Arden Chatfield
Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Okay, I have come to a new conclusion about AFD's psychopathology. Check out the following interchange.
| Quote | | Quote |
A couple weeks ago you said the Indians of North and South America originally had writing but lost it. You offered no proof of this at all. I asked you for proof. You ignored it. Proof now. What is your evidence?
|
Answered this long ago. Archaeology has confirmed that civilization began in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago. I know you think that humans lived before that, but your proof is faulty (cave paintings erroneously dated older than 6000 ya). So the only real evidence we have (written records) says that humans have only been on the planet for about 6000 years. And archaeology has shown that they were able to write at least as far back as 5500ya, but doubtless all the way back to Adam, around 6000 ya. I have not shown you the evidence for this yet, but I will. The N. Am and S. Am Indians (and all peoples of the earth) descended from ONE COUPLE and ONE CIVILIZATION, which appeared upon the earth about 6000 ya. They had writing among other things. So all I have to do to show that the N. Am and S. Am indians lost their ability to write is show the plausibility of the Biblical version of human history. |
Note especially the line I boldfaced:
So all I have to do to show that the N. Am and S. Am indians lost their ability to write is show the plausibility of the Biblical version of human history.
Let this sink in. What AFD is saying is that if he comes up with a version of Genesis that he finds convincing (and I think we can agree his standards for a 'convincing' Genesis account would be EXTREMELY lax), then that proves that Indians in North and South America had writing but lost it. That would be his 'proof'.
He thinks that's establishing a connection.
It's simply stupefying.
I think the bottom line fact is that AFD is simply not coming from the same planet as us. He quite honestly has no concept of 'proof' that ANY educated person would recognize. There is no concept of 'evidence' in his mental landscape that agrees with learning. His concept of 'proof' is to assemble a bunch of random anecdotes around a central idea, then to declare you've won. It's completely structureless.
It's exactly the same as the Monty Python's Holy Grail dialogue "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood. And therefore a WITCH!"
AFD: This is your brain in the 12th century.
--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus
|
