• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Godless Liberals

marke said:
How animals traveled may not be fully understood by humans but at least most humans agree that the ancient world referred to in the Bible and the cradle of civilization referred to by archaeologists were one and the same.
Click to expand...

So in other words, not the whole world; no "global" flood.


OM
 
marke said:
There are many questions humans have yet to answer satisfactorily. For example, until recently (in my lifetime) scientists thought it was not possible dinosaurs ever inhabited the polar regions. That idea had to change, however, when it was discovered massive numbers of dinosaurs had inhabited that region in ancient times. And how did massive herds of mammoths survive the harsh winters in northern polar regions? Some have suggested they migrated long distances, but others wisely suggest that was not likely.

The truth is there is ample evidence that the North Pole was once a tropical paradise. That was before the universal flood and accompanying catastrophic upheavals changed everything.
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with the lack of migratory evidence in eastern Turkey for the scant period of history of 4000 years.


OM
 
marke said:
Sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon is a good place to start looking for evidence of massive flooding. You could also look at the flattened tropical forest remains under thousands of feet of frozen muck in Alaska. You could check out the massive whale graveyards in the Chilean mountains. You could take a look at shark remains a thousand feet underground in Kentucky. There are fossil remains of sea creatures high in the Himalayas you could look into. And that is just for starters.
Click to expand...

None of which happened 4000 years ago.


OM
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well, yes. You've supplied definitions and I've supplied definitions and they don't all match up.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll stick to the definition I've lived by based upon the etymology, and I'll ignore that imposed by others, for now someone is trying to tell me it's a political doctrine.

I wish people would make up their minds about what they think I believe and what I am.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Well, I'll stick to the definition I've lived by based upon the etymology, and I'll ignore that imposed by others, for now someone is trying to tell me it's a political doctrine.

I wish people would make up their minds about what they think I believe and what I am.
Click to expand...

I've studied German. The German language (well, Hochdeutsch) has gone through two changes, at the beginning of the 1900s and in 1996.

The changes in 1996 were legally binding. This meant that schools had to follow it, government officials had to follow it, but newspapers did not.

Basically you could impose your will on the language in an official capacity, but not in an unofficial capacity.

It might be possible to do such a thing with the English language, but it's not going to happen, mostly because there are far too many English speaking countries, though if the US and the UK were to do this, then others would probably follow.

However, in case you're wondering where this is going, definitions of words don't have a regulatory body. We can go to different dictionaries and see different definitions for the same thing. Then you have what people think something means, which can often be wildly different to what exists in the dictionaries or to what other people think it means.

This is how things go.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, to use whatever definitions you like.

I'm telling you mine.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I've studied German. The German language (well, Hochdeutsch) has gone through two changes, at the beginning of the 1900s and in 1996.

The changes in 1996 were legally binding. This meant that schools had to follow it, government officials had to follow it, but newspapers did not.

Basically you could impose your will on the language in an official capacity, but not in an unofficial capacity.

It might be possible to do such a thing with the English language, but it's not going to happen, mostly because there are far too many English speaking countries, though if the US and the UK were to do this, then others would probably follow.

However, in case you're wondering where this is going, definitions of words don't have a regulatory body. We can go to different dictionaries and see different definitions for the same thing. Then you have what people think something means, which can often be wildly different to what exists in the dictionaries or to what other people think it means.

This is how things go.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, to use whatever definitions you like.

I'm telling you mine.
Click to expand...


And I've studied Greek and Latin, so I'll stick with the definitions according to the etymology.
 
NWO_Spook said:
And I've studied Greek and Latin, so I'll stick with the definitions according to the etymology.
Click to expand...

Which is all very well and good, except when words change from their etymology.

The best example of this would be Führer in German.

in 1930 Führer mean leader because it comes from the verb führen which means "to lead" which came from füerære, vüerære, füerer, vüerer, to lead.

In the post 1945 era it doesn't mean "leader" anymore. It means "Hitler".

Here's some more words and their etymology

Avocado = testicles in Nahuatl
Cappuccino = hood italian
Disaster, you'll love this one as a Greek and Latin learner, comes from dis- bad and -aster meaning star. So it means bad star.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Which is all very well and good, except when words change from their etymology.

