|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 14, 2019 9:14:29 GMT
Even by Cody standards, asking what boils down to "why didn't people write things down before writing was invented" is pretty stupid. You don’t think people from the Neolithic era or beyond were capable of passing historical information down orally to generations to follow until writing was eventually invented? My OP isn’t just about a lack of writing though is it. Humans have been around 200,000 years yet there is no known civilisation older than 6000 years.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 14, 2019 9:31:14 GMT
Even by Cody standards, asking what boils down to "why didn't people write things down before writing was invented" is pretty stupid. You don’t think people from the Neolithic era or beyond were capable of passing historical information down orally to generations to follow until writing was eventually invented? My OP isn’t just about a lack of writing though is it. Humans have been around 200,000 years yet there is no known civilisation older than 6000 years. Inspite if what some posters have been writing, I think it is a good question Cody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 9:34:58 GMT
Even by Cody standards, asking what boils down to "why didn't people write things down before writing was invented" is pretty stupid. You don’t think people from the Neolithic era or beyond were capable of passing historical information down orally to generations to follow until writing was eventually invented? Sure. And that's a terrible way to pass historical information down. You know that civilisation is dependent on a couple of different technological inventions, right? For example, there couldn't be any kind of serious civilisation before the invention of agriculture. Which is what led to the invention of writing.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 14, 2019 14:55:02 GMT
Even by Cody standards, asking what boils down to "why didn't people write things down before writing was invented" is pretty stupid. You don’t think people from the Neolithic era or beyond were capable of passing historical information down orally to generations to follow until writing was eventually invented? My OP isn’t just about a lack of writing though is it. Humans have been around 200,000 years yet there is no known civilisation older than 6000 years. Yup, time to move the goalposts! The above is a bunch of bull which doesn't jibe with your previous statement:
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 14, 2019 15:00:57 GMT
You don’t think people from the Neolithic era or beyond were capable of passing historical information down orally to generations to follow until writing was eventually invented? My OP isn’t just about a lack of writing though is it. Humans have been around 200,000 years yet there is no known civilisation older than 6000 years. Yup, time to move the goalposts! The above is a bunch of bull which doesn't jibe with your previous statement: He is not moving the goal post. This is how a conversation goes. He asked a question based on a observation. And people are talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 14, 2019 15:05:02 GMT
Yup, time to move the goalposts! The above is a bunch of bull which doesn't jibe with your previous statement: He is nor moving the goal post. This is how a conversation goes. He asked a question based on a observation. And people are talking about it. No, if someone starts rationalizing their previous statements (making references to what was said earlier and trying to reinterpret what was said), that is moving the goalposts.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Mar 14, 2019 21:52:48 GMT
I find it odd how Evolutionists claim man has been evolving for millions of years and as modern humans we’ve been around for about 200,000 years. Yet there is no recorded history stretching further than 6000 years which coincidentally enough is how long many Christians believe the bible dates as the beginning of mankind. We have no writings, no battles, no wars, no countries, no carved stones, no nothing. If human evolution is true then surely it would be traceable far beyond 4000bc. I find it odd how Creationists can swallow the babble of a book of short stories that were written by humans 2500+ years ago, hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Mar 14, 2019 22:43:02 GMT
When Cody admits he’s wrong on the subject, then Dr. San will return. Who is the new guy? He's not as jolly ☹️ He’s a musical genius, cinemaphile, entrepreneur and a friend of the ‘fat bearded man’. Some devious people might say he is also responsible for the deaths of 20 kids due to toxic vape pens, but the only thing he is truly responsible for are sick electronic bass lines.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 14, 2019 22:58:31 GMT
Don't show yourself so obviously to be wilfully ignorant and anti-intellectual! And this coming from someone who cannot understand faith. Exactly. 'Faith' is illogical. BTW I understand what you think it is (the concept), just not the veracity with any evidence or reality.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 14, 2019 23:01:27 GMT
And this coming from someone who cannot understand faith. Exactly. 'Faith' is illogical. BTW I understand what you think it is (the concept), just not the veracity with any evidence or reality. I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 14, 2019 23:57:37 GMT
Exactly. 'Faith' is illogical. BTW I understand what you think it is (the concept), just not the veracity with any evidence or reality. I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. I have no problem with that...your free choice to be illogical in your faith.. Go for it! There are no prizes and no demerits!
