>> > >> >> > >On Nov 3, 12:28 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> For the creationist:
>> > >> >> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that >> > >> >> > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar >> > >> >> > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to >> > >> >> > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose >> > >> >> > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star >> > >> >> > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this >> > >> >> > >> change your mind about creationism? >> > >> >> > >The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms. >> > >> >> > >Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
>> > >> >> Leprechauns, banshees, barghests, dybbuks ("sort of like a bad >> > >> >> Santa Claus"), goblins, kobolds, wearwolves, Paul Bunyan, Titania, >> > >> >> Woden....
>> > >> >> > Except for man, the rest are mythological entities. >> > >> >> > If you disagree, provide some proof.
>> > >> >> Hell, skip the proof: I'd like to see some evidence.
>> > >> >Evidence can be proof idiot.
>> > >> So find some evidence that Kent 'bogus degree' Hovind actually made a >> > >> single scientific discovery. >> > >Hell, I would like to see some evidence Rev Hovind understands >> > >what a scientific discovery is. >> > I just love to watch some of his vids - best comedy routine I've seen >> > for ages (well, except Cougar Town).
>> > Watched one the other day where he did a Dishonest Ray. tried to tell >> > his audience that "universe" was derived from "uni" meaning one, and >> > "verse" meaning a poem or words. He used that definition to claim that >> > "universe" means "spoke into existence" or some wacky idea like that.
>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt >> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
>Do try and keep UP.
>It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
>"Cana Baal"
No it doesn't.
>Now, Sound the two words out.
-- Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:14 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> All-Seeing-I wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 9:59 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> All-Seeing-I wrote: >>>> [...]============================================= >>>>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God" >>>>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people >>>>> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation >>>>> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God." >>>>> ============================================= >>>> And God feels OK about that? >>>> If not, why does he allow it? >>>> If he doesn't mind, then it doesn't matter. >>>> Or is he some sort of Celestial Daily Mail editor who needs to create >>>> things to hate? >>>> -- >>>> Mike. >>> He does not need to create hate. YOU need to create hate. Mankind >>> needs to create hate. >>> God simply set up the conditions for a left and a right; a top and a >>> bottom. Love and hate. >>> Mankind can choose all love, all hate, or a bit of both. >> Well, you do seem to have changed the subject: it was at first whether >> God actually cares about a person's ability to perceive him. I suppose, >> though, that it was my fault for making a joke about the Daily Mail, and >> that distracted you.
>>> You have to have both in existance. How would you understand what love >>> is if you did not have it's opposite, which is hate, to compare it to. >> I don't see why a good feeling can necessarily be understood only in >> contrast with a corresponding bad feeling. From a mystical point of >> view, it could be argued that one cannot properly know love until one >> has entirely banished hatred.
>>> You atheists are not too bright , are you? >> Well, perhaps I am an atheist by your measure; but I do try to avoid >> personal insults. The temptation can become severe, though.
>> -- >> Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Well, think about it.
> How would you know and understand what light is if you has never stood > in the darkness?
All-seeing-I wrote: >>> Prolly because you lack perception is another reason. >> That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, >> I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not >> see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you >> some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or >> where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then >> you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
> Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary > distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was > trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life > time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference > between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
> You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient > texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such > as the wizard of "OZ".
Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other is not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord of the Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy text.
> FURTHERMORE, You also continue to persist in wanting evidence that can > be interpreted with human senses while completely avoiding the fact > that there are other types of evidences that go beyond what your > senses can achieve, Why is that? Are you afraid to understand what so > many millions of people in the past and so many people today > understand? Trust me. It is not all that frightening. > [] >>>>> Oh my. You really are a freak of nature. >>>> Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because >>>> you have any actual evidence. >>> Well. What do you consider evidence? If you say scientific evidence >>> then that is rather self limiting K. >> Ummm. yes. I am afraid that I limit evidence to things which others >> can see or hear. Would you be happy about being convicted of a crime >> based on evidence which only the prosecuting attorney could see?
> That is a rather dishonest comparison don't you think? But for > arguments sake I would answer: There have been people set free because > the prosecuting attorney was wrong about what he saw in the evidence. > This clearly shows that what we perceive as evidence can be wrong. > There would not have been people set free otherwise.
