It is currently Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:56 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:52 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 4361
Morley wrote:
There is no science or data supporting your view. These are self-help pieces. From what you're presenting, I don't believe you know what science or data consists of, Markk.

This is like having a debate on evolution with a creationist.

Damn. It just occurred to me. You're a creationist, aren't you?

There is certainly science...there are all kinds of case studies on this. But I believe honest common sense is the best judge on this, it is not that hard to see, but, I have given you many examples of some of our hypocrisies.

Yes I am a creationist, I certainly do not believe that this is all a accident. And, I chose to show you our nature of hypocrisy from a basis of science, in that I know most here rely so much on it, that is... when it agrees with their current ideology. I gave you a link on a review of a case study at a university and that the researchers believe basically we are hypocrite due to evolutionary selection. The author does her research at both NYU and Harvard.

You are indirectly showing me something very interesting and valuable to this conversation, and IMO hypocritical. You are denying the science, and even that it is science that shows that we are all hypocrites, and yet looking at me as somehow inferior, deceived, lost, an a-hole, or lame ( you pick the word) because I believe in a Creator. You took the moral stance that because you believe in evolution, that you are correct in all this in that I am a creationist...correct? If not why did you think that way?

In my view, this shows and explains how we justify others in our mind, and this example shows how you ignored and denied a scientific case study on who we are, (and over all the science of this topic), and how we tick as humans, and the outcome that it is believed to be due to natural selection... and yet in your view think of me as being wrong (again you pick the word) for being a Creationist. In others words..."Markk is a creationist, so what possibly can he know and has no credibility?" If I am wrong, why did you inject..."Damn. It just occurred to me. You're a creationist, aren't you?" comparing this to a evolution/creation debate... Is there somehow science behind your view...where?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611614/

There are just so many published articles on this subject that to say it is not a science is silly, you may not agree with the science, I certainly do not agree with all science, which is fair, but it none the less a science Morley.

I found this abstract interesting also, the Title is perfect to my thought..."The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3108000553

And going full circle, as a Christian, I find that this science indirectly supports much of Biblical thought on the nature of man.

You don't have to answer this, but what was your immediate thought to my last sentence?

What would you offer in return, with either science or opinion, that would support your opinion that mankind is not hypocritical by nature and that there are people who are free from ever being hypocritical? Who in your view are not ever hypocrites?

_________________
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4319
One might imagine a proposal that all vegetables are the same because, well they are vegetables.

It is true they will have important things in common.

One might look at hate which is justifiable compared to hate which is not. One might compare hate which reveals a necessary truth to hate which generates lies and confuses the truth.

One hate may motivate people to rectify or stop a wrong. Another hate may create new wrongs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7998
huckelberry wrote:
One might imagine a proposal that all vegetables are the same because, well they are vegetables.

This is a decent example that also helps expose the problem of claiming that “all hate is the same”, much how like claiming “all love is the same” exposes similar problems.

For whatever reason, Markk seems either unwilling or unable to consider the complications, content, ramifications and imperfect permutations wrapped up within the placeholder word ‘hate’, so he seeks to discard those realities in favor of substituting a simple, concrete substance with the same name.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
There is certainly science...there are all kinds of case studies on this. But I believe honest common sense is the best judge on this, it is not that hard to see, but, I have given you many examples of some of our hypocrisies.

Yes I am a creationist, I certainly do not believe that this is all a accident. And, I chose to show you our nature of hypocrisy from a basis of science, in that I know most here rely so much on it, that is... when it agrees with their current ideology. I gave you a link on a review of a case study at a university and that the researchers believe basically we are hypocrite due to evolutionary selection. The author does her research at both NYU and Harvard.

You are indirectly showing me something very interesting and valuable to this conversation, and IMO hypocritical. You are denying the science, and even that it is science that shows that we are all hypocrites, and yet looking at me as somehow inferior, deceived, lost, an a-hole, or lame ( you pick the word) because I believe in a Creator. You took the moral stance that because you believe in evolution, that you are correct in all this in that I am a creationist...correct? If not why did you think that way?

In my view, this shows and explains how we justify others in our mind, and this example shows how you ignored and denied a scientific case study on who we are, (and over all the science of this topic), and how we tick as humans, and the outcome that it is believed to be due to natural selection... and yet in your view think of me as being wrong (again you pick the word) for being a Creationist. In others words..."Markk is a creationist, so what possibly can he know and has no credibility?" If I am wrong, why did you inject..."Damn. It just occurred to me. You're a creationist, aren't you?" comparing this to a evolution/creation debate... Is there somehow science behind your view...where?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611614/

There are just so many published articles on this subject that to say it is not a science is silly, you may not agree with the science, I certainly do not agree with all science, which is fair, but it none the less a science Morley.

