The Egyptians were pretty much assimilated into the Greek and Roman cultures by the time it would make any sense that they "figured" out science on their own.
Oh, really. So where did the pyramids come from? They were already ancient to the Egyptians of Caesar's time, let alone to the people of our time.
The Egyptians were literate, educated people who were skilled in math, engineering, medicine, literacy, and astronomy. They had a sophisticated bureaucracy in their government, were meticulous record-keepers, and were skilled at agriculture. Part of this skill at agriculture involved keeping time according to the stars. Sirius was the star they looked for; when they saw it each year, they knew the Nile would soon flood and they would have good soil for planting their crops.
Really ??????
There is a country in the Caribbean (the Caribbean is a place on earth that generates billions of dollars in tourism a year) called Haiti. In 2013 it had a population of over 10 million. The people for the most part starve most of their lives and live in the poorest of conditions year after year, despite the well being of those who visit the area. The Hebrews were not on vacation. They were a displaced people group, even if by choice. More than likely, 50% of them did die there. But that does not mean that it was impossible. People had it worse off then, and were way more resilient than humans today, and we have plenty of examples of people groups who live longer than a mere 40 years on practically nothing. They seem to have no choice in the matter.
Yes, really.
Thank you for the unnecessary geography lesson. I know what the Caribbean is, and I know where it is. I'm aware that there is a country called Haiti (our last Governor-General was Haitian-Canadian). But since Haiti is nowhere near Egypt and no Haitians were present among the Hebrews when there were supposedly 2 million of them wandering around in the desert with Moses, I fail to see the relevance of bringing this up.
It is assumed that the solar system itself is a few generations removed, but it could be just one generation as much as it could be hundreds of generations after the first event.
No. Some sources say the Sun is a 2nd-generation star, and others say it's a 3rd-generation star. It's certainly not one of the original stars, since we wouldn't be here if it was. It's also not "hundreds of generations", either.
However in theory, 10,000 years ago, the universe may have only been observed as being 100,000 years old.
Ten thousand years ago, nobody knew how old the universe was. But people with good eyesight were able to see the Andromeda Galaxy - millions of light-years away (therefore seeing it as it was millions of years ago) - even if they didn't understand what they were looking at.
So in theory the solar system could have had an accelerated formation 10,000 years ago, and it will remain the same for the next million? The solar system is rather simple with less than 100 major objects and it's size compared to the rest of the milky way is pretty insignificant and not that complex.
No. The solar system's formation was a done deal a considerably long time before then. The only major changes we need concern ourselves with now are the asteroids/comets (will they hit us or won't they), and the Sun itself will change considerably as it ages. We've got less than a billion years before this planet becomes uninhabitable, so it's not too soon to get off our backsides and find new, younger solar systems to colonize.
Which is probably pseudo-science, but if you insist.
He was clearly referencing the mathematical and engineering skills necessary to build the pyramids, and the astronomers' knowledge of how to use the pyramids partially as a point of reference for a calendar.
Exactly, it is possible for millions of humans to survive in a dessert for much longer than 40 years. You and Valka D'Ur seem to think that 40 years is an impossibility. Now if you all would say that it was impossible for 2 million people to leave Egypt, then that is a different argument. You are the one's claiming humans cannot survive in a dessert.
I have never heard of humans surviving in a "dessert" - are we talking about pie, cake, or ice cream? Hopefully not Nanaimo bars; I'm allergic to those.
What we're pointing out is the lack of adequate water and food for 2 million nomadic people for 40 years.
And you observed that, or is that another assumption?
As Arakhor points out downthread, parroting Ken Ham's obnoxious, sneering "were you there?" is really not the way to convince anyone.
Show us the evidence that the solar system wasn't fully formed back then. Astronomers' and geologists' measurements won't agree with you, so good luck.
Maybe surviving for 40 years in the desert really is impossible--and God really did provide manna to make it possible.
God would have done better to provide water. Two million people, over a 40-year period, assuming that a fair number of them were not celibate would have required much more than would have been available to people not settled in or near reliable oases or other sources of fresh, clean water.
It isn't in the form of dry land
This got tedious a really long time ago. I don't care if the land was dry, wet, or had the consistency of butterscotch pudding. The point is that, contrary to what you've been saying throughout the thread, IT WASN'T FORMLESS.
You're still not providing evidence.
I said Genesis identifies an extra terrestrial origin for God and I need extraordinary evidence? I already posted the evidence, according to Genesis God created Earth. That means Genesis has identified an extra terrestrial origin for God.
Genesis is not evidence. Genesis is a story, for which there is no evidence.
Then you should have no problem quoting me instead of yourself pretending to be me.
This thread is over 78 pages long, and I have a life.
Yeah, I never said that either. So of course its obviously ridiculous, thats the nature of a poorly constructed straw man
Yes, you did.
