Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

idontlikeforms, Welcome to the convo. Nice points you made. Have you any points to anything that I or Yaro have discussed thus far?Until Yaro gets back (hoping)... I've been doing some research on both sides of the Mormon belief system and came to an interesting online video, "DNA VS. The Book of Mormon":http//http://www.helpingmormons.org/DNA.htm...that, after giving an intro into Mormonism in general and then about 3/4s into it, deals with where the pre-European and Spaniard colonization of North & South America came about. This debunks the Mormon belief system and shows that the inhabitants of the Americas were not Jews escaping the destruction of Babylon, but are instead of East Asian descent...One site I just now found (browsing as I'm putting this post together) is...Succeed.Net Broadband Internet and VOIP services - SUCCEED.NET"The Phoenicians were a coastal branch of the Canaanites, who, according to Biblical traditions, were the brothers of Kush (Ethiopia) and Mizraim (Kmt)--members of the Hamite ethnic group. In other words, the Bible states that the ancient Canaanites, Ethiopians and Egyptians were all African nations. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop claimed that 'Phoenician history is therefore incomprehensible only if we ignore the Biblical data, according to which the Phoenicians, in other words, the Canaanites, were originally Negroes, already civilized, with whom nomadic, uncultured white tribes later mixed.' While acknowledging the Biblical data, Diop cautioned that the economic relations shared by the Kamites and Phoenicians should not be minimized in explaining the strong sense of solidarity which generally existed between them. There was frequently a Kamite presence: military, diplomatic, religious or commercial, both in the Canaanite hinterland and the Phoenician city-states themselves, and Diop goes on to state that, 'Even throughout the most troubled periods of great misfortune, Egypt could count on the Phoenicians as one can count more or less on a brother.'The Phoenicians were the great seafarers of their time and dominated the Mediterranean shipping lanes. Phoenician inscriptions have been found as far north as central Turkey and as far west as Tunisia where the famous ancient city of Carthage was founded. It was among the Canaanites that one of the most important and meaningful inventions in human history is attested--the alphabet."As I continue to do my personal research, I intend to figure out the means by which this data is collected. But if it is true, it kind of backs up both of our (Yaro and I) statements, by which Yaro attributed the Indians to African descent and then I figured Asian, though it seems now they might be a mix.I have a personal theory that I've been developing since probably a junior or senior in high school that Mexicans in N. America with large, roundish noses are of descent from S. America (before, though, I'm not sure, though maybe Africa). When I get the chance, I know a guy who has this exact type of nose. I'll get a picture of him, scan it, and then get it posted on this forum, so we'll at least have something substantially visual to go by. When I asked him, he said his family is from Peru...That's all I have for now. If anyone else has any more info to throw in, please do so.This message has been edited by bibbo, 01-05-2006 12:43 AMThis message has been edited by bibbo, 01-05-2006 10:41 AM

I'll take a look, but it may be awhile, as I got a big post I need to respond to in another thread and I think it may take me awhile to figure out everything being referenced.

That's fine. I'm a patient fellow...

didn't notice your posts till now. I'll get back to you at some point. I have been spending to much time at EvC

Well, just like what I said to idontlikeforms, I'll be patiently waiting... or at least I'll try to be, hehe...

I haven't read all of this but I just wanted to say that God didn't destro the Tower of Bable beacause it was a big tower. He did it becaus of the ppl'l intentions behind the tower.And also...This is a disscusion, whoever started the tread shouldn't have degraded Chrisitans in the process if he/she was really wanting to discuss this. Its kina against the rules. =)This message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 01-25-2006 08:53 PM

Hi there, hope you are having fun poking around Could you point out some of the statements in the OP (original post) that you think are "degrading" though please? The rules don't stand in the way of demonstrating that ideas are false, unreliable, or dangerous even if those ideas are cherished by some groups of people. The ideas have to stand or fall on their own.Let me know if I'm missing something!

and in those, you are expected to provide evidence to support your assertions. So farvno one has even presented evidence that there ever was a Tower of Babel.No one is degrading Christianity, what is being asked for is support for their assertions.

