Existence of God (split from old thread)

[warpus]

Maybe not literally, no. But there definitely were Hebrews at some point in Egypt.

Just making the point that "Moses wouldn't have been wrong about when he was going to die because he was a prophet" doesn't really make sense because the main story surrounding him probably didn't happen.

 

[Akka]

No argument to start with. That was a statement of facts. How did you drag soul into it?

You were the one saying "something undefined leave". Where does this "fact" comes from and how is it not "soul" or anything like that ?

And yes, it's circular reasoning, something leaving" at the time of death is certainly your conclusion, and you brand it as a "fact". Maybe first prove your premises.

 

[timtofly]

Just making the point that "Moses wouldn't have been wrong about when he was going to die because he was a prophet" doesn't really make sense because the main story surrounding him probably didn't happen.

I agree that nit picking the end of a story, does nothing for the story itself. An anecdote is a story. Also using the anecdote to portray mass murder is hardly the point.

There is no logical reasoning to say that Judaism concocted the whole story, because it was not an oral one, but a written account.

There are too many specific details, and no reason whatsoever to even come up with them after the Babylonian captivity. In fact we are told there was never a group of tribal people worthwhile enough to even take to Babylon. The Hebrews hardly obeyed anything they were told to do, if one can get past all the nit picking.

The notion that there needed to be such an elaborate ruse, requires more faith than if the Hebrews actually did what the account mentions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There is no logical reasoning to say that Judaism concocted the whole story, because it was not an oral one, but a written account.

You do realize that oral accounts become written accounts after somebody writes them down, right?

 

[onejayhawk]

You were the one saying "something undefined leave". Where does this "fact" comes from and how is it not "soul" or anything like that ? And yes, it's circular reasoning, something leaving" at the time of death is certainly your conclusion, and you brand it as a "fact". Maybe first prove your premises.

It is an fact, universally known from extensive observation. Something is alive, then it's dead. What changed? Live tissue is distinct from dead tissue. Live tissue regenerates. Dead tissue decays. Organisms are more complex, but largely parallel. The thing which causes the transition is not known, hence undefined. Perhaps saying it leaves is imprecise, but it is descriptive.

This applies not only to human life, but animals and plants, so I do not understand you connecting it to a soul.

J

 

[timtofly]

You do realize that oral accounts become written accounts after somebody writes them down, right?

Running a government is slightly more technical and contract binding than your grandma's apple crisp.

If someone says they sat down and penned the Declaration of Independence, I would not expect it to still be in oral form and only written down 300 years from now.

 

[Berzerker]

Please address the statement I bolded.

I did... I was offering evidence of a possible alteration early on in biblical history. Dont just read the bolded part, read what I said before it.

A quick google search turned up references to technology that did not exist in the era we're discussing. So no, Lot's wife - if she even existed - could not have been vaporized.

If you're going to insist on this, please link to technologies or natural processes of that era that would have done so (non-magical, non- "goddidit" ones, please). I will admit my error if you can do this, since my search was a very quick one.

According to the Bible God did do it... And I already provided a link. As for natural processes, an air burst, an impact, a natural gas explosion or volcanic eruption.

What "fire and brimstone"? If there was a volcanic eruption? Okay, fine. An ordinary fire, due to accident or arson? No problem.

The bible is the only place fire and brimstone are mentioned. You already know how unreliable I consider that source.

I dont know why you're laughing so hard, all you did was agree natural events are possible causes and tell us what you think of the Bible. That isn't news, nor is it relevant.

As for "we don't know where the region is"... Really? You don't know where the Dead Sea is, or the general region where these stories are said to have happened?

We dont know where the cities of the plain were located. Why did you turn that into the Dead Sea? I question your reliability more than the Bible.

Since I'm not a researcher into cloning techniques, I can't enumerate the steps required. But cloning will do as a general term for what is described in the bible.

Use whatever term you want, but I didn't use it. So dont slip it into the debate and act like I said Eve was cloned from Adam. Now, do any of the steps involve fertilizing an egg? Raising a child? Do clones go thru their own life process or do they form fully around a rib? The rib story comes from a Sumerian myth involving the gods responsible for the creation of mankind.

 

[Akka]

It is an fact, universally known from extensive observation. Something is alive, then it's dead. What changed? Live tissue is distinct from dead tissue. Live tissue regenerates. Dead tissue decays. Organisms are more complex, but largely parallel. The thing which causes the transition is not known, hence undefined. Perhaps saying it leaves is imprecise, but it is descriptive.

