Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[dad]

The past was not recorded in the Bible. Some unknown writer(s) compiled a bunch of stories told around campfires by ignorant Jews and scribbled them down.

If you want to use the term "recorded" then you have to show who recorded what.

Who recorded God creating Adam? No one.
Who recorded Adam eating from the fruit of the tree? Eve? Did she make notes?
Who recorded Cain killing Abel? No one.
Who recorded the Flood? No one.

You thought God wasn't there??

 

[dad]

How reliable is geologic dating?
One question that sometimes arises here is how can scientists assume that rates of radioactivity have been constant over the great time spans involved. Creationist Henry Morris, for example, criticizes this type of "uniformitarian" assumption [Morris2000, pg. 91]. But numerous experiments have been conducted to detect any change in radioactivity as a result of chemical activity, exceedingly high heat, pressure, or magnetic field. None of these experiments has detected any significant deviation for any isotope used in geologic dating [Dalrymple1991, pg. 86-89; Dalrymple2004, pg. 58-60].

Scientists have also performed very exacting experiments to detect any change in the constants or laws of physics over time, but various lines of evidence indicate that these laws have been in force, essentially the same as we observe them today, over the multi-billion-year age of the universe. Note, for instance, that light coming to Earth from distant stars (which in some cases emanated billions of years ago) reflects the same patterns of atomic spectra, based in the laws of quantum mechanics, that we see today.​

Note also that it IS HERE when we see the light!!!!! Note that science doesn't even know what time is, let alone what it is like in deep space! Note that they still cite certain time periods involved in deep space, but that this is based solely on earth time (solar system and area). Of course things will operate and exist a certain way WHEN they get here!!

What's more, in observed supernova events that we observe in telescopes today, most of which occurred many millions of years ago,

No. Only in your religion is that true. We can't say how much time is involved in unknown deep space, since we do not know time exists the same there as here. We have but the one observation point.

the patterns of light and radiation are completely consistent with the half-lives of radioactive isotopes that we measure today [Isaak2007, pg. 200].

One would hope so! That does not tell us how much time anything takes out there though.

As another item of evidence, researchers studying a natural nuclear reactor in Africa have concluded that a certain key physical constant ("alpha") has not changed measurably in hundreds of millions of years [Barrow2007, pg. 124-128].

Hilarious that they still cite that old fable.

'natural uranium had a concentration of about 3% .." No proof.
Why is it claimed?
", U-235 only makes up about 0.7 percent of the uranium naturally found on Earth. To run a man-made nuclear reactor, uranium has to be "enriched," such that U-235 makes up three percent."
Specifically, then here is the basis for claiming there was a different amount of U35.
"Because U-235 decays faster than U-238, there was a higher concentration of U-235 in the past. "
It is assumed there was our nature along with the decay we have now, and that this was so for billions of years. (total belief)
They say it ran for 15,000 years...no evidence...just what is needed.
"the Oklo reactor, which comprises several separate sites, ran for 30 minutes and then shut off for 2.5 hours, before starting over.
..
"...estimated that the Oklo reactor ran for 150,000 years.."
So now they see something that in our nature results only from a certain process...xenon.
"...xenon could only be trapped in the deposits if the reactor shut off on a regular basis - hence the geyser analogy."
Now it gets obviously ridiculous....
" after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."
https://www.livescience.com/75-natur...nt-geyser.html
There is more, but this is already more than enough to show that there IS no evidence for the pyramid of claimed events! There is a need for them to have happened that way to fit our nature...period!!!!!
Finally, researchers have just completed a study of the proton-electron mass ratio (approximately 1836.1526), and found that it has not varied more than 0.0005 percent over the history of the universe ranging back to 12.4 billion years ago [Srinivasan2016].

The most likely mechanism involves the action of groundwater, which presumably boiled away after the temperature reached some critical level. Without water present to act as a neutron moderator, nuclear chain reactions would have temporarily ceased. Only after things cooled off and sufficient groundwater once again permeated the zone of reaction could fission resume.
large quantities of water must have been moving through these rocks—enough to wash away some of the xenon precursors, tellurium and iodine, which are water-soluble
It is not entirely obvious what forces kept this xenon inside the aluminum phosphate minerals for almost half the planet’s lifetime. In particular, why was the xenon generated during a given operational pulse not driven off during the next one? Presumably it became imprisoned in the cagelike structure of the aluminum phosphate minerals, which were able to hold on to the xenon gas created within them, even at high temperatures. The details remain fuzzy
groundwater passing through the Oklo deposit was a neutron moderator but also that its boiling away at times accounted for the self-regulation that protected these natural reactors from destruction. In this regard, it was extremely effective, allowing not a single meltdown or explosion during hundreds of thousands of years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/
When the Earth was first formed, uranium-235 comprised more than 30% of uranium [Figure 3]. The proportion of uranium-235 relative to uranium-238 has been changing because isotopes of uranium are radioactive and decay to other elements over time
Unfortunately for science, the sixteen natural nuclear reactors at Oklo have been destroyed, completely mined out for their rich uranium ore. Scientists only have limited uranium samples (often with sparse field notes) on which to conduct their study of these extraordinary nuclear reactors
It turns out, no significant concentrations of uranium developed on Earth prior to about two billion years ago. The reason for this is simple: oxygen.
However, starting around 2.4 billion years ago, there was an event called the “Great Oxidation Event”
The lower part of this sandstone layer originally contained many small bits of uranium-bearing minerals (monazite, thorite, probably uraninite). These minerals were dispersed until the sandstone became infiltrated with oxidizing waters around two billion years ago.
The Gabon natural nuclear reactors operated for several hundred thousand years.The reactors likely switched on and off at regular intervals.
The natural nuclear reactors in Gabon seem to have been largely protected by enveloping carbonaceous substances and clay, which created and maintained reducing (low oxygen) conditions which largely inhibited the movement of uranium and other radioactive products of nuclear fission.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ral-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/
He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface.
Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser

​

 

[gnostic]

Prove that pre Babel man wrote anything at all?