David used a slingshot. Goliath had a sword.
In their creation myth they describe a satellite of Saturn being released from its master. Saturn's rings point to Pluto near perihelion.
Nobody knew about Saturn's moons until after the invention of the telescope and its use in astronomical observations in the early 17th century. Saturn's rings don't "point" anywhere. I notice you're not saying anything about Jupiter's rings, Uranus' rings, or Neptune's rings. Why not, if your notion that the ancients had telescopes or some "alien" told them all this stuff?
That link was posted long ago... It said our water formed at the asteroid belt and that the Earth may have formed in the presence of water.
It didn't explicitly say Earth formed at the asteroid belt. That's all I'm looking for.
Mythology and religion are kinda important to anthropology, but you never read the Enuma Elish either... And you probably still haven't read it.
Most of my anthropology courses in college dealt with North and South America. What I learned formally about the Greeks and Romans was in my Classical History course. My high school anthropology course showed us the film 'Chariots of the Gods' (I'd already read the book) and then explained why it's utter nonsense.
So yeah, I grant that mythology and religion are important to anthropology. It's how that society saw things, and what they considered important. The Navajo religion refers to the Hero Twins, or Monster-Slayers, who slew fearsome giant creatures, and their carcasses turned to stone - as the explanation for the landforms in the American Southwest. Of course that's only a story and to get the real explanation you need to consult geologists and other scientists in related fields.
I said those lenses were evidence an early telescope was possible but you need to see one before its possible?
Possible doesn't mean definite. So show me an ancient telescope, or alternately, whatever technology these "aliens" used.
These creation myths are tangible
Do I need to explain artifacts, mentifacts, and socifacts again?
You and I could sit down and I could tell you a story - the plot of a TV episode or movie or book. That would be a mentifact. If I wrote it down in physical form, it would be an artifact. But without independent verification to prove that Captain Kirk really existed, it's still
just a story.
If you're going to claim that aliens told the Babylonians anything, you need to provide tangible proof of these aliens' existence. That means a physical object of alien manufacture, using technology not known on Earth.
When I said midwifery might have preceded prostitution, you said:
...
Sure looked like you were claiming a pregnant prostitute preceded the midwife. That would also mean she was the first pregnant woman, other pregnant women needed widwives.
You do understand that a woman normally needs to become pregnant before she would need the services of a midwife, right?
And it's not unreasonable to assume that
some prostitutes become pregnant as a result of their work, right?
So yes, a pregnant prostitute would precede a midwife, because if there were no pregnancy, why would a midwife be needed?
You dragged him here, I dont know why you think I'm obliged to chase him around. I was accused of ignoring his post by Agent so I corrected him. But if Lori did come back I'd have 1 question for him: if our water formed at the asteroid belt and this planet formed in the presence of its water, doesn't that mean this planet formed at the asteroid belt too?
I already told you that Lorizael came here of his own free choice. All I did was go to that other forum where he has a thread on cosmology and tell him about your thread here and ask if he could suggest any links to reputable information that might confirm your notion of where Earth was formed. I never said, "Lorizael, would you go to CFC and argue with Berzerker?" I provided the link to the post I was talking about so he could read it for himself, and coming here was his own decision. I didn't ask him to come, but I'm glad he did.
Since you're still disagreeing with him, why don't you send him a PM and ask him to come back? The worst thing that could happen is that he'd either not answer, or say "no."
reason that deserts are called deserts is that they are deserted. As in: millions of people do not live in them. Not for 40 years, not even for 1 year.
Deserts are defined as regions that receive minimal amounts of precipitation per year; sometimes they can go years without precipitation. Deserts can be hot (ie. the Sahara) or cold (in the Arctic/Antarctic). Unless a reliable oasis is available, there just isn't the resources of water and food available to support more than a relatively few people - certainly nowhere near the 2 million that are being claimed in the Moses story.
And yet humans today still live in deserts which for the most part are still deserted, even though humans live in them. It was not a vacation, it was a means of survival. Or in the mentioned case, a means of killing off a majority by living a life of exile, instead of enjoying the actual conquest of a war, no matter how it turned out.
Nobody said it was a vacation. And please don't keep on about the Haitians. They had nothing to do with either the ancient Babylonians or the Hebrews.
Is that faith in other humans' assumptions?
It's accepting the data gathered through scientific observations, measurements, and experiments that have been verified by many scientists.
Finally:
@timtofly: You mentioned constellations some time back, and I've lost track of which posts. I wanted to make the point - which I really hope you can understand - that constellations are imaginary pictures that humans have created in the night sky. Constellations don't remain constant; because the stars are constantly in motion, the constellations will change over time. The stars in each constellation aren't even necessarily anywhere near each other. Some of the stars we see now could have gone supernova centuries ago and we won't know about it until centuries in the future.
