Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

True Creation says: I have shown that the Tower was built, but what would you even expect to find to show that it is the origin of the races and languages? I do not know of a way the scientific realm can reach this paradigm.I don't think you have shown anything of the kind, the second part of the issue is extremely important to the type of argument you frequently use on the forum.What you can show, and what I wholeheartedly agree with, is that ancients built a tower and it collapsed. I'm sure it happened all over the ancient world. However, to relate any of these towers to the biblical tower of Babel requires a great deal of induction. Some of the sites you have referred to elsewhere go in for this induction at some length, but it remains entirely speculative as you seem to agree.There is some tempting evidence, but it is no more than tempting. Unfortunately the Biblical account is actually too vague about location, construction and so on to enable us to find conclusive proof archaeologically.Of course, the Biblical story goes beyond saying that there was a tower and it collapsed. We are told that it was Jehovah who destroyed the tower and that it was from this event that the people of earth ceased to speak one language and spoke many others.More proof of the existence and identity of the tower of babel may be possible in several stages. Locate a collapsed tower, the collapse of which can be archaeologically dated to a point before which the evidence of varied languages can be found. Find within the remains of the tower or stratigraphically related to it evidence of a language which can be cross related to similarly dated language evidence elsewhere.However, even this evidence wouldn't conclusively prove that the tower was "the" tower mentioned in the Bible. One would certainly be interested in the correlation, but even mild skepticism might lead one to conclude it is wishful thinking. There would be a great deal of induction required.Now, to relate this to your general arguments: they are often interesting but show a very selective skepticism. This is what I meant in an earlier post when I asked if this is the standard of evidence you expect of evolution. You are quite confident to say that the Tower of Babel has been found, on the basis of what can only ever be an inferential argument. But you are extremely skeptical, from what I have read, of evidence for the age of the earth, which is based on a far greater volume of evidence which is more testable.The conclusion I draw is that you share the extremely partial skepticism of many creationists: evidence which supports your position is regarded fairly uncritically, but a far greater standard of proof is applied to evidence which does not.There is a certain comfort to be had for creationsists in the difficulty of faslifying biblical accounts of interesting events. But the reasons for this are twofold and can clearly be seen in the Tower of Babel story.Negative evidence - that the tower did not exist, that if it did it was not destroyed by Jehovah - is not possible by its nature.Positive evidence - that languages were widespread and varied before the dating of any candidate tower may yet fail the test for a creationist, because one could always retreat to a position of "well, it must have been another tower, which we haven't yet found." But the positive evidence may receive another challenge - the challenge that the scientific inferences required to support it are open to the usual weaknesses of inductive reasoning.Thus, we end up in a situation where inductive reasoning which supports your position (as in the links you posted relating to the Tower) is acceptible to you, but inductive reasoning (as for the age of the earth) is not. But the difference between the two appears only to be that one accords with your position and the other is egregious to you.So, I guess, the question to ask is simply put - what are your standards of evidence for evaluating the claims of creationism and evolutionary or materialist versions of history?

True Creation wrote: I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.Pamboli writes:
You wouldn't be looking for accuracy or infallibility. There are accurate books which are not divinely inspired. Infallibility - if different from accuracy - presumably means that it would be entirely internally and externally consistent.The external consistency of the text - how it squares with the real world - is what you seem to regard as a question "that either cannot be tested or provide potential falsification."The internal consistency of the Bible is a matter of considerable debate resting on interpretation and exegesis: human (and therefore fallible) processes. The apparent infallibility may be the result of human misinterpretation of the text, which unlike scientific experiment or observation, cannot be repeated or tested or falsified.You are of course aware that interpretations of Biblical passages have evolved, often dramatically, over the centuries. The interpretations often contradict each other and cannot all be true. So one may end up begging an important question - what objective criteria do we use to decide which interpretation we apply our criteria for infallibility to?Amusingly, I have seen some arguments along the lines of "interpretation X of this passage must be the right one because otherwise it would contradict interpretation Y of another passage." The best which can be said of such a line of reasoning is that it suggests that there are possible internally consistent interpretations - but not that these are true.Accuracy and apparent infallibility are therefore not evidence of divine nature.Finally, there can be competing and incompatible claims for infallibility. What (preferably falsifiable) criteria would you use to decide between claims of the infallibility of the Holy Qu'ran and the New Testament?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I mearly stated that the more complex something is, the more likely it was designed. This does not seem to me to be a fallacious argument by any degree.

---

Oops! The most complex things imaginable are entirely random. A simple example - "d93ncimecofmsj8;" is a more complex phrase than "a simple example" because it cannot even be summarized, at least not to a simpler form than "a simple example." [b] [QUOTE]I believe evolutionary biologists would be much more comfortable if life was not so complex, but unfortunately, life is extremely complex.[/b][/QUOTE]Interesting belief - supported by evidence? [b] [QUOTE]I merely stated that there seems to be a breaking point in which it is more likely that something was designed. Whether or not life is "too" complex (the breaking point) is where are opinions differ. I believe life is too complex, you do not.[/b][/QUOTE]No. This is not the issue. The issue is how complexity arises - the degree of complexity is only an issue for enthusiasts of Intelligent Design.

Good idea. ID is indeed being discussed elsewhere. Iw ould love to have a discussion on linguistics (and the Tower of Babel), but I'm not sure what you want to discuss. You posted a meaty (if a little inaccurate) piece, about the development of languages. Was there a point you were making about the Tower of Babel?