth can tell us seems to fit the Noah story,
they say. The new research takes direct aim at the work of
two Columbia University geologists -- William Ryan and Walter
Pitman -- whose proposal in 1997 ignited much new interest,
and much new research, into Middle East history and geology.
<END QUOTE>
Also, Ballard did not find Noah's House, and he has recently
admitted that he didn't find any evidence of human occupation
of the Black Sea continental shelf, let alone any support for
the BSFlood hypothesis.
Here is another recent news article telling you about that
(please be warned that several statements in the article
are erroneous, e.g.
"Scholars agree the Black Sea flooded when
rising world sea levels caused the Mediterranean to
burst over land and fill the then-freshwater lake."):
"Black Sea Trip Yields No Flood Conclusions"
http://tinyurl.com/eylm8
There was no actual ruined building found by Ballard,
but rather just a partly rectangular outline of raised
bed on the continental shelf, that might even be
the outline of
the wheelhouse of a modern freighter.
To the northwest the outline continues, and narrows to a point.
To the southeast, the outline continues for a shorter distance,
and ends in a rounded curve.
Just what you'd expect when a sunken ship's hull is covered with
sediment.
The wood didn't necessarily contaminate the site, it might have
been part of the ship, and so accurately dates the site.
The roughly-worked stones could have been the ship's ballast.
If you wish, I can supply links to the writeups on Ballard's
finds in professional journals.
And here are a couple of scientific papers:
"Is the abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf at
7150 yr BP a myth?"
http://tinyurl.com/blart
"Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern
Mediterranean Contradicts Noah's Flood Hypothesis"
http://tinyurl.com/65yxu
And there's lots more, but you'd need access to scientific journals
to read it, but you could ask me for more details if you want them.
Some of the articles are available on the Web.
<DISENGAGE RANT MODE>
Sorry to splash water in the frying pan.=20
Daryl Krupa
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 9-Aug-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What does gravity look like? I've never observed it myself, only its effects.
Okay - amend that to say "...gravity in action many..."
(don't worry, we're not in for a re-run of the abortion thread...)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| "Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kospf1hvfol2efbtt36dtvl04j87fr1n5p@
4ax.com...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> If it did, we're all horribly inbred... Which may account for a lot.
I never even thought of myself as Jewish even though I have been known to
answer a question with a question.
JCE
| |
|
| Funny that, because some people would argue that they've observed evolution
also. Some people even have documented their findings in a book - but I'm
not sure that I believe everything written in a book.
I'm also at a loss to understand why there is a fear of Avian flu. I mean
how on earth would it get from chickens to people?
JCE
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:619cc$42fd30d6$45491c57$3415@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Okay - amend that to say "...gravity in action many..."
>
> (don't worry, we're not in for a re-run of the abortion thread...)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Richard 2005-08-12, 9:59 pm |
| > I'm also at a loss to understand why there is a fear of Avian flu. I mean
> how on earth would it get from chickens to people?
By evolving.
| |
|
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:ddj56m$250s$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1123876774.923643.248360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Impossible! *Everybody* knows the Universe was created at what would have
> correspond to the nightfall immediately preceding Sunday, October 23,
> 4004BC
> had there been light (or, for that matter, days and nights) at the time.
> ;-)
>
> -Chuck Stevens
Actually, *everybody* knows that it would have been exactly 10^-43 seconds
after that moment you specify. And not a smidgeon sooner.
JCE
| |
|
| jce wrote:
>
> I'm also at a loss to understand why there is a fear of Avian flu. I mean
> how on earth would it get from chickens to people?
By people eating the chickens? By people "catching" a contagious
disease from another creature? There are lots of "hows"...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-12, 9:59 pm |
| In article <P2bLe.10069$Oy2.8110@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm also at a loss to understand why there is a fear of Avian flu. I mean
>how on earth would it get from chickens to people?
A wrong turn at Albuquerque, perhaps.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-15, 4:59 pm |
|
On 12-Aug-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Okay - amend that to say "...gravity in action many..."
>
> (don't worry, we're not in for a re-run of the abortion thread...)
The point is, we can't observe theories. Theories work at explaining processes
we do observe. And they aren't absolute - we can still use Newton to explain
the path of a baseball, even though Einstein has superseded Newton for some more
precise needs. We do see that speciation exists. We can explain our
observation as a miracle - and we can explain gravity as a miracle. The Bible
doesn't discuss speciation, and Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have enough conflicts
that it's obvious that the lessons we should learn from them are deeper than to
assume we know everything about creation, God, nor the universe.
|
|
|
|
|