Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 5:15 AM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   The race issue
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 46 of 134 (492099)
12-28-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
12-28-2008 4:55 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
I have found some of the text online, at Google Books and it seems that you - or your unnamed source - have misrepresented Smith

Firstly your "quote" more closely resembles a quote from the Christian writer Eusebius and is not even an exact representation of that. Secondly Smith admits that the only references to "speech" are a guess - he does not know the true meaning of the word. Even the reference to a "tower" is questionable - let alone the identification of a specific "tower".

Worse for you, the "columns" referred to by Smith are columns of writingon a tablet. Not actual columns. It seems that your source had not read Smith carefully enough to even understand that much.

(And, of course, even if Smith had found an Assyrian version of a Babylonian legend that resembled the Bible story it would not be significant evidence that there was an actual historieforecal event. Especially as the archaeological and linguistic evidence shows that human peoples and languages had split long before).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 12-28-2008 4:55 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 4:56 AM PaulK has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 47 of 134 (492159)
12-28-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
12-28-2008 4:08 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
quote:
i do know a bit about the Aboriginal population Magda and if they were really here for 40,000 years or more, what might you expect their population to amount to??? 100,000, 500,000, 1million, maybe more?

There is no reason for me to expect their population to be at any particular level. You seem to be insisting that all populations should just keep expanding. What possible reason could you have for thinking this?

quote:
what would you conclude if their population amounted to only 300,000?

Nothing. Population levels are not an indicator of the antiquity of a civilisation.

The various indigenous Australian populations lived in an often unforgiving landscape. Few of them had agriculture. They had no beasts of burden, no wheels, no cities... Lacking these kinds of technologies, they lived in homeostasis with their environment. That meant that their population remained fairly static. None of this is in any way problematic.

Besides, the archaeological evidence speaks for itself, not just Mungo Man and Woman, but a wealth of finds which place humans in Australia way before your arbitrary date of six thousand years ago. There is an incomplete list on this page. Humans arrived in Australia long before 4000 BCE.

It's not just Australia either. There are records of human activity in America going back about thirteen thousand years. By six thousand years ago, humanity was pretty much worldwide.

quote:
And they were Asian migrants, as is agreed my many anthropologists.

That depends on what you mean by Asian. They were most certainly not ethnically similar to modern inhabitants of South-East Asia.

quote:
the source of the quote i posted comes from the book by George Smith...

I think PaulK has already effectively shown that you have this completely wrong. There were no such towers. Where did you get that claim from anyway? It certainly wasn't directly from Smith. My guess is that you got it from a creationist apologetics site.

quote:
i dont see a problem with believing in the babel account and believing in the evolution of languages

Except that for the story to be true, it would require that for the vast majority of human history/prehistory human populations across the world all used exactly the same language, which stubbornly refused to evolve for tens of thousands of years. This is plainly ludicrous. What would prevent it from evolving?

It can be observed that languages continuously evolve over comparatively short time-spans. You mention Old English to Middle English. That covers a period of only about a thousand years, with a fairly rapid transition taking place after the Norman conquest. If such dramatic changes can take place in so quickly (comparatively speaking), what would have prevented them from evolving in the tens of thousands of years of human history previous to 4000 BCE date for Babel? Please note that this is a science forum; Goddidit is not an acceptable answer.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 12-28-2008 4:08 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2008 12:07 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 5:04 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 134 (492167)
12-29-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
12-28-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
Hi, Granny.

Granny Magda writes:

Nothing. Population levels are not an indicator of the antiquity of a civilisation.

That would make the United States civilization about five times older than Great Britain's, and about ten times older than Sweden's.

Don't you love what you can prove with creation science? :D


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 12-28-2008 10:29 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 49 of 134 (492180)
12-29-2008 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
12-28-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
perhaps you should visit the British museum some time lol
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-28-2008 9:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2008 5:18 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2008 6:26 AM Peg has responded
 Message 61 by AdminNosy, posted 12-29-2008 10:15 AM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 134 (492182)
12-29-2008 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
12-28-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
Granny Magda writes:

There is no reason for me to expect their population to be at any particular level. You seem to be insisting that all populations should just keep expanding. What possible reason could you have for thinking this?

populations tend to do that... if you have 10 couples, they will likely produce 10 children in a year

if you have 500 couples, they will likely produce 500

it doesnt take much to work out that the longer a population reproduces, the greater the reproduction rate.

in 40,000 years, you'd certainly expect a larger population then 300,000. Besides this, most people recognize that aboriginals came from asia.

My smith quote is right... i've read the book... smith even gave a lecture about his finds in which parliamentarians sat (apparently the first time parliamentaries sat for an archeological lecture) On page 17, as an example, he gives a list of each of his findings, number 10 is the account about the confusion of languages and the scattering of the inhabitants.

magda writes:

If such dramatic changes can take place in so quickly (comparatively speaking), what would have prevented them from evolving in the tens of thousands of years of human history previous to 4000 BCE date for Babel? Please note that this is a science forum; Goddidit is not an acceptable answer.

what are you basing your premis on here?

