otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:44 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:14 pm
If you're saying you always need physical evidence to believe in something, then there's a lot that cannot be believed. Many things are posited to exist through indirect evidence, which is what I'm arguing for with the tower of Babel. One example is we don't have any physical evidence of the Colossus of Rhodes. But that doesn't prove it did not exist.
No we don't. It IS required, but indirect evidence is also relevant.
Do you believe the Colossus of Rhodes did not exist?
I see no reason to disbelieve it. I believe there is historical evidence for it, but if the histories claimed that Apollo posed for the sculptor I wouldn't believe that. Would you? Look I don't deny Ziggurats or even that the Babel story referred to one, probably the one at Babylon, but I don't believe the story about one language being split up because God was bothered by it. Nor do I think it refers to a particularly large ziggurat predating the appearance of proper writing in Egypt or Mesopotamia, let alone the separate languages those writing systems expressed. You have NO real evidence other than claims, maybes and perhaps the evidence will turn up.
But I don't recall you ever addressing the debunk of your 'soft strata' hypothesis as being inadequate to explain the neat rollover of strata, nor that mountain building,
There's nothing to debunk. The soft strata rather explains how it's possible to have "neat" parallel layers in spite of deformations like mountain building.
If all the layers were original solid rock in flat parallel layers, how would it be possible to have "neat" deformations? Think of it this way, suppose we have lasagna noodles stacked up and neatly deformed so it's in the shape of a mountain. Would it be more reasonable the noodles were dry or wet when it was deformed?
I can recall addressing it twice at least. That' seems to be the 'ignoring' problem, The catastrophism of the hydroplate theory would surely jumble up soft strata onto a mess. The geological 'standard model' as you posted it argues that it was already solid strata that could keep the strata shape while being slowly tilted, inverted and even rolled over at geologically slow speeds as postulated for continental drift that pushes up mountains. Not to mention (again) that in the hydroplate theory, the Rockies are on the wrong side of the continent. You may deny the standard geology or dismiss it as
'ad hoc' which is what I call 'science denial', but is the science and your soft strata theory is not.
IF caused by the pressure of the flood waters when the flood burst through, should put the Rockies in the east not the west
It is not the pressure of the flood waters that caused the deformations (mountains). It is the crust hitting the underlaying basalt layer.[/quote]
I recall that it was thje pressure of the waters pushed up the mountains, but ok, we'll go with your explanation.
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:18 am
As the hydroplate eventually hit the underlaying basalt layer when all the subterranean water was gone, it stopped the horizontal movement of the hydroplate. But, the sedimentary layers on top of the hydroplate kept moving due to momentum. It is at this point the sedimentary layers buckled and formed the mountains. Think of it as a pile of rocks on a rail car. The rail car is the hydroplate and the pile of rocks is the sedimentary layers. Then the rail car loses its wheels and grinds to a stop on the railroad tracks. But the rocks on top of the rail car would fly off the rail car.
A geological car - crash does not result in inverted strata still in place. In any case the strata above the Basalt is the planed off (by the Flood) strata of the anomaly, not the supposed 'Flood strata' above. You don't even seem to understand your own theory.. no sorry, I get it.... that the hydroplate (Continent of America we are talking about here) when the hydroplate water was 'gone' (surely up in the air not fallen in a flood ..I'll get back to that) the reservoir roof slammed into the reservoir floor causing the Soft strata to rise up as the Rockies (on the West) with the strata neatly rolling over. Sure. But Otseng mate, where had that strata come from? People were supposedly living on this car -crash continent and the flood water was still to come crashing down scouring off the 'great anomaly' and flooding the already split 'Pangea' continents and drowing everything but Noah who has survived all this. And the mountains have already appeared before the Flood. So you have to revert to flood waters going down, not Mountains appearing.
Of course, silence does imply assent.
No, silence does not imply assent. It can mean many other things, including we've already covered this.
It does imply assent in that there is no rebuttal. You can of course ignore and deny everything, but failure to rebut is tacit assent in a debate, or it is in my book.
And while one might argue about when Mesopotamian and Egyptian writing appeared and which was a proper writing -system rather than three dots and a picture of a corn -bale (which might or might not have a linguistic value) the point I made was that these did predate the ziggurats but not the (postulated) date of Babel that you referred to
Sure, I can accept symbols existed prior to the tower of Babel. I'm not arguing symbols came after the tower of Babel, but only written languages.
Only if you opt for a date for Babel
like maybe 3,500 or so. But you have no decent evidence for that. None. Whereas the evidence I have implies a spoken Egyptian language along with the culture before this proposed Babel - date and of course before the written language and ziggurats. Of course I can't prove they were talking Egyptian prior to 3,500 BC, but the evidence implies that they were, as part of a continued culture, and there is no evidence that everyone was located in 'Babel' speaking 'Mesopotamian' The diversity of cultures prior to the 4th mill. BC argues against the whole 'Babel' scenario.
However the point of my chronology was that putting it earlier than the Ziggurats still doesn't put it earlier than the Egyptian culture that produced tomb slabs (that led to the step pyramid) or (eventually) written Egyptian and thus the indirect evidence is that Egypt as a pyramid builder culture and Egyptian - speaking culture looks to have been in place long before any feasible 'Babel Tower' event.
Could be. Egyptian culture could have existed along side the tower of Babel. And symbols used in Egypt could have also co-existed. But as for a written language, the earliest evidence of Egyptian language is 2800 BC.