That is not really an answer. Whenever evidence wad found wrong, it was on the basis of our "ordinary" senses telling us that it was wrong, not because someone suddenly had a supernatural experience. Of course people can make mistakes. but it is precisely because proper evidence is perceivable by everyone that we can spot these mistakes and correct them, something impossible if people just claimed that they had a paranormal insight. And as a matter of fact, in the majority of cases where this happens, it is eyewitness evidence that turned out to be wrong in the light of things such as DNA analysis, something which shoudl worry people who think that something "directly observed" is superior to something scientifically inferred.
> IOW evidence that was acquired and interpreted with human senses, > which was thought to be accurate, turned out to be wrong. Why? Because > the human senses are not quite as good as the average house cat's. You > spend your entire life wanting evidences based on a science that can > only be interpreted with human senses that we know can be wrong.
But at least we can find out that they are wrong, which is not possible with claims of the supernatural
> Then you base your disbelief of God on THAT. Amusing K. Very amusing.
>>> Your human senses are well known to have flaws, to be inadequate. >> Yes. Unlike arrogant Creationists, scientists insist that their data >> be double checked and challenged by everyone, especially their rivals. >> They also insist that their models make *predictions, which can be >> watched for. This is what makes science so effective - its methodology >> of verification.
> And despite all of these marvelous checks and balances you mention > science remains under constant revision. Revised because the original > evidence was incomplete, or misinterpreted. Why? Because of human > flaws.
And no scientist ever claimed otherwise, It;s just that every alternative is much worse.
> >> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > >> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
> > Do try and keep UP.
> > It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from > "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians > used for themselves. See:
> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" > This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like > "can-ah-ball")
> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed > from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
> DJT
Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle east to Europe
> All-seeing-I wrote: > >>> Prolly because you lack perception is another reason. > >> That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, > >> I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not > >> see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you > >> some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or > >> where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then > >> you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
> > Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary > > distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was > > trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life > > time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference > > between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
> > You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient > > texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such > > as the wizard of "OZ".
> Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other is > not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord of the > Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy text.
Not only my word. You have the word of billions of people for more then 6000 years of recorded history []
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> snip
>>>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt >>>> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite." >>> Do try and keep UP. >>> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words. >> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from >> "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians >> used for themselves. See:
"Canon Ball" Now, sound the two words out. That two words in a target language sound vaguely similar like two words in a source language is not evidence that one is derived from the other.
>> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" >> This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like >> "can-ah-ball")
>> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed >> from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
>> DJT
> Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
From the name the inhabitants of the Carib island that he discovered gave themselves, Caniba or more accurately karibna. In a letter to the Spanish Monarchs from 1498 , he said that the people of Hawai were living in fear of the man eating Caribales, which was later changed in line with well understood morphological roots into canibales, to latinise it - as the people at the time explicitly state: propter rabiem caninam anthropophagorum gentis. Columbus thought (mistakenly, of course) that the name meant they were subjects of the Great Khan. This too is well documented in his letters. "Caniba no es otra cosa sino la gente del Gran Can"
> Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle > east to Europe
Only that you utterly failed to give a _single_ reference to a documents where this term is used in any place at any time, during this journey. Or how it managed to end up with the Spanish spelling which cannot be derived by any morphological and phonetic rules from the alleged source word.
On Nov 4, 10:30 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:32 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, > > I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not > > see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you > > some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or > > where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then > > you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
> Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary > distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was > trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life > time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference > between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
you don't have the ability to help anyone in this regard. you make up an idea: that all ancient texts are history books
you've been given evidence proving that's wrong. yet here you are, thumping your chest and proclaiming that your idiotic idea is true.
> You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient > texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such > as the wizard of "OZ".
and the difference is? you haven't explained why that comparison is wrong.
> FURTHERMORE, You also continue to persist in wanting evidence that can > be interpreted with human senses while completely avoiding the fact > that there are other types of evidences that go beyond what your > senses can achieve,
uh...if it can't be perceived, how do you know it's true? you simply assert it IS true. and what makes you think ancient peoples' perceptions were better than ours?
more contradictions in creationism...
Why is that? Are you afraid to understand what so
> many millions of people in the past and so many people today > understand? Trust me. It is not all that frightening.
you're wrong about their perceptions.
