The Tower of Babel -- History or Myth? Put your thinking caps on, guys and gals

Started by eyeshaveit, July 22, 2022, 10:40:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 27, 2022, 08:04:52 PMCave paintings and pictorial art in general are not regarded as "language."

Cave paintings were freedom of speech
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Mark

Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 27, 2022, 05:24:58 PMI have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven.
Where in the bible does it say there's no internet in Heaven?   :-)
Mark's contribution to chess opening theory:
www.Marksopening.blogspot.com

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Mark on July 28, 2022, 10:26:49 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 27, 2022, 05:24:58 PMI have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven.
Where in the bible does it say there's no internet in Heaven?  :-)

Luke 16:26 for one
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Kiahanie

Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 28, 2022, 02:57:33 PM
Quote from: Mark on July 28, 2022, 10:26:49 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 27, 2022, 05:24:58 PMI have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven.
Where in the bible does it say there's no internet in Heaven?  :-)

Luke 16:26 for one

I for one am glad of that. Social media is the devil's own invention.

I am sorry you will not be with us long, Eyes. We could use another competent Christian since meAgain is on leave.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Teaspoon Shallow

Eyeshaveit:  "I have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven."

I am deeply saddened to learn about this today.  I am glad I had the opportunity to converse with you over the years and hope you and your family have support during this difficult period.  
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

8livesleft

QuoteNo, not saying nobody spoke. Asking what evidence for speaking. Stark appearance, legible writing, given 195/295K years (as you report above).

So far, the earliest systemic form of writing is proposed to be 6-8000 years back.

The main issue is that writing is very difficult to preserve. The few surviving systems we have are from carvings, stone/clay tablets and those are extremely hard to come by. 


Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asemic
Asemia: a communication disorder
Asemic writing: Asemic writing is a wordless open semantic form of writing. ..

Thing with Asemic writing is that we can compare it to current standard writing methods. 

The ancient systems don't fall into the same category since we simply don't have a frame of reference from the same time.

However, we can distinguish between asemia and systemic writing based on patterns, repetition, contextual use. Asemia is easy to replicate now with our pens and paper, ancient people didn't have that, they'd have to carve/paint - which takes a lot of work and is generally not worth doing or wasting time on. And writing was likely reserved for specific people and places and so, not just anyone can carve/paint wherever/whenever. 

Teaspoon Shallow

Australian first people rock art has been dated over 17,000 years and some communicate stories.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56164484

There is insufficient evidence to conclude the Tower of Babel is anything more than a story created by humans.
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 28, 2022, 10:18:08 PMEyeshaveit:  "I have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven."

I am deeply saddened to learn about this today.  I am glad I had the opportunity to converse with you over the years and hope you and your family have support during this difficult period. 

Just speaking for myself: it's really not at all difficult. God has provided me with more than I need -- I have an excess. And I'm upbeat, I'm joyful and looking forward to meeting my Lord and Savior.



Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Teaspoon Shallow

I am pleased to hear that Eyes.  The multiple times I thought I was going I did not feel fear but a peace too.  I did not think I was going to see any spirit being though.
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

kevin

i dont have any fear of death, personally, althiugh i would prefer a simple one, out of consideration for my family. currently, i exist as a conscious entity, and after i die i have no evidence that i wont simply cease to have that existence.

and death is always close. i am sitting on the side of the road at the moment, having lost a front wheel bearing and tire in busy rush hour traffic. i was going 5 mph. i weigh 76,000 pouns and have been driving at 70 mph all morning. had the bearing failed at that speed the results would have been catastrophic.

i addition, i contracted covid early this week. i am immunized, but had i not been the results of that could have been unfortunate as well.

death is always near, simply by virtue of being alive. i appear to have dodged the bullet twice this week.
dare to know.

8livesleft

Quote from: eyeshaveit on July 29, 2022, 08:24:49 AM
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on July 28, 2022, 10:18:08 PMEyeshaveit:  "I have to forgive you, Kevin, I'm a Christian. And I'm not back here for long -- the docs say I won't live to see Christmas this year and there's no internet in Heaven."

