Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The continuation of art styles through a speculated flood
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 61 of 141 (141169)
09-09-2004 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by joshua221
09-08-2004 7:03 PM


You are not comparing the same types of thing. Similarity in style by those conditioned or trained similarly would be expected.
What is less reasonable is the total abandonment of prior training and cultural influences. Take any group of 100 artists in any medium. Train those artists in an art form contrary to one they know. Even if their first attempts are pure mimicry, eventually, their prior experiences begin to color their output.
Let us say you go to India and learn to play the sitar. What people are asking us to believe is that after learning to play the sitar, nothing distinct from your guitar performance will ever make it into your music again.
The reverse is also true. When people of disparate cultures interact with other cultural influences, their culture adapts to new influences. Most of us know that it is not easy to find US style pizza in Italy, fortune cookies in China, California rolls in Japan, US style Mexican food in Mexico, etc.
This is not a case of someone making a piece of art that looks a bit like some other piece of art. What we have here is the claim that God’s chosen people, after being saved from world-wide destruction, spread across the face of the planet. Then, where they found the remains of pagan cultures, they adopt them wholly and in every case abandon their previous culture and belief in God. Further, they adopt the tools of the new culture and stop using the tools of their previous culture (even when those tools are more advanced).
Even were someone to stumble across the art of another, it is at very least highly questionable that these travelers would trade in their familiar tools to take up strange unfamiliar ones. That they would switch over and use the same pigments, same clays, same stones, same chisels, same stone cutting techniques, same techniques for moving the stones, same proportions, same esthetics, and on and on. That they would do this strains credulity, that they would do this without introducing elements or tools from their own cultural background is as far as I know, completely unheard of.
Can you think of even one verifiable instance of this happening anywhere at anytime in all of the history of humankind, let alone over hundreds if not thousands of years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2004 7:03 PM joshua221 has not replied

portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 141 (141201)
09-09-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object
09-07-2004 9:16 PM


Evil, Condemned Styles
Ok, for now let's skip any Japanese Connection and focus on Greek connections.
In message 41 you say:
Willowtree writes:
Who said 'they' had no connection to the Greeks ?
Greek culture was a simultaneously developing civilization along side of Hebrew. S[h]emite immigration from Egypt into Greece is responsible for the foundational origins of their magnificent culture.
I have another question for you. Why would any flood survivors pick up any action related to other cultures?
These cultures actions (including Greek artistic styles) were condemned by God and resulted in the Flood, itself. As stated in Gen 6:5 - 8 (NIV):
quote:
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD .
"Every inclination" of these other cultures were evil.
If Noah and his family were apart from these folks before this huge sign of God's wrath would they really pick up the "evil" artistic styles afterward?
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-07-2004 9:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-09-2004 7:19 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 63 of 141 (141310)
09-09-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by portmaster1000
09-09-2004 11:38 AM


Re: Evil, Condemned Styles
I have another question for you. Why would any flood survivors pick up any action related to other cultures?
This question assumes Greek culture was developed and flourishing.
How could this be when Greek culture/civilization did not begin to form until 1100 to 1300 years AFTER the Flood ?
This chronology renders the remainder of your post irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by portmaster1000, posted 09-09-2004 11:38 AM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 09-09-2004 7:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 68 by portmaster1000, posted 09-10-2004 1:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2004 2:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 64 of 141 (141311)
09-09-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
09-09-2004 7:19 PM


Re: Evil, Condemned Styles
The Minoan civilization goes back to about 2,500 BC, which would be slightly earlier than the biblical flood date. Some of the settlements on Asia Minor are even older.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-09-2004 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 2:26 PM Rei has replied

joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 141 (141322)
09-09-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
09-09-2004 2:03 AM


quote:
If you think that's a serious rebuttal, you simply don't understand the argument.
No, not a rebuttal, rather a reasoning contrary to his.
quote:
You're trying to argue that they saw all this art on the ground, copied it, and then forgot that they had seen it all over the ground?
I said nothing consisting of them actually seeing the art. Ideas that are alike are common.

"Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
Ephesians 5:14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2004 2:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2004 11:00 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 67 by Trae, posted 09-10-2004 3:42 AM joshua221 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 141 (141325)
09-09-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by joshua221
09-09-2004 9:29 PM


No, not a rebuttal, rather a reasoning contrary to his.
That's what a rebuttal is, Prophex.
I said nothing consisting of them actually seeing the art.
So, just at random, they happened to forget everything they knew about Hebrew art and invent, again totally at random, a style of art exactly like stonework buried in the very ground they were standing in but hadn't seen?
That doesn't even strain credulity. It's a million light-years from being a tenable conjecture. If you think that's at all a reasonable explanation for what we're talking about, then again, you just don't understand what we're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 09-09-2004 9:29 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 2:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 67 of 141 (141348)
09-10-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by joshua221
09-09-2004 9:29 PM


quote:
I said nothing consisting of them actually seeing the art. Ideas that are alike are common.
Give us one example of an entire culture doing this without introducing anything different into the finished piece of art.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 09-09-2004 9:29 PM joshua221 has not replied

portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 141 (141406)
09-10-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
09-09-2004 7:19 PM


Re: Evil, Condemned Styles
I had thought when you made the connection with the Hebrew and Greek cultures (message 41) you were bundling the Cyclades in with the Greeks. Hmm, I guess not.
Are you then rejecting the dating of Rrhain's Cyclades example? If so, maybe you could help in answering my questions in message 38.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-09-2004 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 2:18 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 69 of 141 (141418)
09-10-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jazzns
09-08-2004 12:25 AM


Jazzns writes:
Myth - A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
So even describing something that actually happened can be a myth. You seem to think that a myth must be totally based on imagination. That is simply not the definition of a myth.
It does not matter what definition you stipulate onto the word "myth", its reportive and emotive meaning define it to be understood as something that is not true/never happened.
Then when questioned about this convoluted definition and its application to describe evidence which supports a claimed event you simply assert "myth" to mean opposite of what it means.
IOW, "myth" means "not true" unless challenged when it suddenly means "could be true".
This is called rhetoric/misuse of logic also known as the bullshit that lawyers are trained to master.
Jesus said "Let your yea mean yea and your nay mean nay".
Straight thinkers cannot be deceived by your nonsense.
Well, we could read what they write and decide that there really was ogres and such but since we do live in an age where we are a little less gullible then that we can use our knowledge that we have gained throughout history to try and decipher what real life elements are represented by the myth.
This is basically your reply to my accusation that this generation of evos are objective and every ancient to be defective.
Your arrogant attitude which thinks you are the shit of all time and every area of knowledge is filtered and washed of anything which contradicts your narrow naturalist worldview. This is called dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 09-08-2004 12:25 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 09-10-2004 3:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 70 of 141 (141419)
09-10-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by portmaster1000
09-10-2004 1:34 PM


Re: Evil, Condemned Styles
Portmaster:
I do not know the answers to your questions.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by portmaster1000, posted 09-10-2004 1:34 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 71 of 141 (141420)
09-10-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
09-09-2004 11:00 PM


That doesn't even strain credulity. It's a million light-years from being a tenable conjecture.
Good description of those who assert worldwide flood accounts to be a local event in that civilizations history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2004 11:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 1:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 78 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 1:44 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 72 of 141 (141422)
09-10-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rei
09-09-2004 7:28 PM


The Great Flood: 3145 BC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 09-09-2004 7:28 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rei, posted 09-10-2004 6:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2004 2:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 73 of 141 (141428)
09-10-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2004 2:16 PM