Babel was post flood. Get a grip.

Oldest Sumerian tablet is about 3,500 BCE. When was the tower of Babel built?

No. The first written records and Scripture was post Babel! You didn't know?

The first scriptures are 3,500 BCE (5,500 y.a.). I don't know the date of when Babel supposedly happened. I was hoping you knew and had some evidence for it.

--edit

Found it.

"The Tower of Babel incident occurred around 4,200 years ago—about 100 years after the Flood but before Abraham was born, This was before ancient Egypt, Greece, and other early civilizations. These places couldn’t have begun until after people left Babel to establish these other civilizations."
--In What Time Period Was The Tower Of Babel Built In?


So, that makes it about 2,200 BCE, in other words, 2,300 years after the first writings. That makes you wrong then. *shrugs*

Source for dates?

The oldest Scripture is said to be about 2000 BC

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-oldest-biblical-manuscript


As for what you are talking about, we can bet it will be the wrong dates! Based on an assumed same nature in the past no doubt. Ha. So, as I was saying, and correctly, there was no known writing before the flood or Babel. Why would they even have a need for any as all people had one language?

dad, all you are doing is just making wild and unsubstantiated claims, just to defend the Bible, in particular Genesis, which really have no historical substances.

For one, the Tower of Babel, don’t exist historically and archaeologically, other than what it say in Genesis. The ToB is a myth. No outside, independent records mentioned it being built in 2000 BCE (the date you provided)

And for another...number two...there are no original texts of Genesis, Exodus or Joshua, FOUND ANYWHERE that can be dated to Early, Middle or Late Bronze Age.

The only oldest literary evidence, that are in existence, is a silver amulet, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave & tomb, dated to either the late 7th century or early 6th century BCE, so for historical connections, that between King Josiah’s reign (649 - 609 BCE) and just before the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian in 587 BCE.

This amulet contained inscriptions, from the Priestly Blessings passage, Numbers 6. They called this amulet, the Silver Scrolls, and it is the oldest discovery relating to the Old Testament.

Another thing, is that were no Hebrew alphabets existing in 2000 BCE. The oldest ancient Hebrew writings, are found in a couple of stone artefacts, both are dated to the 10th century BCE, known as the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar.

The Zayit Stone is mostly gibberish, perhaps because who wrote the inscriptions, was merely attempting to learn the write the alphabetic characters.

The Gezer Calendar, on the other hand, list some months, of when to break soil, when to sow, when to harvest, etc.

Neither of these stones contain anything about the Bible, naming no one, eg David, Solomon or Rehoboam, who would have reigned in the 10th century BCE.

And there are writings from both Egypt and Sumer.

In the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c 2112 - 2004), we have some poems, the oldest story of Gilgamesh (transliterated into Sumerian as Bilgames). More poorly preserved is the Eridu Genesis, containing the oldest flood story, with Ziusudra as the hero (Ziusudra appeared late in Old Babylonian as Atrahasis, eg Epic of Atrahasis, and in Middle and New Babylonian as Utnapishtim.)

There are some other older Sumerian hymns, dedicated to either certain deities, or to various kings.

These were all written in Sumerian cuneiforms, and some of the oldest Sumerian texts were found in a very minor town Jemdet Nasr. Archaeologists have named a period of when Sumerian civilization started - the Jemdet Nasr period (c 3100 - c 2900 BCE).

Sumerian cuneiforms had evolved from the earliest cuneiforms, which historians and archaeologists labelled as proto-Sumerian cuneiforms. And the oldest were found in the Chalcolithic Uruk, inscribed on one of the temples to the sky goddess, Inanna.

Uruk, while not the oldest city in Mesopotamia, was responsible for urbanization of the late Sumerian civilization, and it was the largest city between 4000 and 3100 BCE, that this period was called Uruk period.

Uruk, like Jericho, in different stages of history, people would build over the older layer of the site. There are 18 layers of Uruk, each layer was denoted with Roman numerals. So when archaeologists dig deeper, they will uncover older settlements below, and the oldest permanent settlement in Uruk XVIII, have been dated to about 5000 BCE. This period was known as Ubaid period (c 6500 - c 3800 BCE).

And the Sumerian proper, started with the Jemdet Nasr period (which I mentioned earlier) is Uruk III.

My point about Uruk, is that it is far older than Uruk mentioned as “Erech” in Genesis 10, one of the cities said to be built by Nimrod after the Flood.

So, as far historicity is concern, Genesis 10 is wrong about Uruk, you are wrong with your claim that there are no writings before 2000 BCE.

 

[dad]

dad, all you are doing is just making wild and unsubstantiated claims, just to defend the Bible, in particular Genesis, which really have no historical substances.

Babel is known in several cultures apparently as well as Scripture. Jewish traditon says Peleg was about 5 years old when the incident of the tower of Babel happened. Not sure what you are denying here.

For one, the Tower of Babel, don’t exist historically and archaeologically,

?