This applies not only to human life, but animals and plants, so I do not understand you connecting it to a soul.

I'm not. You're the one trying to shove something unknown in what is a simple chemical breakdown. What changed between "alive" and "dead" is the chemical reactions stopped. Whoopsie doo, what a mystery.
I'm sure it's also "a fact" that "something unknown has gone away" between a fire burning and a fire extinguished !

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I did... I was offering evidence of a possible alteration early on in biblical history. Dont just read the bolded part, read what I said before it.

I asked for the bolded part to be addressed. For the purpose of this portion of the conversation, the unbolded part is not relevant.

According to the Bible God did do it... And I already provided a link. As for natural processes, an air burst, an impact, a natural gas explosion or volcanic eruption.

The Bible is not a scientific text, archaeological survey, or geology report. Do you honestly mean to sit there and tell me that the whole area hasn't been extensively surveyed and explored, to solve these questions? Even some of the astronauts in the International Space Station have been interested in this, and they've got the best view of everyone.

Did you read the article I linked, or not? Somehow, I doubt you did.

I dont know why you're laughing so hard, all you did was agree natural events are possible causes and tell us what you think of the Bible. That isn't news, nor is it relevant.

This forum lacks the smiley I would really like to use. That's the closest one we have. It doesn't convey the true nuance, but it will have to do. Call it a modern alteration, or misunderstanding due to technical issues.

The Bible is an unreliable source.

We dont know where the cities of the plain were located. Why did you turn that into the Dead Sea? I question your reliability more than the Bible.

The story says Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. The Dead Sea is extremely salty. Salt is something people around there would be very familiar with, therefore it isn't unreasonable to use salt as part of the story.

According to the article I linked and that it's obvious you didn't read, there have been extensive surveys and exploration of possible and probable sites. It's not enough to find human-made ruins. They have to be from the right era, with the right natural conditions to support the civilization that the Bible claims was there. If the site checks out okay so far on these points, it's worth more detailed study. If the site doesn't check out, it can be eliminated from the search.

From the way you talk, you give the impression that archaeology is like the Indiana Jones movies - slapdash and with no regard for proper documentation in situ of what they might find.

Use whatever term you want, but I didn't use it. So dont slip it into the debate and act like I said Eve was cloned from Adam. Now, do any of the steps involve fertilizing an egg? Raising a child? Do clones go thru their own life process or do they form fully around a rib? The rib story comes from a Sumerian myth involving the gods responsible for the creation of mankind.

What you described can only be referring to cloning of a sort. And no, clones don't form fully around a rib. That's ridiculous. Real-science cloning isn't like Frankenstein's lab, or even like the gholas in the Dune series. The Bible makes it sound as though Eve was "born" as a physically mature woman, instead of the newborn baby she should have been. If I were to clone myself tomorrow, I would be 54 years and 7 months older than my clone, and somebody else would have to be the surrogate that carries and gives birth to it.

 

[Berzerker]

I asked for the bolded part to be addressed. For the purpose of this portion of the conversation, the unbolded part is not relevant.

Of course its relevant, I said there were alterations to the Bible long before it was compiled and I provided an example, Lot's wife. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor, ie she was turned to a pillar of vapor, not salt. That's my evidence for the alteration.

The Bible is not a scientific text, archaeological survey, or geology report. Do you honestly mean to sit there and tell me that the whole area hasn't been extensively surveyed and explored, to solve these questions? Even some of the astronauts in the International Space Station have been interested in this, and they've got the best view of everyone.

Did you read the article I linked, or not? Somehow, I doubt you did.

I read your brief, so what about it? Has the Dead Sea been extensively surveyed and explored?

This forum lacks the smiley I would really like to use. That's the closest one we have. It doesn't convey the true nuance, but it will have to do. Call it a modern alteration, or misunderstanding due to technical issues.

I call it obnoxious... You use smilies to insult people and then you lecture us about basic courtesies.

The Bible is an unreliable source.

You are an unreliable source

The story says Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. The Dead Sea is extremely salty. Salt is something people around there would be very familiar with, therefore it isn't unreasonable to use salt as part of the story.

Well, its believed the pillar of salt stems from the appearance of actual pillars of salt around the shoreline. From a distance they can lead one to think they're looking at people. But this story happened in Sumerian times, Abra(ha)m was a Sumerian merchant. So the author(s) may have been confronted with a story using a Sumerian term with multiple meanings and chose the one that fit the local geology, ie salt pillars... But vapor is a possible translation and vapor is what a person can become when subjected to intense heat. It doesn't turn them to salt.