Edited by Peg, : added question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 12-28-2008 10:29 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 12-29-2008 5:17 AM Peg has responded
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2008 5:26 AM Peg has responded
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-29-2008 6:43 AM Peg has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2199
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 51 of 134 (492183)
12-29-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
12-29-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
Peg writes:

populations tend to do that... if you have 10 couples, they will likely produce 10 children in a year

if you have 500 couples, they will likely produce 500

it doesnt take much to work out that the longer a population reproduces, the greater the reproduction rate.

in 40,000 years, you'd certainly expect a larger population then 300,000. Besides this, most people recognize that aboriginals came from asia.

That must have been back in 'magic' times when there were no miscarriages, infertility, homosexuals, diseases, plagues, starvation, wars, etc.

Back when medicine and agriculture were more advanced than in our simple-minded times.

Strange how the total population of the world actually decreased around 530 AD and again around 1348 AD. Wonder why?

{ABE} I would be willing to venture the world population also decreased around 1500 AD as well but the decrease didn't last as long.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 5:04 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 6:25 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 52 of 134 (492185)
12-29-2008 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Peg
12-29-2008 4:56 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
PaulK writes:

I have found some of the text online, at Google Books and it seems that you - or your unnamed source - have misrepresented Smith

Firstly your "quote" more closely resembles a quote from the Christian writer Eusebius and is not even an exact representation of that. Secondly Smith admits that the only references to "speech" are a guess - he does not know the true meaning of the word. Even the reference to a "tower" is questionable - let alone the identification of a specific "tower".

Worse for you, the "columns" referred to by Smith are columns of writingon a tablet. Not actual columns. It seems that your source had not read Smith carefully enough to even understand that much.

(And, of course, even if Smith had found an Assyrian version of a Babylonian legend that resembled the Bible story it would not be significant evidence that there was an actual historieforecal event. Especially as the archaeological and linguistic evidence shows that human peoples and languages had split long before).

Peg writes:

perhaps you should visit the British museum some time lol

If this is what you think of as an adequate and intelligent reply to PaulK's research and critique, then perhaps intellectual debate is not for you...? Can you do better than this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 4:56 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 53 of 134 (492186)
12-29-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
12-29-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
Peg writes:

populations tend to do that... if you have 10 couples, they will likely produce 10 children in a year

if you have 500 couples, they will likely produce 500

it doesnt take much to work out that the longer a population reproduces, the greater the reproduction rate.

in 40,000 years, you'd certainly expect a larger population then 300,000.

The naivety shown here is quite typical of creationists. What is so laughable is the use of phrases such as "it doesnt take much to work out..." and "you'd certainly expect..." in amongst so much erroneous crap.

Those with sufficient intellectual curiosity to be interested in true population dynamics could start here at Wiki and follow through the associated links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 5:04 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 6:29 AM cavediver has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 54 of 134 (492192)
12-29-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by anglagard
12-29-2008 5:17 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
i dont doubt that at all
''

but i do doubt that a '40,000' year old culture could only amount to 300,000 people


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 12-29-2008 5:17 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 12-29-2008 3:03 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 55 of 134 (492193)
12-29-2008 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Peg
12-29-2008 4:56 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
I have visited the British Museum on a number of occasions. In fact I recently visited the Babylon exhibition, which had nothing about Smith's tablets, even in the sections relating to the "Tower of Babel" story.ving you the benefit of the doubt.

Of course I doubt that you know the contents of the British Museum any better than you know the contents of Smith's book.

But thanks for proving that you have no interest in the truth. Now I don't need to waste any more time giving you the benefit of the doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 4:56 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 6:41 AM PaulK has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 56 of 134 (492194)
12-29-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by cavediver
12-29-2008 5:26 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
if the population of Tasmania (Australia's bottom island) is almost 1/2 million in a little over 200years

surely a tribe of people would produce more then 300,000 in 40,000 years

anyone who would think otherwise must have rocks in their head


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2008 5:26 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 12-29-2008 7:04 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 63 by fallacycop, posted 12-29-2008 4:39 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 57 of 134 (492195)
12-29-2008 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
12-29-2008 6:26 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
whatever mate

im not trying to get into an argument over this... but i did not misquote smith...page 17 if you missed it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2008 6:26 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2008 7:09 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 58 of 134 (492196)
12-29-2008 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
12-29-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
Peg, you've got to be kidding me...

quote:
populations tend to do that... if you have 10 couples, they will likely produce 10 children in a year

if you have 500 couples, they will likely produce 500


Mindlessly oversimplified piffle. As anglagard has already pointed out, environmental factors, disease, deaths in childbirth and many other factors limit population growth. Ancient Australia would not have been able to sustain huge populations without agriculture.

quote:
in 40,000 years, you'd certainly expect a larger population then 300,000.