"The use of hieroglyphic writing arose from proto-literate symbol systems in the Early Bronze Age, around the 32nd century BC (Naqada III),[2] with the first decipherable sentence written in the Egyptian language dating to the Second Dynasty (28th century BC)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
But, "Egyptian language" was more likely influenced by the Sumerian region.
"Geoffrey Sampson stated that Egyptian hieroglyphs "came into existence a little after Sumerian script, and, probably, [were] invented under the influence of the latter",[23] and that it is "probable that the general idea of expressing words of a language in writing was brought to Egypt from Sumerian Mesopotamia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
Quite a few have proposed Sumerian influence on Egypt, (1) just as others (as you pointed out) suggested the ziggurat influencing the step pyramid. But the idea doesn't help you at all. Just as the step pyramid (with or without the idea of ziggural) was a development of the tombs that already existed and were tombs, not temples, the Babel model has written Egyptian a different language anyway, so 'influence' is neither here nor there. You point to Genesis and say they all went their different ways and then harp on 'influences' one had on the other after the supposed Babel -event.
But I can harp on the continued culture in Egypt that continued so it seems from long before 3,500 BC to long after when the language was written as Egyptian, owing nothing to Mesopotamia which it wouldn't if Babel was true. Don't you see that you have nothing and your attempt to prod science into supporting the Bible just turns around and bites it in the botty?
That together with no real evidence for any such Tower of Babel makes for a better hypothesis than Babel which has nothing as evidence but Genesis.
[/quote]Before modern archaeology, there was no "real evidence" for many claims of the Bible. Yet, we have constantly been uncovering more things to confirm the historical reliability of the Bible. This is probably what we should go into next after debating the tower of Babel.
And with indirect evidence of the worldwide phenomenon of ziggurats, it's more easily explained by the Biblical account than just a series of coincidences.[/quote]
Which I already debunked. The step pyramid is on all evidence NOT confirmation of the Bible nor are the Temples of the Maya or various mounts and structures. It's coming to something where you point to a pile of earth like a pyramid and say it's evidence of copying ziggurats. You have absolutely nothing. This is what I mean by ignoring. I debunk you and you blandly carry on as though you have proved your point. You have Nothing but some hopes that evidence might turn up one day.
I agree there's no direct evidence, but there's indirect evidence, which I've provided through worldwide replication of ziggurats since ancient times.
The indirect evidence is all against you. The evidence is that languages developed separately before any feasible 'Babel event, the Step pyramid and the Maya temples are nothing to do with ziggurats other than taking inspiration After the supposed Babel event anyway. You have nothing and your 'evidence' debunks your own theory anyway.
As I said, that's irrelevant and a red herring. Whether there was a single original source or different languages arose after humans split up (and nobody knows which it is) the point is that Egyptian predating any feasible Babel event undermines the Babel hypothesis for diversification of human languages.
See above.
Yes, indeed, see my debunk above.
That is, that the Chinese invented their writing and the Sumerians invented theirs
OK, please provide evidence then that the Chinese and Sumerians independently invented their written languages.
Indirect evidence. Same as the Egyptian. The culture is distinct and continuous and of course nowhere near Mesopotamia. So just as with Egypt on the evidence of spoken Egyptian before 3,500 BC, what (indirect) evidence there is suggests that the Language they spoke in China before the supposed Babel event (and nowhere near it) was the Chinese that was later given written form. All the indirect evidence is against a Babel event and you have Nothing for it. I know you can't see it because of Faith in the Bible, and you think your possibles and perhapses and hopes for evidence later, never mind ignoring all the rebuttals allows you to think that you have a case, but you have nothing. Especially when you try to play the 'Do you believe the colossus' card. Desperation.
Diogenes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:45 pm
"Not conclusive?" It's not evidence at all, of anything except men like to build stuff and build something taller than their neighbors' achievement.
You might not believe it's valid evidence or relevant evidence, but it's evidence.
A theist on my former board became a laughing -stock for protesting that bad evidence was still "Evidence".
What is strange or illogical that many if not all cultures built tall structures or towers?
I'm not arguing people built tall structure/towers. I'm arguing they all built ziggurats.
[/quote]
They are not ziggurats. They are structures of the kind that man builds and physics dictates the architecture. Good heavens man, you try to argue that Nigerian piles of dirt and Mayan Temples are all 'ziggurats'. You are striving to make vague resemblances into cultural influences. And why, as I said, would these diversified people after Babel go on doing the same thing in written language and architecture when the whole point of the Babel disaster was to put an end to Man's unity? And if you try to make it anything else - then the Bible is not Reliable.
(1) though you are really straining in trying to make ideas that other cultures possibly picked up from Mesopotamia into Egyptians all speaking Sumerian. In any case post Babel, Egyptian and Sumerian would be different anyway, so attempts to argue that they were the same debunks your own Belief - theory.
Exactly! I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that 'bad evidence,' "evidence" that is not relevant or has no nexus to the proposition being advanced is excluded from consideration. In other words, it is ruled to not be 'evidence' at all.
particularly your claims and 'evidence' and sometimes I have to repeat the rebuttals. It would no doubt suit you if I didn't, but I shall continue to do so, all the time you repeat debunked claims and make irrelevant points (like languages perhaps had an origin) which is the crummiest effort to pretend you won the Babel argument that I have heard in a long while. And you have presented evidence which is consistent with nothing other than Genesis - literalist fiddling of the evidence to try to make it fit the Bible. I keep pointing out that actually you have no good evidence because you don't seem to understand this.
