# Talking Donkey Thread



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Some folks have expressed interest in a thread (discussion) specifically about this topic. In all seriousness, I would like to officially get it going.

Let me start by saying that I believe in a God who created the entire universe and everything in it from nothing. So, I might be crazy enough to believe that a talking donkey would be no problem for such a being, no matter what physiological, scientific, or logical issues might be presented.

For the sake of an interesting conversation, I am willing to stick to logical discussion through the course of this thread.

So, what is so crazy about a donkey that could talk?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Some folks have expressed interest in a thread (discussion) specifically about this topic. In all seriousness, I would like to officially get it going.
> 
> Let me start by saying that I believe in a God who created the entire universe and everything in it from nothing. So, I might be crazy enough to believe that a talking donkey would be no problem for such a being, no matter what physiological, scientific, or logical issues might be presented.
> 
> ...



He can make the universe,  he can create everything in it, he can make a donkey talk but it is beyond his capabilities to write his own guide book and make it clear to all who he is and why everyone should worship him. Is it too simple a task?
Since the latter is beyond his capabilities I have serious doubts about the former.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> He can make the universe,  he can create everything in it, he can make a donkey talk but it is beyond his capabilities to write his own guide book and make it clear to all who he is and why everyone should worship him. Is it too simple a task?
> Since the latter is beyond his capabilities I have serious doubts about the former.



Let's stick to talking donkeys.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Let's stick to talking donkeys.



Well I am. I stated why I have my doubts that donkeys can talk or have ever talked.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well I am. I stated why I have my doubts that donkeys can talk or have ever talked.



No, you stated your disbelief at my belief. I want you to participate, but I have chosen to only discuss logically. I know this is against my nature, but I think it is the best way to do this.


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> So, what is so crazy about a donkey that could talk?



Nothing really.God opened the donkeys mouth and he talked....Talking donkeys are cool


----------



## JFS (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> No, you stated your disbelief at my belief. I want you to participate, but I have chosen to only discuss logically.



I think BH has it right.   You've tried to frame this as "A can create anything.  Can A create B?".   Your antecedent leads to your consequent, but the issue is really the validity of your conditional proof assumption.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> No, you stated your disbelief at my belief. I want you to participate, but I have chosen to only discuss logically. I know this is against my nature, but I think it is the best way to do this.



You laid the groundwork for why you think a donkey could be made to talk and I laid the groundwork for why I do not think a donkey could talk.
Your reason for a talking donkey is God, nothing else right? I believe God nor anything else can or has made a donkey talk.
You assert impossible things that you think your God is capable of yet overlook the simple things that he cannot do. These things would save his creation from killing each other solely in his name but instead he'll make donkey talk and everyone on the planet should believe it because ONLY a supernatural force such as a God could do such a thing.
Your whole discussion is based on "God can do anything because he is God". That is not much of a logical discussion right off the bat. Please hold yourself to the same "logic" standards that you want to be had in your discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

Logically, then.  How could a donkey talk?  It would have to have it's physical properties somehow altered.  That's the first issue.  How could that happen?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

> Since the latter is beyond his capabilities I have serious doubts about the former.



Would you please show me your evidence that supports that he's not capable of writing his own guidebook?

He did it twice in the OT.  I showed you mine....show me yours.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Would you please show me your evidence that supports that he's not capable of writing his own guidebook?
> 
> He did it twice in the OT.  I showed you mine....show me yours.




Hey!  This is Ted's thread about donkeys.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

I found this explanation of how people produce the sounds we call speech:

http://cehs.unl.edu/fluency/howtalk.shtml

Can we agree that this is how it works?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

> Logically, then. How could a donkey talk? It would have to have it's physical properties somehow altered. That's the first issue. How could that happen?



I agree with this statement with one alteration.  If you replace "logically" with another word like "physically" or "naturally", then it is a valid statement to me.

Let's transfer this to another example.  How would a bush speak?  It can't make noise at all!  

What I'm getting at is that there probably is no "natural" way for a donkey to speak clearly in a human voice.  He's not built to do it.  But that's what makes it spectacular.  I mentioned this in the other thread....if all donkeys had the ability to speak, would it have gotten anybody's attention when that one did?

This all comes back to the normal argument back and forth.  Christians are required to accept that the super-natural exists.  God can do things that we cannot explain.  If he can't, he's not God.

In a sense, this is really a pointless discussion.  The only possible explanation for how the donkey spoke in words is God.  He didn't call Rosetta Stone and get a CD to learn Hebrew on the fly.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I agree with this statement with one alteration.  If you replace "logically" with another word like "physically" or "naturally", then it is a valid statement to me.
> 
> Let's transfer this to another example.  How would a bush speak?  It can't make noise at all!
> 
> ...



Can you postulate on how it might have happened?

(One comment on the burning bush and then back to donkeys.  I think it must have been voices in his head.)

So, let's think this think through.  To make a donkey actually talk it would have to have it's parts rearranged temporarily.  True?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Can you postulate on how it might have happened?
> 
> (One comment on the burning bush and then back to donkeys.  I think it must have been voices in his head.)
> 
> So, let's think this think through.  To make a donkey actually talk it would have to have it's parts rearranged temporarily.  True?



Not necessarily, God could have made the donkey talk without rearranging anything. God's miracles do not have to work within the laws of nature.

If you would like pure speculation, then God could have given the donkey a mouth exactly like a human, just long enough to speak.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not necessarily, God could have made the donkey talk without rearranging anything. God's miracles do not have to work within the laws of nature.



So, no breath control?  No tongue modulation? No vocal chords?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So, no breath control?  No tongue modulation? No vocal chords?



I honestly have no idea. Everything you just named could have happened.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not necessarily, God could have made the donkey talk without rearranging anything. God's miracles do not have to work within the laws of nature.
> 
> If you would like pure speculation, then God could have given the donkey a mouth exactly like a human, just long enough to speak.



That would be sumthin', huh?  Why wouldn't that be written down?  "Yea did it's donkey face become that of a man." or some such thing.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That would be sumthin', huh?  Why wouldn't that be written down?  "Yea did it's donkey face become that of a man." or some such thing.



I don't know, like I have said before, the bible is not a science book, so the explaination of how the donkey could talk is actually pretty irrelevant to the story.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 1, 2012)

who was it in new york that said his dog told him to do it ? famous serial killer ,was that god using the dog to talk to him,or are we talking about schizophrenia....if your mind wants to hear something or see something you can make it do that....


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

> Can you postulate on how it might have happened?



