Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, stupid and petty.

It is unfortunate that those that I'm trying to understand can't seem to provide more than such nonsense.

The "nut, huh, YOU did" retort. What is this, the fourth grade?

I let others set the stage and follow their own hearts. That their vision fails them is not my fault, however lofty the feel it is for themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Seems that everyone can see it but them.

I agree. I keep seeing evidence that all leads back to that conclusion.

I was hoping to maybe get them to see it...

I would love that for them.

 

[PureX]

I've never seen anybody express that as their belief, but I have seen it trotted out as a straw man repeatedly.

That was a reply to the comment above.

You seem to have a problem with empiricism and the idea that it is the only path to demonstrably correct ideas (knowledge), yet you don't even try to rebut that.

I don't worship it as if it were godlike. That doesn't mean I have a problem with it. It just means I don't stupidly elevate science, empiricism, or physicality to the absurd levels of importance that the anti-theism cultists around here do.

You have yet to produce a single such idea acquired using your special way of knowing that you imply transcends empiricism and causes you to use the word scientism to refer to the position you reject.

I couldn't care less about your kangaroo court tactics, or their idiotic demands.

I agree with him. You use the term "true believer" about others while proceeding on your crusade against atheists and strict empiricists.

You think any objection to your godlike idealization of empiricism is a "crusade" against it. Because then you can dismiss it as extremism. But it's not extreme at all. You're just viewing it from an extremely grandiose belief in it.

You use the term kangaroo court in reference to others judging as you judge without restraint. You call others cultists even as you have formed your own cult and seem to have attracted at least one other interested customer.

The whole "I demand evidence" is just a tactic to establish you as the judge of your own kangaroo court. And I won't play that silly game.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about them? Science us not the antithesis of theism. And only the most zealous religionists think they are. The vast majority of theists do not.

That's just petty and stupid. I think you could do much better than this with a few moments of honest thought.

When I chose to respond to your posts, I had no anticipation of getting a meaningful answer.

Science is not the antithesis of theism or reason. It is not the picture you paint. It is not the sculpture you make.

I pray, but I still go to a physician. One trained in medicine and science. I bet you do to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about them? Science us not the antithesis of theism. And only the most zealous religionists think they are. The vast majority of theists do not.

That's just petty and stupid. I think you could do much better than this with a few moments of honest thought.

Why do you think that your response to anyone that disagrees with you always in the form of allusions about the poster? What makes you so angry over this subject. It isn't matter of fact responses. Dismissing valid questions as scientism, petty and stupid and positioning yourself as the authority are not answers or rational responses in my honest and thoughtful opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While not an ideology you will find that some atheists in effect will demand objective evidence when it suits them and settle for subjective reasons for their worldview, when it suits them.

I agree. That seems to indicate that we are all humans here.

While I consider it reasonable to ask for evidence, I have never seen evidence that it is reasonalbe to ask for evidence. Rather it is as far as I can tell a social/cultural/psychological norm to ask for evidence.

I'll have to think about that. My entire professional life revolves around the discovery and use of evidence in order to come to a rational conclusion and as a launching point for further inquiry.

I do it in my daily life without even thinking about it. I gather and evaluate evidence, make decisions and draw inferences in a much, much less formal way than in professional practice, but it all occurs for the same reasons.

But it is not all atheists and I have seen it worse on other fora.

It is something I like about this forum. It does seem to force some types to be creative in how they insult others, but it still provides a reasonable place to discuss hot topics.

Unlike some, I'm not here to preach my beliefs and keep my vision turned outward. I find value in what others think and see too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People have to believe in something so believing in the observable and testable is just called empiricism. But the belief that the methodology and the observable is everything that exists is meta-metaphysical. The belief that everything in existence has appeared in every or any experiment is simple nonsense. The belief that at some point enough experiment had accumulated to exclude every belief but the current paradigm is nonsense of the highest possible order.

I just can't follow you. You claim something a thousand times about all experiment showing it and then turn around call your own claim nonsense. How do you think it is for your audience to try and understand anything you post when it is void of evidence and, as here, often contradictory?