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 15, 2019 0:04:35 GMT
I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. I have no problem with that...your free choice to be illogical in your faith.. Go for it! There are no prizes and no demerits! So, if somebody tries three different things. And they choose the best one, that is illogical? So logically you would choose something that didn't work as well for you? Remind me to never go shopping with you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 15, 2019 0:28:03 GMT
I have no problem with that...your free choice to be illogical in your faith.. Go for it! There are no prizes and no demerits! So, if somebody tries three different things. And they choose the best one, that is illogical? So logically you would choose something that didn't work as well for you? Remind me to never go shopping with you. Individuals don't always employ logic in even choosing those three things, let alone picking the logical choice. As I said. IF the illogical choice suits YOU best. Go with it.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 15, 2019 12:08:53 GMT
I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. What "works" psychologically for you has absolutely no connection whatsoever to whether it is true or not. Maybe believing in a flat earth works for you. Maybe denying climate change works for you. Maybe thinking vaccines cause autism works for you. Maybe denying the reality of evolution through natural selection works for you. Doesn't matter. In each case your belief is complete and utter bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 12:29:18 GMT
Exactly. 'Faith' is illogical. BTW I understand what you think it is (the concept), just not the veracity with any evidence or reality. I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. I don't. You say believing "worked better" for you. I don't even know what that could mean. Worked better in what way? And why is "it works well" even a desired aspect of a belief? For me "is it actually true" is what matters when it comes to any given belief. This is not so for you?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2019 12:35:25 GMT
I tried Athiesm, agnosticism and believing. Believing worked better for me. So I chose believing. Do you see that logic. What "works" psychologically for you has absolutely no connection whatsoever to whether it is true or not. Maybe believing in a flat earth works for you. Maybe denying climate change works for you. Maybe thinking vaccines cause autism works for you. Maybe denying the reality of evolution through natural selection works for you. Doesn't matter. In each case your belief is complete and utter bullshit. Science falls woefully short of addressing most issues in religion and politics, in other words most issues in society. Never mind solving those problems, it cannot even address them. A quick review of what I have ever said, if all parties agree they want to build a birdhouse, science can recommend one for the area and perhaps insect control possible. When parties do not agree whether they want to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court, science is no help whatsoever. Most issues in society become issues because people do not agree on the problem in the first place, never mind the solution. People who think atheism or science can solve any issues in society are then very severely mentally short. Not surprisingly, much of your "science" is wrong, which only fuels the fires of fundamentalism, which is not a good thing either.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 15, 2019 12:41:46 GMT
A quick review of what I have ever said, if all parties agree they want to build a birdhouse, science can recommend one for the area and perhaps insect control possible. When parties do not agree whether they want to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court, science is no help whatsoever. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Congratulations on posting completely meaningless drivel that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Document a single example of "my" science being "wrong" citing respected, scholarly sources, or shut the fuck up. Oh, don't worry--I know you can't and won't, since you know absolutely fuck all about any scientific subject under the sun.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 15, 2019 12:44:37 GMT
A quick review of what I have ever said, if all parties agree they want to build a birdhouse, science can recommend one for the area and perhaps insect control possible. When parties do not agree whether they want to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court, science is no help whatsoever. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Congratulations on posting completely meaningless drivel that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Document a single example of "my" science being "wrong" citing respected, scholarly sources, or shut the fuck up. Oh, don't worry--I know you can't and won't, since you know absolutely fuck all about any scientific subject under the sun. Dude, just go take the dump that's wedged so far up your ass it's coming out your mouth and dribbling down your chin. You'll feel better, and we won't have to read your cranky fuckshit posts.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2019 12:51:01 GMT
A quick review of what I have ever said, if all parties agree they want to build a birdhouse, science can recommend one for the area and perhaps insect control possible. When parties do not agree whether they want to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court, science is no help whatsoever. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Congratulations on posting completely meaningless drivel that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Document a single example of "my" science being "wrong" citing respected, scholarly sources, or shut the fuck up. Oh, don't worry--I know you can't and won't, since you know absolutely fuck all about any scientific subject under the sun. You won't believe this but your question only highlights that you are not really a "scientist" yourself. You depend on what you believe is "authority" for all your opinions and that is exactly how your opinions got so wrong. You are no judge of scientific authority. You are not capable of science despite your childish faith in it. That is much like some people fail to learn proper lessons from their religion despite their childish faith in it. As has been shown on this board for years now, atheists and amateur Christians are just two sides of the same bad coin.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 15, 2019 13:11:05 GMT
You won't believe this but your question only highlights that you are not really a "scientist" yourself. Excuse me, shit for brains, but footnotes and bibliographies are basic to any scholarly research and defense of arguments. The last time a single person could be a fully informed authority on every scientific subject known to humanity predated the word "science". So that means we depend on self correcting institutions of peer review and repeatable experiments to get the best, most objective knowledge possible. The fact that this has to be explained to you just shows how bottomless your ignorance of science is. Demonstrate that they are wrong, fuckwit. Just try. Actually, I am. Just because you are an ignorant hick who doesn't know what a trustworthy source of information is doesn't mean the rest of us have your problems.
|
|