Re: An Arrival At Truth

On Nov 14, 12:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 14, 4:58 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"



<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 14, 10:38 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 13, 1:51 pm, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:37 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 13, 6:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 13, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:05 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Many of you ask me how do I know which text is the most accurate.
Rather then answer one person at a time, I will post a method that I
have found to be reliable.
Compare and correlate by date and then location. This is the golden
rule. Then consider other research on the topic throughout history.
Assemble the pieces as one would when investigating anything.
If the context could be open to doubt and there are one or two
alternative possibilities, then one or two alternative possibilities
must be compared and correlated to other texts. The more accurate
version will nearly always become obvious because of its consistency.
The old saying "The devil is in the details" applies here. The more
accurate texts are generally the older version and closet to where the
events took place ---as a rule of thumb.
The volume of information that has been recorded and then analyzed by
scholars throughout the years regarding man's origins is astronomical
to say the very least. To deny this rather extensive body of work in
favor of a relatively recent theory, of which sounds nothing short of
science fiction, is beyond the pale of human understanding. But many
of you do just that every day.
Is there any wonder so many think evolution is nothing more then a
belief based on this alone? No. Of course not.
To deny this rather extensive body of work based on religious bias is
also beyond the pale of human understanding.
The truth is usually somewhere in between two extremes. In this case
we have those that believe evolution on one side of the extreme and
those that believe in a 6000 year old earth on the other.
Put your thinking caps on kids. Because there is clear evidence within
the large body of information that I mention above which shows the
evolutionist and the YEC are wrong.
--
The All Seeing I
What a load of unmitigated nonsense!
Human knowledge accumulates over time. Although some may be lost, the
amount that is lost is vastly outweighed by the amount which is
gained. We have learned more about history of the earth over the past
couple of centuries by using the tools of science than in all the
previous history of human life on this planet. The idea that older
texts are more reliable is no more than wishful thinking. The oldest
are almost exclusively religious, and contain stories which may or may
not be based on historical events but were not regarded even at the
time as being historical records. In fact, the whole idea of
historical records was an invention of the Greeks a few centuries BC.
As any historian will tell you, one needs to treat any historical
account with great caution, and take into account the social and
political environment in which they were written. The Egyptians spent
vast resources in carving "historical" accounts of the crushing
victories of their Pharaohs over their enemies onto the walls of their
temples. Historical accounts from other sources, and archaeological
evidence give in many cases a very different story.
The notion that *you* have the knowledge and research skills to
evaluate "ancient texts" is laughable. Why should we take the views of
someone who thinks that cuneiform script was carved onto stone
seriously?
Hey, it was sometimes. Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example.
The Rosetta stone had carved texts in hieroglyphic and demotic
Egyptian, and Ancient Greek.
Cuneiform was the script first used by the Summerians about 3500 BC.
It was written by pressing a stylus onto a clay tablet. It was used
widely throughout the Middle East for more than 3,000 years.
Sorry, I was thinking about something else. You're right about the
Rosetta stone. But there are a number of carved cuneiform inscriptions.

True, but extensive records of the civlisations which used cuneiform
script are preserved because of archaelogical finds of vast libraries
of clay tablets. Unlike the paper records used by the Egyptians, they
survive extremely well.

Nevertheless, a claim that cuneiform was carved in stone isn't wrong, in
the same way that a claim that the Latin alphabet was carved in stone
isn't wrong. If the claim were "mainly in stone", you would have a
point. And in fact I don't know what adman actually said about this.
Still, he has said many more ridiculous things, so perhaps you should
choose one of those instead.

His claim was that the effort expended to carve "ancient texts" onto
stone demonstrated that they must be accurate. The Sumerian epic of
Gilgamesh - the oldest recorded "history" - is recorded on clay
tablets, not carved in stone. Perhaps this means that they are *not*
reliable history, contrary to his assertion that the older the text
the more likely it is to be accurate, but then I don't expect joined-
up thinking from him.

I've also pointed out that many labour-intensive carvings in stone on
Egyptian buildings record the crushing victories of Pharaohs over
their enemies which are starkly contradicted by historical and
archaeological records.

RF
RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As with everything there are exceptions.

So how do you know that other instances of carvings in stone are not
exceptions?

Follow the trail. Just as with any investigative work.



The Pharaohs were quite
vindictive and would remove and replace information at whim; some of
them even attempted to remove all traces of a person's existence.

So did many ancient civilisations. The Romans made quite a habit of
it.

Well, less of this took place the further back in time one looks.

The Egyptian are about as far back as one can go.

You
seem to consider the Romans and the Greeks ancient. And in a way they
are. But I an looking at stuff much older then them


So what? You were asserting that the fact that something is carved in
stone makes it more reliable.



