Summations Only

Fine, but actually I was reply to a statement, not a person. This one:"All the water can be in one place(connected) and there still be multiple large land masses."The land masses were originally submerged, was my point.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I do archaeology for a living, with human skeletal analysis as one of my specialties.

---

That is fine. Lets hope its not agenda preferred. Yet you disputed the primal relevance of 'names' in archeology, and you failed to respond to a host of links of prominent architects in that regard. We have proof today of 3,500 and 2,800 year ago that Israel and King David, for example, were historical entities solely from stone monument discoveries - only because of names embossed upon them - quoted by prominent archeologists as stunning proof. There was no way these factors would come about from C14 - in fact most archeoligists deemed these are mythical before!Where is your proof of 200,000 year modern [whatever that means!] man?If there is no scientific evidence for time factor variances in the expansion of the universe, then pray tell what does impact here? What do we measure earthly and cosmic time by? Was there a 24-hour day when our sun was 1 day old?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You can see from here, time is reliant on space bodies such as galaxies [cosmic time] and stars [solar time]. The space bodies are subject to universal space increments [expansion] - the stars existing are dependent on the expansion. In other words, if our earth was closer to the sun, the day would be longer!

quote:

---

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

​

The page cannot be found
Any discussion requires a shared language or concept. It is in that spirit that I present a Readers Digest version of the history of the universe in order to define the context of this paper as well as some terminology.

​

The chronology of the universe is depicted schematically in Fig. 1. While some remarkable events occurred in the earliest phases of the evolution of the universe, the intervals of time that are relevant to our discussion are those indicated by the symbols and . The first of these is the interval of time since the Big Bang until the epic of galaxy formation (we are actually interested only in the time when our galaxy was formed, but we will use a number that is representative of many galaxies). The second interval marks the passage of time from the formation of the galaxy until the solar system was formed. The third interval corresponds to the age of the solar system. A value of 1.00.4 billion years will be taken here for the interval

​

Fig. 1.

​

These intervals are relevant to two approaches to establishing the age of the universe, both involving ways to estimate the age of the galaxy. One way is to estimate the age of the oldest star(s) in the galaxy and associate that with the age of the galaxy. The other way has to do with the age of the elements, the majority of which were created by stellar processes in the galaxy.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Those "names" don't prove what you suggest they prove. You've been wrong on this on several threads now.

---

That is not a response. Please tell us the significance of the Egytpian stelle discovery, dated 3,500 years and mentioning a war with Israel. All I said here was, it is proof there was an entity called Israel at that date, and this is derived only by a name imprint. Yes/no?

I already admitted this appears to contradict today's understanding. Equally, I cannot see any coherent reason for a writings saying this when there is no apparent benefit of it, other than to look ridiculous, and that it is, mysteriously, in alignment with other historical names & events being attached. I see no reason why, for example, we have no NAME pre-Adam for the 196,000 years you propose for modern man: names popped up only by some freak accident to align only with Genesis? It does not tickle your curious funny bone at all as ironic?

If you make claims modern humans are 200,000 years old, replying to it is off topic? - one should let it pass as if it was a fact? That is very hard to do. You are cherry picking what is off topic: because I asked you if you found the alignment of a name aligning so exactingly with Genesis as mysterious. That's why!With regard to time being impacted by the growth of the universe, I have been giving you proofs. I also gave a premise where vegetation can precede sunlight, whereby the vegetation was not caused by the sunlight, which acts as the sustainence factor [food], not the causative one. We have sunlight on all planets - but no life. Why is that? I do see logic here which is not satisfied by the premise you hold: if vegetation is caused by sunlight - every planet should harbour vegetation. If you say this is due to critical conditions, then we have a host of similar critical conditions on this planet also; if critical conditions is the only factor, then its back to Genesis, which is telling us the same thing. Where is the anomaly?Texts are complicated with such heady issues, and pivotal words cannot be ignored. The Noah story is textually resting on Noah's household - where was it factored into the equation?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No names before writing was developed? Gee, I wonder why not...

---

When was writings developed in the alledged 200,000 years of modern man? Give us a rough time frame to test your thesis, backed by reasonable evidence.

quote:

---

It is generally agreed that true writing of language was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) 3200 BC and Mesoamerica 600 BC. Twelve Mesoamerican scripts are known of, the oldest from Zapotec Mexico.

---

Fine. Now examine the period between 200,000 years ago and 5,500 years ago. This is a period of 195,000 years. We know that writings cannot occur without speech. We have indicators and evidences that writings developed a few centuries after speech; while we have no evidences of speech before 5,500 years - all those indicators and evidences are absent, to the extent of absolute zero proof for the entire 195,000 year period. This says there is no evidence of speech for the entire period of 195,000.I base the above figures with no provision given to items such as mass burials, cave markings datings without on the ground continuing and graduated surrounding backup, or of skeletal remains. These are not acceptable proofs of speech and only serve as an unsatisfactory circular debate.Conclusion of the evidences:1. Speech endowed humans were not around a few centuries before writings appeared, namely before 5,500 to 6000 years ago. Zero evidences for the 195,000 period; which many also claim as 300,000 years of modern speech humans existing.2. However one sides with the above, there appears a mysterious alignment with the 6000 year figure of the Genesis version of modern human history, at least to the extent a quickening of the pace began at this point, the like of which has never happened before - and has no equivalence to present as its justification. In fact its not just speech which is absent outside the Genesis version - we have no history per se before this dating.

