Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

She does research and presents it for others to examine, doesn't make ridiculous claims with no evidence and doesn't try to change the meaning of words.

I know. Weird isn't it. Not like the model we're used to here.

Considering that a picture from her work has been posted here numerous times, I would have expected to have seen her cited and referenced many times by now, but no, not until I did it. I find it sad when someone uses the work of others and doesn't have the curtesy to credit them.

 

[cladking]

The image lists the source and I often link a news source along with it;

Ancient Reality

Zipf's law is supposed to apply to every single thing homo sapiens do!!! The fact that it doesn't apply to the authors of the PT shows simply we are not the same species as the pyramid builders or cavemen. It shows in concrete terms ancient reality was distinct from our reality because they...

www.religiousforums.com

No miracle connects a discoverer to the reality. My own work has been stolen numerous times for which I am pleased. Someday perhaps an Egyptologist will make the momentous discovery that ancient writing was all intended literally and my work will be complete without ever having to have become an et al at all.

All power will revert to the meek in the long run anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You haven’t translated anything.

All you are doing is interpreting what others have translated into English. You have translated nothing. Interpreting what others have translated, don’t mean that you are translating, so your so-called model, is just a fake model, a pseudo-translation.

The people who wrote the Pyramid Texts, were from the pyramids of the 5th & 6th dynasties, not from the 4th dynasty, and these pyramids (that contained the Pyramid Texts) were from Saqqara, not from Giza. The Pyramid texts left no instructions on how they build their pyramids.

As fabulous as the Great Pyramid, of Khufu, is, neither his pyramids, nor the neighbouring pyramids of his successors, contain much hieroglyphs writings. As I said, the only real information written contemporaneously about Khufu’s pyramid was some papyri discovered 130 km from Giza, some logs about shipping supplies and materials from a harbour. These too contain no instructions on how pyramids were built.

of course, I am in your ignore list, but this is to counter whatever claims, for other people’s benefits than for you.

Sort of like the telephone game where the original message and the best translation become garbled and nonsensical with each passing.

 

[gnostic]

The image lists the source and I often link a news source along with it;

View attachment 95961

Ancient Reality

Zipf's law is supposed to apply to every single thing homo sapiens do!!! The fact that it doesn't apply to the authors of the PT shows simply we are not the same species as the pyramid builders or cavemen. It shows in concrete terms ancient reality was distinct from our reality because they...

www.religiousforums.com

No miracle connects a discoverer to the reality. My own work has been stolen numerous times for which I am pleased. Someday perhaps an Egyptologist will make the momentous discovery that ancient writing was all intended literally and my work will be complete without ever having to have become an et al at all.

All power will revert to the meek in the long run anyway.

This illustration as I have said before, doesn’t make these symbols, a single universal written language, as you don’t know what they means, especially when these symbols are not string together into anything that are meaningful.

These are just numbers of different symbols are found in different regions, but as Genevieve von Petznger, did not these symbols in certain patterns, at any of these sites, then these symbols provide no context as to whoever inscribed them.

These symbols are of no use to anyone, if you find only 1 or 2 symbols at one site, say in western side of Central Africa, and another site with 2 different symbols on the other side of Central Africa, some 50 kilometres apart, and they were drawn centuries apart. It won’t make them a language, if these symbols were drawn at different times and places.

Petznger have do a lot more than what that diagram show, you keep posting up. And what you posted up doesn’t validate your concept of single universal language.

it showed that you don’t know what would or would not be deemed as language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This illustration as I have said before, doesn’t make these symbols, a single universal written language, as you don’t know what they means, especially when these symbols are not string together into anything that are meaningful.

These are just numbers of different symbols are found in different regions, but as Genevieve von Petznger, did not these symbols in certain patterns, at any of these sites, then these symbols provide no context as to whoever inscribed them.

These symbols are of no use to anyone, if you find only 1 or 2 symbols at one site, say in western side of Central Africa, and another site with 2 different symbols on the other side of Central Africa, some 50 kilometres apart, and they were drawn centuries apart. It won’t make them a language, if these symbols were drawn at different times and places.