Some Very Compelling Evidence the Tower of Babel Was Real

other than what it say in Genesis. The ToB is a myth. No outside, independent records mentioned it being built in 2000 BCE (the date you provided)

I mentioned Jewish tradition. e also know abou when Abraham lived, and he was near this time ..not sure where you been? As for your religous dream dates, prove there was a same nature in the past or the dates are meaningless. Period. Truly imaginary. Overrated nonsense.

And for another...number two...there are no original texts of Genesis, Exodus or Joshua, FOUND ANYWHERE that can be dated to Early, Middle or Late Bronze Age.

I know...so?? The record came in written form only some years after Babel. Before that it was oral.

The only oldest literary evidence, that are in existence, is a silver amulet, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave & tomb, dated to either the late 7th century or early 6th century BCE, so for historical connections, that between King Josiah’s reign (649 - 609 BCE) and just before the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian in 587 BCE.

Why would you be citing dream dates????? Get over it. Really. They are garbage. A con job. False. Religious twaddle. Absolutely unsupportable.

Another thing, is that were no Hebrew alphabets existing in 2000 BCE. The oldest ancient Hebrew writings, are found in a couple of stone artefacts, both are dated to the 10th century BCE, known as the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar.

Hey, the Hebrews had to learn writing like the rest of us! That came along in due course after the time of the confusion of tongues at Babel.

The Zayit Stone is mostly gibberish, perhaps because who wrote the inscriptions, was merely attempting to learn the write the alphabetic characters.

Or because what they tried to communicate changed so much it got lost in history. Who really knows?

The Gezer Calendar, on the other hand, list some months, of when to break soil, when to sow, when to harvest, etc.

So what, you have no dates for it other than same state past dream dates. That was after Babel!

Neither of these stones contain anything about the Bible, naming no one, eg David, Solomon or Rehoboam, who would have reigned in the 10th century BCE.

So what? Israel was just one little nation.

And there are writings from both Egypt and Sumer.

Both post flood and their writings post Babel! Perhaps the early pyramids with the big stones were built in the former nature, and maybe they had a way to negate or counter balance gravity, or some other force existed at the time that allowed this? Who knows. I notice the stones got smaller later!

In the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c 2112 - 2004), we have some poems, the oldest story of Gilgamesh (transliterated into Sumerian as Bilgames). More poorly preserved is the Eridu Genesis, containing the oldest flood story, with Ziusudra as the hero (Ziusudra appeared late in Old Babylonian as Atrahasis, eg Epic of Atrahasis, and in Middle and New Babylonian as Utnapishtim.)

Dates are a bit wrong. That was after the flood and the time of Babel also.

There are some other older Sumerian hymns, dedicated to either certain deities, or to various kings.

No doubt. So what.

These were all written in Sumerian cuneiforms, and some of the oldest Sumerian texts were found in a very minor town Jemdet Nasr. Archaeologists have named a period of when Sumerian civilization started - the Jemdet Nasr period (c 3100 - c 2900 BCE).

Text found...yes. Your religious dating..no way.

Sumerian cuneiforms had evolved from the earliest cuneiforms, which historians and archaeologists labelled as proto-Sumerian cuneiforms. And the oldest were found in the Chalcolithic Uruk, inscribed on one of the temples to the sky goddess, Inanna.

Still had memories of spirits at that time. The evidence mounts.

My point about Uruk, is that it is far older than Uruk mentioned as “Erech” in Genesis 10, one of the cities said to be built by Nimrod after the Flood.

Great. Nimrod was around at the time of Babel.

So, as far historicity is concern, Genesis 10 is wrong about Uruk, you are wrong with your claim that there are no writings before 2000 BCE.

Maybe you are wrong about what Genesis really referred to!?

 

[gnostic]

Babel is known in several cultures apparently as well as Scripture. Jewish traditon says Peleg was about 5 years old when the incident of the tower of Babel happened. Not sure what you are denying here.

The differences between Uruk and the Tower of Babel, is that no such such Tower of Babel was ever built and discovered. So you cannot verify ToB’s existence through Genesis alone.

Objective verification, can only be done, through archaeological excavations of any site, not by any written records alone.

And Jericho, like Uruk, have a number of successive layers, and there are over 20 layers in Jericho, while there are 18 of Uruk. Permanent settlement would be built over older settlement, which leave a timeline. The further you dig, the older the layer.

The oldest layer of Jericho, has been dated to about 11,000 years, while Uruk XVIII have been dated to 7000 years. Jericho is much more interesting because the older layers have no pottery.

The shapes of the pottery, the paint used, the styles of painting, how the pottery are fired, can help with determining different periods, in many towns and cities in Egypt and the Near East.

Dating other objects, like stone, copper, bronze and iron tools, are other ways to date these cities or towns.

Dating these layers, are like stratigraphy, dating tree rings or ice core samples. For the tree rings, it denote the seasons of each year.

These layers of rings were formerly barks of the tree, when it was exposed to the element. This is why specialists who dated these rings, can determine drought or excessive wet seasons, or when forest fire have occurred.

There are no archaeological evidence that the Tower of Babel existed.

In Uruk, we have Chalcolithic temples built to Inanna (Ishtar) in the Eanna District. While in the Anu District, there is a ziggurat and temple (White Temple) built on top of this ziggurat, was dedicated to An (Anu). Writings appeared in both districts, but more inscriptions were found in the temples of Eanna District.

The oldest cuneiform were dated between 3400 and 3300 BCE.

Where are writings in ancient Canaan?