I am deeply saddened to learn about this today.  I am glad I had the opportunity to converse with you over the years and hope you and your family have support during this difficult period. 

Just speaking for myself: it's really not at all difficult. God has provided me with more than I need -- I have an excess. And I'm upbeat, I'm joyful and looking forward to meeting my Lord and Savior.





I hope for your continued positivity of spirit and peace of mind no matter how things go. 

maritime

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 29, 2022, 01:15:47 AM
QuoteNo, not saying nobody spoke. Asking what evidence for speaking. Stark appearance, legible writing, given 195/295K years (as you report above).

The main issue is that writing is very difficult to preserve. The few surviving systems we have are from carvings, stone/clay tablets and those are extremely hard to come by.

^Not so.
North Star Polaris Sept 26, 2021 photo by JE

Francis

Quote from: kevin on July 29, 2022, 12:08:43 PMi dont have any fear of death, personally, althiugh i would prefer a simple one, out of consideration for my family. currently, i exist as a conscious entity, and after i die i have no evidence that i wont simply cease to have that existence.

and death is always close. i am sitting on the side of the road at the moment, having lost a front wheel bearing and tire in busy rush hour traffic. i was going 5 mph. i weigh 76,000 pouns and have been driving at 70 mph all morning. had the bearing failed at that speed the results would have been catastrophic.

i addition, i contracted covid early this week. i am immunized, but had i not been the results of that could have been unfortunate as well.

death is always near, simply by virtue of being alive. i appear to have dodged the bullet twice this week.

Very glad that you are still with us.  

kevin

almost wasnt. when the tow truck driver lifted thw tractor the wheel fell off. i had been driving with nothing holding the wheel on
dare to know.

Kiahanie

Quote from: kevin on July 29, 2022, 08:55:31 PMalmost wasnt. when the tow truck driver lifted thw tractor the wheel fell off. i had been driving with nothing holding the wheel on
Damn.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

Quote from: maritime on July 29, 2022, 04:14:00 PM
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 29, 2022, 01:15:47 AM
QuoteNo, not saying nobody spoke. Asking what evidence for speaking. Stark appearance, legible writing, given 195/295K years (as you report above).

The main issue is that writing is very difficult to preserve. The few surviving systems we have are from carvings, stone/clay tablets and those are extremely hard to come by.

^Not so.

Really? How do you suppose we came to discover those ancient systems of Sumer/egypt/china? 

kevin

Quote from: Francis on July 27, 2022, 05:34:13 PM
Quote from: kevin on July 27, 2022, 05:15:31 PMno data.

but the 6000 year jewish model is internally consistent, and is not contradicted by science.

I'm not following. 

How can a 6000 year model for the age of the earth be consistent with... or not contradict a Billion year age model (current scientific calculations)... or even a 20-400 million year model (first proposed by physicist William Thomson in 1862)... which even then, is not long enough according to Darwin?

Secondly, what do you mean "internally consistent"? 

I'm not talking about something being "internally consistent", but about what is outside of the model by which a model  (any model) can be tested as being either consistent or inconsistent with known science.

Can't a theory be "internally consistent" and yet still be wrong?

Hope you are doing well


the short answer is that scripture describes an earth created with a dynamic initial condition and initial composition, a world created with all the processes we observe today in action.

for example, eden was created with active rivers, including the euphrates. what is a river? a perfectly round puddle of chemically pure water splashed on a flat and featureless bed of some pure mineral?

no. a river is a dynamic process in action- a body of flowing chemical saturated water building and relocating a bed consisting of graded particles made up of the matetials upstream. the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface.

so the euphrates had to be created in much the same form that we see now, a river, like scripture says, flowing, flooding, eroding, depositing, with a heavy traction load of dand and pebbles in the bed and a variety of suspended particles in the water.

likewise for soil-- the plants had to be growing on something in the new earth. did they have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear? no. the earth was created with that process in full swing. soil was part of the created land, because that is what land is.