I found this abstract interesting also, the Title is perfect to my thought..."The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3108000553

And going full circle, as a Christian, I find that this science indirectly supports much of Biblical thought on the nature of man.

You don't have to answer this, but what was your immediate thought to my last sentence?

What would you offer in return, with either science or opinion, that would support your opinion that mankind is not hypocritical by nature and that there are people who are free from ever being hypocritical? Who in your view are not ever hypocrites?

I'm not saying we're not all hypocrites some of the time. Of course we are. I've never maintained that. I'm saying I am not (and others here probably are not) hypocrites for participating on this board.

General articles (scientific and not) about the prevalence of hypocrisy don't prove your point.

edit for clarity


Last edited by Morley on Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103108000553

And going full circle, as a Christian, I find that this science indirectly supports much of Biblical thought on the nature of man.

You don't have to answer this, but what was your immediate thought to my last sentence?

Though I'd like to read the full study, this abstract doesn't seem to suggest anything that you're contending and I'm arguing against (i.e., that we're all hypocrites on this discussion board -- or that all people are hypocrites all the time).

Regarding your statement, I'd agree. I think there's much in the Bible about the nature of man that's verified by science. Why do you ask?

...

In turn, what's your reaction to this that was posted earlier? I don't think you got a chance to reply to it.

Morley wrote:
Markk wrote:
I have never told anyone how they "feel" , or what motivates them. Our feelings are expressed in our posts are actions and yes, our hypocrisy's. I have an idea of how you feel o this subject, I simply disagree that your feeling that we are not all hypocrites is wrong.
Bold is mine.

Which is it: 'I have never told anyone how they "feel",' or is it 'I have an idea of how you feel'? You know they're opposite assertions in the same paragraph, right? Then you tell her [Lemmie] that what she thinks she's feeling is wrong.

Markk wrote:
And, that is what we do on a discussion board, talk and discuss, and yes debate, our different feelings.

Yes, we debate and discuss our different feelings. We don't usually debate and correct someone about their own feelings.

edit for snark


Last edited by Morley on Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
huckelberry wrote:
One might look at hate which is justifiable compared to hate which is not. One might compare hate which reveals a necessary truth to hate which generates lies and confuses the truth.

One hate may motivate people to rectify or stop a wrong. Another hate may create new wrongs.


Absolutely.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
There are just so many published articles on this subject that to say it is not a science is silly, you may not agree with the science, I certainly do not agree with all science, which is fair, but it none the less a science Morley.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611614/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3108000553

Unlike your first two links, of course these two are science. However, I'm not sure why you posted them. They don't say anything like what I'm arguing against. Maybe you're trying to make some other point?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
In my view, this shows and explains how we justify others in our mind, and this example shows how you ignored and denied a scientific case study on who we are, (and over all the science of this topic), and how we tick as humans, and the outcome that it is believed to be due to natural selection... and yet in your view think of me as being wrong (again you pick the word) for being a Creationist. In others words..."Markk is a creationist, so what possibly can he know and has no credibility?" If I am wrong, why did you inject..."Damn. It just occurred to me. You're a creationist, aren't you?" comparing this to a evolution/creation debate... Is there somehow science behind your view...where?

I don't care if you're a creationist. (At least I don't believe I do. I'll have to give it some thought.) That I realize you're a creationist helps me to understand your approach to science and conceptualize what you consider to be science. For example, if you know I'm an atheist, you might frame your discussion of the Bible with me differently than if you consider me to be a believer. (At least I imagine you would.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32165
Location: Planet Perfume
Shulem wrote:
How about you, Jersey Girl? Will you? Can you?

Sure I can. Will I? No and get out of my face about this.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:29 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10668
Location: Hell
Jersey Girl wrote:
Shulem wrote:
How about you, Jersey Girl? Will you? Can you?

Sure I can. Will I? No and get out of my face about this.

Well it doesn't hurt to ask. Too bad for me you said, "No".

Bummer. (No pun intended)

:cry:

Anyone else care to start an asshole thread in Terrestrial?

:biggrin:

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3
Includes a startling new discovery!

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10032
Here's a theory for you, Shulem. Given:

1) The concept of celestial vaginal birth is no more or less odd than celestial bodily functions requiring an anus,

2) As noted in your other thread, Jesus ate food as a resurrected being, and therefore did *something* with it,

3) Mormon theology teaches spirit is just refined matter and therefore should follow all of the laws of relativity related to matter and energy,

4) All matter has associated intelligences embedded in them according to the Book of Mormon, so food stuffs consumed by mortals as well as resurrected beings consist of both matter and intelligences,

5) In Mormonism according to the D&C, light and love are synonyms implying that the wave-particle nature of light is somehow uniquely non-material but rather a manifestation of the divine nature,

6) Resurrected beings are always glowing, radiating energy in Mormonism suggesting there is a conversion process taking place requiring matter to be converted into energy, or perhaps love,

