Strange

You said, "there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense" I provided evidence of writing 1,000 years older that were NOT "religious writings and incantations". Also, however little evidence I have provided it is still infinitely more than you. Their religion was no more or less "magic" than any other religion. By the way, can you say which religion, culture, language and/or writing system(s) you are talking about? Or does this apply to every form of pre-literate society, every proto-writing, and every language throughout the world? The word is gobbledygook.

I can't believe I just read that. I have already given other examples from earlier: mainly accounting and administration. I'm not surprised there is little "science" (although how you define that word at this period is debatable). You have provided no evidence for any such "ancient books" (I am assuming you are referring to some imaginary books that precede the known invention of writing, but it is hard to tell with your vague statements) or a change in language. Examples already provided from 3000BC. People have been religious for all of recorded history and, despite your unsupported claims, almost certainly longer. This hasn't stopped the survival of the species. It could be argued it place an important practical role. More unsupported claims. We have their oral histories documented at many stages after the invention of writing, by many different peoples. But I suppose you are going to make another unsubstantiated claim that this were all invented after writing was developed. The word is "gobbledygook". And no. The earliest proto-writings are nothing to do with superstition but trade. That claim is not even worth responding to. Another unsubstantiated claim. Nothing proves you are right. All I have seen is unsupported claims and factually incorrect statements. You have not even said what culture, writing system or languages you are talking about. And yet, apparently, you have read all of them. It would be considered OT here. I’ll start another thread at some point. As it forms the entire basis of your argument, I fail to see how it could be (more) off topic. How can it be immensely valuable if it is always wrong. And, obviously, it isn't always wrong. On many subjects it is a good resource and usually provides good references. I usually only use it as a simple reference for information I know to be correct. Unsubstantiated claim. Oh god. Are we getting into evolution denial now? What next, ancient aliens? There's no logic to YOUR beliefs about ancient times. And no evidence to support it either, apparently.

Not unless you have a novel definition for "physical form". Light is just electromagnetic radiation not something material or solid. There is not an "infinite" amount of space between atoms, but there is some. There are bound together in molecules and solids by the bonds between their electrons. The electric fields of these electrons is what makes something feel solid. When you touch something, it is the electric fields in your hand interacting with the electric field in the object that make it feel solid. So when you put your hands either side of a pillar they are each interacting with (touching) the pillar (not the other hand).

You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed. The oldest written records are about 1,000 years older than that. And entirely comprehensible. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemdet_Nasr#Proto-cuneiform_texts Citation needed. My understanding is that most of the oldest texts are about business, war, genealogy, trade, astronomy, hunting, astrology, agriculture, fishing, story-telling, gossip, administration and some religious matters.

I don't think it is an aversion to enjoying sex as a dislike of public displays/discussion. This makes the words taboo and that is why they are used as swearwords. In the past (and in some other cultures) most swearwords were religious in nature (because it was taboo to defame god). That is why they are called curses or swear words. Once taboo words become swearwords then they lose both their original meaning (no one who says "fuck me!" as an exclamation is expecting it to be treated as an invitation) and, to some extent, their original grammatical function. Hence they come to be used as insults rather than straightforward nouns or verbs. If we didn't have any taboo words, we would soon invent some. It appears to be an essential psychological and linguistic need.

Given this thread is (I think) about communication of information, it is remarkable how difficult it is to work out what you are trying to say. We only have written records after the invention of writing. Rather obviously. We do, however, have written records of things prior to the invention of writing. Little of that is "incomprehensible gobblety gook". I guess most people assume that humans have always been intelligent. And societies have varied in sophistication (I don't know how you define or quantify that). They are generally assumed to have been the same as us. Which ancient writing are you referring to? Indus? Rongo-rongo? Linear A? Other? If you have managed to decode a currently indecipherable script that would be big news that you shouldn't have trouble getting published in an reputable journal. There is no case in which language does not change over time. And people over all of recorded history have though of their version of the language (or, more frequently, a version from the recent past) to be the perfect form and "young people today are ruining it". This is one of the earliest recorded reasons for writing a grammar text! It is almost certain that the invention of writing was not led by farmers. In most cultures, the earliest written symbols seems to be associated with trade, accounting and administration. What makes you think that language then had fewer words than now? From historical linguistics, we have good evidence of the evolution of languages prior to the invention of writing. Although writing had a small effect (on, for example, standardisation of certain forms) it didn't cause the sort of massive change you seem to be suggesting. I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question. All ancient literature? Really? There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of texts and fragments in dozens of scripts in hundreds of languages. And you have read them all? That is pretty impressive. (If true. For some reason, I remain slightly sceptical.) And, yes, most of them make sense. Why shouldn't they? Yes it is. We have written records of oral histories going back thousands of years. Much of it is supported by, for example, archaeological and other evidence. You seem to have little in the way of evidence other than your own beliefs. Evidence they were "highly superstitious"? Evidence that this is a destructive force? Although, oral traditions do use various techniques to ensure that stories are transmitted accurately. The use of verse and song, is an obvious one. They also use repetition and different versions of the same story as a sort of "error checking" mechanism (if we are going to stick with the rather silly computer analogies). Because words retain their old meanings (for some time) after new meanings appear (sick does still mean "sick" to most of us) that is not too big a problem. And the transfer of information between generations (whether written or oral) tends to preserve the older meanings. But the stories also get updated and translated as language changes and populations move, so they are kept contemporary in that way. But of course, errors, misunderstandings can occur in the translation process. Note that we have many societies that still use oral traditions that tell us a lot about how these processes work. Which also seems to argue against cladking's beliefs: many pre-literate, oral societies have been studied. They are just like us.

