17 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstomp"Jawbone credentials for him?" Get real. Instead of the required open and critical mind, you -surprise!- fall back on that ol' failsafe: the insult. I've quoted it before, but it bears repeating: you can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. Sweet dreams.
Silly boy, your "expert" is a joke. Just another junk scientist. Please don't try your silly attempt to jawbone credentials for him.
I gave you a Ph.D and you give me ox-crap.
Try and understand , if you can, you are following the wrong path, trying to prove the begats from a purloined book isn't science. REAL science won't be surpressed i ...[text shortened]... and there's nothing you idiots can do to stop it, except sit around deceiving each other.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can drop dead if you can't quote real sources , instead of the fundy crapola sites.Notice how you haven't given his "credentials here or that he's associated with the answersingenesis nutcases.
"Jawbone credentials for him?" Get real. Instead of the required open and critical mind, you -surprise!- fall back on that ol' failsafe: the insult. I've quoted it before, but it bears repeating: you can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. Sweet dreams.
Goodbye, silly boy, you have nothing.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompThis post of yours further illustrates my point. Using your logic, the battle will come down to which side has more PhD's on it, as though the truth is to be determined by the results of some imagined tug-of-war.
You can drop dead if you can't quote real sources , instead of the fundy crapola sites.Notice how you haven't given his "credentials here or that he's associated with the answersingenesis nutcases.
Goodbye, silly boy, you have nothing.
As stated, letters in front of, or behind a person's name do not certify the veracity of their opinions. While they certainly can lend a certain amount of weight to said opinions, only a fool would bank everything on the 'expert' opinion of others. Given the historical propensity of error within all areas of study currently available to man, holding fast to current consensual opinions has a way of making one look, well, fundamental.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHComing from an idiotic fundamentalist, who's trying to disprove science in a vain effort to prove begat counting , what you just posted is funny indeed.
This post of yours further illustrates my point. Using your logic, the battle will come down to which side has more PhD's on it, as though the truth is to be determined by the results of some imagined tug-of-war.
As stated, letters in front of, or behind a person's name do not certify the veracity of their opinions. While they certainly can lend a c ...[text shortened]... holding fast to current consensual opinions has a way of making one look, well, fundamental.
The site I gave you explained radiometric testing and exposed the disinformation that the religious nutcases have been passing off as science, for what being the junk that it is..
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompComing from an idiotic fundamentalist, who's trying to disprove science in a vain effort
Coming from an idiotic fundamentalist, who's trying to disprove science in a vain effort to prove begat counting , what you just posted is funny indeed.
The site I gave you explained radiometric testing and exposed the disinformation that the religious nutcases have been passing off as science, for what being the junk that it is..
Science (in earnest, not in name only) is simply a sub-category of truth. While funadmentalists would truly be afraid of objective truth, you'll find no such fear within those who's God is called Truth. Your attacks on the person simply take away from any truth you may be onto, however.
Blinded by the light, perhaps?
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, silly boy, I'm tired of you disrupting this thread with your increasingly ridiculous posts.
[b]Coming from an idiotic fundamentalist, who's trying to disprove science in a vain effort
Science (in earnest, not in name only) is simply a sub-category of truth. While funadmentalists would truly be afraid of objective truth, you'll find no such fear within those who's God is called Truth. Your attacks on the person simply take away from any truth you may be onto, however.
Blinded by the light, perhaps?[/b]
I give you a site written by a scientist that works in the field and you rant and rave and play your silly@ss word games, without posting anything relevant, not even revelant to this sidetrack to the flood. Try and get this into your head, silly boy, you aren't fooling anybody here with your flood of distractions away from the subject of this thread, which is the Ox-Goad god of the israelites and how his stinkyness got into the minds of the israelites.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHbtw , which of these do you hold as evidence:
[b]Coming from an idiotic fundamentalist, who's trying to disprove science in a vain effort
Science (in earnest, not in name only) is simply a sub-category of truth. While funadmentalists would truly be afraid of objective truth, you'll find no such fear within those who's God is called Truth. Your attacks on the person simply take away from any truth you may be onto, however.
Blinded by the light, perhaps?[/b]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD
read em all first and then read these :
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_g
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompWhy is the subject so important to you ? In which perspective is it relevant whether the Israelites did or didn't borrow the Name of El from the Canaänites ?
Now, while he's reading that, does anybody have anything that might be informative to the subject of this thread?
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeBesides being a rather insulting way to treat a god, i.e. to use a retread name of somebody else's god, don't you kind it a bit unusual that He then gave them the land of Canaan that is if they could kill all the Asteroth and Baal followers that lived there.
Why is the subject so important to you ? In which perspective is it relevant whether the Israelites did or didn't borrow the Name of El from the Canaänites ?
17 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompAre these speculations or facts ?
Besides being a rather insulting way to treat a god, i.e. to use a retread name of somebody else's god, don't you kind it a bit unusual that He then gave them the land of Canaan that is if they could kill all the Asteroth and Baal followers that lived there.
Besides, borrowing words from other languages is as old as language itself.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompI'm tired of you disrupting this thread with your increasingly ridiculous posts.
No, silly boy, I'm tired of you disrupting this thread with your increasingly ridiculous posts.
I give you a site written by a scientist that works in the field and you rant and rave and play your silly@ss word games, without posting anything relevant, not even revelant to this sidetrack to the flood. Try and get this into your head, sill ...[text shortened]... Ox-Goad god of the israelites and how his stinkyness got into the minds of the israelites.
Of course you would be tired of anyone daring to challenge such a narrow-minded and untenable position as that to which you hold. And, per usual, instead of answering the issue at hand, you attack. Well, when reason and facts aren't available, pound the table, right?
No, silly boy
What are you: fourteen?
you aren't fooling anybody here
Last count, there was like three people reading it, but at least I'm batting one thousand.
with your flood of distractions away from the subject of this thread, which is the Ox-Goad
Just going with the flow. Who was it that brought up the subject of the flood in the first place?
17 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompJust out of morbid curiosity, is this what you are on about in reference to the "Ox-Goad?"
Now back to the Ox-Goad god.
Does anybody want to discuss the main issue here, i.e. how the israelites " borrowed" their name of god from the Canaanites while they were " borrowing" the mythology from Sumer?
Aleph-Lammed-Hay-Yod-Mem
Aleph : infinite, timeless, intermittant, sign of the unknowable, creation
Lammed : organic movement, functional, existent
Hay : archetype of Life itself
Yod : existence, duration in time, foundation of actuality
Mem : maternal waters (Maim), projection of resistance into organic/existence, where it becomes the passive creative matrix for existential life
Or, is this your vaunted source for so much enlightenment:
http://www.homestead.com/bibleorigins*net/YahwehsBovineFormsImages.html