Which did mankind a disservice as far as having an accurate picture of
the past and from the Egyptian perspective. Which is why I do not
spend much time on Egyptian texts.

Actually, it's because the Egyptians made records on papyrus, which
does not last anything like as well as the clay tablets used in
Mesopotamia.

Originally they used stone.

Actually, the earliest version of hieroglyphic scripts are
inscriptions on pottery.

You think too recent on the time line.

I suggest that I am rather more familiar with the time line of ancient
civilizations than you are. Unlike you, I don't accept uncritically
any crank who asserts that civilization is much older than historians
and archaeologists have concluded.

You
also shift around too much conflating one society with another.

I haven't. I have pointed out that Egyptian (not to mention Roman)
practice undermines your assertion that records carved in stone are
magically true.

If you
are going to study this stuff, focus is essential.

I suggest that I have rather more experience of focused study than you
do.




I was discussing Sumerian Texts, not Egyptian. Of which, you seem ill
informed in much the same way you are ill informed about most things
you rant and rave about.

I suggest that the evidence of our posting history shows that I
probably know rather more about the subject than you do.

They you will notice I am right and you are wrong.


No, I notice that you make a lot of unfounded assertions which
demonstrate that you have a very patchy knowledge of the subject.



For the most part however, the storage of information was quite a
labor intensive endeavor back then regardless of the culture one looks
at.

Making marks on clay tablets is not particularly labour intensive -
certainly far less labour intensive than the massive stone carvings of
the Egyptians which you dismiss arbitrarily because they show that
your assertions are unfounded.

I dismissed them with reason.

You dismissed them out of hand because they show that you are wrong.

nd did not dismiss them completely. But
your response is typical evolutionist dishonesty. I have come to
expect nothing less.

I suggest that I am not the one guilty of dishonesty here.


Sure. Marks on a clay tablet can be as easy as writing on paper. But
the making of the clay tablets was not easy.

It is not particularly difficult to slap a lump of clay into a wooden
mould and smooth off the surface. Perhaps it's something you find
challenging, but few children over the age of 5 do.

The manual labor and
building enough space involved to store them was not. Before clay they
had to quarry the stone.

Actually, the use of clay *predated* stone. Most of the buildings of
ancient Mesopotamia were built of sun-dried brick. Didn't you know
that?

Which involved much more work. Stone tablets
needed to be chiseled.

What on earth has that to do with the issue?

Which is not as easy as simple as scratching on
clay. They also needed buildings to be stored in


...which, in ancient Mesopotamia were usually built of sun-dried
bricks, not stone.

Why not educate yourself in the subject?

As i said. Anyone that would think ancient writing was not an involved
process is not too bright.




That fact alone hints to us that the people back then were making
quite an effort to store and preserve their history and accumulated
knowledge.

You think they couldn't have been doing it for the same reasons the
Egytians did? Or the Romans for that matter. Or the Assyrians. Or the
Persians.

As I said. Your knowledge is simply limited to a particular time
period.

I suggest that the evidence demonstrates that I know rather more about
the history of ancient civilizations than you do.

Which is too recent if you are looking for origins. The Romans
were modern relative to the Sumerians.

Quite so. And they didn't carve many inscriptions on stone. They
usually recorded them on clay tablets.

In the fifth millennium there
was early developments in Sumer. The old Roman empire was many
thousands of years after that.

And the Romans were great exponents of the habit of rewriting history
to suit their political purposes, which included defacing stone
carvings - much as the Egyptians did at more or less the same time as
the Summerians.

You are making irrational arguments against the fact that thousands of
years before Rome it was quite difficult to record and store
information.

[cut]

Making marks on soft clay is not particularly difficult to do, and the
fact that carving on stone is labour-intensive does not mean that
records recorded on stone are more reliable. As the examples of the
Egyptians and the Romans clearly shows, they aren't.

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An Arrival At Truth
    ... Then consider other research on the topic throughout history. ... Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example. ... of clay tablets. ... Unlike the paper records used by the Egyptians, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Arrival At Truth
    ... Then consider other research on the topic throughout history. ... Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example. ... Egyptian, and Ancient Greek. ... of clay tablets. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Arrival At Truth
    ... Then consider other research on the topic throughout history. ... Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example.. ... of clay tablets. ... Unlike the paper records used by the Egyptians, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Arrival At Truth
    ... Then consider other research on the topic throughout history. ... Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example. ... Egyptian, and Ancient Greek. ... Cuneiform was the script first used by the Summerians about 3500 BC. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Arrival At Truth
    ... Then consider other research on the topic throughout history. ... must be compared and correlated to other texts. ... Consider the Rosetta Stone, for example. ... Egyptian, and Ancient Greek. ...
    (talk.origins)