I don't know that there is anyone here practices a view of science as you describe it. Certainly, challenging your claims does not fall into that category no matter how much you try and force it there.

Do you think that a person making a claim should follow that claim with evidence and the reasoning used to come to it so that others can follow with them to the same conclusion? And without introducing further claims that require further explanation in order to understand and accept the initial claim? Or do you think that people should just follow and believe any random voice that claims to be the leader just because that voice says so?

Let's consider your taxonomy. You claim that Homo sapiens died out thousands of years ago and you have given your own names to modern humans that you use persistently despite having evidence to the contrary and providing none of your own in support of this taxonomy. Why should anyone consider it more than just the ramblings of wishful thinking and a desire to be see as someone in the know?

The evidence indicates that Homo sapiens arose as a species as long ago as 300,000 years ago. There is no evidence that Homo sapiens died out on the basis of a step-wise development of language, writing, continual acquisition of knowledge and technology to be replaced by another species of Homo that you name various things.

From what I have read, I have come to understand that your species concept is weak and based on the trivial that does not actually indicate and warrant new taxonomical description. As I have said many times, a change in an individual over the course of their lives is not a speciation event. The individual retains the same genes they were born with, can interbreed and interact with other members of their population throughout their life. Even with culturally and behaviorally divergent members of their population. The personal behavioral traits accumulated over a lifetime, the phenotypic plasticity evident in humans through the course of their lives and knowledge accumulated over time do not effect a change in species. And such speciation has not been demonstrated to occur.

But I predict that you will continue on using your contrived, personal taxonomy as if it is meaningful to the conversation and ignore any rational challenge to the use of it as if nothing were said.

It is my conclusion that drives much of the difficulty in coming to an understanding and not just for others, but for yourself as well.

Something else I have noted as a weakness in establishing your ideas and claims as fact is an apparent limitation in your knowledge base whose gaps are filled in with what you want to believe rather than evidence all can observe. As an example, your idea that insects killed on windshields is a fact available to juvenile insects to use to learn to avoid cars. Juvenile insects do not fly, they are not known to possess the consciousness attributed to mammals, especially the state found in humans and often do not share the same environment as adult insects. You don't seem to know this and that conclusion comes from the statements you have made regarding insects, learning and fact that those insect/car encounters seem to be much reduced today. You don't even seem to consider alternative ideas that may be much more plausible and consistent with observations.

Another example is your prior claim that beavers built dams to farm fish. The fact that beavers are herbivores that do not eat fish seems to have been a glaring gap in your knowledge. But not one that prevented you from making extraordinary claims to be offered as fact. However, it may also be one of the few instances where you offer tacit recognition to that gap once it was pointed out. But rather than go with the evidence, you just used a kind of mental whiteout to create a new narrative that made the same claims except for the beavers now being herbivores.

Perhaps it is not others that believe they are omniscient. Perhaps it is not others that are arguing in circles to establish their beliefs as facts. Perhaps it is not what they believe and know that is the issue. Perhaps learning more of what is known about these subjects would be a benefit even to those that already think they know everything. Perhaps trying to communicate to others consistent with the state of communication one finds themselves in would be more useful than claiming to have provided definitions or evidence that is not evident. Perhaps it would be better to attend the funeral of personal paradigms and find new ones when those old fellows seem to be causing so much confusion and driving the breakdown of communication.

 

[cladking]

The evidence indicates that Homo sapiens arose as a species as long ago as 300,000 years ago. There is no evidence that Homo sapiens died out on the basis of a step-wise development of language, writing, continual acquisition of knowledge and technology to be replaced by another species of Homo that you name various things.

That belief doesn't explain the evidence. It also doesn't encompass modern knowledge like that we see what we believe so even if the evidence were otherwise we couldn't see it. But mainly it ignores the simple fact that whatever lived 250,000 years ago that I call "proto-humans" did not act like human beings. They had no art and left no legacy beyond a few stupid human tricks like making fires and knapping stone. They were not human. Nobody acted like humans until 40,000 years ago. This implies there was a sudden change in species as all fossil evidence and observation supports; Change in life is sudden. It is sudden in the same way that humans sprang up all over the world over a short time frame. I merely propose that what created humans suddenly from proto-humans was a mutation. It is language that allows the generation accumulation of complex knowledge so this mutation facilitated the advent of complex language. Easy peazy.