According to the article I linked and that it's obvious you didn't read, there have been extensive surveys and exploration of possible and probable sites. It's not enough to find human-made ruins. They have to be from the right era, with the right natural conditions to support the civilization that the Bible claims was there. If the site checks out okay so far on these points, it's worth more detailed study. If the site doesn't check out, it can be eliminated from the search.

From the way you talk, you give the impression that archaeology is like the Indiana Jones movies - slapdash and with no regard for proper documentation in situ of what they might find.

The way I talk? What exactly did I say to deserve that insult?

What you described can only be referring to cloning of a sort. And no, clones don't form fully around a rib. That's ridiculous.

The Bible makes it sound as though Eve was "born" as a physically mature woman, instead of the newborn baby she should have been. If I were to clone myself tomorrow, I would be 54 years and 7 months older than my clone, and somebody else would have to be the surrogate that carries and gives birth to it.

Thats right, so why are you calling her a clone?

 

[timtofly]

Of course its relevant, I said there were alterations to the Bible long before it was compiled and I provided an example, Lot's wife. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor, ie she was turned to a pillar of vapor, not salt. That's my evidence for the alteration.



I read your brief, so what about it? Has the Dead Sea been extensively surveyed and explored?



I call it obnoxious... You use smilies to insult people and then you lecture us about basic courtesies.



You are an unreliable source



Well, its believed the pillar of salt stems from the appearance of actual pillars of salt around the shoreline. From a distance they can lead one to think they're looking at people. But this story happened in Sumerian times, Abra(ha)m was a Sumerian merchant. So the author(s) may have been confronted with a story using a Sumerian term with multiple meanings and chose the one that fit the local geology, ie salt pillars... But vapor is a possible translation and vapor is what a person can become when subjected to intense heat. It doesn't turn them to salt.



The way I talk? What exactly did I say to deserve that insult?





Thats right, so why are you calling her a clone?

One would question why is there an unusually large amount of salt in the area, that was once described as lush and fertile. I suppose now we have to make up an enticing story why humans think a dead sea full of salt is worth fighting over.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Of course its relevant, I said there were alterations to the Bible long before it was compiled and I provided an example, Lot's wife. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor, ie she was turned to a pillar of vapor, not salt. That's my evidence for the alteration.

It's relevant to you. It's not relevant to me. And I'm way past tired of your continual "salt=vapor, therefore she was vaporized by a nuke or something like it."

What you have is a hypothesis, based on extremely thin reasons, and you're insisting that it's a fact.

I read your brief, so what about it? Has the Dead Sea been extensively surveyed and explored?

Considering how much interest there is in finding minerals, fuels, and archaeological sites, yeah.

I call it obnoxious... You use smilies to insult people and then you lecture us about basic courtesies.

Well, I could use .gifs or memes, but that would probably be considered infractible. When I find something amusing, why shouldn't I be allowed to indicate that I find it amusing?

You are an unreliable source

I never claimed to be a source.

Well, its believed the pillar of salt stems from the appearance of actual pillars of salt around the shoreline. From a distance they can lead one to think they're looking at people. But this story happened in Sumerian times, Abra(ha)m was a Sumerian merchant. So the author(s) may have been confronted with a story using a Sumerian term with multiple meanings and chose the one that fit the local geology, ie salt pillars... But vapor is a possible translation and vapor is what a person can become when subjected to intense heat. It doesn't turn them to salt.

You still haven't provided evidence for the intense heat. All you've done is speculate and insist that your speculation is fact. But I'm relieved to have it established that you don't think people can literally be changed into salt.

The problem is that the common interpretation of the story is that Lot's wife was turned into a salt pillar... from normal human into a pillar of sodium chloride, in other words. I really can't fathom how the literalists refuse to admit that this is ridiculous.

The way I talk? What exactly did I say to deserve that insult?

Okay, the way you post. Don't be so literal, 'k?

Thats right, so why are you calling her a clone?

