“I searched online for a long time, did not find anything about Ogyges climbing Parnassus, or otherwise being associated with Parnassus. I found two web sites that claim Ogyges survived the flood in a boat, other web sites do not say how he survived the flood. Several web sites say that the waves reached the top of Parnassus.
Otherwise Parnassus is often associated with Deucalion, as his ark landed there according to some authors, though others disagree. I found web sites that say that Deucalion and Pyrrha were not the only survivors of the flood, but a few other people survived by climbing high mountains.”
“Genesis 2:7 says that God created the human (adam in Hebrew) from dust of the ground (adamah in Hebrew). The 2 words are related, being derived from adam, meaning to be red. So Adam does not mean clay, but is related.
The Hebrew name of Eve, Chavvah, is derived from chavah, meaning to live.”
Robert Eckert on Nov 29, 2013 at 17:28:26
“Genesis is telling a STORY which was intended as a PARABLE. No, "adam" is not a word meaning human: it is a word meaning "clay", used as a name because it was a pun on the old poetic usage.”
“How can you jump to the conclusion that I am willing to deny a Christian his right to consult with other Christians for prayer? I never said any such thing. What I said is a Christian Science boss, who feels that medicine is a sin, would allow his employees only insurance to see Christian Science practitioners for prayer, not health insurance, if we take your logic. I did not say that the employer had no right to offer this prayer insurance.
And you are saying the employees have the right to switch employees if they want employer provided health insurance, but don't forget that for many, especially in this economy, it can be very hard to find another job, they are lucky to have the job they have. Especially if they don't have skills that are in high demand. And you are saying if the employee does not like what health insurance the boss provides, he can buy his own insurance. But insurance provided by the employer is often cheaper. And if the employee has a pre-existing condition, he might be unable to buy any insurance.”
“It is just medical care insurance, provided by the company. The boss should have no say over what medicine the woman is eligible for by insurance. The woman is not his slave. What about bosses who argue that vaccines are dangerous, and a plot to sterilize people, like some Islamists argue? Should the Islamist boss have the right to deny his employees insurance for flu vaccines? Or suppose the boss is a Jehovah's Witness, should he have the right to deny his employees health insurance for blood transfusions? Or suppose the employee is in Christian Science, and believes medical care is a sin? Should he have the right to deny his employees health insurance, and allow only insurance for consultations with a Christian Science practitioner, for prayer? That's where your argument would lead to.”
Jumperbones1 on Nov 27, 2013 at 13:40:13
“Red herring argument on your part. No one, and I repeat no one is denied medical care by their bosses. If a woman wants that coverage she is well within her rights to purchase it in the private market. Show me where she is denied. You throw around the word slave like it has some meaning here. Racist at best.
A private company has every right to determine it's future. If a person working for them doesn't like the coverage they provide then that person has the right to terminate their employment and seek what they want elsewhere.
You are more than willing to deny a Christian his right to consult with other Christians for prayer, yet you are up in arms because they aren't willing to compromise their integrity and beliefs for your comfort. Hypocritical and typically liberal reasoning which is, No one should be denied unless it goes against what I want.
What you are saying is that the coverage a person need is unavailable unless their employer provides it, which is patently untrue. What liberals seek is the redistribution of wealth through Health care, by making the haves pay for the unwilling to sacrifice have nots.
You talk about bosses taking away the rights of others, but don't even blink an eye when taking away their rights. Hypocrisy is a terrible thing to cluelsess about. Honor everyones rights and stop drinking the liberal Kool Aid. Obamacare is a train wreck coming down the track.”
“It is not forced on you. If you don't want to take the emergency contraceptive, you don't have to.”
Jumperbones1 on Nov 27, 2013 at 09:32:53
“Then don't allow those who choose to take emergency Contraceptives, make those who do not, pay for their choice. The right is not denying anyone access to contraception, what they object to is being forced to supply it against their beliefs. Why can't the left be truthful about this?”
“Yes, let's finally separate religion and state. Let's stop telling our kids to say in the pledge 'one nation under God'. Let's remove from our currency 'in God we trust'. I don't know if God exists, so how can I trust God?”
“If the rapist with a gun is known to the victim, then he needs to establish consent.”
Spotsbunch on Nov 27, 2013 at 10:31:32
“Men certainly have been known to rape women they know - but a gun is FAR less likely to be used in that situation. Such men use prolonged emotional manipulation. Just because there's a text written under duress though, doesn't mean there's going to be no evidence of rape. Rape is not like regular intercourse. There are signs of a struggle, signs of violence, bruising, tearing, and evidence of psychological abuse. Such things are simply not present in regular consensual intercourse. If a true rapist actually forced his victim to text him permission, she would just tell the police that he forced her to do that when they arrive with the rape kit.
Besides that, if they know each other, and the intercourse is consensual there's going to be a history of friendly texts between them containing suggestive, flirtatious communication.
A few texts right at the time the act of violence occurred is going to be viewed by the police as evidence AGAINST the perpetrator, not evidence of his innocence.”