This suddenly new complex language was universal as EVIDENCED by the same markings in caves everywhere. Still easy. Using theory developed by logic and observation they went on to invent agriculture and cities. This is all consistent with all the evidence, every experiment ever performed, and common sense.

But history stopped very suddenly about 2000 BC. This was more than 1200 years AFTER writing was invented so how could history just stop and NEW history begin in 2000 BC? The answer is obvious and recorded in the new history by legend, myth and in writing from Sumaria and Egypt. The language that created the human race changed. It splintered and became confused. It is so confused that these simple concepts are beyond the ability to communicate. Because modern complex language is confused and illogical the human race floundered for millennia with nothing but beliefs and no science. Eventually experiment was invented and science was reborn and new.

All of history, all experiment, all observation, all common sense says this is the formatting of human history.

We see what we expect and we expect ancient people to be superstitious bumpkins. We think they were sun addled and wrote the Bible. We think a lot of things that are simple nonsense like that animals are a sort of automatons running, flying, and building cities on instinct. We think only humans have been blessed by nature with consciousness even though nobody can define the term. We think the stinky footed bumpkins who built tombs in Egypt could only have dragged them up ramps because we have no imagination and we see what we believe. We believe in ignorant, superstitious, and savage people so of course they whipped others to drag stones.

This is the way our minds work. We have to unlearn the natural language as babies and then babel until words start coming out. Homo sapiens essentially were born with rudimentary speech skills which is why "mother" is similar in all eight billion languages today.

Now you'll say I'm rambling and presenting no evidence despite the fact that all evidence and all experiment agree and the fact is that if I'm right then ancient science didn't use "Evolution" but rather had a "Theory of Change in Species" which held all change is sudden. You can't see evidence because you dismiss it. if I say something you do see as "evidence" you interpret it to fit your beliefs. Nobody will address any points in this post except to tell me I used "metaphysics" wrong or how they interpret evidence.

I have ample physical evidence to show pyramids were built with funiculars yet Peers hold there are an infinite number of pyramids built with every possible configuration of ramps and no pyramid anywhere built with funiculars. There is OBVIOUSLY a fundamental problem in science and I have identified it. Scientists see what they want just like everyone else.

We are obviously nothing like homo sapiens.

 

[cladking]

From what I have read, I have come to understand that your species concept is weak and based on the trivial that does not actually indicate and warrant new taxonomical description. As I have said many times, a change in an individual over the course of their lives is not a speciation event. The individual retains the same genes they were born with, can interbreed and interact with other members of their population throughout their life. Even with culturally and behaviorally divergent members of their population. The personal behavioral traits accumulated over a lifetime, the phenotypic plasticity evident in humans through the course of their lives and knowledge accumulated over time do not effect a change in species. And such speciation has not been demonstrated to occur.

This is a semantical question.

Obviously every baby born today has every characteristic of homo sapiens and no other characteristic. But babies are neither viable without care nor can they reproduce. They are anatomically very similar to proto-humans and would be for all intents and purposes proto-human themselves. Bright ones would be able to teach others some words as they got older but these new proto-humans would have no shoulders of giants upon which to stand. If they interbred the new species would be homo sapiens.

If they were raised by homo sapiens they would blend in seamlessly.

But if raised by homo omnisciencis then they must unlearn Ancient Language and develop a second speech center that allows them to use a similar confused language as those around them. You can use any words to describe these things you want because this is an artefact of confused language; any words are OK.

I believe it's easier to remember these things if we just consider a baby raised by our species to be our species even before it unlearns Ancient Language.

 

[cladking]

As an example, your idea that insects killed on windshields is a fact available to juvenile insects to use to learn to avoid cars.

I don't think I said this.