what about gems? did the precious stones mentioned in genesis have to wait for tectonics to push plates together and compress the crust into gem-making metamorphic belts? no. genesis says there were gems, so there had to be mountains, and the gemstones were there already, because gemstones are one thing mountains are made of.

what about the isotope ratios people use to date the earth as very old? people who dont think about genesis carefully try to cast doubt on the calculations. but radioactive isotopes are ordinary parts of igneous rocks, like gemstones in schists, and genesis specifically says that mountains were part of the initial created earth. so the radioactive isotopes had to be created at some existing ratios along with the rocks that made up the mountains, because thats what mountains are. the rstios wrrent zero, they were created at some figure when the mountsins were created.

the calculations that people make from isotopes that lead to an old earth dont contradict genesis any more than the ancient meander belt of the euphrates river does.

scripture says that the earth was created. rivers; soil, mountains, gemstones, and isotopic ratios are all part of that 6000 year old creation.
dare to know.

eyeshaveit

"And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

The Eden that Adam and Eve dwelt in was a vastly different place than anything we can imagine. Life there was more than just a lack of thorns and thistles. Eden's year-round diet consisted of freshly picked fruits. And the climate and textures of both soil and ground cover were conducive to comfortable living and sleeping sans clothing. It was peaceful in Eden. Life wasn't aimless, Adam and Eve had duties -- their work was inspected and rewarded.     
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: Francis on July 27, 2022, 05:34:13 PMCan't a theory be "internally consistent" and yet still be wrong?


yes. it certainly can be wrong. but young earth theory cannot be proven wrong, it can merely be proven to be inconsistent with the modern theory of unformtarianism.

young earth is not a scientific theory. in spite of the apologists who attempt to discuss it in those terms, young earth is religious mythology in search of support, rather than facts that lead to a conclusion. that is exactly the reverse of how genuine science operates. as a religious belief, young earth is fine. so is the hindu concept of the cyclic ages of the universe, or the australian dream time, or the muspelheim and niflheim of the pagan norse. every religion has a perfectly satisfactory explanation for how the universe began according to its teachings. none are testable as science, because thats not what science is.
dare to know.

Francis

THIS IS IN REPLY TO POST #106 FROM KEVIN.

Kevin, how are you?

Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMthe short answer is that scripture describes an earth created with a dynamic initial condition and initial composition, a world created with all the processes we observe today in action.


The short answer is that I think you are confusing me with someone else in here. And I think you are reading into the scripture what you want to see.

Even then, if you were speaking to me, i'm very confused about what your point is.  For example you said: "the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface".

I AGREE!  That is why I don't believe that Genesis is talking about all this happening within 6000 years or days.  That is why I'm not a young earther.  The science tells us that it took millions of years for these things to develop.  And the word "yom" in Genesis shows that there is no contradiction between Genesis and science.

And that is why I'm confused by your post and what your point is.

But I know you are a bright fellow, and so maybe I'm just not understanding your words/sentences.




Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMfor example, eden was created with active rivers, including the euphrates. what is a river? a perfectly round puddle of chemically pure water splashed on a flat and featureless bed of some pure mineral?

no. a river is a dynamic process in action- a body of flowing chemical saturated water building and relocating a bed consisting of graded particles made up of the matetials upstream. the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface.

so the euphrates had to be created in much the same form that we see now, a river, like scripture says, flowing, flooding, eroding, depositing, with a heavy traction load of dand and pebbles in the bed and a variety of suspended particles in the water.

Still very confused by your post. You're speaking to an old earther, not to a young earther. I agree that if Genesis took only a few days...or even 6,000 years, then the young earther has no other recourse but to believe that the things Genesis talks about, had to be created in much the same form that we see now.

But science says differently, it contradicts young earthers.  And the word "yom" in Genesis shows that there is no contradiction between Genesis and science since "yom" doesn't have to be a 24hr day, nor a day equaling a few thousand of years. Yom can mean a very long time.





Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMlikewise for soil-- the plants had to be growing on something in the new earth. did they have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear? no. the earth was created with that process in full swing. soil was part of the created land, because that is what land is.

Why couldn't plants have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear?  How do you know the earth was created with that process in full swing? The text doesn't tell us how long the process actually was. And the science says that the plants DID have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear before they can start growing.

That's the point.

This is what I mean when I say I think you are reading into the text, the very thing you want to see.



Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMwhat about gems? did the precious stones mentioned in genesis have to wait for tectonics to push plates together and compress the crust into gem-making metamorphic belts? no. genesis says the mountains were created, as mountains, so the gemstones were there already, because gemstones are one thing mountains are made of..

Genesis doesn't say how long it took for mountains to be created.  So why couldn't the gems have to wait for tectonics to push plates together and compress the crust into gem-making metamorphic belts?  YOM doesn't have to mean only a 24hr day, nor only a 1,000 year old days.

If I say I created a painting, that doesn't say how long it took me. But people understand that a painting could have taken a couple of hours, or years.  If I say I wrote a book, that doesn't say how long it took me. But people understand that a book could have taken a few days, or years.  If I say the Romans built a coliseum, that doesn't say how long it took the Romans to built it, but people understand that it took years to built, and was not built in a matter of days.

Science says that the things we see being created in Genesis, took millions of years. And there is nothing in the Genesis language that contradicts science.

That's the point.




Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMwhat about the isotope ratios people use to date the earth as very old? people who dont think about genesis carefully try to cast doubt on the calculations..

I don't cast doubt on the calculations.


Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMbut radioactive isotopes are ordinary parts of igneous rocks, like gemstones in schists, and genesis specifically says that mountains were part of the initial created earth.

Genesis doesn't say how long it took for the mountains to develop, nor any other part of the "creation days" in Genesis.

Indeed, the initial created earth was without form, and void. And Genesis doesn't tell us how long it took for the created earth to finally have dry land appear in verse 9.

Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMso the radioactive isotopes had to be created at some existing ratios along with the rocks that made up the mountains, because thats what mountains are. the rstios wrrent zero, they were created at some figure when the mountsins were created.

I agree with science... and I think Genesis does as well because there is nothing in the language of Genesis that contradicts science.



Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMthe calculations that people make from isotopes that lead to an old earth dont contradict genesis any more than the ancient meander belt of the euphrates river contradicts genesis

????  But earlier you said: "the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface".

Genesis is either talking about a young earth, or an old earth.  Both can't be true without violationg the law of non-contradiction.

That is why I'm very very very confused about what you are trying to say.



Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMscripture says that the earth was created. rivers; soil, mountains, gemstones, and isotopic ratios are all part of that 6000 year old creation.

Scriptures don't say whether the process took 6,000 years... or millions of years.

That is the point.



Some other points to consider:

1) "Today, many Jewish people accept the theory of evolution and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, reflecting the emphasis of prominent rabbis such as the Vilna Gaon and Maimonides on the ethical rather than factual significance of scripture".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution]

2) "Most modern rabbis believe that the world is older than 6,000 years... Rabbis who have this view base their conclusions on verses in the Talmud or in the midrash.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]

3) "a literalist reading of the Book of Genesis is rare in Judaism".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]

4) "In the late 1880s, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, an influential leader in the early opposition to non-Orthodox forms of Judaism, wrote that while he did not endorse the idea of common descent (that all life developed from one common organism), even if science ever did prove the factuality of Evolution, it would not pose a threat to Orthodox Judaism's beliefs. He posited that belief in evolution could instead cause one to be more reverent of God by understanding His wonders (a master plan for the universe)."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]


I could keep on going, but the point is clear that among most rabbis and Jewish people... even the orthodox, there is no contradiction at all between Genesis and a very old earth... even an earth that is much much much much older than only 6,000 years old.