---

The Forum Guidelines request respectful treatment of other members. The part of Message 1 that's actually by Quicksink seems fine in this regard. The part you're probably objecting to is an excerpt from a webpage at another site: Tower of BabelThis forum is for exploring creationist claims that the Bible is inerrant and an accurate source of scientific information.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I meant the thread title.It would be like me saying "EVolution: a bunch of usless bable."this a disscussion forum, That dosn't really sound very open, and I was offended by it.kinda like in the 2nd law thread I posted...the first responce of offensive and all it did was imply that I was stupid and the ppl who teach me are stupid. That's now with i n the "professionall atmosephere" of the board i didn't think....

I don't think there is anything in my post that suggests anything other than you aren't knowlegable about the topic. That is not the same as stupid.I was not suggesting that your sources are stupid either. What they are is utterly dishonest since the corrections to what they push have been available for decades.You have been supplied with the answer to your question there. You may compare it to other sources.

my sources wern't lying, they thold me what they believe.=)

That does not mean they were correct. Scientific information can be independantly verified. When looking the op for this thread, the information in there is true, the tower of Babal story should not be taken literally.The information about the second law can be verified by independant scientific sources. If you try to find out from independant scientific sources, you will find that Evolution and the second law of theormodyanmics have nothing to do with each other. That is because the earth is not a closed system for one. Life processed do not violate it.

I think you've got a point. I was wincing at some of the replies to you. Moderator attention might have been called for, but it's probably a tough call since as a new member it wasn't possible to know how sincere you were.Traditional creationist such as yourself reject scientific views in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology and cosmology. Efforts to oppose evolution by having creationist views on these subjects taught in science classes eventually ended in either unsatisfactory results or outright failure. Creationists now instead promote ID because it opposes none of those fields of science and makes it much more difficult to prove wrong.Unfortunately for traditional creationists, ID does not advocate Biblical inerrancy or a young earth, and it outright rejects the 2LOT argument and many other traditional creationist arguments that you might not have heard about yet, such as the shrinking sun, the diminishing magnetic field of earth, the errors of radiometric dating, and all geology being a result of Noah's flood.So the traditional creationist views you're advocating are getting short shrift from those groups most active in publicly opposing evolution today. And these views don't seem to be getting much respect here either. I encourage all evolutionists to treat traditional creationist views with dignity and respect while pointing out the errors and flaws.By the way, about the charge that some creationists are dishonest, I don't believe dishonest creationists are any more common than dishonest evolutionists. But hope can make a slave of reason, and most creationists are much more familiar with the Bible than science, so it is easy to get them to accept false arguments on scientific topics.But there are some creationist arguments that are so boneheadedly and obviously wrong that there could be no creationist scientist who doesn't understand that it is wrong, and the 2LOT argument is one of them. But creationists like Duane Gish who travel the country debating evolutionists are very reluctant to give this argument up because it is an extremely convincing argument to those unfamiliar with science that can be made in just a few sentences, and the evolutionist has not a prayer of educating the audience to the point where they can understand the fallacy, even if he were to use all his available time on that topic alone. And so the 2LOT fallacy continues to visit boards like this, frustrating evolutionists no end.--Percy

I ttly sincere. =)
yeah, so far a total of two ppl coundting you have made me feel welcome here. It just put on the geral ambience that ppl aren't really open to discussion, they just want to bash at creationist and the like. Thats just the feeling I've gotten. =)beacuz creationsit aren't stupid, we have different presupositions.could you list some of the really obvious things wrong with creationism?? I'm realy open to discuss it if you are. you seem to be willing to discuss stuff. =)
This message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 01-25-2006 08:48 PMThis message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 01-25-2006 08:50 PMThis message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 01-25-2006 08:52 PM