Cloning has been represented in two ways: The clone is either a baby that has to grow up all over again, or the clone is a copy of the original individual. The way the story goes in Genesis, Eve is a clone of Adam, but has a sex change. The only ways that this could literally be true involve either space aliens or time travel from an era with reproductive technology far in advance of our own. There is no evidence of either scenario, and the whole thing is pointless to speculate about in the first place, since Genesis is just a made-up story. At the time in which it was supposed to have happened, there had already been human civilizations for many thousands of years. I'm sure they would have noticed if they were going about their daily business and suddenly the universe was created.

One would question why is there an unusually large amount of salt in the area, that was once described as lush and fertile. I suppose now we have to make up an enticing story why humans think a dead sea full of salt is worth fighting over.

Try completely eliminating salt from your diet. You won't like the results. There's a reason for the phrase "worth his salt."

For more information: Dead Sea Note the paragraph where it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah.

No "enticing stories" are required - just the normal geologic processes of our planet, plus human biochemistry.

 

[timtofly]

You still haven't provided evidence for the intense heat. All you've done is speculate and insist that your speculation is fact. But I'm relieved to have it established that you don't think people can literally be changed into salt.

The problem is that the common interpretation of the story is that Lot's wife was turned into a salt pillar... from normal human into a pillar of sodium chloride, in other words. I really can't fathom how the literalists refuse to admit that this is ridiculous.


Okay, the way you post. Don't be so literal, 'k?


Cloning has been represented in two ways: The clone is either a baby that has to grow up all over again, or the clone is a copy of the original individual. The way the story goes in Genesis, Eve is a clone of Adam, but has a sex change. The only ways that this could literally be true involve either space aliens or time travel from an era with reproductive technology far in advance of our own. There is no evidence of either scenario, and the whole thing is pointless to speculate about in the first place, since Genesis is just a made-up story. At the time in which it was supposed to have happened, there had already been human civilizations for many thousands of years. I'm sure they would have noticed if they were going about their daily business and suddenly the universe was created.


Try completely eliminating salt from your diet. You won't like the results. There's a reason for the phrase "worth his salt."

For more information: Dead Sea Note the paragraph where it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah.

No "enticing stories" are required - just the normal geologic processes of our planet, plus human biochemistry.

The argument relies on conditions before and after the point of the change being effected. Unless one is against being transgender, what does one's sex have to do with what one is? Are you only literal when neccessary? There is the notion that Adam was both male and female, and God separated the male part from the female part, and there were two bodies now, where once both sexes were in the same body. That is also consistent with all ancient religions where gods were equally male and female at the same time. I am not sure how modern thought processes should comprehend that ability, as we have little to go by other than transgender people, and their ability is biologically sterile, not a reproductive viable naturally occurring phenomenon. To say a biological entity containing both sexes, can never happen, is limiting evolution, not some concept humans come up with. Unless transgender is just a human concept, and not biological.

On the point of the Dead Sea, it was the best farmland around, and the envy of the area. Then it was not. Last time I checked, salt in a desert is not the best way to have the largest and most envied herds. If you claim that nothing changed, there would never have been a story at all, because the point of the story was not the change, but the reason why two rich men were fighting over the best place to raise their livestock. The argument would be fraudulent just to prove that when a body is vaporized all that is left is salt? You seem to point out how hard it would be to remove the salt. It would be easier to remove everything, and have only salt left.

From what I can find, the dead sea is a fairly recent phenomenon, on the evolutionary time scale and whatever happened humans did live through it. There was no volcanic activity which leaves seismic, or evolution forbid a meteor event. However the way the dead sea was said to form was heavy pressure pushing down through the layers of mud. Other than heavy magic, the only thing that fits the bill, would be something nearby "rolled" into the area, or there was something from the sky that was large enough to push down through the layers of mud, and is now far below the bottom of the sea bed. This actually has produced a type of asphalt substance, that the Greeks and perhaps others used as an embalming substance. So the resulting process was still ongoing during the time of the Greek control over the area. That it would be considered as a fire and brimstone event does not contradict a huge or several huge items changing the topography of the area. Any event allowing super heated steam/water from fissures in the earth would "boil" a human alive if one were to stop on such a fissure, and being an arid desert dweller, Lot's wife may have been a pile of salt, albeit for an instant a skeletal pillar of salt. Salt being the most prevalent element in the body. Perhaps it was not a merciful instant of pain? Perhaps she writhed in agony for hours, while her body was being burned beyond recogniton leaving salt as the only thing to remember her by?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The argument relies on conditions before and after the point of the change being effected. Unless one is against being transgender, what does one's sex have to do with what one is? Are you only literal when neccessary? There is the notion that Adam was both male and female, and God separated the male part from the female part, and there were two bodies now, where once both sexes were in the same body. That is also consistent with all ancient religions where gods were equally male and female at the same time. I am not sure how modern thought processes should comprehend that ability, as we have little to go by other than transgender people, and their ability is biologically sterile, not a reproductive viable naturally occurring phenomenon. To say a biological entity containing both sexes, can never happen, is limiting evolution, not some concept humans come up with. Unless transgender is just a human concept, and not biological.

