Author Topic: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts  (Read 3058 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« on: June 08, 2012, 09:07:38 PM »
Is a bat a bird?

The "flyers" (CLV) or "winged" (Heb oph) of Leviticus 11.

Numerically 1-3, in Canonical Order from left to right:

1. KINGDOM. Animalia. 11:13-23.

2. PHYLUM Chordata. (Vertebrates.) 11:13-19. / PHYLUM Arthropoda. (Invertebrates.) 11:20-23.

3. CLASS Aves. 11:13-19-. / CLASS Mamalia. 11:-19. / CLASS Insecta. 11:20-23.

FACT: birds and the bat are the only Chordate flyers on earth. (Other Chordates that use aerial locomotion do so by means OTHER than flying, eg, the "flying squirl" does NOT fly, but glides.)

FACT: the first group of organisms listed in Lev 11:13-19- are members of the CLASS Aves: birds.

FACT: the last organism listed in Lev 11:-19 is a member of the CLASS Mamalia: the bat.

FACT: birds are NOT members of the CLASS Mamalia.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT a bird.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the eagle. 11:13.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the ossifrage. 11:13.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the ospray. 11:13.

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the vulture. 11:14.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the kite. 11:14.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT every raven. 11:15.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the owl. 11:16.

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the night hawk. 11:16.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the cuckow. 11:16.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the hawk. 11:16.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the little owl. 11:17.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the cormorant. 11:17.

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the great owl. 11:17.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the swan. 11:18.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the pelican. 11:18.

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the gier eagle. 11:18

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the stork. 11:19.

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT the heron. 11:19.

CONCLUSION:
the bat is NOT the lapwing. 11:19.

INQUIRY: If Leviticus is UN-RELIABLE as a Taxonomic Source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the bat is a bird...

He was swearing at me before the night was through. "Just shut the F* up!"

Today, I feel guilty, like I've clubbed a baby seal or an invalid.

Offline Tinyal

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +26/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2012, 09:37:45 PM »
If this post is any example , no wonder you drove him nuts.

And no, the joke is specifically not on me.
Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water?

Offline Barracuda

Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2012, 09:57:12 PM »
Quote
INQUIRY: If Leviticus is UN-RELIABLE as a Taxonomic Source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the bat is a bird...
being correct on one taxanomy-related thing (and I'm not even granting you that here) =/= being a reliable taxonomic source.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2093
  • Darwins +236/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2012, 11:07:04 PM »
*Snip for brevity*

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing for here.  Are you saying that the bible is a poor source of taxonomy or a good source?  Are you saying that a bat really IS a bird, and that science is classifying it wrong? Or are you arguing that because the author doesn't specifically say that a bat IS every other flying creature in that list, that somehow, it's not to be considered a bird?  I don't know.  It's just a mess.  And all of your conclusions... a bat is NOT an owl and so on... what the hell are you getting at there?  The author of Leviticus isn't trying to claim that a bat is anything other than a bat, he is simply classifying it as a bird.  Like I would classify a horse as a 'four legged animal'. 

I've never seen argumentation done like this.  And that's not a compliment to you.  As has been said before, if your methods are confusing to others, it makes for a poor argument.  Can you just say, in plain English, what your argument is here?  I'd be pissed off at you too if you couldn't use a version of argumentation that others can easily understand in order to get your points across. 

Did you ever stop to think he was angry with you because your argument here is not nearly as clear as you think it is?  Wouldn't you be upset too if someone tried talking to you in a way that makes no sense at all due to the fact that you aren't trained in the same way, and therefore are not able to understand what the hell they're saying? 

I work as a physical therapist, and from experience with this, I can tell you that using proper medical terminology with people not well versed in it can become very confusing to them.  As a result, I never use the big words with my patients because I'd rather get my point across in terms they can understand.  That's just the way it is, no big deal.  It doesn't make me feel superior or arrogant to know that I can use the big words and screw them up, but this seems to be exactly what gets you off (only it's not big words with you; it's just the way you arrange them).  So pat yourself on the back, and consider yourself superior, but you're not making anyone marvel at your intelligence.  If you can't make points that people can understand, we have no way of knowing whether you are intelligent or not.  So stop being that guy who makes sure everyone knows he's able to arrange information in a different way that seems logical to him, but not to other people. 

Please man.  What the hell are you arguing for?  Perhaps I am the only one missing what you are saying, but I'd appreciate it if you used sentences and paragraphs and words to get your points across.  That would be nice.  I really don't care if you think I'm some sort of simpleton with all this. I know that if you are not trained in medical terminology, after a brief medical conversation I could think you a simpleton as well.  It's not about that.  Drop the ego trip and get to the point. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 12:39:15 AM »
I've sometimes heard people say "A fool with a tool is still a fool"

Would this make any sense?

