Why do intellectually superior humans have around 7,000 distinct languages?

[Bungle_Bear]

Not sure why you got so muddled. Anyhow, to be clear before Babel there were no languages or hieroglyphics etc I assume. Just the one worldwide single language. After the tongues were divided at Babel, it makes sense that people then needed to draw pics to communicate and try to get a written language.

As for your attempted point about how India was not close to the tower, here is a pic for you.

https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/babel



As you can see, getting around for animals or people was not so hard. Heck, some people have even speculated that some men at the time had access to ways to fly!!? Ha.

I already showed that there were multiple languages before Babel. Your continued refusal to address this shows that it is you, not me, who is muddled.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They got scattered from the tower of Babel.

Now there is some question whether there were peoples in the world that were not in the area of Babel. If that were the case, their languages also would have been scattered at this same time! You see nature changes (made by God) affect us all.




There are no dating methods except radioactive decay based methods for dating that far back. The problem with those methods is that they assume nature was the same, and so they assume they can use the decay process we now see for dates. NO way..if nature changed, that means those methods are totally useless except for the recent past.

As we get near the time of the change, the dates derived from radioactive decay methods start to go insanely wildly totally wrong! So wrong, that thousands of years get into billions of years!!!

So you're saying you have no way of dating Babel? Then how can you know when it happened?

Do you ever think through the consequences of your claims?

 

[dad]

I already showed that there were multiple languages before Babel. Your continued refusal to address this shows that it is you, not me, who is muddled.

You did not sow any such silly thing. Try not to take your religious dating scheme too seriously.

 

[dad]

So you're saying you have no way of dating Babel? Then how can you know when it happened?

Do you ever think through the consequences of your claims?

I have a way. The bible! Even Jewish tradition has dates that are likely close. For example they say Abraham lived at the same time as Noah for awhile after the flood. The dates for Babel are fairly well known.

The religiously derived silly dates you use are simply worthless.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have a way. The bible! Even Jewish tradition has dates that are likely close. For example they say Abraham lived at the same time as Noah for awhile after the flood. The dates for Babel are fairly well known.

The religiously derived silly dates you use are simply worthless.

Do you think physical, archaeological evidence supports the bible? If so, then the bible in turn supports the dates we get from other things like isotopes, tree rings etc from that evidence?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You did not sow any such silly thing. Try not to take your religious dating scheme too seriously.

Now that's a bald faced lie. You have ignored and handwaved the evidence several times in this thread. You haven't once addressed it. Do not insult everyone's intelligence by pretending otherwise.

 

[dad]

So you're saying you have no way of dating Babel? Then how can you know when it happened?

If you were able to read posts you might notice that the dates for Babel are known. I have an easy time getting dates. YOU can't though from science.

 

[dad]

Do you think physical, archaeological evidence supports the bible? If so, then the bible in turn supports the dates we get from other things like isotopes, tree rings etc from that evidence?

Nothing true could support religious false dated that rest on false premises.

 

[dad]

Now that's a bald faced lie. You have ignored and handwaved the evidence several times in this thread. You haven't once addressed it. Do not insult everyone's intelligence by pretending otherwise.

What evidence besides religious dates do you think you or anyone else presented? Or is this just practice for false accusing and wasted posts for you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nothing true could support religious false dated that rest on false premises.

Your argument is completely nonsensical and ridiculous:

1. Bible says event X happened in year Y, science says event X happened in year Y = Scientific dating is RELIABLE
2. Using the same dating techniques for anything that is not in the bible = Scientific dating is UNRELIABLE

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What evidence besides religious dates do you think you or anyone else presented? Or is this just practice for false accusing and wasted posts for you?

Your refusal to deal with the evidence is noted.

 

[dad]

Your argument is completely nonsensical and ridiculous:

1. Bible says event X happened in year Y, science says event X happened in year Y = Scientific dating is RELIABLE
2. Using the same dating techniques for anything that is not in the bible = Scientific dating is UNRELIABLE

The bible does not use your same state past religious dates. Try again.