Hope you are well


Francis

Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: Francis on July 27, 2022, 05:34:13 PMCan't a theory be "internally consistent" and yet still be wrong?


yes. it certainly can be wrong. but young earth theory cannot be proven wrong, it can merely be proven to be inconsistent with the modern theory of unformtarianism.

young earth is not a scientific theory. in spite of the apologists who attempt to discuss it in those terms, young earth is religious mythology in search of support, rather than facts that lead to a conclusion. that is exactly the reverse of how genuine science operates. as a religious belief, young earth is fine. so is the hindu concept of the cyclic ages of the universe, or the australian dream time, or the muspelheim and niflheim of the pagan norse. every religion has a perfectly satisfactory explanation for how the universe began according to its teachings. none are testable as science, because thats not what science is.

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

I'm not a young earther.  Never have been.  There is nothing in Genesis (in the creation story) which contradicts an old earth or with science or with the opinions of Genesis among most Jews and rabbis... even the orthodox... that the earth is far far far far older than 6,000 years old.


Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 04:55:28 PMyoung earth is not a scientific theory. in spite of the apologists who attempt to discuss it in those terms, young earth is religious mythology in search of support, rather than facts that lead to a conclusion. that is exactly the reverse of how genuine science operates. as a religious belief, young earth is fine. so is the hindu concept of the cyclic ages of the universe, or the australian dream time, or the muspelheim and niflheim of the pagan norse. every religion has a perfectly satisfactory explanation for how the universe began according to its teachings. none are testable as science, because thats not what science is.

I agree with everything you said.  That is why I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Hope you are well

8livesleft

Something goofy about biblical timeframes. They have rulers living hundreds of years for example. 

kevin

Quote from: Francis on July 30, 2022, 11:16:24 PMTHIS IS IN REPLY TO POST #106 FROM KEVIN.

Kevin, how are you?


sick with covid, but recovering. thank you.

Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMthe short answer is that scripture describes an earth created with a dynamic initial condition and initial composition, a world created with all the processes we observe today in action.


The short answer is that I think you are confusing me with someone else in here. And I think you are reading into the scripture what you want to see.

Even then, if you were speaking to me, i'm very confused about what your point is.  For example you said: "the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface".

I AGREE!  That is why I don't believe that Genesis is talking about all this happening within 6000 years or days.  That is why I'm not a young earther.  The science tells us that it took millions of years for these things to develop.  And the word "yom" in Genesis shows that there is no contradiction between Genesis and science.

And that is why I'm confused by your post and what your point is.


you asked me how it worked. i dont believe it either.

QuoteBut I know you are a bright fellow, and so maybe I'm just not understanding your words/sentences.


Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMfor example, eden was created with active rivers, including the euphrates. what is a river? a perfectly round puddle of chemically pure water splashed on a flat and featureless bed of some pure mineral?

no. a river is a dynamic process in action- a body of flowing chemical saturated water building and relocating a bed consisting of graded particles made up of the matetials upstream. the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface.

so the euphrates had to be created in much the same form that we see now, a river, like scripture says, flowing, flooding, eroding, depositing, with a heavy traction load of dand and pebbles in the bed and a variety of suspended particles in the water.

Still very confused by your post. You're speaking to an old earther, not to a young earther. I agree that if Genesis took only a few days...or even 6,000 years, then the young earther has no other recourse but to believe that the things Genesis talks about, had to be created in much the same form that we see now.

But science says differently, it contradicts young earthers.  And the word "yom" in Genesis shows that there is no contradiction between Genesis and science since "yom" doesn't have to be a 24hr day, nor a day equaling a few thousand of years. Yom can mean a very long time.


science canot contradict young earthers, francis. my whole post is an an explanation of why that is true.


Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMlikewise for soil-- the plants had to be growing on something in the new earth. did they have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear? no. the earth was created with that process in full swing. soil was part of the created land, because that is what land is.

Why couldn't plants have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear?  How do you know the earth was created with that process in full swing? The text doesn't tell us how long the process actually was. And the science says that the plants DID have to wait centuries for soil to be built by erosion and decaying organic matter to appear before they can start growing.

