otseng wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:29 amIn the end it's down to the reader. What did you present? Links to Creationist material.
Please list out which sources I cited were Creationist material in
post 654.
I don't just link to propaganda websites but explain to people why the evidence doesn't support the Babel story.
Please list out which sources I cited were propaganda websites in
post 654.
And suggestion that was the reason for diversity of language
And you do happen to know? As Diogenes pointed out:
Diogenes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:44 pm
The truth is we don't know exactly how language developed.
Taken out of context and a desktop model, so to speak, I suppose it could look persuasive, but in global context and other cultures like Egypt and China, how do they fit into this story?
Their languages also would've had their ultimate origin from Babel.
because there's no proof of what language they spoke, but the indirect evidence suggests continued proto - literate cultures in various areas,
Even if "proto-literate" cultures existed, how does that negate the Biblical account? You would need to show they had different languages.
what must be the first dynasty in China managing the flood and surviving with their own culture and language before any possible Babel event.
The first dynasty in China was the Xia dynasty.
"The Xia dynasty (Chinese: 夏朝; pinyin: Xiàcháo), is the first dynasty in traditional Chinese historiography."
"According to the traditional chronology based upon calculations by Liu Xin, the Xia ruled between 2205 and 1766 BC;"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_dynasty
This is
after the Babel event, if the 3500-3000 BC dating is correct.
"Some scholars use internal and external evidence to offer 3500–3000 BC as a likely range for the date of the tower"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_ ... r_of_Babel
In the wider context, or the Big Picture it makes nonsense of the Bible, just as the global context makes nonsense of the Hydroplate theory and in fact all the evidence makes nonsense of the whole Genesis -creation hypothesis.
Easy to claim, but there's been a severe lack of evidence to support such a claim as I've summarized in
post 654.
If I were a creationist, I'd be adding my hoc right now. 'Do I scrap the hydroplate theory and keep Pangaea to explain animal diversity? Or keep the Hydroplate and deny everything?'
False dichotomy.
What I will say is one can believe the whole of scripture and also have empirical support for the fundamental claims made. The claim of a global flood is supportable through empirical evidence, as well as the resurrection of Jesus, the tower of Babel, historical claims in the Bible, etc.
As for evolution, that is seriously one huge topic. We've even had a full length
book debate on Origin of Species. I would not mind engaging at some other point in time another book debate of anyone's choosing on evolution.
It's significant that right from the start you wanted to leave fossils and dating alone and deal with one thing (geology) in isolati
Yes, it's significant because I knew just the one specific topic of the sedimentary strata would take up many pages.
I would love to discuss fossils and dating as well, but that would also take up just as many pages, if not more.
The reader will have noted (I'll remind them, if not) that I have several times pointed out that the meanders of the Grand Canyon imply a long slow process of eroding the valley, not a rush of flood waters in a short time. Never once have you addressed that.
Relatively speaking, according to SG timeframe, it is quick.
"Conversely, the canyon itself is geologically young, having been carved in the last 6 million years."
https://www.nps.gov/articles/age-of-roc ... canyon.htm
"beginning just 5-6 million years ago, the Colorado River began to carve its way downward."
https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm
To compare the scale of time, let's take the topmost layer, the Kaibab formation. It roughly represents 270 million years. Let's take the median thickness of 400 feet. That's roughly 1.5 feet for each million years. 6 million years of the river eroding the entire Grand canyon would be equivalent to the time of just 9 feet of deposition of the strata. So, geologically speaking in SG, the canyon formation was quick.
As for 5-6 million years still being a long time, yes. But it is only assumed because of all the underlying assumptions (all the layers are millions of years and it has always been solid rock).
Also, the river at the Grand Canyon seems to be quite tame. One really expects such a tame river to have carved out the Grand Canyon?
If such a tame river can form a canyon, why do not all rivers form canyons? What makes a river a canyon producing river?
Also, I don't believe you've addressed why massive erosion resulting from a river would only occur
after all the sediments were deposited.
Let's try to do the quotes better this time. Let's see. Yes, Geologically speaking the cutting of the river canyon is quick compared to the depositing of the strata. But 6 million years is still a long time. It is like comparing sawing through a slab of cement compared to wearing it away with rain. The continuous flow of water is enough to cut through the rock, but whatever the meanders clearly rule out any quick rush over a year or so, so the Flood model is even more problematical. The point is - even if 6 million years of gradual erosion didn't explain the canyon, the Flood in just a year or less absolutely doesn't.
The only reason this is taking many pages is because you ask silly questions, refuse to listen and demand answers already given. So that gives you an excuse to focus on One thing (Geology) and keep at bay any relevant supportive evidence. Which I shall mention if I see fit, because I see no reason why you should dictate what is up for discussion and what isn't.