 

[dad]

Your refusal to deal with the evidence is noted.

In other words you have nothing else but the same nature in the past belief based phony two bit pretend dates. Noted.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In other words you have nothing else but the same nature in the past belief based phony two bit pretend dates. Noted.

Actually no. What I said stands - you refuse to deal with evidence. I have provided evidence that multiple languages existed before your claimed Babel event. You have:

1. Agreed with them
2. Re-written the Babel narrative
3. Contradicted yourself when you realised you'd done 1&2 above in order to get your nonsensical claims back in line

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The bible does not use your same state past religious dates. Try again.

I'd forgotten how much you struggle to comprehend simple ideas.

Let's try again:

1. If science agrees with Bible, science is correct
2. If that exact same science says something and the Bible is silent BUT it doesn't conflict with Dad's weird religion, that exact same science is correct
3. If that exact same science says something and the Bible is silent BUT it conflicts with Dad's weird religion, that exact same science is wrong.

And you seriously think anyone reading this will consider your claims to be believable?

 

[dad]

Actually no. What I said stands - you refuse to deal with evidence. I have provided evidence that multiple languages existed before your claimed Babel event.

Name any of it that is not dated with same state past belief based dating? Ha. None eh?

You have:

1. Agreed with them

I agree that civilizations existed after Babel, the exact dates for any that are supposedly older than this I would severely question.

2. Re-written the Babel narrative

Oh? I missed that.

3. Contradicted yourself when you realised you'd done 1&2 above in order to get your nonsensical claims back in line

Your confusion needed to be cleared up...do I even hear a thank you?

 

[dad]

I'd forgotten how much you struggle to comprehend simple ideas.

Let's try again:

1. If science agrees with Bible, science is correct

At least it can be checked, rather than running amok in made up make believe la la land.

2. If that exact same science says something and the Bible is silent BUT it doesn't conflict with Dad's weird religion, that exact same science is correct

There is no science that can disagree with God or His word. The bible also may not be as silent on many things as you think.

3. If that exact same science says something and the Bible is silent BUT it conflicts with Dad's weird religion, that exact same science is wrong.

If you cannot comprehend the depth of what the bible says, you may think it is silent. Then you have the audacity to turn around and insult other posters here that do understand it and call it weird religion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Name any of it that is not dated with same state past belief based dating? Ha. None eh?

Do you agree that science has corroborated the following claims from the bible (just a sample):

1. King David
2. Nebuchadnezzar
3. Nehimiah's Wall
4. Battle with Mesha, King of the Moabites

All of these scientific confirmations rely on accurate dating. Will you accept the dates science gives them, or will you deny that the dates are accurate?

If you accept those dates as accurate, then you must agree that any other dates science provides which agree with the Bible are accurate, right?

If you agree with that line of reasoning, then I'll continue in my next post. If you don't agree with that reasoning please explain why not.

Oh? I missed that.

You chose to handwave it away. That's not the same as missing it.

 

[dad]

Do you agree that science has corroborated the following claims from the bible (just a sample):

1. King David
2. Nebuchadnezzar
3. Nehimiah's Wall
4. Battle with Mesha, King of the Moabites

Not sure, why, is this related to topic?

All of these scientific confirmations rely on accurate dating. Will you accept the dates science gives them, or will you deny that the dates are accurate?

For King David, sure. Remember he lived long after Babel!

If you accept those dates as accurate, then you must agree that any other dates science provides which agree with the Bible are accurate, right?

Only as far back as our present nature existed!
I assume nature was changed about the time of Babel, which was in the 'days of Peleg'.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Only as far back as our present nature existed!

OK. You've stated clearly that you are happy that scientific dates back as far as Babel are acceptable.

Now, when science gives a date that is older than Babel, do you agree that date must be older than Babel? It doesn't matter if science says it's 100 years, 1000 years or 2 billion years, do you agree that it must be older to some extent?