I can.  But, I'll admit...I don't know.  What I think is simply God caused him to speak.  He spoke the world and everything else into existence.  He is not subject to the limitations or nature or its laws.  So....he wanted the donkey to speak...it spoke.  I don't think he changed it physically.  



> (One comment on the burning bush and then back to donkeys. I think it must have been voices in his head.)



If the Bible is a hoax and God doesn't really exist...then you're probably right.



> So, let's think this think through. To make a donkey actually talk it would have to have it's parts rearranged temporarily. True?



Actually, I think I answered this above before I read the last part of your post.  No...I don't think he would have.  In order for it to happen "naturally", yes, that would be required.  Super-naturally?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

> was that god using the dog to talk to him,or are we talking about schizophrenia....if your mind wants to hear something or see something you can make it do that....



True statement.  But, if that's what happened, then there was an absolute epidemic of schizophrenia during OT history.  There were LOTS of people hearing voices back then if that's the explanation.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> True statement.  But, if that's what happened, then there was an absolute epidemic of schizophrenia during OT history.  There were LOTS of people hearing voices back then if that's the explanation.



good drugs or elixirs

i would like to talk to a donkey or a bush and it talk back


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> i would like to talk to a donkey or a bush and it talk back



I think we all could agree it would be a cool thing to see....


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

I just don't see what the big deal is about a talking donkey.  

Bread falling from the sky for days?
Water just randomly turns into wine?
People die and come back to life?
Ears get cut off....and then put back on?
Leprosy goes away because some dude took a dip in a river 7 times?
Sight is restored just because somebody said for it to come back?

I mean...seriously.  The donkey is not the issue.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

> I think we all could agree it would be a cool thing to see....



If y'all got something that will make a donkey talk to me....keep this on the DL....but I'll take a dime of that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 1, 2012)

Apart from a miracle, no donkey can talk. And a miracle in itself is hard to prove because probability is how historians work. The very nature of a miracle is that it is not probable, therfore no way to prove the probability of it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> If y'all got something that will make a donkey talk to me....keep this on the DL....but I'll take a dime of that.





Yep, I imagine time spent in the outdoors would take on a whole new perspective.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

You got that right buddy.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Apart from a miracle, no donkey can talk. And a miracle in itself is hard to prove because probability is how historians work. The very nature of a miracle is that it is not probable, therfore no way to prove the probability of it.



OK, but there is precedence that God uses natural phenomena in conjunction with miracles.  He doesn't speak to people through a glowing orb or a dragon, He uses a bush and a donkey.  If a donkey talked to you would the first thing you do be to engage it in conversation?  

I don't know what Ted is up to in starting this thread but as for myself, when I ask about a talking donkey, I want to know how it did it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I just don't see what the big deal is about a talking donkey.
> 
> Bread falling from the sky for days?
> Water just randomly turns into wine?
> ...



Shall we discuss these things in independent threads or all at once?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 1, 2012)

Don't derail the thread.  I was just pointing out that the donkey is surely not the biggest "hurdle".....right?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't derail the thread.  I was just pointing out that the donkey is surely not the biggest "hurdle".....right?



Honestly?  It's "up there" for me.  The other miracles kind of play on fear and I can understand that.  The donkey......it's just silly.   

If I was reading a manual about fixing my truck and everything was going along fine, all the instructions were accurate and clear and then all of a sudden it instructed me to get a torque wrench and sprinkle it with fairie dust, I think I would be a little suspicious of the rest of the manual.  How much more suspicious should I be of a manual that is supposed to fix my life that's absolutely FILLED with "fairie dust" talk?  But this thread is about talking donkeys.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How much more suspicious should I be of a manual that is supposed to fix my life that's absolutely FILLED with "fairie dust" talk?  But this thread is about talking donkeys.



A little bit of that dust went a LONG way for me, brother.  Just sayin'.  

You can get more out of it when you don't hang up on the minutia.  Is the whole idea of "love your neighbors" and "feed the poor," "living above reproach," etc. affected by whether or not a donkey actually talked?  I am looking for what the purpose of the story is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Would you please show me your evidence that supports that he's not capable of writing his own guidebook?
> 
> He did it twice in the OT.  I showed you mine....show me yours.



WHAT???
I'm gonna need some of that proof you are always taking about not just your word.

He had man write the guidebook. It is chock full of errors, contradictions, historical innacuracies and geographical errors. If ya want something done right ya gotta do it yourself.


----------



## JFS (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I mean...seriously.  The donkey is not the issue.



Hooray! Something we can agree on.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Would you please show me your evidence that supports that he's not capable of writing his own guidebook?
> 
> He did it twice in the OT.  I showed you mine....show me yours.



HF, I know we discussed this earlier in other threads but let me explain myself again. The reason I continue to talk about the stuff in the Bible is because I have read it. I have read it numerous times and I still reference it a lot. I have found that it's contents are not reliable enough to be considered fact(among other things). If I did, we would not have these conversations. I now look outside of the Bible to find something that backs up what is inside. You are going to have to give me examples outside of the Bible. Simply stating that God wrote two things in the Bible by referencing the OT just does not qualify.
The "God did it" works in forums above where like minded people agree with that statement. Here in the AAA we are looking for an apologetic response. Something that might explain it without the usual Bible quotes. We are beyond having those quotes as explanations. We require more and hope that you or others can explain it differently by using facts and logic.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 1, 2012)

I wonder about the context of the larger story.  Balaam was asked to put a curse on the Israelites.  God came to him in a dream and told him not to, for they were his blessed.  The king entices Balaam with more wealth. So Balaam prays again to see if God will change his mind.  God gets ANGRY at Balaam, he already had his answer!  God sends an angel to KILL Balaam, and in steps the donkey.  The donkey sees the angel, starts acting funny, Balaam beats it, God makes it talk to reason with Balaam?  

Why go through all that effort to kill someone?  Couldn't God just snap his fingers?  Why would an all powerful being go through all this petty stuff?  Why the anger?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Some folks have expressed interest in a thread (discussion) specifically about this topic. In all seriousness, I would like to officially get it going.
> 
> Let me start by saying that I believe in a God who created the entire universe and everything in it from nothing. So, I might be crazy enough to believe that a talking donkey would be no problem for such a being, no matter what physiological, scientific, or logical issues might be presented.
> 
> ...



Nothing, provided it brays to context.  A talking donkey is ok on a pilgrimage and where donkey's roam and where someone is willing to listen to what is said, but right down crazy most any other way. The subject is  "socrazy" right?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

JFS said:


> I think BH has it right.   You've tried to frame this as "A can create anything.  Can A create B?".   Your antecedent leads to your consequent, but the issue is really the validity of your conditional proof assumption.