The most abundant Bronze Age texts found in Canaan, were discovered in the archive of palace in Megiddo, clay tablets were found. None of these fragments, which have been dated from 1500 to 1200 BCE, mentioned any passage from the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Joshua. These were written in Canaanite cuneiforms, not Hebrew alphabets.

As I said before the oldest Hebrew inscriptions were found on stone artefacts of the 10th century BCE, and none of them, like Megiddo collection of clay tablets, none of them mentioned anything relating to the Old Testament Bible.

Now unless you have discovered the location of the Tower of Babel, and actual physical structure, that can be dated to 2000 BCE, then the ToB is a myth and you have nothing but fairytale.

 

[dad]

The differences between Uruk and the Tower of Babel, is that no such such Tower of Babel was ever built and discovered. So you cannot verify ToB’s existence through Genesis alone.

?? Discovered? You kidding? The continental move was likely after Babel, so it could have been plowed miles under for all we know. That area was, after all affected and uplifted etc. Ha. Just as expected we see no tower now! So I would not expect the tower to be sitting on the surface.

And Jericho, like Uruk, have a number of successive layers, and there are over 20 layers in Jericho, while there are 18 of Uruk. Permanent settlement would be built over older settlement, which leave a timeline. The further you dig, the older the layer.

Yeah yeah, lots of layers in Jericho...so? How long did each layer take and how many are there? Let's look at this.

The oldest layer of Jericho, has been dated to about 11,000 years, while Uruk XVIII have been dated to 7000 years. Jericho is much more interesting because the older layers have no pottery.

Belief based 'dates' are nothing but a statement of faith. No better than the assumption we had a same nature and that cannot be proven. So all we can say is that the site is old. Whooopee do.

The shapes of the pottery, the paint used, the styles of painting, how the pottery are fired, can help with determining different periods, in many towns and cities in Egypt and the Near East.

Different periods NOT dates! That doe not help you.

Dating other objects, like stone, copper, bronze and iron tools, are other ways to date these cities or towns.

Get a grip with this religious dating syndrome. It gets old fast.

Dating these layers, are like stratigraphy, dating tree rings or ice core samples. For the tree rings, it denote the seasons of each year.

Show exactly how each layer is dated!!! Bring it! Anytime pal.

These layers of rings were formerly barks of the tree, when it was exposed to the element. This is why specialists who dated these rings, can determine drought or excessive wet seasons, or when forest fire have occurred.

Nope. Tree ring dating is same state past dating. The method is useless over say about 3800 years ago, because we get too near to the nature change time and collaborations become useless.

In Uruk, we have Chalcolithic temples built to Inanna (Ishtar) in the Eanna District. While in the Anu District, there is a ziggurat and temple (White Temple) built on top of this ziggurat, was dedicated to An (Anu). Writings appeared in both districts, but more inscriptions were found in the temples of Eanna District.

Big deal, so there are some old temples to demons. These were built after Babel!

Where are writings in ancient Canaan?

Why not?!

The most abundant Bronze Age texts found in Canaan, were discovered in the archive of palace in Megiddo, clay tablets were found. None of these fragments, which have been dated from 1500 to 1200 BCE, mentioned any passage from the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Joshua. These were written in Canaanite cuneiforms, not Hebrew alphabets.

Dates are a little off. And why would pagan religions do anything but ignore and NOT write about the real God?

How sweet it is!

 

[gnostic]

Yeah yeah, lots of layers in Jericho...so? How long did each layer take and how many are there? Let's look at this.

Belief based 'dates' are nothing but a statement of faith. No better than the assumption we had a same nature and that cannot be proven. So all we can say is that the site is old.

Uruk and Jericho are both real Neolithic cities, not the nonexistent and imaginary Babel.

You are sounding more like a ignorant fool, who make up claims and excuses without any substance. And anyone who read you posts, can tell you have been lying, repeatedly and a lot.

You are the sort of Christian/creationist that gives Jesus a bad name.

The Genesis narrative of Tower of Babel is just a claim, not evidence for the Babel’s existence. All you are doing is adding claims to the Genesis’ original claim, and each your claim are not evidence.

How about stop making claim after claim, and just provide some evidence that one of your claims is real and true?

Where is Babel? Has Babel ever been discovered? Can you measure or date the Babel’s structure?

Now, unless you can present such evidence, you have nothing to offer, except ore of your usual empty blustering.

 

[shmogie]

I hope so.


Evidence for what? Your gaffe?

Sure -

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe


"Miller Urey did not show how 9 amino acids, out of 200 required for life, formed naturally. "

Where? So far only one of us is quoting from the texbook and it isn't you.


Directly contrary to what is actually in the textbook. As I noted earlier, on pg. 388 there is a section titled "Divine Origins" that states:

"Common to human cultures throughout history is the belief that life on Earth did not arise spontaneously. Many of the world's major religions teach that life was created on Earth by a supreme being. The followers of these religions believe that life could only have arisen through the direct action of a divine force.

A variation of this belief is that organisms are too complex to have developed only by evolution. Instead, some people believe that the complex structures and processes of life could not have formed without some guiding intelligence."​

Again, quote from the textbook where it says that.


Then you are doing rather poorly here. You've made a series of assertions, and from what I can tell none of them have turned out to be true.


Again, directly contrary to what is actually in the textbook. For example, when discussing RNA world it states "However, because RNA is a more complex molecule than protein, it is not easy to obtain data that supports the idea that RNA was formed on the early Earth." When introducing the section on modern ideas on OOL (pg. 381) it states "No one has yet proven scientifically how life on Earth began."