Petznger have do a lot more than what that diagram show, you keep posting up. And what you posted up doesn’t validate your concept of single universal language.

it showed that you don’t know what would or would not be deemed as language.

Since no one has bothered to cite the original source of that illustration, I haven't been able to find it yet. My guess is that it wasn't pulled from the original, but an nth-hand copy from some internet forum. It would be useful to have that information.

Von Petzinger states that there are not enough symbols to be considered an alphabet or a language. It appears that some have common origin based on the similarity and repetition, but some are clearly local to a particular area. Another strike against it being part of some universal language.

Definitely, she has a lot of room to work with and a need to do much more. And real science, not imagining facts and declaring them to be so.

 

[shunyadragon]

The image lists the source and I often link a news source along with it;

View attachment 95961

Ancient Reality

Zipf's law is supposed to apply to every single thing homo sapiens do!!! The fact that it doesn't apply to the authors of the PT shows simply we are not the same species as the pyramid builders or cavemen. It shows in concrete terms ancient reality was distinct from our reality because they...

www.religiousforums.com

No miracle connects a discoverer to the reality. My own work has been stolen numerous times for which I am pleased. Someday perhaps an Egyptologist will make the momentous discovery that ancient writing was all intended literally and my work will be complete without ever having to have become an et al at all.

All power will revert to the meek in the long run anyway.

It is already recognized that ancient writings were intended by the authors, compilers and editors to be literal true history from their ancient cultural perspective, The problem remains they lacked the knowledge and science to write an accurate history and scientific account of the history of life, earth, solar system and the universe, They are not the ones that are ignorant idiots, It is those that believe today that ancient accounts in religious scripture is literal history and not arccheological, historical and scientific knowledge as understood an academics today.

 

[gnostic]

Since no one has bothered to cite the original source of that illustration, I haven't been able to find it yet. My guess is that it wasn't pulled from the original, but an nth-hand copy from some internet forum. It would be useful to have that information.

Von Petzinger states that there are not enough symbols to be considered an alphabet or a language. It appears that some have common origin based on the similarity and repetition, but some are clearly local to a particular area. Another strike against it being part of some universal language.

Definitely, she has a lot of room to work with and a need to do much more. And real science, not imagining facts and declaring them to be so.

First. Thank you for that video of von Petzinger.

I don't doubt that the Palaeolithic arts & geometric symbols as being a form of graphic communication.

The problem I do have, is with the numbers of claims by @cladking that these are written language of the "Ancient Science".

Such claims that early Homo sapient were scientists are empty assertions, and fantasies.

Von Petzinger didn't propose such nonsense

 

[cladking]

Von Petzinger states that there are not enough symbols to be considered an alphabet or a language. It appears that some have common origin based on the similarity and repetition, but some are clearly local to a particular area. Another strike against it being part of some universal language.

Don't forget that there were almost no words at all in Ancient Language. I don't know how Egyptologists never even noticed there were almost no words and the writing broke Zipf's Law but they didn't notice. It was like computer code that has only eight words and breaks Zipf's Law while operating the internet and AI. When language is metaphysical, binary, and representative and has no abstractions a few words are more than enough. Remember the language had no words that meant "thought" or "belief" or "maybe", "perhaps", and "possibly". They lacked almost every single word in my 1952 Funk and Wagnalls.

All of the words written in caves are a type of word that defined the subject of sentences and I call "scientific" words. No, they weren't "scientific" because they were complex. They were "scientific" because they were not a type of knowledge with which any individual was born or could deduce with experience and thought but rather they were derived knowledge of reality as determined by a logical brain through observation and then passed on to the young of the species such as the "words" of a waggle dance. They are the words which format language and all the knowledge of that species and the thinking of every individual of that species. They are the words which Egyptologists laughingly translate as "god" (specific). "Thot" wasn't the "God of learning and wisdom" "god of homo sapiens" like Egyptologists believe and symbolized by an ibis. This is nonsense generated by our inability to think like a caveman. "Thot is better thought of as the first derivative of human progress and the term was originally represented by a hand that was filled in while the hand not filled in represented the existence of the individual human. The person merely was saying "I exist" or "present".