I also said I would discuss it logically, with my beleifs put aside. Did ya miss that?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You laid the groundwork for why you think a donkey could be made to talk and I laid the groundwork for why I do not think a donkey could talk.
> Your reason for a talking donkey is God, nothing else right? I believe God nor anything else can or has made a donkey talk.
> You assert impossible things that you think your God is capable of yet overlook the simple things that he cannot do. These things would save his creation from killing each other solely in his name but instead he'll make donkey talk and everyone on the planet should believe it because ONLY a supernatural force such as a God could do such a thing.
> Your whole discussion is based on "God can do anything because he is God". That is not much of a logical discussion right off the bat. Please hold yourself to the same "logic" standards that you want to be had in your discussion.



I am sorry I did not say it more clearly BH. I won't argue my beliefs in this thread (aside from the OP). Just logically.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I found this explanation of how people produce the sounds we call speech:
> 
> http://cehs.unl.edu/fluency/howtalk.shtml
> 
> Can we agree that this is how it works?



I agree that this is a good explanation of how it works. 

What pieces of the physical puzzle does the donkey lack? He has sinuses, tongue, lips, teeth, lungs, and I assume a diaphragm. I don't know that much about donkey anatomy, but I bet it is similar to a deer's. I have been through a deer's diaphragm many times, so I assume a donkey has one too.

So, the donkey has the physical requirements of speech. In fact, they have their very own language. Donkeys make a multitude of vocalizations to communicate their donkey speak to other donkeys. I would wager that horses also understand what is on a donkey's mind when he vocalizes donkey talk.

Parrots have no lips or teeth, but perform the vocalization of human words quite frequently. So I don't think it is a physical problem at all. Does anyone dispute that donkeys have all the phjysical tools to vocalize, and have their own "donkey language" that is somewhat complex?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree that this is a good explanation of how it works.
> 
> What pieces of the physical puzzle does the donkey lack? He has sinuses, tongue, lips, teeth, lungs, and I assume a diaphragm. I don't know that much about donkey anatomy, but I bet it is similar to a deer's. I have been through a deer's diaphragm many times, so I assume a donkey has one too.
> 
> ...



If you by vocalize you mean bray and Hee-Haw then yes they can do those things.  I don't think a donkey has the right equipment, physically or mentally to say the things that it said to Baal.  We can go around and get expert testimony if you like.  I'm sure I can find a vet who would be able to address talking donkeys.  Would you like to do the same and we can compare notes?

Here's some interesting info on how parrots speak:

http://askville.amazon.com/parrots-speak-mimic/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7222240

Review it at your leisure and let me know if it makes sense to you?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you by vocalize you mean bray and Hee-Haw then yes they can do those things.  I don't think a donkey has the right equipment, physically or mentally to say the things that it said to Baal.  We can go around and get expert testimony if you like.  I'm sure I can find a vet who would be able to address talking donkeys.  Would you like to do the same and we can compare notes?



I am interested in logical discussion, not who can get the best internet links or expert witness to support their point.

What does a donkey physically lack to allow him to speak? We can address mental faculties after we answer the physical questions.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I am interested in logical discussion, not who can get the best internet links or expert witness to support their point.
> 
> What does a donkey physically lack to allow him to speak? We can address mental faculties after we answer the physical questions.



Since I can't answer this definitively I will have to consult experts in the field.  I know some speech pathologists.  That might be a good start.  I don't know what to say, Ted.  Who would you listen to and believe if they told you whether or not a donkey is or isn't equipped to produce human speech.  I'm open to hearing you present your own research, expert testimony, even anecdotal evidence that would support a claim EITHER way.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Since I can't answer this definitively I will have to consult experts in the field.  I know some speech pathologists.  That might be a good start.  I don't know what to say, Ted.  Who would you listen to and believe if they told you whether or not a donkey is or isn't equipped to produce human speech.  I'm open to hearing you present your own research, expert testimony, even anecdotal evidence that would support a claim EITHER way.



Really Ambush? After all your posturing about how Christians are reluctant to logically discuss talking donkeys, you punt on second down. What gives?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

So, I tried to google what is required for speech, and it turns out we have a region of the brain that is developed beyond what the primates have.

So, cognitive ability is one barrier to speech.....just trying to move things along........

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17600-why-humans-can-talk-and-chimps-cant.html


----------



## Asath (Mar 1, 2012)

Well, linguistically, human language is oddly complex and terribly subtle, requiring the physical formation of sounds ranging from the many consonants and distinct vowel sounds to the making of the plosives and the approximants and the labiodentals, as well as the taps and flaps and fricatives, the nasals, glottals, sibilants and sonorants.

Physiologically, in order to product the range of sounds necessary for human speech an animal would need to possess a supralaryngeal vocal tract; a larynx; and a subglottal system, which no living or known animals except for humans and some types of birds possess as a whole. The lungs and subglottal system produce the initial air pressure that is essential for the speech; then the pharyngeal mechanisms, the oral mechanisms, and the nasal cavity shape the sounds that are physical speech. 

Certain areas of the human brain also seem to have developed specifically, and differently from any known animal, as speech centers – but since even Democrats seem to be able to talk we won’t overly belabor the role of higher brain development here.

For simplicity’s sake – it is physically impossible for a donkey to articulate the range of sounds necessary to the formation of words.  Why this fact does not render all of Congress mute is still open to debate.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> For simplicity’s sake – it is physically impossible for a donkey to articulate the range of sounds necessary to the formation of words.  Why this fact does not render all of Congress mute is still open to debate.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> Well, linguistically, human language is oddly complex and terribly subtle, requiring the physical formation of sounds ranging from the many consonants and distinct vowel sounds to the making of the plosives and the approximants and the labiodentals, as well as the taps and flaps and fricatives, the nasals, glottals, sibilants and sonorants.
> 
> Physiologically, in order to product the range of sounds necessary for human speech an animal would need to possess a supralaryngeal vocal tract; a larynx; and a subglottal system, which no living or known animals except for humans and some types of birds possess as a whole. The lungs and subglottal system produce the initial air pressure that is essential for the speech; then the pharyngeal mechanisms, the oral mechanisms, and the nasal cavity shape the sounds that are physical speech.
> 
> ...



Is there a source for this cut and paste, or are you a farm animal speech pathologist too? 
I found lots of diagrams of this - "supralaryngeal vocal tract" for humans, but none that prove that donkeys don't posses similar traits that might make "speech" possible, like sinuses, a soft palate, a tongue or lips. Birds can do it without lips. I would like to defer the "mental" aspects of this problem until we finish with the physical. If the physical issues kill it (logically) then we won't waste time discussing the mental aspects and we can get right back to debating the supernatural!