Statement: Astrology is a belief system which states that there is a relationship between celestial bodies and humans.

FACT: Sun is a celestial body
FACT: So is the moon
FACT: Sun and moon have influences in some events on earth
FACT: Humans live on the earth

Conclusion: Astrology is TRUE
Fact: Astrologer predicts that John MCain would win 2008 election (http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm )
Conclusion: John McCain is the President of the United States

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2012, 07:50:45 AM »
Dear God,

Please do something about all of the ignorance you have created among your sheeple.

Thanks,

Jetson

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12550
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2012, 08:59:38 AM »
FACT: birds and the bat are the only Chordate flyers on earth. ....

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT a bird.

So... you are saying the OT put birds and bats in an order that implies taxonomic accuracy?  Please.


He was swearing at me before the night was through. "Just shut the F* up!"

Today, I feel guilty, like I've clubbed a baby seal or an invalid.

Vanity is considered by the Catholic Church to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  For us "nonstamps", we just see your unwarranted ego as obnoxious narcissism. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2012, 10:34:22 AM »
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2012, 12:08:09 PM »
Bats and birds are NOT the only vertebrate animals capable of flight. Though long extinct, Pterosaurs were capable of actual flight, and are neither mammals nor birds. Naturally there is no mention of them in the Bible, because it is written by primitive desert dwelling morons.

Out of living species, bats and birds are the only flying animals vertebrates (that we know of). There may be undiscovered flying species that are neither birds nor bats.

Additionally, your attempt to establish that bats are not birds is pointless. WE know that. However, since the bat is specifically mentioned along with a list of unclean birds, it seems clear that God did not understand that. You really seem to be trying way to hard too confuse the issue in order to appear as though you have made some kind of meaningful contribution.

Like I said, the bible says something to the extent of " these birds you can eat, but of these unclean ones you may not: ...... and the bat". There is simply no way to try to explain around that. The Bible includes bats in a list of unclean birds, therefore it considers bats to be birds. If the Bible had said " Oh, and even though they are mammals, not birds, don't eat bats either", we wouldn't be having this discussion. But yet again we see another of the thousands of examples of an all powerful, all knowing, timeless and absolute being not having a clue at all about anything. This is contrary to what one would expect from an Omnimax, capital G God.

I am going to have to agree with Mr. Biscoop's post, because it really seems to be all you are attempting to do here.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2012, 05:49:16 PM »
I know many of you are gripped by the  above exhibition of logic, confirming what you have always suspected, i.e. there is a possibility that bats are not birds (at least on earth but excluding the universe outside the Solar System and other universes and miracles.)

I now offer you a rare drawing proving the existence of fish:


I will be answering questions in the thread, "Fish. Are they real?"

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2012, 08:43:17 AM »
I've sometimes heard people say "A fool with a tool is still a fool"

Would this make any sense?

Statement: Astrology is a belief system which states that there is a relationship between celestial bodies and humans.

FACT: Sun is a celestial body
FACT: So is the moon
FACT: Sun and moon have influences in some events on earth
FACT: Humans live on the earth

Conclusion: Astrology is TRUE
Fact: Astrologer predicts that John MCain would win 2008 election (http://www.horoscoper.net/horoscopes/johnmccain.htm )
Conclusion: John McCain is the President of the United States

Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises.

Mine do.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2012, 08:45:35 AM »
FACT: birds and the bat are the only Chordate flyers on earth. ....

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT a bird.

So... you are saying the OT put birds and bats in an order that implies taxonomic accuracy?  Please.


He was swearing at me before the night was through. "Just shut the F* up!"

Today, I feel guilty, like I've clubbed a baby seal or an invalid.

Vanity is considered by the Catholic Church to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  For us "nonstamps", we just see your unwarranted ego as obnoxious narcissism.

The Bible divides flyers by vertebrates and invertebrates, IF we go beyond the narrow scope of CLASS, and consider the fact that there are other valid Taxonomic Ranks to consider.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2012, 08:47:00 AM »
If this post is any example , no wonder you drove him nuts.

And no, the joke is specifically not on me.

Non sequitur.

FALLACY: Appeal to Ridicule.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2012, 08:48:10 AM »
Dear God,

Please do something about all of the ignorance you have created among your sheeple.

Thanks,

Jetson


Non sequitur.

FALLACY: Appeal to Ridicule.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2012, 08:49:39 AM »
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.


Non sequitur.

FALLACY: Appeal to Ridicule.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2012, 08:53:37 AM »
Though long extinct, Pterosaurs were capable of actual flight, and are neither mammals nor birds.