You are only putting this nonsense forward because you are unwilling to believe anything that contradicts the Bible. Show me one non-Christian anthropologist who thinks that the population of Australia is problematic.

quote:
Besides this, most people recognize that aboriginals came from asia.

Please pay attention. Here is what I said again. Note that I do not deny that they came from Asia.

Granny writes:

That depends on what you mean by Asian. They were most certainly not ethnically similar to modern inhabitants of South-East Asia.

OK?

quote:
My smith quote is right... i've read the book...

Then why does your quote not appear in it? You said;

Peg writes:

archeologist unearthed several temple towers at the ancient site of babylon and one inscription read "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.”

Where does that quote come from? Here is the entire text of the tablets;

Column I.

1 them? the father ....

2 of him, his heart was evil,

3. . . against the father of all the gods was
wicked,

4 of him, his heart was evil,

5 Babylon brought to subjection,

6. [small] and great he confounded their speech.
7 Babylon brought to subjection,

8. [small] and great he confounded their speech.

9. their strong place (tower) all the day they
founded ;

10. to their strong place in the night

11. entirely he made an end.

12. In his anger also word thus he poured out:

13. [to] scatter abroad he set his face

14. he gave this? command, their counsel was
confused

15 the course he broke

16 fixed the sanctuary

There is a small fragment of Column II., but the
connection with Column I. is not apparent.

Column II.

1. Sar-tul-elli ....

2. in front carried Anu ....

3. to Bel-sara his father . . .%

4. like his heart also ...

5. which carried wisdom . . . •

6. In those days also ....

7. he carried him ....

8. Nin-kina ....

9. My son I rise and ....

10. his number (?) ....

11. entirely ....

There is a third portion on the same tablet be-
longing to a column on the other side, either the
third or the fifth.

Reverse Colujnin III. or Y.

1. In ... .

2. he blew and ....

3. for a long time in the cities ....

4. Nunanner went ....

5. He said, like heaven and earth . . .

6. that path they went ....

7. fiercely they approached to the presence .

8. he saw them and the earth ....

9. of stopping not ....

10. of the gods ....

11. the gods looked ....

12. violence (?) ....

1 3. Bitterly they wept at Babi . . . .

14. very much they grieved ....

15. at their misfortune and ....

Entire text here

So where does your quote come from? Not these tablets. You seem to be under the impression that the text was found inscribed on a building and that the building itself is the "strong place" referred to in the text. I see no such claim in the text. The inscriptions are from clay tablets. Also, they are Assyrian, not Babylonian. If you really think that the text says what you claim it says, then all it demonstrates is how deeply you are deluding yourself and seeing only what you want to see.

quote:
what are you basing your premis on here?

The simple fact, which you acknowledge yourself, that languages continuously evolve. For the Babel story to be true would require that all pre-Babel people spoke the same tongue. This language could not have evolved, because if it did, then people across the world would have inevitably ended up speaking different languages, as their local tongues diverged. The whole idea is absurd and claiming that it is consistent with linguistics or anthropology is patently false.

Babel is just a silly fairy tale that grown-ups ought to be embarrassed to admit to believing. Even the presence of the fable in Assyrian inscriptions proves nothing other than that the tale was part of Assyrian myth as well as Hebrew. It proves nothing. It's merely a "Just So" story and a ridiculous one at that.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed missing word.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 5:04 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 7:37 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 134 (492198)
12-29-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
12-29-2008 6:29 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
f the population of Tasmania (Australia's bottom island) is almost 1/2 million in a little over 200years

surely a tribe of people would produce more then 300,000 in 40,000 years

The two are utterly incomparable.

anyone who would think otherwise must have rocks in their head

Or just has a reasonable grasp of population dynamics. Unlike you, who simply exhibits the standard creationist willful ignorance/cognative dissonance. Have you no interest in actually learning something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 6:29 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 60 of 134 (492201)
12-29-2008 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-29-2008 6:41 AM


Re: Complex Issues Don't Need Simplistic Answers
quote:

im not trying to get into an argument over this... but i did not misquote smith...page 17 if you missed it.

The only reference to the Tower of Babel on page 17 is an assertion that Smith had found a parallel account to the Biblical story in Assyrian tablets.

Let me remind you of your actual claim (as edited to remove the reference to the '50s)


... archeologist unearthed several temple towers at the ancient site of babylon and one inscription read "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.” They dated this particular tower at 3,000 BCE.

What Smith found was not an inscription on a temple, but a clay tablet which is translated on p160. It does not match your quote. It does not say that the "strong place" was a temple, or that it was the building of it that offended the Gods nor that the Gods made their speech "strange" - indeed the only references to "speech" are, as Smith admits (p163) a guess at the translation of a word he does not know.

According to Wikipedia the "tower" Smith believes that the story refers to - the ziggurat of Birs Nimrud does not date to 3000 BC. The large ziggurat was built by Nebuchadrezzar II (the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar) and the smaller ziggurat that preceded it dates to only the 2nd Millennium BC (and is therefore no earlier than 2000 BC).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-29-2008 6:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019