Okay, you're going to have to quote me the chapter and verse where it says Adam was both male and female. And you're going to have to explain why you're spinning this into an accusation that I'm against transgender people.

You're also going to have to explain how a male adult can have a non-reproductive part of his anatomy split off to become a female adult.

Finally, there are species that are both male and female. I never said there aren't. Even if Adam was transgender, he/she still wouldn't have become two separate physical entities... unless you're going to tell me that the people in the transgender thread here have suddenly become fraternal twins 20+ years after they were born.

On the point of the Dead Sea, it was the best farmland around, and the envy of the area. Then it was not. Last time I checked, salt in a desert is not the best way to have the largest and most envied herds. If you claim that nothing changed, there would never have been a story at all, because the point of the story was not the change, but the reason why two rich men were fighting over the best place to raise their livestock. The argument would be fraudulent just to prove that when a body is vaporized all that is left is salt? You seem to point out how hard it would be to remove the salt. It would be easier to remove everything, and have only salt left.

Since when is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah about fighting over farmland? And why do you think I want to get the salt? I'm saying that salt was an extremely valuable commodity in ancient times, and it's important now, as well. As I said: cut salt from your diet completely, particularly in hot climates, and you're going to have problems. Salt was so important that in some cases, wages were paid in salt - hence the saying "he's not worth his salt", meaning the person is not a good worker.

From what I can find, the dead sea is a fairly recent phenomenon, on the evolutionary time scale and whatever happened humans did live through it.

Modern humans were not around 2 million years ago.

There was no volcanic activity which leaves seismic, or evolution forbid a meteor event. However the way the dead sea was said to form was heavy pressure pushing down through the layers of mud. Other than heavy magic, the only thing that fits the bill, would be something nearby "rolled" into the area, or there was something from the sky that was large enough to push down through the layers of mud, and is now far below the bottom of the sea bed. This actually has produced a type of asphalt substance, that the Greeks and perhaps others used as an embalming substance. So the resulting process was still ongoing during the time of the Greek control over the area. That it would be considered as a fire and brimstone event does not contradict a huge or several huge items changing the topography of the area. Any event allowing super heated steam/water from fissures in the earth would "boil" a human alive if one were to stop on such a fissure, and being an arid desert dweller, Lot's wife may have been a pile of salt, albeit for an instant a skeletal pillar of salt. Salt being the most prevalent element in the body. Perhaps it was not a merciful instant of pain? Perhaps she writhed in agony for hours, while her body was being burned beyond recogniton leaving salt as the only thing to remember her by?

What is this "evolution forbid" nonsense? Evolution has nothing at all to do with the geologic processes that created the Dead Sea. When you have a salty lake that has inflow but no outflow other than evaporation, in a climate with very little precipitation, you get a situation in which water evaporates faster than it can be replenished. As it evaporates, it leaves salt deposits. These deposits are not all like table salt.

Salt is not an element. The most prevalent substance in the human body is water. What you are describing would be bad science fiction even by the worst Star Trek standards.

 

[timtofly]

Okay, you're going to have to quote me the chapter and verse where it says Adam was both male and female. And you're going to have to explain why you're spinning this into an accusation that I'm against transgender people.

You're also going to have to explain how a male adult can have a non-reproductive part of his anatomy split off to become a female adult.

Finally, there are species that are both male and female. I never said there aren't. Even if Adam was transgender, he/she still wouldn't have become two separate physical entities... unless you're going to tell me that the people in the transgender thread here have suddenly become fraternal twins 20+ years after they were born.

As long as it is agreed that a human can be biologically male and female, then you got the point.

As for something to take years to happen, we will never agree, as it seems.

The time frame to you is fixed, and any other explanation has to be proven as a reality, until it can be ruled out as impossible. As you have written off the whole account as an impossibility, without compromise.

