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

[dad]

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

Well, unless there was a need to quibble over some important issue regarding the time of Bebel, I would not bother, generally.

The problem with same nature pattern derived dates is that they are only good in this nature. So, if our current nature started around the time of Babel (when Peleg was 5 years old) then your dates are of no value before Babel. Even for exact dates from that period, science is really of no use, because as you may know, they 'correlate' dates from decay with things like tree rings or corals etc. How could we use a tree with hundreds of rings grown in say a few months for correlation if it grew in the former nature? They only look at seasonal/yearly growth of trees in the present nature as the basis for how long a ring represents!

So we would need to check your religious/so called science dates with the bible.

Now, when science gives a date that is older than Babel, do you agree that date must be older than Babel?

No.
As mentioned the way they get the dates involves correlating things from this nature. Also, since the radioactive (what is now radioactive i this nature) decay dates go so totally and wildly and quickly wrong as we get near the time of the nature change, that they certainly cannot be trusted.

That being said, if science says something is, for example 8000 years old, and something else is 6000 years old, I generally assume the so called 8000 year old item is older. Perhaps a few decades or years older, who knows? All accuracy is out the window after about 4500 year dates. (even before as mentioned due to correlation)

ALL civilizations we know about are post flood.

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?

I would say yes for the sake of simplicity, but reserve the right to make exceptions if needed.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, unless there was a need to quibble over some important issue regarding the time of Bebel, I would not bother, generally.

The problem with same nature pattern derived dates is that they are only good in this nature. So, if our current nature started around the time of Babel (when Peleg was 5 years old) then your dates are of no value before Babel. Even for exact dates from that period, science is really of no use, because as you may know, they 'correlate' dates from decay with things like tree rings or corals etc. How could we use a tree with hundreds of rings grown in say a few months for correlation if it grew in the former nature? They only look at seasonal/yearly growth of trees in the present nature as the basis for how long a ring represents!

So we would need to check your religious/so called science dates with the bible.
No.
As mentioned the way they get the dates involves correlating things from this nature. Also, since the radioactive (what is now radioactive i this nature) decay dates go so totally and wildly and quickly wrong as we get near the time of the nature change, that they certainly cannot be trusted.

That being said, if science says something is, for example 8000 years old, and something else is 6000 years old, I generally assume the so called 8000 year old item is older. Perhaps a few decades or years older, who knows? All accuracy is out the window after about 4500 year dates. (even before as mentioned due to correlation)

ALL civilizations we know about are post flood.
I would say yes for the sake of simplicity, but reserve the right to make exceptions if needed.

Lol. You want to claim that dates out to Babel are accurate, but dates older than Babel are actually younger - which would mean dates out to Babel are not accurate. You are an extremely confused individual with an inconsistent, self-contradicting argument.

Are you sure you want to keep embarrassing yourself?

 

[dad]

Lol. You want to claim that dates out to Babel are accurate, but dates older than Babel are actually younger - which would mean dates out to Babel are not accurate.

Actually I said I assume that dates older than Babel were probably correctly gauged as older. The caveat was that all accuracy vanishes at that point. (because all dating systems involve using the present nature and extrapolating backwards)

For example if they dated the indus valley civilization older than Babel, I would look at the dating details, and remain open minded. Could there have been peoples in what is now South America, and what is now India in the post flood world before Babel? Sure, I would suspect so. Could some of their artifacts be dated older therefore? Sure. But remember that the time from the flood to Babel is known, and it was not thousands of years! So older would mean years or decades, not millennia.

I would say that we have zero remains for any people before the time of Babel, or the time of the flood by the way, because it is likely that in the former nature man simply could not leave fossil remains or bones etc.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually I said I assume that dates older than Babel were probably correctly gauged as older. The caveat was that all accuracy vanishes at that point. (because all dating systems involve using the present nature and extrapolating backwards)

For example if they dated the indus valley civilization older than Babel, I would look at the dating details, and remain open minded. Could there have been peoples in what is now South America, and what is now India in the post flood world before Babel? Sure, I would suspect so. Could some of their artifacts be dated older therefore? Sure. But remember that the time from the flood to Babel is known, and it was not thousands of years! So older would mean years or decades, not millennia.