PS - I appreciated the political humor in your post Asath.


----------



## Asath (Mar 1, 2012)

I don’t suppose that there is such a thing as a ‘farm animal speech pathologist,’ if only because no farm animal has ever actually spoken, so it would be rather a lonely and under-utilized specialty.  

I have, on the other hand, been a student of structural linguistics and semiology for my entire adult life, and managed to stay awake in anatomy class.  I didn’t go so far as to walk into the other room to get out the Britannica or the other arcane texts I keep on the dusty shelves of my library, but I think you’ll find, upon setting yourself to verifying my statements, that they are true.

It is physically possible for some birds to mimic the complexity of human word-sounds with remarkable clarity, but no other animal known to man is physically capable of doing so.  That is simply a fact.

If the argument is that it won’t be true until you, personally, believe it to be, then you are welcome to educate yourself on the topic.  I can do so, if it will help, but everyone around here gets annoyed when I post really long replies, so I’m trying to keep things short and to the point . . .


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2012)

FWIW,not everyone gets annoyed at long posts when a solid explanation is warranted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> I don’t suppose that there is such a thing as a ‘farm animal speech pathologist,’ if only because no farm animal has ever actually spoken, so it would be rather a lonely and under-utilized specialty.
> 
> I have, on the other hand, been a student of structural linguistics and semiology for my entire adult life, and managed to stay awake in anatomy class.  I didn’t go so far as to walk into the other room to get out the Britannica or the other arcane texts I keep on the dusty shelves of my library, but I think you’ll find, upon setting yourself to verifying my statements, that they are true.
> 
> ...



OK, so you study language and sign language, and you stayed awake in anatomy class. Super. Have you ever studied donkey anatomy?

Not too long ago, the earth was believed to be flat Asath. Just because it is unknown to us does not mean it is a fact. I just really can't accept the argument that you said so, so it is true. I don't think you would accept that from me either.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> FWIW,not everyone gets annoyed at long posts when a solid explanation is warranted.



Wow.


----------



## Asath (Mar 2, 2012)

Sir, I didn’t say that it is so – I merely am the messenger of the facts that you requested.  

Personally, I have never dissected a donkey to examine the details of the anatomy contained therein – but others have, and have done so with utmost attention to detail.  Being passionate about that sort of thing, they seem to have also examined the innards of just about every animal extant over the years, and have documented their findings in quite disgustingly explicit studies.  The collective summary of those findings is as I have already stated.  If I need to do the studies myself, to convince you . . . well, there is insufficient time or bandwidth here . . . 

But this information is readily available to anyone who seeks it and bothers to read it.  A refusal to do so, while stubbornly clinging to a contention that there is no such information, marks a closed mind – in direct opposition to the OP.  

Asking people on a message board to provide, in exhaustive detail,  the education you will not pursue yourself is not ‘logical,’ and refuting the clear and true answer to the question you asked on the grounds that the responder is not, himself, the sole source of the information you seek is also not ‘logical.’  By this method of ‘argument,’ the premise refutes itself by dint of sheer insincerity, argumentativeness, and an unwillingness to actually employ ‘logic.’


----------



## Asath (Mar 2, 2012)

(As an aside, and for what it’s worth, studies have shown that only four known animals can actually see ‘themselves’ in a mirror, and not see the reflection as an outside threat – the great apes, dolphins, elephants, and a startlingly significant percentage of humans . . . )


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, I didn’t say that it is so – I merely am the messenger of the facts that you requested.
> 
> Personally, I have never dissected a donkey to examine the details of the anatomy contained therein – but others have, and have done so with utmost attention to detail.  Being passionate about that sort of thing, they seem to have also examined the innards of just about every animal extant over the years, and have documented their findings in quite disgustingly explicit studies.  The collective summary of those findings is as I have already stated.  If I need to do the studies myself, to convince you . . . well, there is insufficient time or bandwidth here . . .
> 
> ...



Here we go with the "Sir" stuff again.

"Trust me," you say. "It is as I have described it, and you Sir are close-minded for not believing it to be true.”

Hogwash.

So now you say I am ignorant.
Calling names eloquently is still calling names.

I am not seeking truth or an education from you Asath, just discussion. Blow it someone else’s direction, because I am not interested in your diatribe in the least.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm confused.  I don't think Donkeys ever have or ever will be able to speak.  So to believe it happened you would have to believe God did it.  There is no logic to be discussed here.  The only possiblity is Divine Control.  So maybe to suggest a logical discussion about the illogical is foolish.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So, no breath control?  No tongue modulation? No vocal chords?



None of that can be altered/changed/modified/repaired/healed/? We know it can. So it isn't impossible, is it? Maybe not changed in the way/or how we thought it might have happened, eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 2, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm confused.  I don't think Donkeys ever have or ever will be able to speak.  So to believe it happened you would have to believe God did it.  There is no logic to be discussed here.  The only possiblity is Divine Control.  So maybe to suggest a logical discussion about the illogical is foolish.



Amen!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> OK, so you study language and sign language, and you stayed awake in anatomy class. Super. Have you ever studied donkey anatomy?
> 
> Not too long ago, the earth was believed to be flat Asath. Just because it is unknown to us does not mean it is a fact. I just really can't accept the argument that you said so, so it is true. I don't think you would accept that from me either.



Then following your rules by leaving your beliefs out of it and not accepting because "you said so" as a valid answer, what is your logical answer on how a donkey talked?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Wow.



That shocks you but a 5000 yr old donkey with the voice of James Earl Jones doesn't raise an eyebrow.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm confused.  I don't think Donkeys ever have or ever will be able to speak.  So to believe it happened you would have to believe God did it.  There is no logic to be discussed here.  The only possiblity is Divine Control.  So maybe to suggest a logical discussion about the illogical is foolish.



There a a few possibilities. One is that the writer had a great imagination. Another is that the story is embellished. And yet another overlooked possibility is that it simply just did not happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm confused.  I don't think Donkeys ever have or ever will be able to speak.  So to believe it happened you would have to believe God did it.  There is no logic to be discussed here.  The only possiblity is Divine Control.  So maybe to suggest a logical discussion about the illogical is foolish.



Don't be rash.  Ted was about to explain to us how the structures already present in donkeys are capable of producing human speech.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Here we go with the "Sir" stuff again.
> 
> "Trust me," you say. "It is as I have described it, and you Sir are close-minded for not believing it to be true.”
> 
> ...



I have conflicting thoughts about responding to this post because it really does nothing to advance the discussion, but if you don't mind me asking, where do you seek truth and education from?