There is no rational for believing that these animals should be included in such a list.

Perhaps I should have qualified the fact with "living".

Quote
Like I said, the bible says something to the extent of " these birds you can eat, but of these unclean ones you may not: ...... and the bat".

Your rendition is faulty.

Quote
But yet again we see another of the thousands of examples of an all powerful, all knowing, timeless and absolute being not having a clue at all about anything. This is contrary to what one would expect from an Omnimax, capital G God.

Non sequitur.

FALLACY: Appeal to Ridicule.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2012, 09:09:09 AM »
Quote
INQUIRY: If Leviticus is UN-RELIABLE as a Taxonomic Source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the bat is a bird...
being correct on one taxanomy-related thing (and I'm not even granting you that here) =/= being a reliable taxonomic source.

I concur.

With regards to the behemoth, it would be impractical, if not inefficient, to provide a Structure dividing them by vertebrates / invertebrates: the ones listed are all Mammals.

We are introduced, instead, to another Taxonomic Rank referred to as "Orders".

A 11:4 ORDER: Artiodactyla.  gerah

  B 11:5  ORDER: Hyracoidea. gerah

  B 11:6 ORDER:
Lagomorpha. gerah

A 11:7 ORDER: Artiodactyla. lo gerar gereh

The camel and the swine, A & A, are of the same Order, but alternate gerah.

The the coney and the hare, B & B, are of different Orders, but they  both gerah.

With the swine, the Etymology of the verb is used in conjunction with the verb: "gerar gereh". This is handy for weakening an Etymological Fallacy claim.

Quote
The Etymological Fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

Pitfalls to the Etymological Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy#Pitfalls

1641 garar gaw-rar' a primitive root; to drag off roughly; by implication, to bring up the cud (i.e. ruminate); by analogy, to saw:--catch, chew, X continuing, destroy, saw.

1625 gerah gay-raw' from 1641; the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

Both the Hyracoidea and the Lagomorpha are similar to the rodent, in that the have teeth that grow throughout their entire lifetime, requiring the need for constant chewing to keep the from growing too long.

The Etymology allows for this.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 09:49:36 AM by euroclydon »

Offline Barracuda

Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2012, 06:19:17 PM »
Quote
INQUIRY: If Leviticus is UN-RELIABLE as a Taxonomic Source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the bat is a bird...
being correct on one taxanomy-related thing (and I'm not even granting you that here) =/= being a reliable taxonomic source.

I concur.

Quote
With regards to the behemoth, it would be impractical, if not inefficient, to provide a Structure dividing them by vertebrates / invertebrates: the ones listed are all Mammals.

We are introduced, instead, to another Taxonomic Rank referred to as "Orders".

A 11:4 ORDER: Artiodactyla.  gerah

  B 11:5  ORDER: Hyracoidea. gerah

  B 11:6 ORDER:
Lagomorpha. gerah

A 11:7 ORDER: Artiodactyla. lo gerar gereh

The camel and the swine, A & A, are of the same Order, but alternate gerah.

The the coney and the hare, B & B, are of different Orders, but they  both gerah.

With the swine, the Etymology of the verb is used in conjunction with the verb: "gerar gereh". This is handy for weakening an Etymological Fallacy claim.

Quote
The Etymological Fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

Pitfalls to the Etymological Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy#Pitfalls

1641 garar gaw-rar' a primitive root; to drag off roughly; by implication, to bring up the cud (i.e. ruminate); by analogy, to saw:--catch, chew, X continuing, destroy, saw.

1625 gerah gay-raw' from 1641; the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

Both the Hyracoidea and the Lagomorpha are similar to the rodent, in that the have teeth that grow throughout their entire lifetime, requiring the need for constant chewing to keep the from growing too long.

The Etymology allows for this.
what the fuck? what does this have to do with anything?

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2012, 08:34:30 PM »
Quote
what the fuck? what does this have to do with anything?

I am endeavoring to encourage the processes of reasoned data analysis instead of the flippant, asinine remarks we see on this site.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12669
  • Darwins +332/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2012, 09:46:18 PM »
Quote
what the fuck? what does this have to do with anything?

I am endeavoring to encourage the processes of reasoned data analysis instead of the flippant, asinine remarks we see on this site.

I hope you're including your own asinine comments.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1313
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2012, 05:13:53 AM »
So, this boils down to case number 2435632 of selectively reading the bible in order to insert present day knowledge.
The whole argument hinges on the meaning of the word 'and' in Lev 11:19; and it depends on the grammar rules of the language in which you read that line. In Dutch, for instance, inserting the meaning euroclydon wants is impossible. You need to completely rewrite the entire section Lev11:13-19, putting the bat first and than all the birds.