What Genesis says about the Noah flood. The opening preamble in the text:

quote:

---

7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark.

---

And that is why no wild animals are listed. The flood was a regional one relating only to Noah's household possessions, also backed up by the dimensions of the boat. Whatever is read thereafter MUST align with the preamble - otherwise you get a fine for driving the wrong way.This is the most intelligent writings humanity possesses, the only one which can stand up to state of art contemporary science today. Non-intelligent writings do not list Mount Ararat for the first time, with aerial view photographical accuracy of its exact location. Non contemporary writings cannot list a whole geneology of names for the first time and have every one of them authenticated by archeology. Nor is there a writings which gives the first 'NAME' of a human and of a King. A true intelligent view considers these factors.

The fundamental things apply. And this says that the water and the land were seperated; the 'HOW' is for each generation's knowledge status to debate.The other fundamental factor is the 'WHY'. Of note this verse apears immediately prior to the emergence of life forms, some of which live on land and some on water. This makes it an anticipatory action for the sustainence and habitat of various kinds of forthcoming life forms.The scientific formular applicable here, and the only one which is coherent, is thus:THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS.

Yes, 'THOU AND THY HOUSEHOLLD' [only] is the preamble relating to Noah and his possessions, confirmed with 'RIGHTIOUS IN "THIS" [Noah's] GENERATION', the size of the boat and that not a single wild animal is listed.'ALL FLESH' refers to said animals and community in Noah's immediate region only; it is how this was seen from that town's POV. Any other reading conflicts with the textual coherence, and becomes inconsistant with the otherwise pritine accuracy of historical details of the texts which is superior in its veracity to anything else on record. This is an excellently ilntelligent text and must be read that way.

Not a single wild animal [non-domestic] is listed. Clean animals refer to consumable ones [which includes some creepy crawlies and large insects]; unclean refers to non-consumable beasts of burden.I listed numerous governing factors [text verses & words], which cannot be overlooked, bypassed or disregarded; these are only alignable with my position. Only the life forms in Noah's household/possessions were called for [the text]; only these entered the ark [the absence of any wild animals in the text].This was an agricultural epoch of humanity, its people having large Texas style lands with a host of life forms utilized for food and trading. They usually never ventured outside their towns for most of their lives; many never even knew there were other lands or nations. This regional flood appeared to them as a global one, and the writings reflect this authentically of its period - aka 'SPEAKING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE".All anti-creationists focus on what they can impound on and connect with their agenda, while playing 3 blind mice of millions of stats introduced for the first time to humanity in the Hebrew writings. The Hebrew writings are NOT a Walt Disney story.

quote:

---

Once again, how do you reconcile the quotes I provided with your assertion that the texts say only Noah's domesticated animals went onboard the ark?

---

I did, catering to every word in your quote, also then aligning it with the actual texts you left out!The text is not exaggerating any place, but speaking authentic to its contextual period. Tasmania never existed then - and the boat landed nearby in the same region - near Mount Ararat! I can list a host of factors and texts you guys blatantly ignore. Comprehension of the text is the first measuring yardstick of any pretend science.

Which part?

quote:

---

Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female
and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

​

The text states that everything not on the ark will die in the flood and that those animals on the ark will provide "seed" for after the flood.

---

No it does not. It says clean & unclean beasts are to be entered into the arc. I addressed this in my response. The seed factor does not impact - it is required in a regional or global famine.

quote:

---

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

---

Its not about 'and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth'. Its about 'and every living substance that I have made [the life forms of Noah's possessions were made by God as well as those which will die] will I destroy from off the face of the earth [Noah's earth region which Noah lives and knows]'When the text is comprehensively employed, there is no other reading of it. Your and many others are disconnectiung the applicable factors in the text, and then a blatantly impossible and incoherent result is condoned: the boat size and the total absence of a single wild animal does not align with your conclusion. A host of other factors in the text also contradict your conclusion, especially the view this is not a superior literary work of the highest wisdom - clearly its grammar proves this. Grammar is like math; the verses are like equations; one cannot leave out pivotal equations and keep shouting Eureka!

quote:

---

The God character in the Genesis 6 version of the flood myth has this to say.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Now there is little local in that statement. It clearly says "from the face of the earth".

---

No sir, it does not say 'from the face of the earth'. It points only to those outside of Noah's possessions [the text you ignored]. We find this fully confirmed when we check the geneology listing, and a clear premise says Tasmanians, Norweegians, New Yorkers were not around; while Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenecians, Medianites, etc - never mentioned it, even though they have various forms of writings and no history of being wiped out.The God character in the version of the story in Genesis 7 goes even further.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The God character in the Genesis 6 fable just kills off man and beast and creeping things and fowls of the air while the God character in the Genesis 7 fable says he will kill off every living substance.

---

Every living creature in Noah's region. There is no contradictions here. Let me show you an exact replicated scenario in the same book of Genesis. When Sodom was destroyed, its people saw it as the world was destroyed. This is in the text, whereby a man [Lot] who escaped the disaster by hiding in a mountain crevice with his two daughters. When he was asleep, his daughters thought ot concieving by him - to preserve humanity. Its not a fable if it lists names, places and dates, with evidence this is correctly portrayed in the texts. Fables have no verifiable locations such as historical mountains and rivers.

quote:

---

In both fables though "From off the face of the earth" is specifically stated.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

But I'm not handicaped. Look:Alexander: "I will destroy the Persian king Darius from off the face of the earth".Tasmania excluded.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.