On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:07:37 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
>
> On Tue Jun 6 14:35 , "D. F. Siemens, Jr." sent:
>
> >I stand by my point that one, two, many cannot be the basis for
> >arithmetic. That language evolves or changes otherwise is not
> germane.
>
>
> Well, we will have to disagree about that one then.
>
>
> >The aborigines I noted will borrow their numerals from Portuguese,
> now
> >that they have been exposed. Those in use in the West go back to
> remote
> >antiquity, since all the smaller ones are homologs.
>
> So??? We borrowed them from the Arabs, who may have borrowed them
> from the Indians.
> In the west, we didn't know about zero until the crusades.
>
Don't confuse notation with numbers. We got the place system from India
through the Arabs. But people were counting much earlier.
>
>
>
>
> But the terms for
> >"hundred" apparently came later, for there are distinct terms in at
> least
> >two groupings. I recognize that sometimes common terms are made to
> refer
> >to new notions, like the Greek /hyle/, a term for wood which became
> the
> >term for matter as the ultimate substrate. But all the changes
> under
> >heaven will not change the fact that one, two, many won't support
> >arithmetic.
> >
> >If you want to get technical, number theory can do with less than
> the
> >three terms. Peano needed only zero and successor to generate the
> number
> >sequence, though he needed the sophistication of mathematical
> induction.
>
> Mathematical induction is no more sophisticated than that used by
> hunter gatherers
> to determine where the prey went. We in the 20th and 21st century
> have this idea
> that the ancients and primitive people are mental degenerates. They
> aren't.
>
>
>
> >
> >Comparing Babylonian measures with Hebrew to deny that the latter
> >specified a long time is questionable. The text does not match a
> >Babylonian source in time unless it is later than Moses, for Moses
> grew
> >up in Egypt, centuries removed from the Mesopotamian roots.
>
> You know, this is just crazy. You claim that the Bible taught a
> relatively long age
> for the earth by comparison with other ANE cultures, I provide a
> counter example,
> and you deny that it has any impact. I guess evidence has no impact
> on your
> theories, then?
>
> Once again, David, you, not have ignored the question I have asked.
> I am amazed at
> how old-earthers who don't want the Bible to contain history in the
> earliest
> accounts, refuse to answer this question.
>
>
> Let me reverse the question. How WRONG does God have to be before
> you quit giving him A+'s for his ability to communicate theological
> truth?
>
> Can a Mormon claim that his book is true theology while at the same
> time bad
> history?
>
> It amazes me how people act as if no one ever asked this question. I
> usually try to
> answer whatever question, no matter how difficult it is. Can you do
> the favor of
> answering the above two questions?
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 7 14:01:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 07 2006 - 14:01:11 EDT