“The story of the planes buried under so much ice is news to me, I would have expected them to be under some snow, but not under 260 feet of ice. I wonder if they have been slowly sinking into the ice? I can't come up with any other explanation. I would not expect 260 feet of ice to have formed above them.
There is no evidence that limits genetic change, except that genes change at a fairly constant rate. So if you think that the dog kind might include for example foxes, then the creation of the first kind of dog would be far earlier than 4000 BCE. Even if you just include wolves, jackals and coyotes in the dog kind (they can usually interbreed), that still gets us much earlier than 4000 BCE. There is evidence that limits the age of the earth, but the limit is around 4 billion years ago.
Concerning tree rings, if there is dormancy based on a very cold summer, caused by some huge volcanic explosion, one would expect fewer tree rings, not more tree rings. Storms don't cause new tree rings. Concerning climate change, sure there are warmer centuries and colder centuries, but still you have winters followed by summers every year, so usually a new ring every year. And comparing rings of long dead trees gets us earlier than 4000 BCE. Before the alleged 6 days of creation, if you consider each of those days to have been around 24 hours.”
“Proto-Semitic in turn is almost certainly related to other languages, like Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic languages, Beja, Berber languages, Chadic languages (but not the Omotic languages, in my opinion). The relationship is proven mainly by comparing the very similar verb conjugations. So we reconstruct from these languages the Proto-Afro-Asiatic language. It is possible but unlikely that one of the branches of Afro-Asiatic has borrowed the conjugation from another branch, but to suppose that all of the branches except for one donor branch has borrowed the conjugation, that is really impossible, given how rare it is for languages to borrow personal affixes on verbs. So at least most of the branches of Afro-Asiatic are clearly related to each other. Yet the different branches of Afro-Asiatic share very few words in common, so the age of Proto-Afro-Asiatic is surely much further back than 4000 BCE. So that would get us not only far before the alleged flood of Noah, but even before Adam and Eve.
So the reading of Genesis as history, especially the first 11 chapters, is disproven by glottochronology alone.”
So that is way beyond the usual dating of Noah's flood.
Proto-Sino-Tibetan might be similarly all the way back to 4000 BCE, modern Chinese shares few words with Tibeto-Burman languages, and the unity of Sino-Tibetan is proven mainly from comparing classical Chinese with Tibeto-Burman languages, classical Chinese shares enough words to determine they are related.
Proto-Semitic also goes back to at least 3000 BCE, probably older. Interestingly, many of the names in Genesis before the tower of Babel are Hebrew. Yet Hebrew is clearly a descendant of Proto-Semitic, preserving some Proto-Semitic words almost unchanged, while innovating many other words. And interestingly, Hebrew is almost identical to other languages in that area spoken there around 1000 BCE, like Canaanite, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite and even Phoenician. Clearly the Hebrews could not have preserved that language in Egypt, but if they did come to that area, they picked up the language from tribes already there. So how could so many names in Genesis be Hebrew? Now maybe names after the tower of Babel, like Abraham etc. were changed from some more ancient Semitic language, but that hardly works for pre-tower of Babel days.
fourth continuation below.”
“second continuation from above.
Another argument against the confusion of languages after 2300 BCE is from glottochronology. That is a linguistic method of dating proto-languages from comparing basic words in related languages, and based on seeing how many are related, we can make some estimates of how many centuries the related languages have been apart since they split up from the proto-language. The rates of change have been determined by looking at known cases, like going from Old English to Modern English, or from Latin to modern Romance languages. It is true that the rates are not always the same, in rare cases the rate has been much slower than normal, for example from Old Icelandic to Modern Icelandic, there the reason is that Iceland has been a literate civilization for almost all its history, with students reading ancient sagas, so the language has not changed much. Or with Armenian, the language was used in church and scripture etc., which preserved the language from changing much. But at least in pre-literate times, the rates of change are likely to have been not very different from language to language. In Europe outside of Iceland, very few were literate before the 18th century.
So the usual estimates for the age of proto-Indo-European have been similar to 3000 or 4000 BCE. Personally I think it is closer to 4000 BCE, due to how few words the Hittite language shares with other Indo-European languages.
Third continuation is below”
“continued from above.
Also the title of pharaoh was not yet used in the time of Exodus or Genesis, it started being used near the beginning of the 18th dynasty, which according to the chronology of Answers in Genesis was much later than Exodus. Yet people in Genesis and Exodus are quoted as saying pharaoh. Obviously the quotes can't be correct. But then Genesis has other historical errors, like Chaldees (Ur was not Chaldee in Abraham's time yet), Philistines, who did not live there in the Middle East yet, Dan, which was not named Dan until the tribe Dan came there, so how could Moses have known the more modern name?
Thank you for the info about the flood story in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, I did not know that. I had read instead that Egyptians just had a flood story before the creation of the first human. Clearly I was misinformed. So there goes that argument. So I looked it up online. Unfortunately that papyrus with the flood story is damaged, so it has only the beginning you mentioned, though I read there the god's name is Atum. I had read about that god before, but not about Tem.