I can't help. But perhaps you need to say what part of the world you are in?

Then how do you know that "ancient language was wholly distinct. Words didn't vary in definition and meaning was in context like computer code or prairie dog language" and all the other mumbo-jumbo?

It is only the blatant preaching that is irrelevant. This is a science site, after all. Would you expect me to tell you about my favourite movie instead of providing scientific evidence? You need something more compelling than some pretty pictures when there is a mountain of historical evidence that contradicts you. Utter nonsense. And then it goes downhill from there.

Anyone can claim to be an expert. However, some people study the subject, do research, write and refer to peer reviewed journals, etc. In other words, practice science. Other people just make shit up. Guess which category your idea falls into? (There is a clue in the number of references to published research on the web page.) And I don't think anyone is denying that. However, not all languages are related. And it takes more than spotting a few similarities in sound and claimed meaning to determine the relationship. This is why I would refer you to serious linguistics research rather than fabricated nonsense. Hebrew was not the original script nor the original language. The vast majority of languages in the world are not related to Hebrew. There are also a number of writing systems that are completely independent of the Egyptian/Semitic scripts (which are not even the oldest forms of writing). Again, some people have studied the history of writing systems and done serious research. Other people make up nonsense about magic spirals. And so on and so on. It is ignorant nonsense peppered with lies. If I were making claims about religion and, by implication, morality then I would not rely on such dishonest material for support. It doesn't look good. The rest of your post is just irrelevant preaching. Keep it to yourself.

The base sequence consists of groups of three bases. Each group is a "codon" which specifies a particular amino acid to be used in the protein specified by the gene. So your sequence should be a sequence of these triplets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table If you want to model a specific gene, then you will have to find the sequence for that gene. I don't know where you would find that.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there is the same level of ignorance and dishonesty employed by pseudo-linguists as by pseudo-scientists. I am impressed that they managed to get at least one factual error/lie into pretty much every paragraph as far as I read (which wasn't far; the abuse started making me feel rather unwell after a while. There is a field called "historical linguistics" which looks at language change and relationships between languages. There are, of course, similar words in related languages. These are known as cognates. However, it is not enough to just look for words that sound (or, worse, look) similar. It is necessary to understand the history of the words, the types of sound changes that can occur, whether it could be borrowing, and many other factors. So, for example, we know "leaf" and "folio" are not related as they claim. We also know the history of Semitic languages and that, therefore, Hebrew is not the first. We also know that English, for example is in a totally different language family (Indo-European). There are attempts to show how the major families might have been related in the very distant past (a common ancestor for both proto-Semitic and proto-IndoEurpoean, for example) and one of their few references is to Ruhlen's work on this. But (a) this would be millennia before anyone spoke Hebrew and (b) it is not widely accepted by serious linguists (as opposed to people who, say, make stuff up). You can of course, invent fantasy relationships between words in different languages if you are prepared to stretch what you consider similar, and be sufficiently flexible with the meanings (both these fallacies are on display in that page). From that page: "a person who knows Hebrew well can fully understand English, Basque or Swahili." This is such shameless dishonesty, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A quick glance suggests that is basically accurate (if incomplete). I suppose the Big Lie in this case is labelling all the early Semitic scripts as "Hebrew". It would be just as accurate to label them Greek, Latin or even Thai. Another highly relevant video for you:

Hmmm... Actually, I thought there was something else wrong. Although the first Semitic language (Sumerian) was written using cuneiform, this was not the origin of the Hebrew alphabet, all the other Semitic scripts and the vast majority of writing systems in the world (including this one). So I see even less reason for picking out Hebrew as "the chosen one". Your god apparently designed a writing system based on pictures of birds and animals for use by a polytheistic culture, thousands of years before anyone had heard of "yahweh", which would evolve into hundreds and hundreds of different alphabets, syllabaries and abdads including one tiny dead-end branch called Hebrew that somehow involves magic spirals. Right. And yet you, with little knowledge of the subject, find this guff utterly convincing. While, on the other hand, dismissing a theory supported by literally mountains of evidence based on a "gut feeling". Excuse me if I find your arguments utterly worthless. p.s. That was the first one I thought to check before looking at your images. My immediate reaction was that the best match to shin was the Ugaritic U. This is certainly a better match than the S. <shrug> But note that this cuneiform script is unrelated to the Sumerian and Akkadian scripts. It may be another branch in the same extend family from which Hebrew hangs like a tiny leaf, which could account for some of the similarities. But that is not certain and the apparent similarities could be down to chance. It is certainly not what Hebrew is derived from. At best they are very distant cousins.

