Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think unless there is conclusive evidence the tower story is true why believe it? Seeker shouldn't have to disprove that, rather you should have to prove it.
Umm, we aren't talking about one animal that got a little too close to the sea and got swept 200 feet off shore. We are talking about millions if not billions of sea creatures being entombed all of a sudden with land creatures and land plants.
Jelly fish are a prime example. They are so sensitive to destruction that they get knocked to pieces if swept ashore. What happened is in the world-wide flood, the Jelly fish along with the bear, zebra, and a host of other animals were inundated by flood waters and sand and mud and this mixture encapsulated them. That is how they became trapped like in cement and preserved only to be discovered a little over 4000 years later to prove Noah's flood was a real historic event after all.
Please re-review the video provided along with the PROOF the scientist gave. I don't have to go out and do your homework.
I know we are not talking about one animal. we are talking about millions of sea -creatures, with plants, bears and zebras as you say - all of which do not (so far as I know) appear in the fossil record together.
Perhaps I shall sit through that video the Creationist with a science certificate gave - though what I was able to stomach was enough to show me that his Creationist views were quite devoid of science.
I don't expect much more than claims that the fossil record shows land and marine fossils all in together and no much more than that claim, because I have looked through the creationists sites and the only one they describe is that ankylosaurus, which is the only one that even looks like it might fit into a flood -scenario.
If there were other that were at least as good, let alone even more land animals of all types jumbled up together, you can be sure they would have said so and I and you would not have to be obliged to seek out the reports to see what was actually found.
I think he can. The tower of Babel is of course the Bab - il Marduk of Babylon city which was not destroyed at all until late Roman times.
If there was another, different, tower of Babel, you prove it. You show the buried foundations. If not, it is, like the other Genesis tales, including the Ark...to keep in remote touch with the topic...to be considered myth.
I think unless there is conclusive evidence the tower story is true why believe it? Seeker shouldn't have to disprove that, rather you should have to prove it.
Sorry but that is not how debate works.
He stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Even the story of the tower of babel is not real, It was invented to explain this diversity.
Therefore it is up to him to prove the tower of babel was not real but was invented.
If there were other that were at least as good, let alone even more land animals of all types jumbled up together, you can be sure they would have said so and I and you would not have to be obliged to seek out the reports to see what was actually found.
Great post!
Why can the fundamentalist do like the Catholic Church?n The CC accepted evolution, the Big Bang, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
The CC believes that the above was under the supervision of God.
In a sense the CC believes in scientific creationism. The beauty of this position is that it changes nothing with respect to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.
I just did with that post. Zulu and the bushman language are so vastly different and I would stake my last dollar that neither were ever in the sandpit of the ME.
You need to save up some pennies and come to SA on vacation and I will show you stuff you never dreamed of or thought existed. I have never been to Egypt but what I have gleaned off pics, there is nothing big to write home about.
I said it earlier, if the bible story emanated from Southern Africa, the content would have been entirely different. Based on your posts,it does appear you have not been exposed to too much diversification like I have. Everything I post pics of I have seen personally.
Now, a kid asks mommy or daddy why so many different skin colours and languages. No answer so they invent a god story to explain the diversity.
I used to speak the local language of the black folk in Livingstone as a kid but I lost that skill as I grew up and my folks emigrated south where the language was again entirely different.
There are so many differences in their culture and I was lucky to have witnessed the last vestiges of traditionalism first hand.
How much diversity have you as an individual been exposed to? I would hazard a guess and say white neighbourhood, white school, white friends and mostly English speaking. Most of my life, it was inevitable to mix with black folk so I have a pretty good idea of their cultures.
IMO you are basing your ideas on hearsay and you have not had the benefit of just how quickly things change in a short distance.
I met a black guy from my hometown in Zimbabwe in Ghana and he recognised my accent. When I asked him if he understood the local language, he replied, nothing in common, he spoke English with them.
You see, this exposure is why I know the Babel story is a myth. I met Somalians recently in SA and their language is closer to Arabic than what the folk speak here plus they look nothing like our locals.
Why can the fundamentalist do like the Catholic Church?n The CC accepted evolution, the Big Bang, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
The CC believes that the above was under the supervision of God.
In a sense the CC believes in scientific creationism. The beauty of this position is that it changes nothing with respect to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.