Good. We now have an explicit acceptance that "older than Babel" does, indeed, mean "older than Babel". No matter how you squirm now, you have accepted that. Therefore you have admitted that the evidence of multiple languages older than Babel is indeed older than Babel.

I would say that we have zero remains for any people before the time of Babel, or the time of the flood by the way, because it is likely that in the former nature man simply could not leave fossil remains or bones etc.

Sorry, but you don't get to contradict yourself here. You stated very clearly that evidence older than Babel is older than Babel.

Case closed.

 

[dad]

Good. We now have an explicit acceptance that "older than Babel" does, indeed, mean "older than Babel". No matter how you squirm now, you have accepted that. Therefore you have admitted that the evidence of multiple languages older than Babel is indeed older than Babel.

Ok. Let's look at you evidence for languages older than Babel?

This should be interesting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok. Let's look at you evidence for languages older than Babel?

It's kind of hard to come up with evidence of real events happening "before" imaginary events.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok. Let's look at you evidence for languages older than Babel?

This should be interesting.

I would love for it to be interesting, but my expectation is that it will be very boringly predictable: when you've read my posts for what should be the 4th or 5th time you will attempt to back peddle, contradict yourself and generally deny the evidence.

 

[JackRT]

If the imaginary Tower of Babel happened within the last 10,000 years then the aboriginal people of Australia and New Guinea speak languages at least 40,000 years older.

 

[dad]

It's kind of hard to come up with evidence of real events happening "before" imaginary events.

Impossible for science. That never stopped them from making stuff up though. They invent imaginary events like some little common ancestor thingie that was our relative.

 

[dad]

If the imaginary Tower of Babel happened within the last 10,000 years then the aboriginal people of Australia and New Guinea speak languages at least 40,000 years older.

The imaginary years you believe in never existed. You are suffering some sort of myopic time distortion syndrome!

 

[dad]

I would love for it to be interesting, but my expectation is that it will be very boringly predictable: when you've read my posts for what should be the 4th or 5th time you will attempt to back peddle, contradict yourself and generally deny the evidence.

So rather than posting evidence for languages with dates you say are older than Babel, you try to position yourself for a possible humiliating defeat. OK. Whatever.

 

[JackRT]

OK, Dad. Just follow the yellow brick road.

 

[dad]

OK, Dad. Just follow the yellow brick road.

Funny enough there is a lot more emerald in the wall of New Jerusalem than in the whole city of OZ.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So rather than posting evidence for languages with dates you say are older than Babel, you try to position yourself for a possible humiliating defeat. OK. Whatever.

I have already posted the evidence and asked you to read it at least twice. If you're interested in who's winning or losing this debate, I won it several days ago. I then pointed out that your continued denialism only makes you look silly, yet you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into that hole.

A quick synopsis of how this has gone:
Me: These languages are dated to pre-date Babel
You: No they aren't
Me: Do you accept scientific dates that pre-date Babel indicate something that actually pre-dates Babel?
You: Yes
Me: These languages are dated as pre-dating Babel. By your own admission you accept that they pre-date Babel.
You: Show me a language that pre-dates Babel
Me: I already did
You: So you've got nothing and I'm going to win the debate.......

 

[dad]

I have already posted the evidence and asked you to read it at least twice. If you're interested in who's winning or losing this debate, I won it several days ago. I then pointed out that your continued denialism only makes you look silly, yet you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into that hole.

A quick synopsis of how this has gone:
Me: These languages are dated to pre-date Babel
You: No they aren't

Correct. Let's see the dating methods and premise and details. I think we had enough meaningless babble for now.

Me: Do you accept scientific dates that pre-date Babel indicate something that actually pre-dates Babel?
You: Yes

In theory, but you have not shown any. I also pointed out that older is nothing to do with the absurdly long dream dates of religious so called science.

Me: These languages are dated as pre-dating Babel. By your own admission you accept that they pre-date Babel.
You: Show me a language that pre-dates Babel
Me: I already did
You: So you've got nothing and I'm going to win the debate.......

What post did you show the basis for any dates given for any language supposedly older than Babel? Time to put up.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Correct. Let's see the dating methods and premise and details. I think we had enough meaningless babble for now.