If by "this" you mean "singularity" then you are wrong. It is a well defined, mathematical concept. And that isn't it. Citation required. I suspect that is because we don't have words to describe things that don't make any sense. The rest is meaningless. You don't have a theory. You don't even have a coherent idea. Sometimes I feel able to congratulate people for their imagination but in this case it seems like just a jumble of words.

Good grief. There may be a better phrase but I don't know what it might be as it isn't clear what you are trying to describe. What are the "positive/negative" you refer to? When and where are they created? What does this have to do with the creation and/or destruction of matter? Why do they fail to destruct (sic)? And how do they create 2 new particles? And what are these particles? How can their dimensions (size?) be larger than the particles themselves are? Why? Or, even, how? 1. The universe is observed to be of non-zero size and therefore not a singularity. 2. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe so, again, it cannot be of zero size. 3. The big bang theory does not say the universe was ever zero size. But apart from all that ... it really makes no sense.

They are very obviously NOT "the same exact letters". Also, the gradual evolution from early scripts to all branches of semitic writing are well documented and do not involve the sort of nonsense you are describing. Again: why pick on Hebrew as it is just one of a large number of scripts that developed from the same origins. Oh, I know, because it was used to write a book you are fond of. But other scripts were used to write other books that are equally important to other people. So why weren't they created by magic spirals? Also note that the Sumerian language is not a semitic language and that the writing system pre-dates the writing of your fave book. Writing has been invented a few times around the world. Why pick on this one as being "special"? (Oh, yes, I remember; your favourite fairy tales, etc...)

To put it another way, what is a singularity?

Remotely controlled roaches could search for survivors

Hot and dense. (A bit like Jessica Simpson.)

There are so many things wrong with this idea, it is hard to know where to start. But a couple of the more obvious points: 1. Why the Hebrew alphabet? After all, the original texts were not written in Hebrew nor using the Hebrew alphabet. This is almost as intelligent as arguments that God speaks English or Latin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ 2. The history of the various Semitic writing systems is extremely well documented from almost 3,000BC. We know that no magic spirals were involved in producing the Hebrew abjad.

I certainly don't believe your unsupported claims. Again, I am not making a claim: you are. I am not claiming time does exist; I am just pointing out the complete lack of any support for your claim and the rather obvious flaws in such a claim. Of course motion exists. I fail to see the relevance (apart from the fact that motion is a change in position over time). The existence of the past means time exists, no? But how can that be if time doesn't exist? OK, so there is absolutely no reason to accept your claim. I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM. I didn't say that. "Was"? Doesn't that require time? I am not making a claim so I do not need to prove anything. You haven't provided any evidence that time doesn't exist (you have conceded that such a thing cannot be done). And no, because I am not making a claim, so the burden still rests with you. Maybe the problem is the meaning of the word "exist". You seem quite happy to refer to time, use time, and measure time. Well, when I shake the box, it rattles. So yes. But I have no idea how that is relevant.

If those things all co-existed that would be evidence that time didn't exist. However, as we all know, this isn't possible. Ergo, it appears to me that time exists as the thing that keeps those events apart.

A video that is a sequence of images over time? Your post 4 minutes after mine? But again, you are the one making a claim. The burden is on you to provide evidence or even a rational argument. So far, all I have seen is: "time doesn't exist". What if, strange as it may seem, I don't believe you?

As time doesn't exist, I assume you mean, "I am detecting those movements with my eyes .. I am not touching them ... my eyes are detecting them..." Odd, that a sequential medium is used to disprove the existence of the very thing that allows a sequence of images...

I am not the one making unsupported claims. The burden of proof is on you. My "it just does" is just an example of an obvious counter-argument using exactly the same level of logic and evidence as you and myuncle (i.e. none, in case you miss the point). I find your opinion mildly puzzling but the certainty with which you state it, with no apparent reason, extremely odd. It seems to be purely a matter of faith. I'm afraid I can't (easily) watch videos. However, as I have seen movies featuring zombies and aliens, I am slightly surprised the medium would be considered a scientific resource. But I am curious: how long is the video (you know, in minutes and seconds)? After all, I don't know if I have time to watch it.