This stuff just isn't that complicated. If I can figure it out then it can be nothing but simple. It simply must be broken down into simple things that anyone can understand. Consciousness is pattern recognition but in humans all pattern recognition is based on the patterns in which we believe rather than those that exist. We can only reason in circles and Egyptologists believed ancient people were ignorant and superstitious so it never occurred to them seek patterns of nature in the words of the pyramid builders. Von Petzinger never had the slightest chance of seeing a nearly complete language in caves because the words lack context and there is almost no information in a readable form which is the only way by which our species could communicate with cavemen.

This is a lexicon of reality that is specific to humans. but it lacks formatting and the words to tie it together like "orange", "high", and "walk". Cavemen didn't lack written language because they weren't smart enough to invent it or lacked the media for writing. They lacked written language because there was no need for it. A need only arose in 3200 BC when more and more people couldn't learn the Ancient Language because it became complex with every passing generation. When the pidgin languages arose meaning became fluid and writing helped prevent so much drift in interpretation. Confusion was the cause of the invention of writing. The many new languages that were arising with each dialect of Ancient Language which was universal were the cause of the invention of writing. Cavemen were nearly as smart as people in 3200 BC and far smarter than we are.

Columbus thought he discovered a new route to Asia. We've all been confused since the "tower of babel" because we can't reason outside of confused language and we can only reason in terms of what we already believe. Rather than take any experiment as the road signs of reality we use them to confirm our beliefs and then we only pick and choose which roadsigns we will obey or even notice. We simply don't notice we've been on a road that doesn't even exist for 200 years and that we are now bogged down in a swamp since about 1925. We can't make an endrun because there is no road ahead. There is no means to get there from here. We must go back to where we got off the road in 1819. Once we pick up the road again progress will be very very rapid since we've already seen a lot of the terrain and it is smooth.

 

[cladking]

There are no miracles. This interpretation of history, anatomy, zoology, mathematics, and human progress simply removes the need for the miracles in which every "ologist" believes.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are no miracles. This interpretation of history, anatomy, zoology, mathematics, and human progress simply removes the need for the miracles in which every "ologist" believes.

Yes, Myth-ologist believers in ancient tribal religions believe in miracles without science. Scientists do not, and obviously miracles do not exist.

Mirage is the next word in the dictionary after miracle,

,

 

[cladking]

We should be able to deduce the meaning of most or all of these "representations" from caves. Nearly half are already quite apparent to me but this is because I understand the formatting of Caveman which was similar to the formatting of Bee or Beaver. I believe as we reinvent ancient science they will all become apparent. At this time most people believe in abstractions like "intelligence", "instinct", and "the laws of nature". It is very difficult to imagine a form of communication that doesn't incorporate such concepts nor can even approximate them. We can hardly even imagine language that isn't symbolic, analog, and that guides and defines our thought. We can't even see a natural language even after it stings us on our collective noses.

We need our miracles. We need to believe we are each intelligent rather than that it was complex language that has provided both homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis with so much knowledge. Without complex language there is no means to scramble up onto the shoulders of giants. There is no intelligence or miracle required, thank God or we'd still be living in caves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First. Thank you for that video of von Petzinger.

You're welcome.

Considering that she is doing actual work in the field and not just making stuff up, I thought it would be best to provide some of that work to contrast wild, empty claims.

I don't doubt that the Palaeolithic arts & geometric symbols as being a form of graphic communication.

I found it all very interesting. It is obviously something worth study and cataloging to come to the best idea of what they may represent.

The problem I do have, is with the numbers of claims by @cladking that these are written language of the "Ancient Science".

I don't have any problem with it anymore. I just ignore it as nonsense I find unworthy of my time and response. I don't see any room or interest in those walls of empty words and revealed truths for what others have to say anyway.