> IOW evidence that was acquired and interpreted with human senses, > which was thought to be accurate, turned out to be wrong.
yeah. like ancient people who wrote the bible writing about animals that never existed which YOU interpret to be dinosaurs
hoist on your own petard, i'd say
Why? Because
> the human senses are not quite as good as the average house cat's. You > spend your entire life wanting evidences based on a science that can > only be interpreted with human senses that we know can be wrong.
fine. you tell me when a cat can perceive an x-ray burster, OK?
oh. you creationists can't handle this. it blows your capillaries
> > Yes. Unlike arrogant Creationists, scientists insist that their data > > be double checked and challenged by everyone, especially their rivals. > > They also insist that their models make *predictions, which can be > > watched for. This is what makes science so effective - its methodology > > of verification.
> And despite all of these marvelous checks and balances you mention > science remains under constant revision. Revised because the original > evidence was incomplete, or misinterpreted. Why? Because of human > flaws.
no. because we LEARN. that's why your ancients never had a computer and we do. you hate learning, you hate knowledge, so believe ancients were superior because they were superstitious.
prove it.
> Look. Science has done many wonderful things for mankind. But it is > still limited to mankind's abilities. I keep trying to explain to you > that mankind's abilities are not even as good as the average human's > pet.
\ fine. let the average pet put a man on the moon. then we'll talk, OK?
There are many animals that have senses and abilities that far
> surpass human ability. But you persist in this nonsense that science > is the be-all and end-all of human understanding.
and you persist in thinking that learning means nothing. we have to be a slave to ignorance because you think your god is right
what an idiotic argument. truly stupid.
> Well. It is not.
> There are other types of evidence that you refuse to consider based on > a science that is limited to mankind's abilities.
really? like what? entrail reading? phrenology?
so tell us, creationist, is it astrology or entrail reading that's correct?
you havent told us.
> > Because 50 prophets of god will give 50 different prophecies, which > > either fail to come true, are so trivial that they could be guessed by > > my cat, or most often, are so vague that they could be happening in > > front of you and you wouldn't know.
> Not so. Have you read the bible? A true prophet of God is rare. He can > usually consume the works of false prophets.
more than you have. that's why i know it's not literally true. you seem to think it is. you waffle back and forth when shown how ridiculous that is...saying that SOME things must be true...but never telling us how you decide WHICH things are true
THEN you say EVERYTHING is true
ANOTHER contradiction in creationism....
> > I knew psychotics. Psychotics were friends of mine. And you sir, > > are... well, you *could be psychotic for all I know. How do *you tell > > the difference? How do you know you aren't wallowing in self- > > deception?
> Well. It is not ME that cannot differentiate between fantasy stories > and legends that have been handed down to inform. THAT would be you.
says the guy who, on monday believes exodus is literally true, then on tuesday believes it has to be interpreted, then on wednesday believes it's literally true
I
> emancipated myself from religion while not departing from God. Because > I saw the flaws in religion but i never once found a flaw in God or > his ability to work in the mysterious ways that everyone always talked > about.
is there any cliche more pathetic than this. after 2000 years of creationism...he discovered creationism
wow. a significant advance.
> For me it was a desire. A desired to have a full understanding of the > bible and what it meant. It was a matter of discovering my true > origins i suppose.
and if the bible couldnt even tell people not to drink sewage...why do you think it's capable of explaining the origin of species?
On Nov 5, 5:25 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 4:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other is > > not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord of the > > Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy text.
> Not only my word. You have the word of billions of people for more > then 6000 years of recorded history > []
and few of them accept creationism. hell, a reference i posted here the other day from rabbi david wolpe showed that jews themselves don't believe the bible is literally true
so you stole their book, repackaged it and sold a bill of goods that's a fraud.
> In article > <5090e5e6-785b-456c-a3f3-a6d9831bf...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 2, > > > 10:00 pm, > > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > . > > > .
> > > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis, > > > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
> > > The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple, > > > the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as > > > being physical representations of heavenly israel.
> > > Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when > > > you work it out on a map.
> > so god is a god of war? whatever happened to the 'prince of peace'?
> Well, when he was unable to stop those with chariots of iron, he > decided that he was on a better bet as a god of peace. It also meant > that his followers were able to exclaim, after they had slaughtered all > the men and boys, that they were bringing peace to those left.