----------



## Asath (Mar 2, 2012)

I’m starting to understand it now – belief is immune to truth or education -- in the beginning was the Word, and the word was ‘gullible.’

If you can convince people that you’ve received the wisdom of the infinite from the mouth of a donkey you can pretty much convince the poor credulous fools of anything . . . The guys who thought this one up must have laughed themselves sick.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 2, 2012)

Back to the broader story, Balaam was apparently a shaman of sorts.  He must have had pretty good street cred for King Balak to seek his council.  Shamans probably had a goat bladder full of neat little tricks.  I can imagine roots, herbs, mushrooms-- all designed to make the user see anything one could imagine.  Including, but not limited to, talking donkeys.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> *I’m starting to understand it now* – belief is immune to truth or education -- in the beginning was the Word, and the word was ‘gullible.’



No you're not.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No you're not.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No you're not.



String do you conduct yourself in every other aspect of your life like the way you do with your beliefs?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> I’m starting to understand it now – belief is immune to truth or education -- in the beginning was the Word, and the word was ‘gullible.’
> 
> If you can convince people that you’ve received the wisdom of the infinite from the mouth of a donkey you can pretty much convince the poor credulous fools of anything . . . The guys who thought this one up must have laughed themselves sick.




I imagine they were more pleasantly surprised that people bought it.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Care to elaborate?



He is not beginning to understand because of his next statement in that post.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String do you conduct yourself in every other aspect of your life like the way you do with your beliefs?



I conduct my life the way I do because of my beliefs.... and so do you.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I imagine they were more pleasantly surprised that people bought it.



Yea, it was all a 1500 year long scam.... by a bunch of 'goat hearders'.... that has fooled hundreds of millions through the years...... yep, you caught on to'em ambush. You and Asath and Bullet, you guys are so smart.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I conduct my life the way I do because of my beliefs.... and so do you.



I am not talking in a general sense. And I do not live my life solely because of my beliefs. 
I am talking about when you go to work do you accept payment for your time and skills or do you tell your employer to keep it because that is what Jesus would do?
Do you pay your bills or do you believe that because God is capable of doing anything that your bills will miraculously get paid?
If someone tells you that God talked to them through an animal do you take them at their word because you believe it is possible?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, it was all a 1500 year long scam.... by a bunch of 'goat hearders'.... that has fooled hundreds of millions through the years...... yep, you caught on to'em ambush. You and Asath and Bullet, you guys are so smart.



How is what you just said any different from any other religion that has lasted at least 1500 years????????? Goat herders aside...


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How is what you just said any different from any other religion that has lasted at least 1500 years????????? Goat herders aside...



The 1500 years was a reference to the length of time it took to write the bible.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am not talking in a general sense. And I do not live my life solely because of my beliefs.



What else to do use?



> I am talking about when you go to work do you accept payment for your time and skills or do you tell your employer to keep it because that is what Jesus would do?


You want to quote me the verse that makes this claim? That people shouldn't be paid for work.



> Do you pay your bills or do you believe that because God is capable of doing anything that your bills will miraculously get paid?


I pay my bills because I owe them. I don't use God as a genie I can call on when I want something.



> If someone tells you that God talked to them through an animal do you take them at their word because you believe it is possible?



I probably wouldn't believe them. I believe the story in the bible because Jesus believed in a talking donkey.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The 1500 years was a reference to the length of time it took to write the bible.



My question still stands. How is it any different than any and every other religion that has believers/followers for over a thousand years?
Were they cunning enough to dupe the masses also or do you feel because they have such a large following for so many years that it has got to be true?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What else to do use?


Certainly I do not analyze each situation thinking about how I can relate it to a God.
I use my instinct. My knowledge. My experience.




stringmusic said:


> You want to quote me the verse that makes this claim? That people shouldn't be paid for work.


I never said there was a verse. But lets go with Matthew 19:21. Do you follow that?




stringmusic said:


> I pay my bills because I owe them. I don't use God as a genie I can call on when I want something.


excellent!





stringmusic said:


> I probably wouldn't believe them. I believe the story in the bible because Jesus believed in a talking donkey.



Interesting, let me think on this one a while. I am curious to sift through an find what else Jesus believed in the Bible. Might be a great topic for a new thread.
 I am off to Cabelas for a couple thousand rounds of ammo that is on sale but I'll Be BAAAACK.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> He is not beginning to understand because of his next statement in that post.



So belief is not immune to truth or education?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Interesting, let me think on this one a while. I am curious to sift through an find what else Jesus believed in the Bible. Might be a great topic for a new thread.


Your right, might be a good thread.



> I am off to Cabelas for a couple thousand rounds of ammo that is on sale but I'll Be BAAAACK.





Stinks we don't have a cabelas around here, we have Bass Pro Shop, which I like a lot, and I don't think y'all have BPS up there. I'll bet it's a cool store though!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> My question still stands. How is it any different than any and every other religion that has believers/followers for over a thousand years?


My post had nothing to do with the length of time each religion has had followers. However, the 1500 year period it took for the prophets to write the bible is much different than the way other religions recieved their particular books.



> Were they cunning enough to dupe the masses also or do you feel because they have such a large following for so many years that it has got to be true?


Obviously I don't think that.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Your right, might be a good thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have a BPS in Harrisburg, Pa. about 80 miles from me. Been there a few times.
Cabelas is literally 20 minutes from my house. It is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Over the last few yearsI bought everything I ever wanted and now I get things I never knew I needed!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> A little bit of that dust went a LONG way for me, brother.  Just sayin'.
> 
> You can get more out of it when you don't hang up on the minutia.  Is the whole idea of "love your neighbors" and "feed the poor," "living above reproach," etc. affected by whether or not a donkey actually talked?  I am looking for what the purpose of the story is.




I've been thinking of a way to respond to this for a long time because it really troubles me.  You call a talking donkey minutia then hinge all your beliefs on a resurrection story.  Honestly, what's the difference?  I think you're better than this and I don't think you NEED any fairie dust to help you with whatever you think it helps you with.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Certainly I do not analyze each situation thinking about how I can relate it to a God.
> I use my instinct. My knowledge. My experience.


Those all have to do with belief, but I'll go with experience for this instance, when you are about to do something, anything that you have done before, and you stop to remember the experience, do you BELIEVE yourself when you tell yourself that you have had the experience before?





> I never said there was a verse. But lets go with Matthew 19:21. Do you follow that?


I don't really see the reference of that verse with not getting paid to work?

To address the verse, Jesus was talking to a rich man, whose wealth was a hendrance for the man following Christ, so Christ answered the question that the man asked Him, with what only Christ would have known to be the correct answer.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> My post had nothing to do with the length of time each religion has had followers. However, the 1500 year period it took for the prophets to write the bible is much different than the way other religions recieved their particular books.
> 
> 
> Obviously I don't think that.



It is undeniable that those other religions have believers for thousands of years based off of how they received their teachings. In your opinion are those religions just good at fooling the masses like you think we think Christianity has done or are they just as legitimate in that the religion has stood for all those years?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We have a BPS in Harrisburg, Pa. about 80 miles from me. Been there a few times.
> Cabelas is literally 20 minutes from my house. It is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Over the last few yearsI bought everything I ever wanted and now I get things I never knew I needed!



 I hear ya man, I got a BPS 25 mins south of me, my wallet always takes a beatin' in there.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 2, 2012)

Ted remind me of the point of this thread.  All I see so far are people illustrating why it can't happen and a bunch of other people saying God can make anything happen.

Why is this in the AAA forum?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

Talking donkey!!!!!!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So belief is not immune to truth or education?



I guess it could be, a person can believe whatever they want to. I just obviously do not believe Christianity is.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Ted remind me of the point of this thread.  All I see so far are people illustrating why it can't happen and a bunch of other people saying God can make anything happen.
> 
> Why is this in the AAA forum?



What other forum would be fitting for this thread?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Talking donkey!!!!!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Those all have to do with belief, but I'll go with experience for this instance, when you are about to do something, anything that you have done before, and you stop to remember the experience, do you BELIEVE yourself when you tell yourself that you have had the experience before?


Yes. I believe myself. Not reference a higher power to guide me.






stringmusic said:


> I don't really see the reference of that verse with not getting paid to work?


The paid to work question was just a question I asked. Being that you follow Jesus and his teachings and actions I just wondered if you adhere to all of his examples in the Bible?



stringmusic said:


> To address the verse, Jesus was talking to a rich man, whose wealth was a hendrance for the man following Christ, so Christ answered the question that the man asked Him, with what only Christ would have known to be the correct answer.


Okay. Was that specific to just that man or wise words for all of Christ's followers?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I guess it could be, a person can believe whatever they want to. I just obviously do not believe Christianity is.



Christianity is immune to truth and education?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What other forum would be fitting for this thread?



Let's see...AAA is not an appropriate forum to announce that God can supposedly make any miracle happen.  That's obviously the point of this thread, I'm now convinced.  Perhaps I should go to the Christianity forum and pose a question to ostensibly invite debate, then state that all opposing viewpoints that agree with the divine nature of God are invalid because he is a fairy tale character.  Would that be an appropriate forum for such a thread stringmusic?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Let's see...AAA is not an appropriate forum to announce that God can supposedly make any miracle happen.  That's obviously the point of this thread, I'm now convinced.  Perhaps I should go to the Christianity forum and pose a question to ostensibly invite debate, then state that all opposing viewpoints that agree with the divine nature of God are invalid because he is a fairy tale character.  Would that be an appropriate forum for such a thread stringmusic?



Ted said he would discuss it logically, his own beliefs aside.  Give him a chance to explain how a donkey has the physical tools to produce human speech.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Ted said he would discuss it logically, his own beliefs aside.  Give him a chance to explain how a donkey has the physical tools to produce human speech.



You're still waiting for that?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You're still waiting for that?



With abated breath.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I've been thinking of a way to respond to this for a long time because it really troubles me.  You call a talking donkey minutia then hinge all your beliefs on a resurrection story.  Honestly, what's the difference?  I think you're better than this and I don't think you NEED any fairie dust to help you with whatever you think it helps you with.



I think we can safely say that whether or not the donkey talked is irrelevant to what I view as the main point of what the Bible is trying to tell us.  You see, we can argue all day long about the OT, whether or not Adam and Eve were literal, Job, the donkey, the crazy prophecies, etc., and not even come close to understanding the point because we get hung up on the things that make us scratch our head.

I don't like doing this in the AAA, because I almost always get called out for it, but my best example is the book of Job.  All sorts of things happen in that book which appear to be out of place.  Satan uses natural elements to kill people.  God allows it to prove that Job cannot be broken.  Everything is taken away from the man just to prove a point that God is bigger than Satan.  God already knew that before all the people were killed....seems very cold. Now the story of Job goes on and claims that Job is restored to a better position than he was originally, but to me that makes it even more cruel, that the dead peopel were replaced with new people, and their only significance in life is their status as collateral damage in the battle between good and evil.  But, they were people.

Many people read that story and come away with different answers as to what it is saying.  It was a huge burden to me to figure it out because much of what we are taught as kids about God's protection (love) would be wrong from my perspective, and we would just be minute players in a big play, and our perspectives would be irrelevant.

It dawned on me one day that the story might be a play, and we are reality.  The story talks about faith in the face of adversity, and man struggling against his natural (Satan) instincts.  Holding to what is true (God) even when all else is broken and lost.

But, to tie all this together, how do I know that God, if he exists, recognizes me as an individual, or even more personal, how do I know he recognizes my kids as precious?  Do I understand that through Job?  No.  It is through Jesus.  He is the reality, and if he, and the resurection, is not real, then I and my kids are no more significant than the people who were pointlessly killed in the book of Job.  Because on one hand we would have no God, on the other we would have a God indifferent to the human condition.

I see the book of Job as a story with a moral, and the resurection as a "proof" of God's existence, love, and perspective on humanity.  My entire worldview hinges on whether or not it happened.  

But, whether or not Job is true, or the donkey talked, is "minutia." Whether or not Jesus resurected is huge.  I can get further into why I believe in the resurection, but it basically has to do with God, if he exists, must by definition have the power of life, and what better way to show the world than to bring a man back to life.  

The people who wrote about the resurection were not the same who wrote the OT, they had a very different purpose and a very different audience.  That does not mean I disregard the OT, not at all, I just try and view it through that perspective.

I probably got myself in trouble with that, but hope it clears it up some.  Oh, and "the dust" thing, I can only explain it by saying that using it has worked the way it claims it does.  My belief in Jesus is real, and my life has changed significantly since I "bought in."  That does not mean you have a bad life because you don't, I can only speak for my experiences.  And yes, even if all was lost, I understand my place in things a lot better now.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes. I believe myself. Not reference a higher power to guide me.


I understand, but the debate was about belief, not what you believed, just belief.







> The paid to work question was just a question I asked. Being that you follow Jesus and his teachings and actions I just wondered if you adhere to all of his examples in the Bible?


I try my best.




> Okay. Was that specific to just that man or wise words for all of Christ's followers?



I believe it was specific to the rich man, I don't believe Jesus taught that it was terrible to have things, just to know that those things were just that, things. If those things are causing a person to not have a relationship with God, then would it be better to sell everything or to not have that relationship?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I think we can safely say that whether or not the donkey talked is irrelevant to what I view as the main point of what the Bible is trying to tell us.  You see, we can argue all day long about the OT, whether or not Adam and Eve were literal, Job, the donkey, the crazy prophecies, etc., and not even come close to understanding the point because we get hung up on the things that make us scratch our head.
> 
> I don't like doing this in the AAA, because I almost always get called out for it, but my best example is the book of Job.  All sorts of things happen in that book which appear to be out of place.  Satan uses natural elements to kill people.  God allows it to prove that Job cannot be broken.  Everything is taken away from the man just to prove a point that God is bigger than Satan.  God already knew that before all the people were killed....seems very cold. Now the story of Job goes on and claims that Job is restored to a better position than he was originally, but to me that makes it even more cruel, that the dead peopel were replaced with new people, and their only significance in life is their status as collateral damage in the battle between good and evil.  But, they were people.
> 
> ...




Oh I could think of a few better ways.  We have CGI now and laser light shows, things that they couldn't imagine back then.  Harry Potter does cooler thing than resurrections.  I put resurrection in the same lame-ish category as a talking donkey.

And that right there is how the faerie dust works, or the 'Milk Jug'.  I don't think you explored all the other kinds of faerie dust there is.  You will find that they all 'work' the same, which is to say 'not at all'.

What happened to the talking donkeys!?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 2, 2012)

Maybe he spoke in tounges and Balaam was interpreting?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Maybe he spoke in tounges and Balaam was interpreting?



1st things first: With a donkey mouth or a temporary human mouth?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> 1st things first: With a donkey mouth or a temporary human mouth?



If I may make it more interesting, although I don't personally believe it happened at all......maybe God just spoke "through" the donkey. Maybe the donkey opened it's mouth and God's words came out. No lips moving, no voice box. Just a big ventriloquist act. It is the only impossibly possible that I could think of for an argument, but then again the Angel could have just backhanded Balaam with the broad side of his sword and told him the same thing.

I still wonder who was there to not only witness it but write it all down too. That is where I think Balaam was having stubborn donkey problems and he embellished the story a bit, then the next person added a bit and so on until when someone finally wrote it down and we have the 4 thousand year old story we have now.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm confused.  I don't think Donkeys ever have or ever will be able to speak.  So to believe it happened you would have to believe God did it.  There is no logic to be discussed here.  The only possiblity is Divine Control.  So maybe to suggest a logical discussion about the illogical is foolish.



This should be Ambush's new tagline.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then following your rules by leaving your beliefs out of it and not accepting because "you said so" as a valid answer, what is your logical answer on how a donkey talked?



Well, we WERE discussing that before the train left the tracks!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> FWIW,not everyone gets annoyed at long posts when a solid explanation is warranted.



Seems like you are pining. That is what I found so ridiculous.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I have conflicting thoughts about responding to this post because it really does nothing to advance the discussion, but if you don't mind me asking, where do you seek truth and education from?



I mind.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Ted remind me of the point of this thread.  All I see so far are people illustrating why it can't happen and a bunch of other people saying God can make anything happen.
> 
> Why is this in the AAA forum?



Apparantly you did not read or understand the OP. And yes, you are correct about the text above in red. I tried, but it ended up how most other threads in here work out.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Let's see...AAA is not an appropriate forum to announce that God can supposedly make any miracle happen.  That's obviously the point of this thread, I'm now convinced.  Perhaps I should go to the Christianity forum and pose a question to ostensibly invite debate, then state that all opposing viewpoints that agree with the divine nature of God are invalid because he is a fairy tale character.  Would that be an appropriate forum for such a thread stringmusic?



Did they make you a MOD yet?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Ted said he would discuss it logically, his own beliefs aside.  Give him a chance to explain how a donkey has the physical tools to produce human speech.



Ambush, you practically begged for this thread for a long time. Then you bailed at post #45 because you had to consult a speech pathologist and a vet. Now you are back snickering and pointing.

What did the speech patholgist say?

What did the vet say?

Why are you back? To snicker and point?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Did they make you a MOD yet?



Not yet.  There is a very strong groundswell of popular opinion on this website that wants for me to be one though.  I just don't know if I have the time to devote.  Thanks for asking.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> For the sake of an interesting conversation, I am willing to stick to logical discussion through the course of this thread.
> 
> So, what is so crazy about a donkey that could talk?





ted_BSR said:


> Apparantly you did not read or understand the OP.





Yeah.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Well, we WERE discussing that before the train left the tracks!



I saw some logical discussion going on and have been wondering when you are actually going to join in on it to explain your side. You have not given a single explanation yet on how such a thing could occur.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not yet.  There is a very strong groundswell of popular opinion on this website that wants for me to be one though.  I just don't know if I have the time to devote.  Thanks for asking.



You would be a good MOD Six. I would support such an appointment.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I saw some logical discussion going on and have been wondering when you are actually going to join in on it to explain your side. You have not given a single explanation yet on how such a thing could occur.



Read the thread again BH.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Oh I could think of a few better ways.  We have CGI now and laser light shows, things that they couldn't imagine back then.  Harry Potter does cooler thing than resurrections.  I put resurrection in the same lame-ish category as a talking donkey.



I don't see it that way, I'm sure you know that.  If Harry Potter ever did it, the world would be talking about it for thousands of years.......think about it (it has a lot to do with why I believe).



ambush80 said:


> [And that right there is how the faerie dust works, or the 'Milk Jug'.  I don't think you explored all the other kinds of faerie dust there is.  You will find that they all 'work' the same, which is to say 'not at all'.]



No, I only explored my fairy dust and yours.  Yours felt "hollow."  I do understand the value of reason, and try to use it when considering my faith.  But, I remember sitting in a deer stand one morning about an hour before the sun came up while I was wondering my personal belief wilderness and trying to see reason in the universe beyond, or outside of, faith. I watched a few satelites go across the dark pre-dawn sky, miles and miles above the surface.  Then, I considered the stars, which looked the same size, but were billions of miles beyond that satelite.  Inconceivably far.   In that moment I felt very small, and insignificant.  If I had stuck with "your" dust, I would still feel that way. 

All I got is what I have seen.  Perhaps some Buddhist out there has experienced zen, and can explain the finer points of existence.  Good for them, I mean that, peace is a wonderful thing.  I have reached a place where the universe is not hostile, and governed by a creator who demonstrated love towards humanity.  I know we can bring up the little girl covered in flies to negate that statement, but there is many ways of looking at it, we can go in detail over that again if you would like, perhaps in another thread.



ambush80 said:


> What happened to the talking donkeys!?



Not sure.  Not sure why it is in there.  But I am certain it doesn't matter much in the big picture.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Read the thread again BH.



I have read it and there is not a donkey speech expert among us including ted_BSR, yet when someone takes the time to search for the best possible answer they can find you blast them doing an internet search while totally skipping the answer that search/pasted link provides.
Big deal, YOU assume a donkey has a diaphragm plus sinuses, lips, teeth, and lungs, because you have been through a dead deers anatomy. Well so have I and yet a deer has never bothered to ask me why I am shooting at it during the season. Many animals have those same parts yet none of them speak our language or Aramaic or Hebrew. Do you think because an elk can bugle that a donkey and horse and deer can understand him because it is a language?? 
Despite having the parts they do not have the brain that is set up for speech. There is nothing out there to copy/paste saying that a donkey can speak. I have even searched the "For Donkeys, By Donkeys " internet chat forums and have found nothing that even suggests a donkey can speak. As I can only guess that site exists through divine intervention by allowing donkeys to type with those hooves and chat with each other. And horses have hooves so I guess they know what a donkey types and I have seen enough deer hooves to know that because they are split a deer can type twice as fast as a donkey....is THAT the logic you are looking for?

So after reading your thread again like you suggested I do, I still do not see where the evidence that you provided(parts that most animals have) is any proof that a donkey can talk like a human. On the other hand plenty of evidence(either directly or through information gathered from the internet) has been provided that shows logically and physically donkeys cannot and do not speak in a language that humans can understand.

If you want to see a miracle just about every Sunday turn on Americas Funniest Home Videos. Darned near every week there is some Husky dog that barks "I love you" or a Poodle that stands on piano keys and sings every time a note is hit. We have video evidence of this divine intervention and if anyone wants to start a new religion now is the time to get all those clips on one DVD, bury it in a strong vault with a note of how you think your God is responsible for these incredible acts and hopefully someone digs it up in a thousand years. They will have all the evidence needed that flat out unquestionably shows the work of God. The second another person agrees with them your new religion is born. It might last a day or snowball into 5000 years of Bergeroniasm, The prophet Tom Bergeron that just pointed his finger to the screen and made those dogs talk and sing with the help of a higher power.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I have read it and there is not a donkey speech expert among us including ted_BSR, yet when someone takes the time to search for the best possible answer they can find you blast them doing an internet search while totally skipping the answer that search/pasted link provides.
> Big deal, YOU assume a donkey has a diaphragm plus sinuses, lips, teeth, and lungs, because you have been through a dead deers anatomy. Well so have I and yet a deer has never bothered to ask me why I am shooting at it during the season. Many animals have those same parts yet none of them speak our language or Aramaic or Hebrew. Do you think because an elk can bugle that a donkey and horse and deer can understand him because it is a language??
> Despite having the parts they do not have the brain that is set up for speech. There is nothing out there to copy/paste saying that a donkey can speak. I have even searched the "For Donkeys, By Donkeys " internet chat forums and have found nothing that even suggests a donkey can speak. As I can only guess that site exists through divine intervention by allowing donkeys to type with those hooves and chat with each other. And horses have hooves so I guess they know what a donkey types and I have seen enough deer hooves to know that because they are split a deer can type twice as fast as a donkey....is THAT the logic you are looking for?
> 
> ...



Read it one more time BH.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Read it one more time BH.



Oh, yeah the earth was once thought to be flat so we just didn't find a talking donkey yet. Deep down your only explanation is still God did it because it could not happen otherwise. You want us to explain and explain showing how it cannot happen naturally so therefore the only thing left through your deductive reasoning is divine intervention. We see it differently.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 3, 2012)

Maybe you should read it AGAIN!














I am just messin' with you BH. 

Don't take it too seriously. The sun has finally come out, and I am gonna head OUTSIDE for awhile. Have a great day!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Maybe you should read it AGAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Will Do.


----------



## Asath (Mar 4, 2012)

Contentions:

“So, what is so crazy about a donkey that could talk?”

“Let's stick to talking donkeys.”

Logical, scientifically verifiable response:

“Physiologically, in order to product the range of sounds necessary for human speech an animal would need to possess a supralaryngeal vocal tract; a larynx; and a subglottal system, which no living or known animals except for humans and some types of birds possess as a whole. The lungs and subglottal system produce the initial air pressure that is essential for the speech; then the pharyngeal mechanisms, the oral mechanisms, and the nasal cavity shape the sounds that are physical speech.”

Counter-contention: 

“I found lots of diagrams of this - "supralaryngeal vocal tract" for humans, but none that prove that donkeys don't posses similar traits that might make "speech" possible,” . . . . well, that would be because no such diagrams exist for donkeys, because they do not, in fact, possess such things, so trying to ‘diagram’ them would be a little silly . . . “If the physical issues kill it (logically) then we won't waste time discussing the mental aspects and we can get right back to debating the supernatural!”  

But the physical aspects DID ‘kill it (logically),’ and all that was offered in return was uninformed assumptions of ‘possibilities’ rather than educated inquiry into, and understanding of what is clearly proven to be true.  So placing a stubborn refusal to learn or accept clear scientific fact far behind a blind acceptance of the ‘talking donkey’ in question, it seems clear that there is no ‘logic’ or ‘fact’ that can pierce the armor of that belief.  

My only advice, at that point, would be to buy a donkey, get out a lawn chair, and wait for it to start reciting Leviticus or intoning Psalms.  If you ‘believe,’ then it is bound to happen.  We’ll wait.

(As an aside: “The 1500 years was a reference to the length of time it took to write the bible.”  Yikes!  It took THAT long to write a Book THAT short?  Talk about writers block!  And without even a typewriter or an editor to help out.  No wonder the author made so many mistakes.)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 4, 2012)

When we get tired of this one, let's discuss whether Jonah was alive inside a whale???


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 4, 2012)

We've already did Jonah too. What about the Ark of the Covenant being a giant battery or where did Noah put all the fish on the Ark?


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 4, 2012)

Heck, I just assumed they swam in all the extra water outside?  But wait, if most of the water was rainwater, did it dilute the saltwater to a point where saltwater fish couldn't survive?  Or if the majority of the water on the planet is salty, is it possible that the water stayed too salty for fresh water fish?  I guess it worked out 'cause we still have both.  Or maybe............


----------



## Asath (Mar 5, 2012)

Maybe.  

But don't quote me on that -- I'm in enough trouble as it is . . .


----------