Dude, this is a high school, introductory general biology textbook. It doesn't cover anything in great detail. They cover the entire fossil record in just a few pages!


Remember, you claimed that in this textbook, abiogenesis "isn't described as an unknown mystery" and is instead "described as being likely". Both claims have been demonstrated to be false.

But it appears you're just going to stick to and continue repeating your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That's too bad.

So the textbook does not teach that abiogenesis is likely to have occurred ? That is your opinion and it is flawed.

Why do you simply ignore the questions I ask ? Because the answers undermine your position.

You group the few caveats so that they make a bold statement. Actually you know that they are sprinkled through the text, so that they are delivered surrounded by abiogenesis material.

Churchill once said ¨ the truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies´. In this case the truth is diluted by a bodyguard of hypotheses.

Why should anything on abiogenesis, or any other ideas about the origin of life be in the book ? None of it is scientifically verifiable.

You see what you choose to see, without consideration of context or obvious intent.

But you are going stick to and continue your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That´s too bad.

What does it mean when the text says, ¨it is not easy to obtain obtain data¨

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the textbook does not teach that abiogenesis is likely to have occurred ? That is your opinion and it is flawed.

Why do you simply ignore the questions I ask ? Because the answers undermine your position.

You group the few caveats so that they make a bold statement. Actually you know that they are sprinkled through the text, so that they are delivered surrounded by abiogenesis material.

Churchill once said ¨ the truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies´. In this case the truth is diluted by a bodyguard of hypotheses.

Why should anything on abiogenesis, or any other ideas about the origin of life be in the book ? None of it is scientifically verifiable.

You see what you choose to see, without consideration of context or obvious intent.

But you are going stick to and continue your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That´s too bad.

What does it mean when the text says, ¨it is not easy to obtain obtain data¨

Of course they are correct when they say that abiogenesis is the likely answer. It is the only concept supported by scientific evidence at all. Since when has magic ever been the answer?


And abiogenesis is a very difficult problem. We are just now getting a good understanding of how life works. How could they answer how life started before we knew how life works on a molecular scale?

Lastly why do you limit your God? Why couldn't he have used abiogenesis? It is far more elegant than constantly doing magic tricks.

 

[dad]

Uruk and Jericho are both real Neolithic cities, not the nonexistent and imaginary Babel.

You are sounding more like a ignorant fool, who make up claims and excuses without any substance. And anyone who read you posts, can tell you have been lying, repeatedly and a lot.

You are the sort of Christian/creationist that gives Jesus a bad name.

The Genesis narrative of Tower of Babel is just a claim, not evidence for the Babel’s existence. All you are doing is adding claims to the Genesis’ original claim, and each your claim are not evidence.

How about stop making claim after claim, and just provide some evidence that one of your claims is real and true?

Where is Babel? Has Babel ever been discovered? Can you measure or date the Babel’s structure?

Now, unless you can present such evidence, you have nothing to offer, except ore of your usual empty blustering.

Did you look at the Smithsonian link I have that showed compelling evidence for Babel?

 

[Jose Fly]

So the textbook does not teach that abiogenesis is likely to have occurred ?

In the same sense that we discussed earlier (that at one point there was no life on earth, and then there was).

That is your opinion and it is flawed.

Again, only one of us is actually quoting from the textbook, and it ain't you.

Why do you simply ignore the questions I ask ? Because the answers undermine your position.

What questions? Post them and I'll do my best to answer.

You group the few caveats so that they make a bold statement. Actually you know that they are sprinkled through the text, so that they are delivered surrounded by abiogenesis material.

I'm sure that's how you see it, given how your worldview is riding on this issue. A more unbiased take would be that the authors repeatedly added those caveats to ensure students didn't get the wrong impression and think the issue had been settled.

Why should anything on abiogenesis, or any other ideas about the origin of life be in the book ? None of it is scientifically verifiable.

Oh, so you'd prefer schools not cover the subject at all.

I guess that makes sense coming from someone whose worldview is dependent on the issue remaining unresolved.

You see what you choose to see, without consideration of context or obvious intent.

But you are going stick to and continue your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That´s too bad.

Your obvious projection is noted.

What does it mean when the text says, ¨it is not easy to obtain obtain data¨

I agree that's an odd phrase. I'll have to look at that section again tomorrow.

 

[gnostic]

Did you look at the Smithsonian link I have that showed compelling evidence for Babel?

Of course, I saw the video, and it doesn't prove this structure to be the same one as Genesis' Tower of Babel.

Apparently you have misunderstood what the video Andrew George said about what the tablet.

The ziggurat in Babylon, was built by Nebuchnezzar II (reign 602 - 562 BCE), a Neo-Babylonian emperor. Not by any Babylonian king of 2000 BCE. The tablet is also dated to that time.

This is the Nebuchadnezzar who captured Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and took leading citizens of Judah, including royal family, as hostages.

All the video really done, Genesis' ToB is based on Babylon's Ziggurat of the 6th century BCE.

Are you such deaf that you didn't hear the connection between the Ziggurat and Nebuchnezzar?

Andrew George clearly stated that Nebuchnezzar II was one who had this ziggurat built, and it was called Etemenanki. I already know about Etemenanki.

Etemenanki is not that old. The Babylon's structure doesn't date to 2000 BCE, so it is obvious that the Tower of Babel is still a myth, because there is a gap of 1400 years between Nebuchnezzar's ziggurat and the mythological Tower of Babel.