Second continuation below”
“Thank you for the interesting article from Answers in Genesis. I did have in college a course about writing, using Gelb's book A Study of Writing. There he did note that a minority of scholars date the earliest Egyptian and therefore also Sumerian texts to about 2300 BCE. So I was using of course the majority opinion. Your article gave me the explanation for the minority opinion. Though I was surprised at what the author wrote about the pharaoh Shoshenq, that allegedly the form in the original language was not very similar to Shishak. After all, transcriptions try to provide as accurately as possible the form in the language. Now it is true that vowels are often not known in ancient Egyptian, but consonants are known very well, and in this case it is the consonants that are so similar to Shishak. And in original Hebrew the name is actually Shishaq. The article later states that Shishak is actually another pharaoh, Thutmosis III. But that name does not even resemble Shishaq. Did the author of 1 Kings forget the real name? Creationists claim that every word in the Bible is inspired, without error. But even more interesting is the fact that the name of the famous pharaoh of the Exodus is never mentioned in the Bible, more evidence that the story is mythical. And after all, no evidence of a large crowd of people passing through Sinai Peninsula has been found in archaeology.
“continued from above.
You are right that the vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. But ash is in some cases involved too. Let me quote from Encyclopedia Americana, article Paleobotany: "Volcanic activity provided ideal conditions for the preservation of plant fossils in large numbers. Flowing lava dammed the streams and thus formed lakes, which in turn were often rapidly filled with freshly ejected ash. At Florissant, in Colorado, about 150 species of plants have been identified from leaves, seeds, and fruits pressed between thin layers of volcanic ash that filled an ancient lake about 30 million years ago."
Clearly a very different situation than Noah's flood. Genesis does not mention any volcanoes. This is a sedimentary layer between ash layers. Or do you imagine a lake with ash layers flooded over by Noah's flood? Young earth creationism claims that all fossils are due to the Noah's flood.”
“Yes, mammal fossils tend to be uncommon, but then mammals tended to be smaller than dinosaurs. But why would mammals be better able to seek the highest ground than dinosaurs? Dinosaurs tended to have longer legs. Yet there are no cenozoic dinosaur fossils found except for the birds, which are now widely recognized to be an offshoot of dinosaurs, so they are sometimes counted among dinosaurs. And there are also no cenozoic pterosaur fossils, even though pterosaurs were able to fly, so they could easily seek the highest ground.
Yes, angiosperm pollen has been found from Triassic, just like the earliest mammals are from Triassic. Still, Triassic flora was dominated by gymnosperms, hardly explainable by Noah's flood. The oldest known angiosperm tree trunk fossils are much younger. And of course angiosperms could not run up to seek higher ground, so why no angiosperm fossil pollen from Paleozoic?
And why do the oldest layers have only fossils of bacteria? Or maybe also archaea, but no multicellular beings?
“The name Adam means human being, not a Hebrew. So Adam was a Hebrew myth of the first human being. Then the Hebrews had the myth of a worldwide flood, followed by the alleged confusion of languages, before which allegedly there was only one language.”
Robert Eckert on Nov 28, 2013 at 01:54:21
“Actually, the name Adam means "Clay". It is a kind of joke: in poetry, the phrase "son of clay" was often used as a phrase for "man"; similarly, "mother of life" is poetically used as a phrase for "woman", so Clay's wife is named Life in the story, which was intended as a parable not as a history.”
Cam Morris on Nov 27, 2013 at 15:01:53
“Actually there are more than 500 current and historical civilizations around the world that have stories of a worldwide flood, most coinciding with the same time period. I am not insinuating that this is a Biblical flood, but possibly a natural even with far reaching effects. The same thing goes with the "Tower of Babel" theory, different religions and cultures used this as a way to describe the hundreds of languages used worldwide at the time.”
“Anyway, Romans 1 just claims that the world shows it was created by God. It does not claim that it shows the different kinds of life, like different kinds of animals and plants, were created by God separately. It does not show that. Instead it shows they have one common ancestor.
Now maybe the universe shows it was created by God or gods, but so far that is not proven. It depends on whether something preceded the Big Bang, is there a multiverse, and is that multiverse maybe eternal rather than created. So far we don't know. Maybe we will never know. Though I hope there is life after death, and that after death we will be told.”
“And consider also astronomy. Light travels at the rate of one light year of distance per year. Some stars are much more than 6000 years distant. So their light has reached the earth after traveling many thousands of years. We see them as they looked many thousands of years ago, not as they look today, because light travels only so fast. In fact distant galaxies are millions of light years away, they travel from us so fast they show a considerable red shift. The more red shift, the more distant they are, that is one way of measuring distances of galaxies. So we see them as they looked millions of years ago, that is how long it took for their light to reach us. So the plain fact is the universe is millions of years old. We estimate about 13 billion years old. What was before that time, nobody really knows. Some think time did not exist before then. Others suspect the universe is one of a multiverse of many universes, the multiverse maybe has existed for ever. But that goes beyond what we can know.”