The truth of the matter is that fundamentalists are terrified that if the creation story isn't 100% literal, it will destroy the original sin doctrine which in their minds will destroy their idea of how Christ's sacrifice redeems. I think this is very presumptuous on their part. Eve not literally bitting an apple or whatever doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a metaphor for something else that was also a separation from God and humans. Heck, one of the oldest ideas regarding "the fall" believed by many Rabbis of the time is that Adam and Eve had sex with Satan (who was not neccessarily in a modern serpent form) and the fruit and tree's were all metaphorical since they were words occasionally used in innuendo at the time.
I once saw a horrible but almost great movie called "Adam and Eve vs the Cannibals" (LOL) that had a very interesting take on creation. It seemed to suggest that Adam and Eve were created specially and separately, but after the fall, they find out that in the jungles there are other humans who speak different languages and also neanderthal-like cannibals they fight against...ROFL! ...Anyways, The point is that there are many possibilities regarding the metaphor usage in this story as well as the very different type of hebrew writing used in the first 2 chapters and the fundamentalists are assuming waay too much and fighting waay too hard for our current evolutionary understanding to all be bunk.
Last edited by Jrhockney; 01-30-2014 at 10:51 AM..
Yes, folks, let's all take a scholarly lesson from Eusebius in smart debating procedures and manners.
His counterpoint to this typically cordial and respectful posting last Sunday:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I can't remember anything you have brought to the table but denial of geological and palaeontological assurances that the earth is millions of years old and that a global flood with associated mountains suddenly shooting up (let alone all the global species being wiped out higgledy -piggledy in in one huge flood -layer (which is of course not the case) and then replaced by all the species again - only for all the 'prehistoric' ones to suddenly go extinct) did not happen.
I can't bring to mind anything but speculative, far -fetched and rather wonky denial of what archeology tells us about the technology of before, say 3,000 B.c. Though I have to say it is an improvement on our last debate where you tried to deny that a 400 foot -long ship without metal - framing was perfectly seaworthy. Now at least you argue that Noah knew that he needed it, though how he did unless building 400 foot long wooden boats in his day was as common as oil -tankers in Gdansk, I can't imagine.
And to that you add the Black sea flood which is utterly unhelpful to the Bible and in fact discredits it, even if it explains where persistent flood legends came from. What, exactly, have you brought to table? What, other than faith in the literal factuality of genesis?..And to that you add the Black sea flood which is utterly unhelpful to the Bible and in fact discredits it, even if it explains where persistent flood legends came from. What, exactly, have you brought to table? What, other than faith in the literal factuality of genesis?
Thanks for your posts. Eusebius is a great fighter and I respect his conviction. I can also see that, while I feel that his line of the Ark, Flood and indeed pretty much all history up to 200AD is based on what the Bible says, he sees my views and being just as firmly based on what the Bible says - being wrong
It isn't quite like that and it really is the evidence that counts, and absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - in definite areas where evidence ought to be there. When one is in the position of explaining why there isn't sign of ironworking pre 3,000 BC, and no sign of a tower of babel, which satellite photos should have found - it has shown us several ancient pyramids demolished to foundation -level - then the weight of credit has to shift to the side which, if it doesn't have definite evidence, at least has a theory that doesn't suffer from making claims without evidence to support it.
I am going to pull myself together and sit through that video and hopefully take some notes. I at least owe it to our pal to have a look at the evidence presented and follow up the animals mixed with fish -sites and check that we are getting it correctly. because, as I have said, I have seen a LOT of claims of evidence for a Flood (particularly) which turned out to be anything but, so I can't just take such claims at face value.
And yes, if there was such hard indisputible evidence, I am sure we would all know about it.
I just want to repeat - this isn't about God's existence or Christianity. It is about Bible literalism. In a way, it is doing Christianity a favour as a god who had to do a factory -recall of all his creation and start again with a bunch who were no better, after all, incompetence is the least it looks like.
To keep God's credibility intact, it is surely better that all this Flood -stuff is just seen as man's best guess at where we all came from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Anyways, The point is that there are many possibilities regarding the metaphor usage in this story as well as the very different type of hebrew writing used in the first 2 chapters and the fundamentalists are assuming waay too much and fighting waay too hard for our current evolutionary understanding to all be bunk.