WILLOWTREE likes to invent definitions.
WILLOWTREE writes:
It does not matter what definition you stipulate onto the word "myth",
its reportive and emotive meaning define it to be understood as
something that is not true/never happened.
You are actually re defining myth here for YOUR purposes and you accuse me of twisting the definition for mine!?! I got my definition out of the dictionary. Where did you get yours? Was it from your own head? Who is using rhetoric now?
WILLOWTREE writes:
Then when questioned about this convoluted definition and its application to describe evidence which supports a claimed event you simply assert "myth" to mean opposite of what it means.
No I do not "assert" anything. I am using the definition of myth provided by the dictionary. Furthermore, it only means the "opposite" based on your made up definition of myth.
WILLOWTREE writes:
IOW, "myth" means "not true" unless challenged when it suddenly means "could be true".
No. It means that the myth was written to describe "aspects of the natural world" by definition. A myth is only totally based on imagination by YOUR MADE UP definition. "Straight thinkers" don't make up their own definitions for things that are already well defined.
WILLOWTREE writes:
and every ancient to be defective
Not defective. Not neanderthals. Just people who didn't understand what was going on and why. Maybe 1000 years from now people will say, "oh those 20th century folk with their silly understanding of quantum mechanics." Just because we now have the scientific method dosen't make us better than people in the past. It just means we know more about the world because time has passed and humanity has LEARNED THINGS.
WILLOWTREE writes:
Your arrogant attitude which thinks you are the shit of all time and every area of knowledge is filtered and washed of anything which contradicts your narrow naturalist worldview. This is called dogma.
I am sure glad that I have you WILLOWTREE to tell me what I think of myself and to make blank accusations about my dogma. Not only that, I am so happy that you are here to correct our definitions of words so that we can understand the truth. It is also nice to know that you assume that I am a naturalist. Dosen't seem like a naturalist would sign his posts with "God bless" now would he? But anyway, thanks for pigeon holing me based on your speculation just because I am comfortable enough with my Christianity to accept that Genesis is a myth and that God is powerfull enough to use that myth to bring his word to us. Tell me, does a non-literal interpretation of Genesis change its meaning or purpose?
You still haven't addressed or retracted your statement about how all evolutionists argue against anything catastrophic. I gave you some examples of people in this thread who seem that they are at least on the opposite side of the YE camp that seem to believe that catastrophic things happen. You also still claim that I am guilty of rhetoric/misuse of logic and so far have not provided a valid example except for that fact that I use dictionary definitions.
God Bless,

-Nasser

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 2:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 5:36 PM Jazzns has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 74 of 141 (141460)
09-10-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jazzns
09-10-2004 3:04 PM


It is also nice to know that you assume that I am a naturalist. Dosen't seem like a naturalist would sign his posts with "God bless" now would he?
IOW, by your logic if a person invokes the name of God then they represent Him.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf)
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
My point is that your "God bless" doesn't mean a god damn thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 09-10-2004 3:04 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Jazzns, posted 09-10-2004 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 75 of 141 (141471)
09-10-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2004 5:36 PM


This is already way off topic. I appologize to everyone. This will be the last that I bother with WILLOWTREE in this string of posts. It is obvious to me that regardless of what I say I will be misinterpreted and misquoted. WILLOWTREE, honestly, I never claimed to "represent" God. If you want to believe that is what I said to make yourself feel better or superior to me then go ahead. All I was saying is that you assumed things that were not true about me. I am not a naturalist and never said I was. In fact I gave hints to the contrary to the fact that I believe in God by my closing statement of "God Bless". Not to say that naturalists cannot believe in God but it has been my experience that real naturalists generally do not. (notice I said generally) The point is, in this string of posts you have done nothing but assume stuff. You assume that all "Evos" do not believe in catastraphy and that "Evos" are claiming that they are smarter than people from ancient civilization.
You assumed that I was illogical because my statements were contrary to your belief. You assumed a definition of myth that does not coincide with the actual definition. You assumed I was a naturalist. You assumed that I am trying to represent God by the fact that I am calling you on all your assumptions. Comparing me to Hitler does not prove me wrong nor is it a very Christ like thing to do. If you wish to have a real discussion with me then please do not respond to me with attacks on my person or my faith. If that is your only method of adequatly addressing my claims about your assumptions then don't be suprised if I do not give you the time of day.
As for the topic. I would like to get an answer to one of my previous posts. How much in error can our dating of the art styles be? I am trying to argue this point with a friend of mine and her response is simply that "we" must be dating the art wrong and it really is all post flood. While I can imagine that "we" might be able to be in error by a factor of 10s of years it dosen't seem possible that we can be wrong by that much. Certainly not enough to push something like these civilizations into the same time frame as the Roman empire or something. Am I wrong? How do we know our margin for error when dating these things of historic significance?
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2004 5:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 09-11-2004 6:33 AM Jazzns has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024