He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say.
He probably figured it might be too much of a strain.
Well, I mean...look at what he starts with. Man as a species appeared suddenly 10,000 years ago? where did he come up with that?!?
There's really only one unfounded question here which, is really not unfounded if at least one person can ascertain it. Whereas if any of it could be ascertained, then the rest will most likely follow suit.
Nope, it must be magic!
Do you know what I think? I think I'm going to hold off here until somebody poses a legitimate question that I can respond to. Heck, at least FZ+ was willing to debate the issues with me!
Let's not forget what forum this is okay?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
1. A Timeline: Why is it that we've only existed as "a species" for about 10,000 years? And why all of sudden that mankind experiences this tremendous rate of growth? The likes of which doesn't seem possible for a system which is designed to progress at it's own rate -- over the eons -- where the passage of time has little or no consequence. Which thus brings up the notion of time. Why is it that only mankind, of all the species on earth, seems to be preoccupied with time? Why do "we" bother to keep a record of it? Do other species do this?Where did you come up with the 10,000 year figure? What do you mean by 'rate of growth'? And where does perception of time fit into any of this?
The length of recorded history would depend on lots of factors, not the least of which being that they didn't know we'd be looking back 7000 years later, so for the most part wouldn't have recorded things in a fashion that could survive that long. Where did you come up with the date 5143 BCE for a flood, and what evidence do you have for it?
There really isn't a huge difference between man and the other primates, and they came from a common ancestor, so there wouldn't be a missing link between humans and chimps. Again, you should explain where you gathered these dates from.
You may feel it, I certainly don't. I'm an animal and proud of it. In addition, a gut feeling should be treated as too subjective to base any conclusions about history on.
Beavers bypass nature when they build a dam, as do birds when they build nests. We consider their behavior natural, and I consider human building to be the exact same thing, on a larger scale. And, of course, references to an unsupported 'god' and 'eden'.3. Man-Made vs Artificial: And indeed it would seem man has done virtually everything possible to "recreate" nature to his own liking. Whooa ... wait a second. What does this have to do with being natural, where everything "natural" about it gets by-passed? Thus by tampering with it, and not allowing nature to "run its course," we have to deal with the side-effects: overpopulation, pollution, diminishment of resources, lack of natural diversity, etc. Doesn't this sound a bit like playing God -- which, is supposedly why we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place? Hmm...
Hence it would seem "our thinking" is outside of nature which, could be the very problem right there. Meaning, we really don't know what the heck we're doing!
Actually, this is easily explained by evolution. We want more than we need, because we thing of resourses the same way as food, that we should stockpile for a later time.
So you see if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, and that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!5. Spiritual vs Natural: So why do we seem to be so out of control? Could it be because we don't know how to live in harmony with ourselves, because we're spiritual beings and weren't meant to be a part of nature? Whereas through our addictions we try to conceal any possible "guilt feelings" associated with our fallen nature? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? Have you ever seen a monkey psychiatrist, a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans.
Well, that's pretty much what I've touched on so far (and then some), and I honestly don't see how anyone can come across saying I have no foundation for what I have to say. Do you?
You ask a lot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask a lot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers.
The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have a lot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.
With all the questions you have, I don't expect you'll have any more time to post, will you?
You asked for a specific time frame for when the daily sacrifice was taken away? Then this seems to be referring to that here. And yet, I'm not sure it's even the same prophecy? However, you might be intrigued to find out what I've discovered below ... and all I can say is wow!
Doesn't this kind of sound like the rise of Greece (the he goat) during the 6th century BC? Who, after the Jews were released and allowed to return to their homeland (beginning in 538 BC), got into a scuffle with Persia (i.e., the ram) and eventually conquered them in 479 BC (have a chapter in my book named after that number by the way) before entering and Hellenizing the Holy Land via the conquests of Alexander?
Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay?
I'll be waiting...shall I attempt to secure some LSD, in order for us to be on the same wavelength?Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay?
Now why did you say that?
Why would I waste my time trying to find things that don't exist? That's YOUR job!Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now why did you say that?
If you mean Lucifer, Satan and the Devil, and that's the drug of your choice, then I'll leave it up to you.
The date coincides with the Advent of Modern Man just after the Ice Age and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Also note that I had already come up with the date, and it was more a matter plotting it in accord with the events of history. If you read my Timeline thread --which, nobody seems to want to do? -- this should pretty much answer how I came up with the dates.
Again I would refer you to my Timeline thread. Besides that, if there were a flood it would have to occur prior to 5,000 BC, otherwise we would have a clearer record of it. While here's the beginning of Ivan Seeking's thread, Believers in the lost Ark: Guardian, UK, which only seems to corroborate it.
And note, when you subtract 7,500 from 2003 you get 5497 BC which, is only a difference of 357 years, which is not much!
And yet there's nothing about the primates that suggest they live "outside" of their environment, and don't exist as an adaptation to the environment, as opposed to getting the environment to adapt to them, which is what mankind has done.
Then how do you feel about being tied or "immersed" in the natural world? Is there anything about your world which is not "unnatural?" While I think the closest thing here would be if we all returned to subsistent farming (or such), although we would still be dependent upon technology, which I guess I'm saying we use as a crutch. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this!
I don't see what's so unnatural about chewing trees with your teeth and swabbing mud with your tail, both of which have clearly adapted to suit the purpose. While man on the other hand, says, "Well, I just came up this incredible idea, what do you say we get out the heavey equipment and tear up the joint? Forget about the consequences, what are they? Just do it!" And all because of a whim? Hmm ... Which is why I ask, what does this have to do with Natural Selection? And you can take this to mean I don't agree, Okay? Hence we come up with the notion of artifical or man-made. Indeed it is!
What? Man-made versus natural? You can take that to mean I don't think so.
Actually my asking questions is more a matter of technique, in part, because I don't typically rely on other people for answers, while it's also a means by which to "corral the answer" so to speak. It's like conducting any investigation really, where you ask a lot of questions in order to narrow in on the answer. Whereas by my askings questions here, I'm making you privy to the type of questions I've had to ask, while guiding you towards the answer (or conclusion). Maybe it's not the best technique? But, it works for me.
It's like I said, the questions are designed to support the answer.
What do you feel like you're missing out on something?
Originally posted by Zero
Well, you started this out by what seems to be your "major complaint" against me, so I thought I would try to give you a better idea of my approach. In which case I didn't catch the part below ...
As for these so-called experts, perhaps we should have them rethink what their doing and pursue "spiritual things" instead? Is there a difference here? Perhaps you should be reminded that this is the Religion Forum as well.
And here, I just read the first part and continued with what I said above. It's like I said, the questions are designed to highlight the conclusion.
Also, if you undersood who I was personally, you would understand that I don't go around doing things arbitrarily. You would also know that I'm pretty observant, nor do I make a lot of mistakes. So you can take this to be a reflection of how I come up with my ideas.
Well, I don't know if that helps or not, but you can't say I didn't try. Thanks.
), to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of. And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?Also, feel free to look into the Spiritual Timeline thread, which seems to concur with the "Dawn of Civilization" which occurred about 10,000 years ago.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"
While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...
And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.
Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."
Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of viral scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...
All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature.
There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.
P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this?
What that suggests to me is that we really haven't adapted at all. What kind of an adaptation is an adaption on a whim so to speak? Sounds to me like we want to have our cake and eat it too, rather than allow Mother Nature to its course and allow us to "truly adapt." And the environment is paying the price for it!