If you'd troubled to look you'd see that there are many other similar canyons. It depends on the land the river is cutting. River mouths of silt won't result on cliffs; nor a river cut through loess plains. A raised up bed of hard strata with a river flowing across it will.
If you couldn't be bothered to look up other river canyons, I see no reason why I should let you misdirect me into trying to find Creationist quotes when you may just have re - used their ideas, as you did Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. It might have been the ice -globeor ring theory; there are many confliting creationist theories.
As I said, I don't know whether all languages derived from one, or evolved when we already had various human tribes. That's irrelevant to the question of origins from one language (Sumerian) because of Babel. On archaeological evidence - basis we already had a lot of peoples/cultures who surely had their own languages which eventually were written as different languages. The evidence suggest that those languages were already spoken and it seem counter reasonable to suppose they were all speaking Sumerian and changed to Egyptian or Chinese just because of the
collapse of a tower in Mesopotamia (for which there is no archaeological evidence anyway).
"The Xia dynasty (Chinese: 夏朝; pinyin: Xiàcháo), is the first dynasty in traditional Chinese historiography."
"According to the traditional chronology based upon calculations by Liu Xin, the Xia ruled between 2205 and 1766 BC;""
I thought you didn't accept the standard Chronology. But the point is that if you do, that scuppers the Great Yu's control of the river as the Chinese Flood story as it's too late (after Babel) as well as being not a eradicating Flood anyway. That meaning that the Chinese have no flood story. Just as the Egyptians really don't. But even with the Xia dynasty there was proto -literate culture in China already, and no evidence of a Flood.
The point about proto literate cultures (and I'll bet others can see this and are laughing at your continued denial of the point) is that there was no flood - break in their development in the archaeology and the culture, when it became literate they wrote a language that wasn't Mesopotamian (despite your attempt to argue 'influence'). And as I said, the idea that they suddenly started speaking a non Mesopotamian language because of the collapse of a tower in the Middle east is absurd. On all evidence they were already speaking different languages. On a sliding scale of probability based on indirect evidence, separate evolution of languages is the explanation that best fits the evidence, and the Babel story (which as has been noted isn't actually claiming different languages but just aural confusion) has nothing going for it and makes no sense, anyway.
You may dismiss the arguments (not say ignore them) as well as refer back to arguments you made previously (but not the rebuttals of course). but they refute the Flood -Geology and the Babel scenario. It is not an unknown ploy of apologetics of the 2nd kind (1) to try to go over the whole thing again. Pardon me, I haven't time to waste. If you have a point to make, make it in the post - as I do.
Such as, it is NOT a false dichotomy to point out that the hydroplate theory based on the break -up of Pangaea
before the flood really started, refutes the Pangaea apologetic for how animals diversified After the Flood. If you can't see it, it's only a question of whether readers will laugh more than seeing that you pretend that you can't see it.
If you accept that Hydroplate break up of Pangaea (which you said you espoused previously) then you must accept that species -type diversity after the Ark will need another explanation than Pangaea (I already said that I will use whatever problems with Genesis- support theories occur to me and you don't get to say what I can post and what not).
What more? Well one can only believe the whole of scripture from Genesis through Exodus, the spin of the history and the gospels including and most of the rest of the Book if one refuses to accept the way the evidence Really points and insists on denial, dismissal and evasion, not to say attempts at misdirection (2)which I may say I'm too canny to fall for.
But like we old atheist say (even while being New atheists
) is 'you can't make it drink'.
Really just to say that dating and fossil distribution is actually quick to explain. The sequence of fossils follows evolutionary development comprehensively but not any of the float lighter/swim faster excuses that Creationists try to come up with, and rock - dating of many various methods confirm one another and Creationist attempts to debunk it failed. But I can suppose you could waste many pages of posting Creationist claims I'd have to take time and effort to refute.
That all you're getting from me tonight folks, let's have a preview...That'll do..
(1) apologetics ..
of the 1st kind - argue on the evidence
apologetics of the 2nd kind -0 dickering about the evidence
Apologetics of the 3rd kind, Sauce. (Aka engineer a Flounce)
(2) e.g misdirecting the point of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem towards the fact that it actually happened (and the Bible is reliable) and away from the fact that (on the evidence and all reason) Hezekiah waved the white flag and God did NOT smite the Assyrians (at least noty so as to save Jerusalem) which is is the 'Spin' that makes the Bible Not reliable. Pointing up such attempts to bamboozle the jury is as good for me as pointing up just where the Bible looses credibility.
- I swear they will posit an original Bible now lost if the present one won't fit - are to be taken as the default. and they have to be disproven or God/Bible remains the default. Now I accept that the Bible is as much evidence as any other book and dissenters have to debunk it. I say that the debunks are more than adequate. But Bleivers still think that all they have to do is deny everything and they win by default.