Genesis is fairly ambiguous on specifics, as most people add their own interpretations. I have no clue how it can happen biologically, nor do I really want to see an example. I am not the one categorically denying biological oddities. Not that being transgender is one. I am just pointing out anything is possible in opposition to only what one can observe. One cannot observe every single phenomenon in the universe. Some things have to be accepted in trust.

Since when is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah about fighting over farmland? And why do you think I want to get the salt? I'm saying that salt was an extremely valuable commodity in ancient times, and it's important now, as well. As I said: cut salt from your diet completely, particularly in hot climates, and you're going to have problems. Salt was so important that in some cases, wages were paid in salt - hence the saying "he's not worth his salt", meaning the person is not a good worker.

Modern humans were not around 2 million years ago.

Who do you figure as modern? Abraham and Lot had to find separate locations for their livestock. Lot chose the plains of Sodom, to raise his livestock.

What is this "evolution forbid" nonsense? Evolution has nothing at all to do with the geologic processes that created the Dead Sea. When you have a salty lake that has inflow but no outflow other than evaporation, in a climate with very little precipitation, you get a situation in which water evaporates faster than it can be replenished. As it evaporates, it leaves salt deposits. These deposits are not all like table salt.

Salt is not an element. The most prevalent substance in the human body is water. What you are describing would be bad science fiction even by the worst Star Trek standards.

Well from all indications of the account, the area was not a place to get salt, nor was it a Dead Sea, until after the cataclysmic event.

The evolutionary standpoint is that over time the land around the Dead Sea raised up out of the earth, cutting off the supply of fresh water. The Bible points out it was a fertile plain, and after a bombardment of heavy matter, this matter caused the area to become salty. It took several hundred thousand years for so called evolution, to change the topography, that a cataclysmic event started within a few hours, and was still pushing up asphalt at the time of the Greeks.

Ok, so salt is a mineral and not an element. We are talking about ancient people and some of them thought fire was an element. I am not here to correct the ancients they were off on their terminology.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm not. You're the one trying to shove something unknown in what is a simple chemical breakdown. What changed between "alive" and "dead" is the chemical reactions stopped. Whoopsie doo, what a mystery.
I'm sure it's also "a fact" that "something unknown has gone away" between a fire burning and a fire extinguished !

The difference between life and death is purely chemical? Mary Shelley agrees. The rest of the scientific community does not.

Still, give my regards to Victor. Brilliant mind. It's a pity he's so broken.

J

 

[Berzerker]

One would question why is there an unusually large amount of salt in the area, that was once described as lush and fertile. I suppose now we have to make up an enticing story why humans think a dead sea full of salt is worth fighting over.

According to some maps the cities of the plain are under the southern end of the Dead Sea. That would make sense if the southern end more or less dries up occasionally, people would build towns closer to the resources. Thats why so many ice age settlements are under water now, people lived along coastlines that were up to 400 feet below current sea levels.

There is the notion that Adam was both male and female, and God separated the male part from the female part, and there were two bodies now, where once both sexes were in the same body. That is also consistent with all ancient religions where gods were equally male and female at the same time.

In Sumerian myth a god and goddess made us to be primitive workers (lulu? - there was no adam to till the land, no adam to work) and they used an existing creature roaming Enki's Abzu (southern homeland) combining it with 'blood' from a lower ranked god (clay was involved, clay is important for life). "The adam" means the earthling, it can mean male or female but Adam became the name of a man. So God said, "let us make the adam in our image"... That means there's a goddess involved, and sure enough, according to the Sumerian version Enki and his half sister Ninhursag were the creators of mankind.

On the point of the Dead Sea, it was the best farmland around, and the envy of the area. Then it was not. Last time I checked, salt in a desert is not the best way to have the largest and most envied herds. If you claim that nothing changed, there would never have been a story at all, because the point of the story was not the change, but the reason why two rich men were fighting over the best place to raise their livestock.

Apparently the region's climate was wetter ~2000-1500 BC, but the period in question is older than 2000 BC. There seems to be a general collapse of civilization (or transition to austerity) when dry spells hit the Middle East and pre-2000 BC may have been such a period. As the southern end dried up people moved closer to the remaining river system and then the climate became wetter and the cities of the plain were eventually submerged. Now they're using the southern end for evaporation ponds but the ruins of several cities could be just a few feet below.

Abraham and Lot had to find separate locations for their livestock. Lot chose the plains of Sodom, to raise his livestock.

I think the demise of the cities of the plain may have been related to the war Abraham took part in before their destruction. Seems 9 kings went to war and that region was the scene of some of their battles.