Such claims that early Homo sapient were scientists are empty assertions, and fantasies.

I agree with you.

Von Petzinger didn't propose such nonsense

Again, agreed. That seems to be where the real work is an not somebodies wild ideas elevated to facts without reason or for personal gain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First. Thank you for that video of von Petzinger.

I don't doubt that the Palaeolithic arts & geometric symbols as being a form of graphic communication.

The problem I do have, is with the numbers of claims by @cladking that these are written language of the "Ancient Science".

Such claims that early Homo sapient were scientists are empty assertions, and fantasies.

Von Petzinger didn't propose such nonsense

I have found some additional links that you may find interesting.

Geometric Signs & Symbols in Rock Art

https://musnaz.org/wp-content/uploa...-Worldwide-Literature-Survey-as-published.pdf

https://www.dl.apadana-ielts.com/Magazine/newscientist/New_Scientist_-_November_12-16_2016.pdf

This latter takes a minute to load and the article of interest starts at page 36.

Another article from New Scientist describes an abstract design (zigzag) on a 500,000 year old shell that was found with other artifacts from Homo erectus that indicate that abstraction developed prior to the evolution of Homo sapiens. It is a brief popular reference and I'm not sure if it will come up due to the paywall, but it is an interesting bit of information in this discussion.

Shell 'art' made 300,000 years before humans evolved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is an article in Nature discussing the shells and tool use by Homo erectus on Java.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Shells-for-Tool-Production-and-Engraving.pdf

Joordens, J.C., d’Errico, F., Wesselingh, F.P., Munro, S., De Vos, J., Wallinga, J., Ankjærgaard, C., Reimann, T., Wijbrans, J.R., Kuiper, K.F. and Mücher, H.J., 2015. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature, 518(7538), pp.228-231.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious to know how a person can constantly campaign against what they refer to as the evils and failure of reductionist science and then promote the use of it at the same time as a tool to learn what those cave symbols mean. As far as I know, breaking things down into simpler terms in order to understand the bigger picture is reductionism.

It is another contradiction in a growing history of such contradictions that don't make any sense to me. Personally, I think the campaign against it arises from a failure for the many wild, empty claims that have been asserted without evidence or defense. A means to see them gain some kind of traction when they cannot fly on their own merit is most likely. It is the sort of method I have seen consistently applied in creationist attempts to destroy the theory of evolution resulting from a lack of valid counter arguments.

It seems that there will always be those that subscribe to the adage of eating and having cake at the same time.

Still, it is interesting to see the phenomenon expressed and where it doesn't seem to be something understood to be happening when it is applied.

 

[gnostic]

I'm curious to know how a person can constantly campaign against what they refer to as the evils and failure of reductionist science and then promote the use of it at the same time as a tool to learn what those cave symbols mean. As far as I know, breaking things down into simpler terms in order to understand the bigger picture is reductionism.

It is another contradiction in a growing history of such contradictions that don't make any sense to me. Personally, I think the campaign against it arises from a failure for the many wild, empty claims that have been asserted without evidence or defense. A means to see them gain some kind of traction when they cannot fly on their own merit is most likely. It is the sort of method I have seen consistently applied in creationist attempts to destroy the theory of evolution resulting from a lack of valid counter arguments.

I think the major problem is that he tried to have his ideas (or concept) published, but it was rejected.

And seeing that he often attack Egyptologists, even if the threads have absolutely nothing to do with Egypt, it must have been an Egyptologist(s) who rejected his research.

When the subject of the topic about something related to biology or related to physics, he will always change the subject and bring up bloody Egyptology - Egypt, pyramid, the bloody ramps vs funicular, Homo omnisciensis, 40,000-year-old science or language.

What does any of these tangents of his, have to do with physics or biology?

@cladking definitely has a personal grudge against Egyptology.

 

[cladking]

I'm curious to know how a person can constantly campaign against what they refer to as the evils and failure of reductionist science and then promote the use of it at the same time as a tool to learn what those cave symbols mean. As far as I know, breaking things down into simpler terms in order to understand the bigger picture is reductionism.