I probably said something like every individual learns through life and this changes his consciousness which changes his behavior. It follows that the average age of insects that get smashed is lower than the demographics would suggest. This difference might not be large if it exists in most species. I would expect it to be more pronounced in species that get killed in very large numbers and in species with longer lives.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That belief doesn't explain the evidence.

It is a conclusion based on the evidence.

It also doesn't encompass modern knowledge like that we see what we believe so even if the evidence were otherwise we couldn't see it.

This doesn't make any sense.

But mainly it ignores the simple fact that whatever lived 250,000 years ago that I call "proto-humans"

This is what you call them for your own personal reasons.

did not act like human beings.

By your secret definitions, but not by any reasonably evaluated evidence and definitions.

They had no art and left no legacy beyond a few stupid human tricks like making fires and knapping stone.

So they did leave evidence of their human intellect and you call them humans right in that sentence.

They were not human.

According to your belief, but not mine established on evidence and scientific evaluation.

Nobody acted like humans until 40,000 years ago.

On no evidence but your belief that this is so.

This implies there was a sudden change in species as all fossil evidence and observation supports

It does not and is not supported by any evidence. You offer none. Just claims of evidence and special knowledge of what defines humans.

; Change in life is sudden.

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It isn't and has never been established to be. You want it to be as you believe, but you can't demonstrate that your belief in this is fact. It is contrary to fact.

It is sudden in the same way that humans sprang up all over the world over a short time frame.

Not sprang up nor short time frame either.

I merely propose that what created humans suddenly from proto-humans was a mutation.

You can propose whatever you like. You can't get me to accept it on your word, incomplete knowledge and circular beliefs that you 'know it' so it is fact.

It is language that allows the generation accumulation of complex knowledge so this mutation facilitated the advent of complex language.

Language does to that, but we don't know when this took place and there is nothing to indicate a speciation event on the development of language.

Easy peazy.

Only for those that don't want to look to see if their beliefs have any support.

This suddenly new complex language was universal as EVIDENCED by the same markings in caves everywhere.

Those markings don't indicate what you claim. They might indicate a language, but they do not show a universal language or that those symbols represent words. Taking those symbols and concocting a universal language is based on beliefs and desires that it be true and not on any facts.

Still easy.

It is always easy to write fan fiction from the basis of a few facts. Blind men describing an elephant based on what they believe does not lead to a fully useful description of an elephant.

Using theory developed by logic and observation they went on to invent agriculture and cities.

That is your belief. I have no reason to consider it valid and factual. You can't demonstrate it. You won't even try.

This is all consistent with all the evidence, every experiment ever performed, and common sense.

Back to that wild empty claim again.

But history stopped very suddenly about 2000 BC.

No it didn't.

This was more than 1200 years AFTER writing was invented so how could history just stop and NEW history begin in 2000 BC?

It didn't. Starting and stopping recording a concert doesn't mean the concert ended and then suddenly began again. Looking at a bird, looking away and looking back doesn't mean the bird died and was replaced by another exact replica.

The answer is obvious and recorded in the new history by legend, myth and in writing from Sumaria and Egypt. The language that created the human race changed.

It may have changed, but that isn't a speciation event to anyone but you and we've already established your species concept is weak to point of being useless in determining species.

It splintered and became confused. It is so confused that these simple concepts are beyond the ability to communicate. Because modern complex language is confused and illogical the human race floundered for millennia with nothing but beliefs and no science. Eventually experiment was invented and science was reborn and new.

This is just your fanciful narrative to fill in the gaps with meaningless rambling that isn't fact on face value.

All of history, all experiment, all observation, all common sense says this is the formatting of human history.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. It seems meaningful only to you and you don't seem to be capable of making it meaningful to others.

We see what we expect and we expect ancient people to be superstitious bumpkins.

You seem to expect that everyone sees this, but I don't. I know many others that don't. I think it is you that sees what you want and then consider that view is a fact when it doesn't hold up.

We think they were sun addled and wrote the Bible.

You may. It seems like you do. I don't. I don't think they knew what we have learned since and wrote from a limited knowledge and thinking much as I see with what you post.

We think a lot of things that are simple nonsense like that animals are a sort of automatons running, flying, and building cities on instinct. We think only humans have been blessed by nature with consciousness even though nobody can define the term. We think the stinky footed bumpkins who built tombs in Egypt could only have dragged them up ramps because we have no imagination and we see what we believe. We believe in ignorant, superstitious, and savage people so of course they whipped others to drag stones.

You have a very poor opinion of others and seem to think of them in terms that fall far from the facts.

This is the way our minds work. We have to unlearn the natural language as babies and then babel until words start coming out. Homo sapiens essentially were born with rudimentary speech skills which is why "mother" is similar in all eight billion languages today.

This is what you believe, but you haven't convinced anyone else to believe it and can't address any criticism of it in any way that isn't just repetition.

Now you'll say I'm rambling and presenting no evidence despite the fact that all evidence and all experiment agree and the fact is that if I'm right then ancient science didn't use "Evolution" but rather had a "Theory of Change in Species" which held all change is sudden.

I do think that. You show me that it is reasonable to conclude that.

You can't see evidence because you dismiss it.

I can't see evidence that is not offered. You don't offer evidence. You offer your beliefs as revealed truth. I've no reason to even consider it. This approach of yours leaves us with nothing to discuss. All that is open to anyone is to correct your claims.

if I say something you do see as "evidence" you interpret it to fit your beliefs.

I interpret your claims offered on the basis of belief without evidence as belief. Sure. What else is there?

Nobody will address any points in this post except to tell me I used "metaphysics" wrong or how they interpret evidence.

I address your points. Others do to. ALL THE TIME! YOU just ignore that and jump right back on the same circle.

I have ample physical evidence to show pyramids were built with funiculars yet Peers hold there are an infinite number of pyramids built with every possible configuration of ramps and no pyramid anywhere built with funiculars.

More pyramids and Peer conspiracies. If you have that evidence, then learn how to present it rationally so that others can evaluate that evidence and come to their own conclusions. Claiming constantly that you have something you never show anyone is going to keep you right where you are.

There is OBVIOUSLY a fundamental problem in science and I have identified it.

Nothing you have rambled on and claimed identifies any sort of problem with science, fundamental or otherwise. In all of your posting, many have identified fundamental issues and reported them to you, but you don't seem able to incorporate that, change and move forward.

Scientists see what they want just like everyone else.

I have evidence that you see what you want and anyone that rejects what you claim is wrong for fictional, fundamental reasons that you cannot ever seem to demonstrate. If what you say has any meaning, then it should be a matter of providing that. Yet, you never do.

We are obviously nothing like homo sapiens.

We are Homo sapiens and no one, I MEAN NO ONE, has demonstrated that we are not. YOU haven't.

Sigh..........................

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a semantical question.

Obviously every baby born today has every characteristic of homo sapiens and no other characteristic. But babies are neither viable without care nor can they reproduce. They are anatomically very similar to proto-humans and would be for all intents and purposes proto-human themselves. Bright ones would be able to teach others some words as they got older but these new proto-humans would have no shoulders of giants upon which to stand. If they interbred the new species would be homo sapiens.

This just comes off as a desperate attempt to rationalize a position based on a limited understanding of humans and species.

If they were raised by homo sapiens they would blend in seamlessly.

Based on the available evidence, they are raised as Homo sapiens and for that fact, fit right into the species. I've seen no evidence that you are not a Homo sapiens. Just a very different one in some ways.

But if raised by homo omnisciencis

A species not known or established to be valid. Up to this point, it is just something you claim continually. I predict that claim will be maintained and repeated.

then they must unlearn Ancient Language

An undefined, unevidenced language that seems only to exist with you.

and develop a second speech center that allows them to use a similar confused language as those around them.

Of course, you offer no evidence for this conjecture.

You can use any words to describe these things you want because this is an artefact of confused language; any words are OK.

I would use the words that I think would be best understood by those I'm talking to and I would give the best definitions I could where that is not the case. I would love to see you do that too, but I have no hope that it will happen.

I believe it's easier to remember these things if we just consider a baby raised by our species to be our species even before it unlearns Ancient Language.

You can believe it. I have no reason to. You don't offer reasons to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think I said this.

Not in those words perhaps, but go back and look if you dare. It describes what you were saying.

I probably said something like every individual learns through life and this changes his consciousness which changes his behavior.

No. And there is no evidence that insects possess the consciousness that even you possess. You have to establish that living things exist as you claim and you haven't. I conclude that you want to believe what you claim is true, but you don't have the evidence or the means to demonstrate this. The evidence to support your claim of universal consciousness just isn't there.

It follows that the average age of insects that get smashed is lower than the demographics would suggest.

Follows what. Wishful thinking? It seems so. You would have to actually study the insects to come to a determination age and average age. And the ones that fly into windshields would all be adult and often the stage that is the briefest. No matter which way you run, your attempt to explain from contrived belief and not on evidence fails.

This difference might not be large if it exists in most species. I would expect it to be more pronounced in species that get killed in very large numbers and in species with longer lives.

I have no reason to conclude your expectations exist on more than what you want to believe is fact.

And you don't even bother with other potential explanations that actually have evidence to review.

My conclusion that you fill in the gaps of incomplete knowledge with what you want to believe and then elevate that filler to fact without identifiable reason remains a valid conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That belief doesn't explain the evidence. It also doesn't encompass modern knowledge like that we see what we believe so even if the evidence were otherwise we couldn't see it. But mainly it ignores the simple fact that whatever lived 250,000 years ago that I call "proto-humans" did not act like human beings. They had no art and left no legacy beyond a few stupid human tricks like making fires and knapping stone. They were not human. Nobody acted like humans until 40,000 years ago. This implies there was a sudden change in species as all fossil evidence and observation supports; Change in life is sudden. It is sudden in the same way that humans sprang up all over the world over a short time frame. I merely propose that what created humans suddenly from proto-humans was a mutation. It is language that allows the generation accumulation of complex knowledge so this mutation facilitated the advent of complex language. Easy peazy.

This suddenly new complex language was universal as EVIDENCED by the same markings in caves everywhere. Still easy. Using theory developed by logic and observation they went on to invent agriculture and cities. This is all consistent with all the evidence, every experiment ever performed, and common sense.

But history stopped very suddenly about 2000 BC. This was more than 1200 years AFTER writing was invented so how could history just stop and NEW history begin in 2000 BC? The answer is obvious and recorded in the new history by legend, myth and in writing from Sumaria and Egypt. The language that created the human race changed. It splintered and became confused. It is so confused that these simple concepts are beyond the ability to communicate. Because modern complex language is confused and illogical the human race floundered for millennia with nothing but beliefs and no science. Eventually experiment was invented and science was reborn and new.

All of history, all experiment, all observation, all common sense says this is the formatting of human history.

We see what we expect and we expect ancient people to be superstitious bumpkins. We think they were sun addled and wrote the Bible. We think a lot of things that are simple nonsense like that animals are a sort of automatons running, flying, and building cities on instinct. We think only humans have been blessed by nature with consciousness even though nobody can define the term. We think the stinky footed bumpkins who built tombs in Egypt could only have dragged them up ramps because we have no imagination and we see what we believe. We believe in ignorant, superstitious, and savage people so of course they whipped others to drag stones.

This is the way our minds work. We have to unlearn the natural language as babies and then babel until words start coming out. Homo sapiens essentially were born with rudimentary speech skills which is why "mother" is similar in all eight billion languages today.

Now you'll say I'm rambling and presenting no evidence despite the fact that all evidence and all experiment agree and the fact is that if I'm right then ancient science didn't use "Evolution" but rather had a "Theory of Change in Species" which held all change is sudden. You can't see evidence because you dismiss it. if I say something you do see as "evidence" you interpret it to fit your beliefs. Nobody will address any points in this post except to tell me I used "metaphysics" wrong or how they interpret evidence.