All of this would be impressive ... if euroclydon were making this point BEFORE modern taxonomy had been developed.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2012, 06:07:09 AM »
Basically you've read into the bible that it states a bat is not a bird and offers an accurate taxonomy. You've figured out from the bible that the bat is not a bird. But I've decided to read the passage in Leviticus you've brought up.


Quote from: Leviticus 11
13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Why is the bat listed as an unclean bird? A bat is not a bird, it's a mammal.

Also, a Heron is not a raven, it is not an owl, it is not a vulture, it isn't a kite nor is it a stork, but it is still a bird and the bible lists it as such. I'm afraid your logic isn't working here. So yes, as Leviticus lists 'the bat' as an unclean bird it is an unreliable source for taxonomy.

Seriously, I recommend not being so arrogant. I thought pride was a sin.


[edit]
I've checked multiple translations (American Standard, NIV, King James and various others). I've found the vast majority choose to use the word 'bird' or 'fowl'. The only one that I found that didn't was the Complete Jewish Bible. If CJB were the 'true' translation, it doesn't actually state whether or not a bat is a bird or a mammal.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 08:00:13 AM by Seppuku »
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2012, 06:32:01 AM »
Quote
what the f**k? what does this have to do with anything?

I am endeavoring to encourage the processes of reasoned data analysis instead of the flippant, asinine remarks we see on this site.

You are doing nothing short of providing minor entertainment to this forum.  Please, continue...

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2012, 07:15:50 AM »
bats in the belfry
bird brained
pea brained
pea cock
cock eyed
pie eyed
custard pie
custard apple
apple of ones eye
one eyed
oxygen deprived
fruit bat


be he moth
or
be he butterfly

too lightweight for behemoth
another tree drumming monkey

....exaggerating self importance

tragicomic taxonomic   the  class moronic

a bit like the wizard of Oz
fantasising a reality
of biblical proportions

the flying monkeys with their gods perspective
prophesied an inevitable use of umbrellas
the taxonomists, cursing, were overheard to agree
that, at least they weren't as bad as flying pigs.






« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 07:39:35 AM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2012, 09:46:52 AM »
FACT: birds and the bat are the only Chordate flyers on earth. ....

CONCLUSION: the bat is NOT a bird.

So... you are saying the OT put birds and bats in an order that implies taxonomic accuracy?  Please.


He was swearing at me before the night was through. "Just shut the F* up!"

Today, I feel guilty, like I've clubbed a baby seal or an invalid.

Vanity is considered by the Catholic Church to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  For us "nonstamps", we just see your unwarranted ego as obnoxious narcissism.

The Bible divides flyers by vertebrates and invertebrates, IF we go beyond the narrow scope of CLASS, and consider the fact that there are other valid Taxonomic Ranks to consider.

Fallacy: reification fallacy.

The bible is in error, however taxonomy is an improper logical argument - taxonomy, which is an incomplete methodology of naming used to simplify broad categorization of the attributes of species, is not, in itself, 'truth'.  That is to say, you cannot use the 'concept' of taxonomy to argue for the reality of the concepts it presents, claiming them as truth.

You could use the definitions implicit in taxonomy, then use taxonomy to shorten your definitions - e.g., "Bats are not birds.  For creatures that come from the particular evolutionary branch that makes up 'birds', we have identified the following common attributes .... which we then identify as class aves."  You cannot, however, form a logical argument based on scientific classification alone; that is fallacious.

Non sequitur. 
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2012, 11:05:46 AM »
euroclydon,

Let us settle this with  Strong's Hebrew Dictionary - the standard dictionary for translating the Bible

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls*...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

*Fowl is a translation of ofe. Its etymology is from ?ûph (pron - oof; a bird)  = as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings, often collective: - bird, that flieth, flying, fowl.

However,

Deut. 14:11 Of all clean birds* ye shall eat.
Deut. 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
*tsippor 
(pron -tsip-pore')
a little bird (as hopping): - bird, fowl, sparrow.

From H6852 (Etym. tsâphar tsaw-far' A primitive root; to skip about, that is, return: - depart early.)

So we see that in Leviticus, although a bat could be in the category of birds OR winged creatures (nothing to do with vertebrae), the choice is resolved in Deuteronomy, where the bat is clearly a bird.

God said it; I believe it. Case closed. : )
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2012, 11:47:57 AM »
Hi euroclydon –

First of all, I wanted to say that it is very clear that you are a really smart guy, a meticulous researcher, and a poster who puts a lot of thought into his words.