> > and how does a sphere's surface have a 'center?'
> I don't know, but I do know it's in Australia
No, the center of the Earth is 72nd Street and Broadway in Manhattan.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
In article <0ic3f5t2hfm7hgu3jmlvnk2jfatvkg8...@4ax.com>,
Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote: > Recetly I reread "The Clowns Of God" written by Morris West, and I > was again struck by the incomprehensibility of some parts that I > assume can only be understood if someone is familiar with > Christian occultism. Tyhe writer assumed his readers would have > that background knowledge that many modern readers just don't > have. The writer also claimed that modern Israel was the first > nation on Earth to give land back to a defeated enemy--- an > astonishing and absurd claim (just ask the Cherokees and Navajos).
Or the Japanese or Germans.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> > wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:44:34 -0500, John Wilkins
> > > > On Nov 3, 9:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > > > > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > For the creationist:
> > > > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > > > > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > > > > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to > > > > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > > > > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > > > > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > > > > > > change your mind about creationism?
> > > > > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience > > > > > for a much better christian puzzle.
> > > > Care to provide a Coles Notes summary? > > > Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and > > > unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or > > > rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They > > > are very nice.
> > > A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that > > > extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is > > > forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as demonic. > > > He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot > > > create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
> > The two times I read the book I did not understand it. Perhaps one > > needs at least a brief background in Christian mythology, and > > specifically Catholic / Jesuit mythology, before one can keep up > > with what goes on.
> > A nuclear accident, and the exorcism, destroyed the alien planet.
> > --http://desertphile.org > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide > > quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I realize that reading is beyond your ability, however...
> A_Case_of_Conscience is part of a novella. You have to read the other > books to fully understand it.
> Kinda like you have to read all of the other Jewish books of midrash, > legends, and be familuar with the language and customs of 3000 years > ago to fully understand the bible.
The is not one Christian in a thousand who does that.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> >> > > > On Nov 3, 9:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > >> > > > > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > > > > For the creationist:
> >> > > > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > >> > > > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > >> > > > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to > >> > > > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > >> > > > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > >> > > > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > >> > > > > > change your mind about creationism?
> >> > > > > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience > >> > > > > for a much better christian puzzle.
> >> > > > Care to provide a Coles Notes summary? > >> > > Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and > >> > > unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or > >> > > rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They > >> > > are very nice.
> >> > > A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that > >> > > extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is > >> > > forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as > >> > > demonic. > >> > > He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot > >> > > create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
> >> > The two times I read the book I did not understand it. Perhaps one > >> > needs at least a brief background in Christian mythology, and > >> > specifically Catholic / Jesuit mythology, before one can keep up > >> > with what goes on.
> >> > A nuclear accident, and the exorcism, destroyed the alien planet.
> >> > --http://desertphile.org > >> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > >> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide > >> > quoted text -
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> I realize that reading is beyond your ability, however...
> >> A_Case_of_Conscience is part of a novella. You have to read the other > >> books to fully understand it.
> >A "novella" is not a series of books. It is a work of fiction shorter > >than a novel but too long to be called a short story.When people give > >awards out to literary works they have a number of words that makes > >something a novella, rather than a longish short story, but I don't > >remember how many words make up a novella.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > >> All-seeing-I wrote:
> >> snip
> >>>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > >>>> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite." > >>> Do try and keep UP. > >>> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words. > >> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from > >> "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians > >> used for themselves. See:
> >>> "Cana Baal" > >>> Now, Sound the two words out.
> "Canon Ball" Now, sound the two words out. That two words in a target > language sound vaguely similar like two words in a source language is > not evidence that one is derived from the other.
> >> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" > >> This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like > >> "can-ah-ball")
> >> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed > >> from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
> >> DJT
> > Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
> From the name the inhabitants of the Carib island that he discovered > gave themselves, Caniba or more accurately karibna. In a letter to the > Spanish Monarchs from 1498 , he said that the people of Hawai were > living in fear of the man eating Caribales, which was later changed in > line with well understood morphological roots into canibales, to > latinise it - as the people at the time explicitly state: propter rabiem > caninam anthropophagorum gentis. Columbus thought (mistakenly, of > course) that the name meant they were subjects of the Great Khan. This > too is well documented in his letters. "Caniba no es otra cosa sino la > gente del Gran Can"
> > Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle > > east to Europe
> Only that you utterly failed to give a _single_ reference to a > documents where this term is used in any place at any time, during this > journey. Or how it managed to end up with the Spanish spelling which > cannot be derived by any morphological and phonetic rules from the > alleged source word.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You have been goven documents in a "hundreds-of-posts-thread" earlier this year.
