Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Sep 3, 2017.
Is that the best you've got for arguments you don't agree with?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I wasn't aware that you had an argument.
Yes you were. You quoted it. And your response was content-free.
As it stands, there are arguments for both sides of the whale/fish issue, neither one having much to stand on, without some evidence. Both are at least plausible, and neither are ruled out by sheer willpower.
Yours depend on ancient man being very stupid. Didn't happen that way.
It would only be "stupid" if you were thinking of modern people. Why would you do this? This was 800 years before Christ - a half millennium before Aristotle.
You have no argument that they made the distinction of how different sea creatures breathed. As others have pointed out, the concept of "mammal" wasn't even invented for more than another millennium.
Note, BTW that it is not necessary to assert that the philosophers of the time did not know the difference, simply that the distinction was not exactly germaine to the parable.
See? You think 3000 years has made us that much smarter? That's stupid.
Quite. Especially since the Greek translation of the Hebrew, which other translations relied on, used a word that signified any large sea creature or "monster", without any regard to its biology.
(One might venture to think that the existence of such a word might be evidence that the Greek people of the time did not discriminate that much on grounds of biology. That does not make them stupid, of course - it would just be a reflection of their priorities for describing the world.)
It is you who first introduced the word "stupid" and you who continue to insert it. I have made no such claim, regardless of how many times you try to put the word in my mouth.
You've been beating on a strawman of your own creation. And that's because you have no support for your argument.
Not stupid, just different.
Okay, you're done.
Different enough that they could notice what drowned in what medium?
Different enough not to insist that that was the be-all and end-all only possible way to classify things.
I wasn't the one that was confused.
Yup. Just like this thread.
Well, you seem to be confused about the fact that the ancients don't have to be stupid just because they used a different method of classification than you do.
I see you didn't read any of my posts.
I read all of your posts. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to reply to them.
You're wrong in assuming that the ancients "would have" used a certain system of classification just because you think it's a sensible system. They could be just as sensible as you and use a completely different system.
Hee. At this rate, Gawdzilla is going end up catatonic. He'll have no one left to speak to except those who agree with him.
I wouldn't want wrongness to be my friend.
Separate names with a comma.