For the one millionth time there is nothing at all wrong with reductionistic science. The problem is that people misinterpret the meaning of science and mistake knowledge for omniscience. At this point in time cosmology is stuck but this is a temporary problem. Time don't fly it bounds and leaps and all change in all things is sudden. Some day there will be a funeral and science will leap right by the unified field theorem.

In the meantime I believe science has some serious house cleaning to do because too many of the premises of 19th century science are wrong.

Science is only a tool and it is being used to do jobs for which it was not designed and can not be adapted currently.

As far as I know, breaking things down into simpler terms in order to understand the bigger picture is reductionism.

Yes. This is the way our minds work. But it is not the way a bee's mind works or a pyramid builders mind worked. They can't see parts and can't study parts. They must see only the big picture and they can see only the tiny little parts they understand through logic and observation. It is not a "better" science it is a "different" science based on consciousness and the logic incarnate in it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the major problem is that he tried to have his ideas (or concept) published, but it was rejected.

I've suspected that is the case, but I'm just curious about the contradiction. It can't be both, even if some offer it as if it can be.

And seeing that he often attack Egyptologists, even if the threads have absolutely nothing to do with Egypt, it must have been an Egyptologist(s) who rejected his research.

When the subject of the topic about something related to biology or related to physics, he will always change the subject and bring up bloody Egyptology - Egypt, pyramid, the bloody ramps vs funicular, Homo omnisciensis, 40,000-year-old science or language.

What does any of these tangents of his, have to do with physics or biology?

@cladking definitely has a personal grudge against Egyptology.

Personally, I don't see anything worth publishing or stealing. I see it as fan fiction.

 

[shunyadragon]

For the one millionth time there is nothing at all wrong with reductionistic science. The problem is that people misinterpret the meaning of science and mistake knowledge for omniscience.

Science does not claim omniscience. You are as usual misrepresenting science and the English language.

omniscience definition - Google Search

www.google.com

1. the state of knowing everything.
   "the notion of divine omniscience"

At this point in time cosmology is stuck but this is a temporary problem. Time don't fly it bounds and leaps and all change in all things is sudden. Some day there will be a funeral and science will leap right by the unified field theorem. \

Huh?!?!?! None of the above represents the academic nature of cosmology or science.

In the meantime I believe science has some serious house cleaning to do because too many of the premises of 19th century science are wrong.

In the meantime you need to get some serious basic education into the reality of science and do some house cleaning of your mind,

Science is only a tool and it is being used to do jobs for which it was not designed and can not be adapted currently.

You are describing applied science and not basic sciences,

The basic sciences are an evolving body of knowledge concerning the physical nature of our existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the major problem is that he tried to have his ideas (or concept) published, but it was rejected.

And seeing that he often attack Egyptologists, even if the threads have absolutely nothing to do with Egypt, it must have been an Egyptologist(s) who rejected his research.

When the subject of the topic about something related to biology or related to physics, he will always change the subject and bring up bloody Egyptology - Egypt, pyramid, the bloody ramps vs funicular, Homo omnisciensis, 40,000-year-old science or language.

What does any of these tangents of his, have to do with physics or biology?

@cladking definitely has a personal grudge against Egyptology.

I think it fits right in just as I have concluded as another example of attack science, when the wild claims are shown to be empty and without evidence. To me it doesn't pass the smell test. It smells like a personal religious view synthesized from a trivial awareness of some facts, science and the Bible offered as if it is all established, scientific fact.

As an example, there is no evidence to support the claim that all change in all living things is sudden. I can't find any sense in claiming that in defiance of the facts.

Attacking Darwin for having the temerity to live and work the 19th Century as if he had some choice in the matter doesn't make sense. It doesn't say anything about the theory or offer a valid reason to reject it.

Unrealistic demands that every apple be exactly the same in order for them to be counted I find laughable.

It seems a lot of something from nothing.