And Babylon was a minor town during the late 3rd millennium BCE. It didn't become the Amorites invaded Sumer, and made Babylon its capital from c 1830 to 1531, and established the 1st Babylonian dynasty.

Second, there are older ziggurats built than that of Babylon's.

I have already mentioned the Ziggurat of Uruk. There was a Bronze Age ziggurat in Ur (built by Ur-Nammu, during the 3rd dynasty of Ur), but that was destroyed over time, and later rebuilt by Babylon's last king, Nabonidus.

Sorry, dad, but you really need to pay attention what the video is actually saying. You seemed to have stop listening the moment you heard Tower of Babel.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised by your selective hearing and reading skills.

 

[dad]

Of course, I saw the video, and it doesn't prove this structure to be the same one as Genesis' Tower of Babel.

Apparently you have misunderstood what the video Andrew George said about what the tablet.

The ziggurat in Babylon, was built by Nebuchnezzar II (reign 602 - 562 BCE), a Neo-Babylonian emperor. Not by any Babylonian king of 2000 BCE. The tablet is also dated to that time.

This is the Nebuchadnezzar who captured Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and took leading citizens of Judah, including royal family, as hostages.

All the video really done, Genesis' ToB is based on Babylon's Ziggurat of the 6th century BCE.

Are you such deaf that you didn't hear the connection between the Ziggurat and Nebuchnezzar?

Andrew George clearly stated that Nebuchnezzar II was one who had this ziggurat built, and it was called Etemenanki. I already know about Etemenanki.

Etemenanki is not that old. The Babylon's structure doesn't date to 2000 BCE, so it is obvious that the Tower of Babel is still a myth, because there is a gap of 1400 years between Nebuchnezzar's ziggurat and the mythological Tower of Babel.

And Babylon was a minor town during the late 3rd millennium BCE. It didn't become the Amorites invaded Sumer, and made Babylon its capital from c 1830 to 1531, and established the 1st Babylonian dynasty.

Second, there are older ziggurats built than that of Babylon's.

I have already mentioned the Ziggurat of Uruk. There was a Bronze Age ziggurat in Ur (built by Ur-Nammu, during the 3rd dynasty of Ur), but that was destroyed over time, and later rebuilt by Babylon's last king, Nabonidus.

Sorry, dad, but you really need to pay attention what the video is actually saying. You seemed to have stop listening the moment you heard Tower of Babel.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised by your selective hearing and reading skills.

OK thanks for the research. I guess the tower they were talking about was not Babel.

Now it is likely that people tried to duplicate the tower in later times. Maybe some people mistake that for the actual tower. But those towers are little after the fact also rans that came later including the one you talk about.

" the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages have been found in hundreds of cultures throughout the world such as the accounts below.

Mexico: And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means "a very high tower" in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.)

Polynesia: But the god in anger chased the builders away, broke down the building, and changed their language, so that they spoke divers tongues. (Reference: R. W. Williamson, Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia Cambridge, 1933, vol. I, p. 94.)

American Indian, Crow: Then Little Coyote did something bad. He suggested to Old Man that he give the people different languages so they would misunderstand each other and use their weapons in wars... Old Man did what Little Coyote said, and the people had different languages and made war on each other. (Reference: Jane Garry and Carl Rubino, Facts About the World's Languages H.W. Wilson, 2001)

The Biblical account of the origin of languages cannot simply be dismissed as fiction as the facts above prove. All legends, traditions and myths are based on historical facts. Over time, they evolve and are adapted to the current culture. By comparing all related legends, traditions and myths, the common threads are signs of the original historical fact. In the case of the confusion of languages, the common thread is that many languages mysteriously appeared out of one language."

The Tower of Babel: Fact or Fiction? | AHRC



"
History
There are historical evidences that lend support to the Genesis record regarding the origin of languages. There are several ancient traditions concerning this incident.

Abydenus (a Greek historian of the mid-fourth century B.C.), as quoted by Eusebius, spoke of a great tower at Babylon which was destroyed. The record notes:

“ntil this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and divers tongues” (quoted in Rawlinson 1873, 28).

In a grossly garbled account, but one which obviously has roots in some ancient event, Plato in one of his works, tells of a golden age when men spoke the same language, but an act of the gods caused them to be confounded in their speech (see M’Clintock and Strong 1968, 590).

Josephus, the Jewish historian, quoting from an ancient source, records these words:

When all men were of one language, some of them built a tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon (Antiquities of the Jews, 1.4.3).

Aside from such references, the details of Genesis 11 are strikingly precise from a historical perspective. Consider the following facts.

First, the identification of Babylon with Shinar was apparently known in the earliest of times (cf. Gen. 10:10; Dan. 1:2).

Second, the allusion to a tower in Babylon is certainly consistent with the fact that such towers, called ziggurats, were common in that ancient locale.

These towers consisted of several platforms, constructed one on top of the other, progressively smaller in size till a pinnacle was reached which accommodated a small temple dedicated to some particular deity.

Then consider this. The reference to “brick” and “bitumen” (“slime” KJV) has a genuine touch of authenticity. The region of Babylon did not contain the common building stone that was characteristic of Palestine. Some of the fired bricks from that area were usable for centuries.

There is no reason whatsoever, aside from anti-religious bigotry, to question the historicity of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.

Donald J. Wiseman, professor of Assyriology at the University of London, has confidently stated that the record in Genesis 11 “bears all the marks of a reliable historical account” (1980, 157).

Even a liberal writer concedes that “the background that is here sketched proves to be authentic beyond all expectations” (Speiser 1964, 75)."

The Tower of Babel: Legend or History?