I have ample physical evidence to show pyramids were built with funiculars yet Peers hold there are an infinite number of pyramids built with every possible configuration of ramps and no pyramid anywhere built with funiculars. There is OBVIOUSLY a fundamental problem in science and I have identified it. Scientists see what they want just like everyone else.

We are obviously nothing like homo sapiens.

It is interesting that you seem to define art as something that must last for thousands of years in order to be called art.

I can't tell you what happened to that macaroni ark I made on paper 50 years ago, but I would still consider that I had art back then.

Not having evidence of art in an long-gone, prehistoric population is not the same thing as them not having art. I would consider yours a spurious conclusion on incomplete knowledge to fit how you want to believe and not on any fact that you know and can share.

 

[cladking]

Those markings don't indicate what you claim. They might indicate a language, but they do not show a universal language or that those symbols represent words. Taking those symbols and concocting a universal language is based on beliefs and desires that it be true and not on any facts.

So...

What do you think it would mean if we discovered that bears had been making the exact same markings in caves all over the world.

Use you imagination to come up with something that is plausible. That bears use instinct to draw the same marks hardly makes any sense. Of what Evolutionary benefit are markings to mice and men?

 

[cladking]

Just like Egyptologists you dismiss ever physical fact as an irrelevancy.

 

[cladking]

An undefined, unevidenced language that seems only to exist with you.

A great deal of writing in Ancient Language survives and it is misinterpreted. I would refer you to this thread;

Ancient Reality

Nothing much has changed really but there is some new info. Dozens of new passages and chambers may well have been found in the great Pyramid. As I've pointed out many times some are necessary to support my theory but most of these have no effect one way or the other...

www.religiousforums.com

Every year, every day, more and more evidence accumulates ancient reality was distinct from ours; the reality of homo sapiens was different than the reality of homo omnisciencis and THIS is why they spoke so differently that when they said the pyramids were mnemonics built with linear funiculars we see the pyramids are tombs built with ramps. This is one difference of Biblical proportions; literally. If I couldn't read Ancient Language then I wouldn't know that the pyramids were mnemonics built with funiculars nor is it likely that every day there would be more evidence found to support it. Certainly the known facts would accumulate until someone made the connection despite the best efforts of Egyptology to not study the pyramids.

It is a representative, digital, metaphysical language that was spoken by every human on earth until ~3200 BC when it became too complex for a growing minority. I could define it much further if you like but I've done that many times before and you still say it is "undefined".

 

[cladking]

It is a representative, digital, metaphysical language that was spoken by every human on earth until ~3200 BC when it became too complex for a growing minority. I could define it much further if you like but I've done that many times before and you still say it is "undefined".

I think everybody is going to need to get used to the idea that there are an infinite number of ways to skin a cat and that science is wrong about everything. Nowhere is science more wrong than where they've failed to incorporate "consciousness" into experiment and theory. They have failed to even define it because... ...drum roll, please... ...it is impossible for reductionistic science to define anything that can't be reduced and consciousness can not be reduced. It has no parts that have been named or identifiable at this time. It is merely assumed to exist by our science and definitions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So...

What do you think it would mean if we discovered that bears had been making the exact same markings in caves all over the world.

It could mean bears are much more intelligent than the evidence indicates. That they had developed a recognition of symbolism and even, perhaps a language. What we do not know is how or how long that use of symbolism developed without any evidence to tell us. You skip those steps and go right to the conclusion you want.

Use you imagination to come up with something that is plausible. That bears use instinct to draw the same marks hardly makes any sense. Of what Evolutionary benefit are markings to mice and men?

You come up with something plausible. So far, you haven't.

Instinct could be part of it. You don't know. You haven't come up with anything to show it isn't. Animals mark their trails and territories without any indication that they know much more beyond that instinct.

Putting myself in your shoes and using your methods, I could come up with any number of fanciful tales of bears having language suddenly and keeping it from everyone else suddenly and...on and on and on and on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like Egyptologists you dismiss ever physical fact as an irrelevancy.

I don't. I recognize the fact that no facts are offered and that the way to combat this by those not offering facts are empty claims like this.