That's the point.

youre quoting science, francis. im quoting scripture.

QuoteThis is what I mean when I say I think you are reading into the text, the very thing you want to see.



Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMwhat about gems? did the precious stones mentioned in genesis have to wait for tectonics to push plates together and compress the crust into gem-making metamorphic belts? no. genesis says the mountains were created, as mountains, so the gemstones were there already, because gemstones are one thing mountains are made of..
[wuote]

Genesis doesn't say how long it took for mountains to be created.  So why couldn't the gems have to wait for tectonics to push plates together and compress the crust into gem-making metamorphic belts?  YOM doesn't have to mean only a 24hr day, nor only a 1,000 year old days.

what crust, francis? the earths crust is a mixture of pre-existing granite and diorite batholiths, rhyolites and andesite lavas, accreted metamorphic and igneous rocks on continental shields, gabbros and basalts on the ocean flloors, chemical and clastic sediments above and below sea level, and subducting zones alongside trenches where it all is being recycled. there was no crust unless we re looking at an earth 4.65 billion years old. but YE theory doesnt need that.  are you saying that the old earth was created in some other way?

QuoteIf I say I created a painting, that doesn't say how long it took me. But people understand that a painting could have taken a couple of hours, or years.  If I say I wrote a book, that doesn't say how long it took me. But people understand that a book could have taken a few days, or years.  If I say the Romans built a coliseum, that doesn't say how long it took the Romans to built it, but people understand that it took years to built, and was not built in a matter of days.

it sounds to me as if you accept everything about the scientific theory of earth history except the lack of a need for any god, francis. thats fine, but its not YE theory.

i prefer the plain reading of scripture. im not trying to reconcile scripture with science- i dont think that is possible. but your position is one possibility.

QuoteScience says that the things we see being created in Genesis, took millions of years. And there is nothing in the Genesis language that contradicts science.

That's the point.

you ll have to take that up with young earthers, francis. they will disagree with you, and i have just shown how their theory can overcome any scientific criticism. most of them dont understand this, though, and waste their time trying to disprove science instead. which they make a poor showing of.

Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMwhat about the isotope ratios people use to date the earth as very old? people who dont think about genesis carefully try to cast doubt on the calculations..

I don't cast doubt on the calculations.

but you asked how YE and science can be reconciled, so i told you.


Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMbut radioactive isotopes are ordinary parts of igneous rocks, like gemstones in schists, and genesis specifically says that mountains were part of the initial created earth.

Genesis doesn't say how long it took for the mountains to develop, not any other part of the "creation days" in Genesis.

Indeed, the initial created earth was without form, and void. And Genesis doesn't tell us how long it took for the created earth to finally have dry land appear in verse 9.

Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMso the radioactive isotopes had to be created at some existing ratios along with the rocks that made up the mountains, because thats what mountains are. the rstios wrrent zero, they were created at some figure when the mountsins were created.

I agree with science... and I think Genesis does as well because there is nothing in the language of Genesis that contradicts science.

i agree. genesis cannot be falsified.


Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMthe calculations that people make from isotopes that lead to an old earth dont contradict genesis any more than the ancient meander belt of the euphrates river contradicts genesis

????  But earlier you said: "the euphrates is a meandering river-- 6000 years is not enough time to build a mature meander belt from a puddle of pure water splashed onto a flat mineral surface".

Genesis is either talking about a young earth, or an old earth.  Both can't be true without violationg the law of non-contradiction.

That is why I'm very very very confused about what you are trying to say.

read my point about the river again. a meander belt takes tens of thousands of years to develop, and 6000 years is insufficient. but we have the euphrates, as it is. therefore the euphrates was created as a meandering river, with levees, graded bedding, point bars, oxbows, and so on, not formed by nature but by creation. the alternative is, what?

a featureless plain of granite with a huge circular puddle that eventually trickled in one random direction long enough to build a gradient? what was the primaeval substrate? granite? limestone? sand? all those require prior erosion and depostion  for millenia to form, in a world climate that never rained.