It's relevant to you. It's not relevant to me. And I'm way past tired of your continual "salt=vapor, therefore she was vaporized by a nuke or something like it."

What you have is a hypothesis, based on extremely thin reasons, and you're insisting that it's a fact.

Where did I insist its fact?

Considering how much interest there is in finding minerals, fuels, and archaeological sites, yeah.

How much archaeology has been done at the bottom of the Dead Sea?

Well, I could use .gifs or memes, but that would probably be considered infractible. When I find something amusing, why shouldn't I be allowed to indicate that I find it amusing?

Because its obnoxious... You're not laughing with people, you're laughing at them. And its illogical, you're laughing your head off at something you agreed with.

I never claimed to be a source.

And you never claimed to be reliable either

You still haven't provided evidence for the intense heat. All you've done is speculate and insist that your speculation is fact. But I'm relieved to have it established that you don't think people can literally be changed into salt.

Where did I say my speculation was fact? I didn't know I was obliged to identify the source of heat, but I did mention several possibilities.

Okay, the way you post. Don't be so literal, 'k?

I wasn't being literal, you're being literal. What exactly did I post to deserve that insult?

Cloning has been represented in two ways: The clone is either a baby that has to grow up all over again, or the clone is a copy of the original individual.

So there are adult clones who just pop into existence without having to grow up?

The way the story goes in Genesis, Eve is a clone of Adam, but has a sex change.

You mean God took Adam's rib and Eve formed around it as another male before God made him a her?

For more information: Dead Sea Note the paragraph where it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah.

No "enticing stories" are required - just the normal geologic processes of our planet, plus human biochemistry.

Does it mention where they've found Sodom and Gomorrah? I've seen theories placing it north of the upper Dead Sea and under the southern section.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As long as it is agreed that a human can be biologically male and female, then you got the point.

Address the point I made. I never said humans can be biologically male and female. Those are your words.

As for something to take years to happen, we will never agree, as it seems.

Oh. Okay, so the people who have posted in the transgender thread here on the forum all had fraternal twins suddenly pop into existence, the moment they realized they were transgender and decided to address the issue? Funny how nobody mentioned that during the time I was reading that thread... maybe someone has mentioned it later? If so, please link me to the post.

The time frame to you is fixed, and any other explanation has to be proven as a reality, until it can be ruled out as impossible. As you have written off the whole account as an impossibility, without compromise.

I have written it off for lack of evidence. Find a pillar of salt that used to be human, and then we'll talk. Until then, you're just insisting that fantasy stories are real, like something out of the Brothers Grimm, or Dungeons & Dragons.

Genesis is fairly ambiguous on specifics, as most people add their own interpretations. I have no clue how it can happen biologically, nor do I really want to see an example. I am not the one categorically denying biological oddities. Not that being transgender is one. I am just pointing out anything is possible in opposition to only what one can observe. One cannot observe every single phenomenon in the universe. Some things have to be accepted in trust.

Nope. There is no way that I'm going to just "accept in trust" that a fully adult human woman can be zapped into existence from a body part of someone else, unless it's normal reproduction or reproduction using technology that's far in advance of anything we have now.

Who do you figure as modern? Abraham and Lot had to find separate locations for their livestock. Lot chose the plains of Sodom, to raise his livestock.

According to every article I've read over the last couple of days about the Dead Sea, it became closed off from the Mediterranean approximately 2 million years ago. It's fed by the Jordan River, but the only way it loses water is via evaporation. It's got inflow but no outflow.

Modern humans did not exist 2 million years ago.

Well from all indications of the account, the area was not a place to get salt, nor was it a Dead Sea, until after the cataclysmic event.

See above. The Dead Sea was an extremely salty body of water long before the story in Genesis happened.

The evolutionary standpoint is that over time the land around the Dead Sea raised up out of the earth, cutting off the supply of fresh water. The Bible points out it was a fertile plain, and after a bombardment of heavy matter, this matter caused the area to become salty. It took several hundred thousand years for so called evolution, to change the topography, that a cataclysmic event started within a few hours, and was still pushing up asphalt at the time of the Greeks.

You keep confusing evolution with geology. You also keep confusing the Bible with real geology.

Ok, so salt is a mineral and not an element. We are talking about ancient people and some of them thought fire was an element. I am not here to correct the ancients they were off on their terminology.