So there does not seem to be any reason not to believe it. Since this was apparently immediately preceding the big change on earth of nature and forces and laws, there is no reason to expect to be able to find the site on the surface.

 

[paarsurrey]

Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.

What is Agnosticism's take on it, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

OK thanks for the research. I guess the tower they were talking about was not Babel.

Now it is likely that people tried to duplicate the tower in later times. Maybe some people mistake that for the actual tower. But those towers are little after the fact also rans that came later including the one you talk about.

" the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages have been found in hundreds of cultures throughout the world such as the accounts below.

Mexico: And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means "a very high tower" in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.)

Polynesia: But the god in anger chased the builders away, broke down the building, and changed their language, so that they spoke divers tongues. (Reference: R. W. Williamson, Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia Cambridge, 1933, vol. I, p. 94.)

American Indian, Crow: Then Little Coyote did something bad. He suggested to Old Man that he give the people different languages so they would misunderstand each other and use their weapons in wars... Old Man did what Little Coyote said, and the people had different languages and made war on each other. (Reference: Jane Garry and Carl Rubino, Facts About the World's Languages H.W. Wilson, 2001)

The Biblical account of the origin of languages cannot simply be dismissed as fiction as the facts above prove. All legends, traditions and myths are based on historical facts. Over time, they evolve and are adapted to the current culture. By comparing all related legends, traditions and myths, the common threads are signs of the original historical fact. In the case of the confusion of languages, the common thread is that many languages mysteriously appeared out of one language."

The Tower of Babel: Fact or Fiction? | AHRC



"
History
There are historical evidences that lend support to the Genesis record regarding the origin of languages. There are several ancient traditions concerning this incident.

Abydenus (a Greek historian of the mid-fourth century B.C.), as quoted by Eusebius, spoke of a great tower at Babylon which was destroyed. The record notes:

“ntil this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and divers tongues” (quoted in Rawlinson 1873, 28).

In a grossly garbled account, but one which obviously has roots in some ancient event, Plato in one of his works, tells of a golden age when men spoke the same language, but an act of the gods caused them to be confounded in their speech (see M’Clintock and Strong 1968, 590).

Josephus, the Jewish historian, quoting from an ancient source, records these words:

When all men were of one language, some of them built a tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon (Antiquities of the Jews, 1.4.3).

Aside from such references, the details of Genesis 11 are strikingly precise from a historical perspective. Consider the following facts.

First, the identification of Babylon with Shinar was apparently known in the earliest of times (cf. Gen. 10:10; Dan. 1:2).

Second, the allusion to a tower in Babylon is certainly consistent with the fact that such towers, called ziggurats, were common in that ancient locale.

These towers consisted of several platforms, constructed one on top of the other, progressively smaller in size till a pinnacle was reached which accommodated a small temple dedicated to some particular deity.

Then consider this. The reference to “brick” and “bitumen” (“slime” KJV) has a genuine touch of authenticity. The region of Babylon did not contain the common building stone that was characteristic of Palestine. Some of the fired bricks from that area were usable for centuries.

There is no reason whatsoever, aside from anti-religious bigotry, to question the historicity of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.

Donald J. Wiseman, professor of Assyriology at the University of London, has confidently stated that the record in Genesis 11 “bears all the marks of a reliable historical account” (1980, 157).

Even a liberal writer concedes that “the background that is here sketched proves to be authentic beyond all expectations” (Speiser 1964, 75)."

The Tower of Babel: Legend or History?


So there does not seem to be any reason not to believe it. Since this was apparently immediately preceding the big change on earth of nature and forces and laws, there is no reason to expect to be able to find the site on the surface.

Again, there are no evidence to your claim that the Tower of Babel existed in 2000 BCE.

Plus, when the Sumerians and Akkadians controlled Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE, Babylon was unimportant city with no kings ruling it, until the 1st dynasty of Babylon, and as I said the dynasty started in 1830 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar belonged to the 3rd dynasty in the 6th century BCE, over 1000 years later.

The only connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s ziggurat and the Tower of Babel, that Jews were living in Babylon as hostages at the time, and created a myth about a supposed tower being built not long after the Flood, which was another myth that originated from originally Sumerian Ziusudra, via the Babylonian Atrahasis and Utnapishtim.

If you understand archaeology at all, the link that you believe Nebuchadnezzar’s ziggurat is the real Tower of Babel, then that would actually debunked Genesis Tower of Babel as a myth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, and...what about it?

It's an extraordinary claim that has a burden of proof. A burden, which hasn't been met.

I am aware of the dating methods and the beliefs they rest upon. What about them?

It makes no sense to say that multiple independent dating methods which work in radically different ways from one another, would all converge on the same "incorrect" date.

So for example in dating when the first written work of man was, show us how you use these things? Ha.

"from....to", meaning that there is stuff in between also. Which also matches the datings of all other independent methods.

Once again, it makes no sense to say that all dating methods are wrong, yet all converge on the same dates.

Once you enter la la land, it doesn't matter if imaginary dates exist. Of course dates based on same nature in the past belief would get real wrong real fast.

Here's the problem: if they would get "real wrong real fast", then we would expect different independent dating methods to each come up with wildly different dates. But thats not what happens. What happens is that they all converge on the same dates.

This makes no sense if we assume that they all use faulty premises.

The only question is what state existed

In reality, that's not so much a question as it is a religious brainfart in your particular head.

The only thing you need to do is prove the nature you claim existed

And you feel like you are somehow exempt from a burden of proof for your bold, bold claim that physics, chemistry, electro magnetism, photosynthesis etc etc somehow worked differently in the past?