Quote
Quote from: kevin on July 30, 2022, 01:34:42 PMscripture says that the earth was created. rivers; soil, mountains, gemstones, and isotopic ratios are all part of that 6000 year old creation.

Scriptures don't say whether the process took 6,000 years... or millions of years.

That is the point.



Some other points to consider:

1) "Today, many Jewish people accept the theory of evolution and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, reflecting the emphasis of prominent rabbis such as the Vilna Gaon and Maimonides on the ethical rather than factual significance of scripture".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution]

2) "Most modern rabbis believe that the world is older than 6,000 years... Rabbis who have this view base their conclusions on verses in the Talmud or in the midrash.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]

3) "a literalist reading of the Book of Genesis is rare in Judaism".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]

4) "In the late 1880s, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, an influential leader in the early opposition to non-Orthodox forms of Judaism, wrote that while he did not endorse the idea of common descent (that all life developed from one common organism), even if science ever did prove the factuality of Evolution, it would not pose a threat to Orthodox Judaism's beliefs. He posited that belief in evolution could instead cause one to be more reverent of God by understanding His wonders (a master plan for the universe)."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings]


I could keep on going, but the point is clear that among most rabbis and Jewish people... even the orthodox, there is no contradiction at all between Genesis and a very old earth... even an earth that is much much much much older than only 6,000 years old.

Hope you are well



young earth theory is not jewish, francis.

my post points out that YE theory cannot be disproven by science, not that anybody should believe it.

i consider it poorly-informed and poorly-defended nonsense, but it is nonsense that holds together internally as well as any other religous belief.

my blood oxygen has gone from 94 to 98, so im on the mend.

stay away from covid.
dare to know.


8livesleft

Quotemy blood oxygen has gone from 94 to 98, so im on the mend.

stay away from covid.


Ya covid sux especially how easily it gets around. Glad you're getting better.

Francis

Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: kevin on July 31, 2022, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: Francis on July 30, 2022, 11:16:24 PMTHIS IS IN REPLY TO POST #106 FROM KEVIN.

Kevin, how are you?


sick with covid, but recovering. thank you.

my blood oxygen has gone from 94 to 98, so im on the mend.

stay away from covid.


Glad you are  recovering!!! 

I had covid once, and I was not immunized at the time.  My doctor told me later, (he wouldn't tell me at time of my diagnosis).. after I had finally  recovered... that he didn't think I was going to live through it because I had so much going against me... my age, being a male, and because of my prior health conditions, etc.

I was so sick.  Incredible.  But luckily I didn't have to go to the hospital and be put on oxygen, etc.  As for my blood oxygen at the time, it was down to 92.

I lost some good friends... people who were healthier than me at the time they got covid.  Still can't figure it all out.

After I  recovered, the doctor said my getting covid acted as an immunization shot so I didn't need to get a shot.  But enough time has elapsed, and so I think I will get the shot.  Which one do you  recommend?

As for the rest of your post, I will respond later, Have to get back home.

Take care

Shnozzola

Francis 
    From everything seen, Moderna is the best currently,  with Pfizer not far behind.  Johnson and Johnson not quite as good, with small chance if bloodclots.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

Quote from: Shnozzola on July 31, 2022, 12:28:10 AMFrancis
    From everything seen, Moderna is the best currently,  with Pfizer not far behind.  Johnson and Johnson not quite as good, with small chance if bloodclots.

We took pfizer. Hear moderna is a bit more potent tho.

Heard the bloodclot issue with astra zenica too...but quite remote or so they said

Shnozzola

Yeah ^^^, We had 2 pfizers also, then heard enough about moderna to get that as a booster.  Thinking in a couple months when the booster has BA5 added, we will get another moderna.   ||smiley||
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

First vaccines here were from china. All those people who got those had to get a whole new course because of low antibodies. So they had to get 3 more on top of the first 2...

China has a big hole to climb out of if they stick to their weak @ss meds.