I’m writing right now because in spite of your clear intelligence, research, and meticulous posts, you really seem to be failing to effectively communicate your arguments in a way that most people in the forum can readily understand.  And I’m sensing frustration on both sides of the conversation.

I bring this up because I have several friends and acquaintances with varying degrees of Asperger's Syndrome, as well as one beloved family member.    All of them are really smart, amazing people, who engage in passionate, meticulous research, and who sometimes (often) fail to communicate the issues that are most important to them, to the general public.             

I could be way off here, and please forgive me if I am, but based on what I’ve seen of some of your posts, I’m wondering if you’ve ever considered the possibility that you might be somewhere on the Asperger spectrum.  If you’ve never considered this before, please don’t dismiss me completely until you’ve taken a look at some of the characteristics associated with Asperger's.

I pulled out a few here, that I thought you might find were not that far off.  And there is a link to a more complete list below. 

Thinking and memory
- has excellent long-term memory for facts and routines; often have an excellent memory for dialogue
- might have difficulty with short-term memory
- is logical and detail-oriented; easily able to identify errors
- can focus on tasks intensely; persistent; difficulty leaving tasks unfinished


Special interests
- are all-absorbing, narrow interests done to the exclusion of other activities, done with repetitive adherence, or done with more rote than meaning (as a child)
- often include a fascination with facts or numbers, science, or something related to transportation
- often involve a couple lifelong primary special interests; might include short-term, but very intense, secondary special interests; might acquire more primary interests over time so adults might have 4 or more
- are calming and reduce stress (as opposed to an obsession), but might give appearance of obsessive-compulsive disorder


Social interactions
- seems content when left alone
- does not understand social cues and thus might act inappropriately, appearing rude, uncaring, and tactless
- might be able to function in one-to-one interactions but not with multiple people
- has strong sense of loyalty; very loyal to friends
- has strong sense of social justice; tends to defend others and causes
- achieves social success by intellectual analysis rather than intuition
- often has a sense of humor as an adult that is not frequently understood by others, often a very dry sense of humor

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_signs_or_symptoms_of_Aspergers_Syndrome#ixzz1xVD5G57B

If I'm way off target here, I apologize.  But if not, there are some very specific actions that you might be interested in taking, that might help you learn to better frame the way that you present arguments, so that your intended audience better understands the information that you are presenting. 

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2425
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2012, 04:55:06 AM »
This almost sounds like me:


Thinking and memory
- has excellent long-term memory for facts and routines; often have an excellent memory for dialogue
- might have difficulty with short-term memory only if very short, like 5 minutes, but I likely have too much to do
- is logical and detail-oriented; easily able to identify errors
- can focus on tasks intensely; persistent; difficulty leaving tasks unfinished


Special interests
- are all-absorbing, narrow interests done to the exclusion of other activities, done with repetitive adherence, or done with more rote than meaning (as a child)
- often include a fascination with facts or numbers, science, or something related to transportation
- often involve a couple lifelong primary special interests; might include short-term, but very intense, secondary special interests; might acquire more primary interests over time so adults might have 4 or more
- are calming and reduce stress (as opposed to an obsession), but might give appearance of obsessive-compulsive disorder


Social interactions
- seems content when left alone partly true, I must have some alone time
- does not understand social cues and thus might act inappropriately, appearing rude, uncaring, and tactless
- might be able to function in one-to-one interactions but not with multiple people
- has strong sense of loyalty; very loyal to friends
- has strong sense of social justice; tends to defend others and causes
- achieves social success by intellectual analysis rather than intuition
- often has a sense of humor as an adult that is not frequently understood by others, often a very dry sense of humor would that include a very warped sense of humor?


Maybe I am just a half-assedperger?

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Other Forms of Negation AKA what drove nonstamp nuts
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2012, 08:19:09 AM »
Quote
what the f**k? what does this have to do with anything?

I am endeavoring to encourage the processes of reasoned data analysis instead of the flippant, asinine remarks we see on this site.

You are doing nothing short of providing minor entertainment to this forum.  Please, continue...

"reasoned data analysis"

(1)Do people Hallucinate, Lie, and exaggerate?

Yes

Therefore "revealed wisdom" is suspect. This includes all ancient texts.

(2)Are the occurrences in Ancient texts that do not operate in accordance with observed reality?

Yes

Therefore ancient texts make claims that are extraordinary

(3)Are their occurrences in ancient texts(Bible Included) that are demonstrably false?

Yes.

False claims are made in ancient texts

(4)Is there any scientific verification that Leviticus or Matthew has a greater claim on reality than than the Iliad, Bhagavata, or the Koran?

No.

Reasoned analysis.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.