, rather than appealing to belief and religion.

Ow my.

Sometimes, I really think that you are the most dedicated Poe troll on the entire internet.
The irony here isn't even delicious. It's downright embarassing..... It is so blatant that it is really hard to believe that you aren't doing it on purpose...

 

[Subduction Zone]

It makes no sense to say that multiple independent dating methods which work in radically different ways from one another, would all converge on the same "incorrect" date.

Correct. If fact that puts a burden of proof on the person making the claim of a false date to give massive evidence and math that explains how this happened.

 

[wellwisher]

Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.

In Einstein's theory of relativity, reference is relative to the observer. Two people looking at the same event, from different references, can see two different things.

At the beginning of universe, all the matter and energy was condensed into a singularity, from which the big bang happens. Therefore, in the beginning the only reference for the universe was that of the singularity. This reference was extremely space contracted and extremely time dilated. There was no earth reference that point.The earth reference, by not yet existing was not a valid reference. It is not valid until that reference finally appears. It is hypothetical at the beginning. The earth reference at t=0 is hypothetical and a mythology connected to the earth being the center of the universe.

Since God created the universe, and therefore he had to be around during the singularity, God would have had to use the only reference available; singular, to set his clock. Since this reference was so close to a speed of light reference; based on General Relativity; GR, one day in t=0 reference could billions of year in the hypothetical earth reference that did not yet exist.

According to science the evidence seems to indicate that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This assumption now brings us into the realm of Special Relativity; SR, with velocity being greater that the speed of light. This creates an imaginary number in the math sense.

The question becomes, did God maintain the singularity reference for his clock, or did he use the moving reference that was faster than the speed of light. Or did he use a composite of GR and SR reference affects, where GR is lowering snd SR is faster than the speed of light? The composite of GR which was expanding and SR which was faster than C, may have normalize back to the singularity reference. This was day one.

If you continue to read Genesis, the events that occur each day take less and less time. Forming all the animals take less time than forming the earth, which takes less time than forming the universe. This means that after the initial inflation, God was using a reference in the expanding universe. My guess he was using the reference of the atoms; alpha and omega.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to science the evidence seems to indicate that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This assumption now brings us into the realm of Special Relativity; SR, with velocity being greater that the speed of light.

This creates an imaginary number in the math sense.​

While I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, it doesn't make much sense to talk about velocity here.
It's an expansion, not an object in motion. There's not "thing" going from point A to B.
Instead, the space (the distance) between A and B is getting bigger.

And when we speak about an expansion faster then the speed of light, what is being meant that the speed with which space itself is expanding, is such that a lightbeam starting at A, will never be able to reach B.
Because the distance between A and B is growing at a faster rate then the lightbeam is able to overcome in the same timeframe.

But it's not a "velocity" of an object. It's not breaking the rule that things can't go faster then the speed of light - because nothing there is going faster then the speed of light.

Instead, space is growing at a faster rate then something which travels at the speed of light can overcome in the same timeframe.

The question becomes, did God maintain the singularity reference for his clock, or did he use the moving reference that was faster than the speed of light. Or did he use a composite of GR and SR reference affects, where GR is lowering snd SR is faster than the speed of light? The composite of GR which was expanding and SR which was faster than C, may have normalize back to the singularity reference. This was day one.

If you continue to read Genesis, the events that occur each day take less and less time. Forming all the animals take less time than forming the earth, which takes less time than forming the universe. This means that after the initial inflation, God was using a reference in the expanding universe. My guess he was using the reference of the atoms; alpha and omega.

My guess is that you are really out of your way to try and reconcile bronze age myths with 21st century understandings of the universe, seemingly only because you really want this bronze age myth to make sense.

 

[dad]

Again, there are no evidence to your claim that the Tower of Babel existed in 2000 BCE.

So if the flood was about 2300 to 2500 BC (depending on interpretation of Scripture) That would place Babel somewhere around 106 years later. With the convergence of historical and biblical data, we see that a big change happened after that time. That change would include a rapid separation/break up of the super continent that existed till that time. This facilitated the languages and religions and mankind spreading out all over the world. Animals also. From this time on we would have our nature along with our radioactive decay processes. So we cannot use those processes dating back beyond this time, and as mentioned, even as we approach this time, the ways science collaborates dates, such as tree rings or coral...would be rendered useless for dates. If trees wit rings grew in weeks, obviously we could not use dendrachronology as a dating mechanism. So your dates are erroneous.

With the plate activity and uplift, and etc it is possible and even likely looking at the geological make up of the area, that the tower was subducted/pushed under. So expecting to see the actual tower sitting there now is not a realistic or sound proposition.

Combine that with the evidences of language confusion legends from different parts of the world, and Scripture, and we have a solid case for the even being quite real.

Plus, when the Sumerians and Akkadians controlled Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE, Babylon was unimportant city with no kings ruling it, until the 1st dynasty of Babylon, and as I said the dynasty started in 1830 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar belonged to the 3rd dynasty in the 6th century BCE, over 1000 years later.

Except they controlled it after Babel your dates are wrong and totally belief based.

The only connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s ziggurat and the Tower of Babel, that Jews were living in Babylon as hostages at the time, and created a myth about a supposed tower being built not long after the Flood, which was another myth that originated from originally Sumerian Ziusudra, via the Babylonian Atrahasis and Utnapishtim.

Since this king was long after Babel, any towers he was involved in were mere memory shadow replica attempts.