> On Nov 5, 4:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other >> is not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord >> of the Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy >> text.
> Not only my word. You have the word of billions of people for more > then 6000 years of recorded history
No we don't. Very, very few of them were even able to record anything about their times. And even fewer did so. What we have from those that did record it are vastly different stories, and even if the stories are similar there are variations. What you are basing your beliefs on are nothing more than oral histories of a small tribe of ignorant nomadic goat herders who built themselves up in their own eyes with patently false, or greatly exagerrated stories. And the fact that a lot of people believe those stories only reflects that they were brought up to believe the stories. It says nothing about the factualness of the stories.
-- Dick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dic...@gmail.com
> > >>>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > > >>>> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite." > > >>> Do try and keep UP. > > >>> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words. > > >> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from > > >> "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians > > >> used for themselves. See:
> > >>> "Cana Baal" > > >>> Now, Sound the two words out.
> > "Canon Ball" Now, sound the two words out. That two words in a target > > language sound vaguely similar like two words in a source language is > > not evidence that one is derived from the other.
> > >> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" > > >> This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like > > >> "can-ah-ball")
> > >> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed > > >> from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
> > >> DJT
> > > Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
> > From the name the inhabitants of the Carib island that he discovered > > gave themselves, Caniba or more accurately karibna. In a letter to the > > Spanish Monarchs from 1498 , he said that the people of Hawai were > > living in fear of the man eating Caribales, which was later changed in > > line with well understood morphological roots into canibales, to > > latinise it - as the people at the time explicitly state: propter rabiem > > caninam anthropophagorum gentis. Columbus thought (mistakenly, of > > course) that the name meant they were subjects of the Great Khan. This > > too is well documented in his letters. "Caniba no es otra cosa sino la > > gente del Gran Can"
> > > Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle > > > east to Europe
> > Only that you utterly failed to give a _single_ reference to a > > documents where this term is used in any place at any time, during this > > journey. Or how it managed to end up with the Spanish spelling which > > cannot be derived by any morphological and phonetic rules from the > > alleged source word.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> You have been goven documents in a "hundreds-of-posts-thread" earlier > this year.
Nope, not a single one. If there were a single example of pre-Columbus usage of the word, I'd be the first to email the OED.
> The word arrived in Spain from the middle east.
Nope, no single examples of pre-Columbus use in any country, including middle Eastern. No records of the expression "canibal" or any linguistic variation thereof. ever used to mean man eater. Nor for tha matter any evidence tat associates the Priest of Baal with cannibalism. Instead, letters by Columbus where he describes how and why he coined the term.
> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > snip
> > >> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > > >> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
> > > Do try and keep UP.
> > > It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
> > No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from > > "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians > > used for themselves. See:
> > If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" > > This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like > > "can-ah-ball")
> > Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed > > from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
> > DJT
> Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
> Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle > east to Europe
No you haven't. You and people like you have repeatedly made that claim and repeatedly been bitch-slapped by reality. No evidence of the word appears, in any European language, until Columbus brought back the name of the tribe from the Carribean. When describing people who were supposed to be guilty of this practice, Europeans used various phrases, none of which sounded like "cannibal."
The Caribs had NOT been sitting around waiting for some European to come along and name them. They had a name for themselves and some of their neighbors had other names for them. One of these names was, allowing for oddities of transliteration, fairly close to Carib. Since their neighbors, rightly or wrongly, attributed canabalism, on a large scale, to the Caribs, their name became associated with the practice. Much like "Creationist" and being a mouth-breathing obsessive, ill- educated, nasty sort of shithead.
>On Nov 5, 4:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >> >>> Prolly because you lack perception is another reason. >> >> That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, >> >> I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not >> >> see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you >> >> some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or >> >> where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then >> >> you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
>> > Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary >> > distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was >> > trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life >> > time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference >> > between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
>> > You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient >> > texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such >> > as the wizard of "OZ".
>> Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other is >> not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord of the >> Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy text.
>Not only my word. You have the word of billions of people for more >then 6000 years of recorded history
No, you have no such thing.
-- Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think that explains everything.
>> >> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt >> >> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
>> > Do try and keep UP.
>> > It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
>> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from >> "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians >> used for themselves. See:
>> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" >> This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like >> "can-ah-ball")
>> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed >> from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
>> DJT
>Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
From the name of the tribe.
>Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle >east to Europe
Neither of you did anything of the sort.
-- Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
>> >> > > > On Nov 3, 9:42!m, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >> >> > > > > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > > For the creationist:
>> >> > > > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that >> >> > > > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar >> >> > > > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to >> >> > > > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. r suppose >> >> > > > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star >> >> > > > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). ould this >> >> > > > > > change your mind about creationism?
>> >> > > > > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience >> >> > > > > for a much better christian puzzle.
>> >> > > > Care to provide a Coles Notes summary? >> >> > > Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and >> >> > > unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or >> >> > > rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They >> >> > > are very nice.
>> >> > > A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that >> >> > > extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is >> >> > > forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as >> >> > > demonic. >> >> > > He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot >> >> > > create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
>> >> > The two times I read the book I did not understand it. Perhaps one >> >> > needs at least a brief background in Christian mythology, and >> >> > specifically Catholic / Jesuit mythology, before one can keep up >> >> > with what goes on.
>> >> > A nuclear accident, and the exorcism, destroyed the alien planet.
>> >> > --http://desertphile.org >> >> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> >> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide >> >> > quoted text -
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>> >> I realize that reading is beyond your ability, however...
>> >> A_Case_of_Conscience is part of a novella. You have to read the other >> >> books to fully understand it.
>> >A "novella" is not a series of books. It is a work of fiction shorter >> >than a novel but too long to be called a short story.When people give >> >awards out to literary works they have a number of words that makes >> >something a novella, rather than a longish short story, but I don't >> >remember how many words make up a novella.
> > You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient > > texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such > > as the wizard of "OZ".
> Because we only have your word for it that one is valid and the other is > not. When in 2000 years time, excavations find a copy of the Lord of the > Ring, people then may also believe that this was out holy text.
"Not only my word. You have the word of billions of people for more then 6000 years of recorded history"
Do you pick and choose the ancient myths you believe or are you open to all of them despite the obvious conflicts?
All-seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> snip
>>>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt >>>> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
>>> Do try and keep UP.
>>> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
>> No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from >> "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib >> Indians used for themselves. See:
>> If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and >> "bail" This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". >> (prounounced like "can-ah-ball")
>> Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray >> borrowed from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no >> exception.
>> DJT
> Where do you think Columbus got the word from you Dope.
From the people who he met in the New World.
> Ray and I clearly showed you how the word traveled from the middle > east to Europe
No, you made some bald assertions. You never showed a single example of the word "Cannibal" being used before Columbus. You also never showed that priests of Baal were involved in either human sacrifice, or ritual anthrophagy.
>> >...There's still no rational basis for >> > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the >> > current crop of religions. >> And why should anybody care about your thoughts? >Help! Help! A woman abuser is after me!
Amazing how different it is when the shoe is on the other foot...
So, Nashie, why do you abuse women?
<snip>
>> > think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but >> > ultimately unimportant. >> Who cares what you think?
More abuse of a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself, Nashie. Are you a registered sexual offender?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> > Inez wrote: > > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> For the creationist:
> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to > > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > > >> change your mind about creationism?
> > >> For the non-believer:
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that > > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural > > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > > >> origin?
> > >> Tim
> > > For one other planet? I really don't think so.
> > > If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the > > > universe, that might give me pause.
> > You can't assume there is life elsewhere in the Universe. > > But then the question becomes
> > > where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for > > > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the > > > current crop of religions.
> > And why should anybody care about your thoughts?
> Help! Help! A woman abuser is after me!
Oh dear, hundreds of years of social conditioning compel me to draw my sword and come to the aid of the weaker party, about to be savaged by an intellectually vastly superior opponent, and rescue "the damson in distress" - but then, I dislike Nashton way too much to bother ;o)
|