The ancients had an excuse, in that there was much they didn't know about nature, and lacked the technology to discover. You're a modern person who presumably went to modern 20th century North American schools. What's your excuse?

Where did I insist its fact?

Every time you assert that Lot's wife was turned into vapor.

How much archaeology has been done at the bottom of the Dead Sea?

I'm still looking that up. Why don't we both do it and see what we find? I'm willing to bet that neither of us finds anything that says Lot's wife was vaporized or nuked.

Because its obnoxious... You're not laughing with people, you're laughing at them. And its illogical, you're laughing your head off at something you agreed with.

Where did I agree with you?

And what's obnoxious is this constant assertion that things that can only be explained by magic, time travel, or space aliens with advanced technology are actually real.

And you never claimed to be reliable either

What is this supposed to mean?

Where did I say my speculation was fact? I didn't know I was obliged to identify the source of heat, but I did mention several possibilities.

You're the one making extraordinary claims and backing them up with nothing more than speculation that you keep asserting actually happened.

I wasn't being literal, you're being literal. What exactly did I post to deserve that insult?

If you're feeling insulted, you know where the report link is. This "no, you" attitude of yours was tiresome several threads ago, never mind just in this one.

So there are adult clones who just pop into existence without having to grow up?

Don't blame me for that. It's evidently what timtofly believes.

You mean God took Adam's rib and Eve formed around it as another male before God made him a her?

If you clone someone, you're making a copy. That means the copy will be the same sex as the original. The story of using Adam's rib to make a woman indicates not only cloning, but that the clone's sex was changed somewhere in the process.

Honestly, how can you not have run across this before?

Does it mention where they've found Sodom and Gomorrah? I've seen theories placing it north of the upper Dead Sea and under the southern section.

I've been posting links about the Dead Sea. I suggest you read them.

 

[Akka]

The difference between life and death is purely chemical? Mary Shelley agrees. The rest of the scientific community does not.

Still, give my regards to Victor. Brilliant mind. It's a pity he's so broken.

Once again, you present your opinion as fact (trying to bring the scientific community with you) without providing anything as evidence, support or even arguments.

But then I realize I'm talking with the guy who think seriously he knows math better than the whole humanity and is blind to his own Dunning Kruger effect, so I'm probably just wasting my time by pointing that you have absolutely zero things supporting your opinion - and the worst of all is, you probably can't even manage to realize it.

 

[Berzerker]

Every time you assert that Lot's wife was turned into vapor.

I never claimed that as fact, I said it was a possible translation of a story altered later by the compilers of the Bible.

I'm still looking that up. Why don't we both do it and see what we find? I'm willing to bet that neither of us finds anything that says Lot's wife was vaporized or nuked.

You said the region had been investigated, now you're looking it up.There wouldn't be a need to look it up if your link showed where Sodom and Gomorrah were located.

Where did I agree with you?

What "fire and brimstone"? If there was a volcanic eruption? Okay, fine. An ordinary fire, due to accident or arson? No problem.

You're laughing and agreeing at the same time.

And what's obnoxious is this constant assertion that things that can only be explained by magic, time travel, or space aliens with advanced technology are actually real.

Where'd I say that? I wouldn't have listed natural phenomena as possible explanations if it could only be explained by magic, etc.

What is this supposed to mean?

It means you never claimed to be reliable either... So by your logic, you aint a source or reliable.

You're the one making extraordinary claims and backing them up with nothing more than speculation that you keep asserting actually happened.

I have backed up my claim, I linked to evidence showing people can be vaporized, and that their images can be transposed onto nearby surfaces.

If you're feeling insulted, you know where the report link is. This "no, you" attitude of yours was tiresome several threads ago, never mind just in this one.

I dont need a moderator to know when somebody is being obnoxious and I have a low opinion of people who report others.

Don't blame me for that. It's evidently what timtofly believes.

Here's what you said:

Cloning has been represented in two ways: The clone is either a baby that has to grow up all over again, or the clone is a copy of the original individual.

Represented by you... so where are these adult clones who didn't grow up?

If you clone someone, you're making a copy. That means the copy will be the same sex as the original. The story of using Adam's rib to make a woman indicates not only cloning, but that the clone's sex was changed somewhere in the process.

Honestly, how can you not have run across this before?

Thats the first time I heard Eve was a man, a clone, and an adult without a childhood. And its coming from you!

I've been posting links about the Dead Sea. I suggest you read them.

I'm not responsible for supporting your claims, they're your links, you quote them.