In theory, but you have not shown any. I also pointed out that older is nothing to do with the absurdly long dream dates of religious so called science.



What post did you show the basis for any dates given for any language supposedly older than Babel? Time to put up.

Post 264, which you should have read at least 5 times now, has the dates in it.

Your attitude and dishonesty are tiresome. If you have evidence that the dates are incorrect I'll listen. If you respond with another childish post I will report it.

 

[dad]

Post 264, which you should have read at least 5 times now, has the dates in it.

Your attitude and dishonesty are tiresome. If you have evidence that the dates are incorrect I'll listen. If you respond with another childish post I will report it.

Here is the post you cite.

"Let's look at the civilisations which pre-date the earliest kingdoms (Akkadian Empire 2330 BCE). The oldest civilisations so far discovered would be:
1. Mesopotamia (3500 BCE) - Probably included the putative site of Babel
2. Indus Valley (3300 BCE) - nowhere near Babel
3. Egypt (3100 BCE)- not particularly close to Babel, but closer than Indus Valley
4. Mayan (2600 BCE) - can't get much further from Babel

They all had distinct and separate languages with their own writing systems, which would seem to be a little odd given that, according to you, there was only a single language being used by all people."


Nowhere in here is ANY support for any date! None at all. You rattle off dates as if that had some meaning. Sorry. No, it doesn't in any way.

he date I usually go with for the flood was about 2500BC.

Here is one site that lists a range from about 2288 to 2998BC.

"The flood waters cover the entire earth (Gen. 7). (James Ussher suggest 2349 as the flood date, the Samaritan Pentateuch has 2998, the Hebrew Bible has 2288, and the Septuagint lists 3246 has the date of the flood). "
Time Line Survey of Bible Events


The dates you cite range from 2330 to 3500BC.

The difference is only a few centuries. Since you did not cite details on the way dates were derived, not sure what you would like anyone to say?

I already explained your dates are all same state past based. That is based on a belief that nature was the same in the past. No date is any better than that belief.

Looking at the error curve of using a same nature past for dates, the few hundred years error is quite normal. Soon as you get just a little further back in time, the error curve jumps wildly, and gets into millions and billions of years error.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here is the post you cite.

"Let's look at the civilisations which pre-date the earliest kingdoms (Akkadian Empire 2330 BCE). The oldest civilisations so far discovered would be:
1. Mesopotamia (3500 BCE) - Probably included the putative site of Babel
2. Indus Valley (3300 BCE) - nowhere near Babel
3. Egypt (3100 BCE)- not particularly close to Babel, but closer than Indus Valley
4. Mayan (2600 BCE) - can't get much further from Babel

They all had distinct and separate languages with their own writing systems, which would seem to be a little odd given that, according to you, there was only a single language being used by all people."


Nowhere in here is ANY support for any date! None at all. You rattle off dates as if that had some meaning. Sorry. No, it doesn't in any way.

he date I usually go with for the flood was about 2500BC.

Here is one site that lists a range from about 2288 to 2998BC.

"The flood waters cover the entire earth (Gen. 7). (James Ussher suggest 2349 as the flood date, the Samaritan Pentateuch has 2998, the Hebrew Bible has 2288, and the Septuagint lists 3246 has the date of the flood). "
Time Line Survey of Bible Events


The dates you cite range from 2330 to 3500BC.

The difference is only a few centuries. Since you did not cite details on the way dates were derived, not sure what you would like anyone to say?

I already explained your dates are all same state past based. That is based on a belief that nature was the same in the past. No date is any better than that belief.

Looking at the error curve of using a same nature past for dates, the few hundred years error is quite normal. Soon as you get just a little further back in time, the error curve jumps wildly, and gets into millions and billions of years error.

I explicitly asked you not to do this.

Post reported

 

[dad]

I explicitly asked you not to do this.

Post reported

Too bad, if you post some nonsense with zero support or explanation, that just contains claims, I can point that out. We are not here to disprove unsupported stories or claims.

 

[JackRT]

Too bad, if you post some nonsense with zero support or explanation, that just contains claims, I can point that out. We are not here to disprove unsupported stories or claims.

You mean like a worldwide flood?