7) Given 5 and 6 above, it may be God has to consume matter to be able to radiate love all the time, but this means something has to happen to remove or reform the intelligences associated with it, like combustion forms water and CO2 as heat energy is generated,

Given the above, perhaps God consumes matter, which through his divine being results in some of the matter being converted into light/love but since this detaches the intelligences from their original matter the result is they are formed into spirit children from the more "refined" spirit matter (read: digested), and perhaps the purpose of the divine anus is to birth spirit children formed by God the Father? Perhaps the process of digesting matter into spirit matter bonds the freed intelligences to one another, and endows the new matter/intelligence combination with divine light/love which completes the process of transformation from random spirit matter into that of a spirit child of God? I mean, it's no less odd than requiring celestial sex acts and vaginal birthing of spirit children out of resurrected Heavenly wombs anyway. Otherwise, are their resurrected sperm in God's testicles? Are heavenly mother's resurrected with all the spirit eggs of an eternity within them like mortal women? The idea spirit children are born from matter and intelligence from without the Divine being makes more sense than that would. If it is on earth as it is in heaven, the patriarchy of Mormonism might suggest the role of heavenly mothers is to prepare such celestial feasts of spirit and intelligence that Heavenly Father then consumes to form His children. It explains why Relief Society is so focused on home making activities, preparing resurrected women for an eternity of celestial kitchen work.

God's work and glory is to bring to "pass" the immortality and eternal life of man...maybe this explains why everything is always coming to "pass" in Mormonism?

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:16 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10668
Location: Hell
honorentheos wrote:
Here's a theory for you, Shulem. Given:

[SNIP!]

God's work and glory is to bring to "pass" the immortality and eternal life of man...maybe this explains why everything is always coming to "pass" in Mormonism?

Thanks for that!

I'm going to quote and post you over on the asshole thread.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I do appreciate it.

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3
Includes a startling new discovery!

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:20 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 4361
Morley wrote:
Markk wrote:
In my view, this shows and explains how we justify others in our mind, and this example shows how you ignored and denied a scientific case study on who we are, (and over all the science of this topic), and how we tick as humans, and the outcome that it is believed to be due to natural selection... and yet in your view think of me as being wrong (again you pick the word) for being a Creationist. In others words..."Markk is a creationist, so what possibly can he know and has no credibility?" If I am wrong, why did you inject..."Damn. It just occurred to me. You're a creationist, aren't you?" comparing this to a evolution/creation debate... Is there somehow science behind your view...where?

I don't care if you're a creationist. (At least I don't believe I do. I'll have to give it some thought.) That I realize you're a creationist helps me to understand your approach to science and conceptualize what you consider to be science. For example, if you know I'm an atheist, you might frame your discussion of the Bible with me differently than if you consider me to be a believer. (At least I imagine you would.)

??? and that is why you compared our conversation to a creationist/evolution discussion? To quote Randy Moss..."Come on man"

_________________
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:51 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 4361
Morley wrote:
Though I'd like to read the full study, this abstract doesn't seem to suggest anything that you're contending and I'm arguing against (i.e., that we're all hypocrites on this discussion board -- or that all people are hypocrites all the time).

Moving goal posts, or you simply did not read my posts...I am saying, and the articles suggest...that we are hypocrites by nature...

Like I wrote several times, we all have lines drawn in the sand. We often have to cross that to justify a knew decision.

The example in this thread is that people were really upset with Smokey's rants, and understandably. Yet, when faced with the moral decision as to whether that same type of hate ( passionate and aggressive hate of a faith or people) offered against, in this case, Christians and Mormons...their being upset and vocal is just not there.

I have had little time to read here ... when I get a chance there is more of what you wrote I want to reply to.

To say "(i.e., that we're all hypocrites on this discussion board -- or that all people are hypocrites all the time)." Is missing the point completely...mankind has potential for both "good and bad"...and we share both those "attributes"...we are not always good, nor are we always bad...but by nature we share both those "attributes" or potentials. Good and bad is based on moral lines, and as much, I linked you to articles that suggest that when a moral decision needs to be made, and crosses that line, we make hypocritical decisions. i.e...going after Smokey is on one side of the line, while going after Paul, is on the other...yet both equally share a passionate hate for a people and faith. I personally hate and don't really understand Smokey's hate, yet I understand and more or less agree with Paul's reasons for his hate, and in many ways share that same hate for Mormonism.

Every person that has lived have been, or are, hypocrites...but it does not mean everything we do is hypocritical, and I never claimed that.

More later on this gotta run,

Mark

_________________
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
Moving goal posts, or you simply did not read my posts...I am saying, and the articles suggest...that we are hypocrites by nature...

I read your posts and understand what you’re saying. However, the articles cited nowhere suggest that we’re “hypocrites by nature.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Markk wrote:
??? and that is why you compared our conversation to a creationist/evolution discussion? To quote Randy Moss..."Come on man"

Because there is little use in talking about science with a creationist or fundamentalist. A creationist conception of science has little to do with accepted, mainstream scientific interpretation or consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32165
Location: Planet Perfume
Morley wrote:
Markk wrote:
??? and that is why you compared our conversation to a creationist/evolution discussion? To quote Randy Moss..."Come on man"

Because there is little use in talking about science with a creationist or fundamentalist. A creationist conception of science has little to do with accepted, mainstream scientific interpretation or consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?

I'm hopefully going to give you the type of answer that you aren't going to get from Markk. Like ever.

No. I wouldn't agree. What you seem to be missing here is that while creationists might observe and accept scientific method, they simply compartmentalize their religious belief and keep it separate and apart from science.

When you use the word creationist to label a group of people, I think you're oversimplying their belief in order to make a point for the sake of engaging in slam dunk argument and I tend to think that's an error.

I think you are using the term creationist to describe people who believe in a 6,000 year Earth and a literal wooden view of the Genesis account(s). There are two creation accounts in Genesis and if memory serves (I haven't looked it over in years) the two accounts are written to draw out different aspects of creation.

Am I a creationist? I am in the sense that I believe that a supernatural force or entity created the Earth/Universe configuration? Yes, I do. Whether or not that supernatural force involves the singularity/Big Bang explanations or other and newer theories regarding natural occurrences and THAT is the supernatural force or there is an actual supernatural being involved I can't fully say.

What do I think about the overall Genesis account? I think the Genesis account of creation is ancient tribal lore. That is to say, I think it's an expression of the ancients understanding of how the Earth/Universe came into being just like I think the Flood account comes from the same understanding.

Do I think the Earth was created in 6 literal days? I have no idea. Do I think the ancients understood what thousands or millions or billions of years were? No. I tend to think they used the sun/moon day/night cycle they were familiar with to explain the timing of the creation of the Earth/Universe.

So, no. I don't think it's a waste of time to have a conversation about science with a creationist. While I myself leave room open to consider that the Genesis account may indeed be true, I don't spend time dwelling on it and it doesn't cancel out my respect for science. I can't tell you how the Universe was created but I can sure enough pick a certain medication (for example) that has a black box cancer warning on the label for a cancer side effect and explain to you why, if you are considering using that medication, it doesn't matter at all because I have studied the clinical trials and outcomes and understand why/how the cancer warning came about, and how the medication works and in what cases a person should consider using it.

We all use and appreciate science and technology. I am certain that Markk uses both in his work and personal life like the rest of us do. If he believes in a literal 6 day creation and a 6k old Earth, that's because he separates his religious thinking from his thinking about science in daily life.

The Bible wasn't written to explain or teach science. Let's not forget that in our discussion.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:33 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10668
Location: Hell
Jersey Girl wrote:
Do I think the ancients understood what thousands or millions or billions of years were? No.

The ancient Egyptians understood large numbers such as THOUSAND and MILLION and had specific hieroglyphic signs signifying those numbers.

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3
Includes a startling new discovery!

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
Jersey Girl wrote:
I think you are using the term creationist to describe people who believe in a 6,000 year Earth and a literal wooden view of the Genesis account(s).

Thanks, Jersey Girl. You're right. Point taken. I'll respond to the rest later.


Last edited by Morley on Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32165
Location: Planet Perfume
Shulem wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Do I think the ancients understood what thousands or millions or billions of years were? No.

The ancient Egyptians understood large numbers such as THOUSAND and MILLION and had specific hieroglyphic signs signifying those numbers.

Can you link me to something about that so I can read more about it?

ETA: When they expressed their ancient narrative, did the Egyptians demonstrate a concept of thousands, millions or billions of years in the past? Did they also have a creation story and how did they describe creation?

Give me a good link. I'm interested!

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Open Letter to Dr. Shades
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:48 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10668
Location: Hell
Jersey Girl wrote:
Can you link me to something about that so I can read more about it?

ETA: When they expressed their ancient narrative, did the Egyptians demonstrate a concept of thousands, millions or billions of years in the past? Did they also have a creation story and how did they describe creation?
Give me a good link. I'm interested!


I'm going to have to recommend you Google to find what you want about Egyptian history and ancient myth because I'm limited on time and lost track of my links but still have my books.

Here are some large numbers (sorry, no billion because that was over their head).

Egyptian Mathematics Numbers Hieroglyphs

Image

1 is shown by a single stroke.
10 is shown by a drawing of a hobble for cattle.
100 is represented by a coil of rope.
1,000 a drawing of a lotus plant.
10,000 is represented by a finger.
100,000 a tadpole or frog
1,000,000 figure of a god with arms raised above his head.

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3
Includes a startling new discovery!

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group