The best example of this would be Führer in German.

in 1930 Führer mean leader because it comes from the verb führen which means "to lead" which came from füerære, vüerære, füerer, vüerer, to lead.

In the post 1945 era it doesn't mean "leader" anymore. It means "Hitler".

Here's some more words and their etymology

Avocado = testicles in Nahuatl
Cappuccino = hood italian
Disaster, you'll love this one as a Greek and Latin learner, comes from dis- bad and -aster meaning star. So it means bad star.
Click to expand...

2019-05-21 13_10_06-english to grman - Google Search.webp
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I've studied German. The German language (well, Hochdeutsch) has gone through two changes, at the beginning of the 1900s and in 1996.

The changes in 1996 were legally binding. This meant that schools had to follow it, government officials had to follow it, but newspapers did not.

Basically you could impose your will on the language in an official capacity, but not in an unofficial capacity.

It might be possible to do such a thing with the English language, but it's not going to happen, mostly because there are far too many English speaking countries, though if the US and the UK were to do this, then others would probably follow.

However, in case you're wondering where this is going, definitions of words don't have a regulatory body. We can go to different dictionaries and see different definitions for the same thing. Then you have what people think something means, which can often be wildly different to what exists in the dictionaries or to what other people think it means.

This is how things go.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, to use whatever definitions you like.

I'm telling you mine.
Click to expand...

You have a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. How can you communicate effectively if you make up your own definitions of words?
 
zyzygy said:
You have a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. How can you communicate effectively if you make up your own definitions of words?
Click to expand...

It's not me that has this, it's everyone.

How does a person learn the meaning of a word? Usually they learn it just by listening to it within a certain context and then reaffirming this over a number of years. That's how kids learn their native language.

When dictionaries can't all come up with the same answer, how are people going to?

Then when you're dealing with such things like "Communist".

Let's see.

The USSR said it was Communist.

Communism - Wikipedia

Wikipedia says Communism is "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."

Communism | Definition of Communism by Merriam-Webster

"a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"

Wow. So, wikipedia is saying an absense of state, Merriam Webster is saying an authoritarian controlled government. The exact opposite of each other.

"a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably"

But also contradicts itself with a state which has withered away.

Then you have plenty of Americans who's definition of "Communism" is "bad" or "unAmerican" because they have no idea what Communism is, they just know they don't like it because... well because someone told them it was so.

This is how humans communicate. As you said, Humpty Dumpty style, though I rather think Humpty Dumpty is a little more organized.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
It's not me that has this, it's everyone.

How does a person learn the meaning of a word? Usually they learn it just by listening to it within a certain context and then reaffirming this over a number of years. That's how kids learn their native language.

When dictionaries can't all come up with the same answer, how are people going to?

Then when you're dealing with such things like "Communist".

Let's see.

The USSR said it was Communist.

Communism - Wikipedia

Wikipedia says Communism is "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state."

Communism | Definition of Communism by Merriam-Webster

"a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"

Wow. So, wikipedia is saying an absense of state, Merriam Webster is saying an authoritarian controlled government. The exact opposite of each other.

"a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably"

But also contradicts itself with a state which has withered away.

Then you have plenty of Americans who's definition of "Communism" is "bad" or "unAmerican" because they have no idea what Communism is, they just know they don't like it because... well because someone told them it was so.

This is how humans communicate. As you said, Humpty Dumpty style, though I rather think Humpty Dumpty is a little more organized.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia, lol.
 
zyzygy said:
Wikipedia, lol.
Click to expand...

Right, well, I guess if I'm going to have to deal with this kind of crap, better to just not bother.

You don't want a discussion, just tell me, so we can end it.

It's ended. I don't have the patiences for this crap.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
My thoughts exactly. You literally posted something I'd already said with no explanation for why you're doing that.
Click to expand...

You said that post 1945 in Germany fuhrer means Hitler. It still means leader. When were you last in Germany?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Right, well, I guess if I'm going to have to deal with this kind of crap, better to just not bother.

You don't want a discussion, just tell me, so we can end it.

It's ended. I don't have the patiences for this crap.
Click to expand...

Patience is not the word that I would choose. Let's get back on topic. Are there no religious liberals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom