otseng wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:02 am
You still have nothing, as I keep having to point out.
Readers can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence that has been presented. You repeatedly claiming this does not invalidate my evidence.
Perhaps all languages did derive from a single one or perhaps not. Nobody knows. That is - as I have said - irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. If all languages of the world independently originated, it would falsify the Biblical story that all languages originated from a common language. And if there was a single original language, then it would affirm the Biblical account.
What is relevant is that the Biblical account does not look credible as an explanation of the diversity of languages.
With an inerrantist view of this passage, I would agree it appears to be a silly situation for God to feel threatened with people building a tower to reach heaven. However, since I'm not an inerrantist, I don't need to believe God was actually threatened in any way and that he physically visited the citizens of Babel and then snapped his fingers and everyone started speaking different languages. It can simply be a story that is wrapped around a fundamental truth.
I have no idea where you think that will help you. If 'Babel' was based on a real tower collapse, that is nothing to do with God, If there was a single origin or multiple origin of languages, that need not be anything to do with Babel, let alone God. You have absolutely nothing if you don't rely on the Bible account.
Also as I said the evolution of languages is a thing that can be seen to happen. e.g from Latin through to various European languages. Indirect evidence.
We both believe Latin influenced many languages, so it's not relevant. What is relevant is the original
languages. Was there only one original language or has there been multiple original languages?
The hydroplate theory I read where the water -pressure pushed up the mountains isn't the version you use, which has a kind of continental collision - which is the actual reason I explained why pushing over soft strata would not result in a neat rollover of strata.
OK, then we can dismiss your charge since it does not apply to the FM.
But tectonic plate movement which is something measurable today, does explain it It does not only happen when strata has been deposited.
Yes, according to SG, tectonic plate movement has always been happening. Yet, there's practically no evidence of it within the strata layers (no faults, deformations, etc). The only major one has been the angular tilt in the Great Unconformity.
That is a problem with the Hydroplate theory - strata below the great unconformity and also above, but only having a couple of years for all this geological activity.
As I've mentioned, I propose it was formed during the great flood, not before it.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:22 am
How can the angular unconformity be explained in the Grand Canyon?
The sedimentary layers are formed from rock being eroded at the mid-oceanic ridges. The tilted supergroup formation was formed by erosion of the Pacific ridge west of the American continent. After this strata was deposited, tectonic activity caused the layers to be tilted. Then the layers in the tonto group and above were formed by the continental crust eroded along the mid-Atlantic ridge.
it ends up having to pack millions of years of cosmological, geological and biological activity into a matter of years or less.
What millions of years are you referring to? Deep time is only assumed for SG, it is not assumed for the FM.
It would no doubt suit you if I didn't, but I shall continue to do so,
Sure, you can rebut all you want. But simply having the last word on something does not mean I assent to your claims.
Failure to rebut is tacit admission of validity of the rebut. Whether you admit it or not.
to pretend you won the Babel argument that I have heard in a long while
Where have I ever said I "won" any argument?
Where did I say that you said you did? I said 'pretend' not 'said'. If you can try to make points by dickering about who said what, so can I.
I keep pointing out that actually you have no good evidence because you don't seem to understand this.
The only valid response would be presenting counter-evidence, not simply claiming I have no good evidence.
The readers (if we have any) will know that I have been presenting the counters, not to say debunks. You presented to evidence claiming to interpret that in a way that fits the Bible. I show the counter -argument. I don't need to present evidence other than what you posted, just a different Interpretation - but one that makes more sense. Like meanders imply millions of years of strata erosion, not one quick rush as in the Flood model. I don't need to post further photos; yours will do perfectly well.
language was that spoken before it was written
I never said there was no spoken language before. But, to be consistent with the Bible, all spoken language would have been the same language. What evidence do you have that all spoken language before 3500 BC were all different?
Not to mention the continents have split up before the flood even came down, so the splitting up of Pangaea is sunk as an explanation of animal diversity.
You're conflating SG and the FM. The FM does not posit the crust was moving prior to the flood.
As for animal diversity, that's a whole another topic of debate.
Sure, you prefer to look at the FM in bits, out of a general context. But you try to misrepresent my argument. To be clear. I'm using the order of events (causing the geology) in sequence according to the Flood model, irrespective of how long that was supposed to take. Given that you still postulate Pangaea (you may want to change your mind about that) that whole island (being the hydroplate) is covered by the strata that will be below the Great Unconformity. Where did that strata come from if not being water deposited and raised up in ancient geological activity (which also explains the tilt of strata). So that 'moves before the flood' in the process of being burst open and pushed apart as the water erupts in a fountain. Clear so far?
The continent slabs are floated aside by the water underneath (if you are sticking with that model) and they crunch into...something, maybe the sides of the reservoir, pushing up the rockies in the west and Himalayas in the East, I'd suppose. The water comes crashing down flooding the broken hydroplate and slicing off the strata of the Unconformity. That's why I say you have to explain where the strata underneath the Unconformity came from if the world of the Pangaea hydroplate was already under water. Also the mountains were formed before the flood, so the flood waters going down can't be explained by mountains rising up.
You sure keep me busy.
Well, there's only one of me. And there's two on your side that I have to respond to.
Yes, but it is easy to throw in a few denials and quibbles, and it is more work for me to rebut them
It is necessary to point out to readers that no tower, no real links between ziggurats, pyramids and temples and all the evidence indicating different cultures with their own languages means - you have nothing. Just as your strawman argument of If all languages of the world independently originated, it would falsify the Biblical story that all languages originated from a common language. And if there was a single original language, then it would affirm the Biblical account.
As silly as 'if it could be proved that God was a space -alien..' sure, but what a Red herring. As much as 'but if God is Not a space alien..Bible is true'.
No. A single origin (as I explained once, at least) works as well with a single human tribe out of Africa and doesn't have to have anything to do with a single language spoken in Mesopotamia, and is not therefore is no evidence for the Bible account. The readers will pick up the terrible piece of rhetorical legerdemain that you tried to pull there.
You are again trying to dismiss overall context and pin the whole discussion on an irrelevant out of context point. Whether languages arose independently or derive from one tribe in Africa, say, has nothing to do with Babel. The relevance of the evolution of Latin or Germanic languages indirectly shows that languages can evolve and that explains language diversity better than the Babel event for which - it has to be said, again - you have No real valid evidence.,
"I explained why pushing over soft strata would not result in a neat rollover of strata.