Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

On Mon Jun 5 17:12 , "D. F. Siemens, Jr." sent:

>>Sorry, Glenn, but this won't work. "More" is not equivalent to 3, but
>covers everything above 2. You can;t add more + 1. We have an echo of
>this in the comparison of adjectives, where you have to have added
>information to answer, after a declaration that an item is the best,
>"Best among how many?"

Sorry, Dave, but this is exactly how languages evolve. Indeed, it may be how
Chinese began to count. yi er san si wu liu qi ba ji shi then shi yi (ten 1) shi
er (ten two). Of course the 'many' refers to any number above 2, but you act as if
languages are static things. They aren't, except in very small populations. But if
one wishes to generate numbers one can do what Cantor basically did. If you recall,
the word infinity used to mean the largest number, but after Cantor discovered that
some infinities are larger than other infinities, he morphed the concept of
infinity and put adjective numbers in front of the term. This infinity is twice
that infinity.

Now, if you want to claim that a language can't change to incorporate new ideas,
that is fine, do so. I think you would be wrong. When it came time to name guys
and gals who went to space we took two words Astro and naut and put them together.
The Russians did us better and took cosmos and naut(sailor) and put them together.

Prior to the 1930s, we didn't have a word for neutrino, or positron (positive plus
electron). So, don't tell me that people can't use their language to communicate
any idea possible. The chinese are doing it all the time. Telephone--Dian hua
(electric speech) were the words chosen. And dian came originally from lightning.
The train, huo che (fire cart), the mobile phone had to be named within the past
few years--it is shou ji (hand machine), computer dian nao (quite properly electric
brain)

But of course, if you insist that the language can't change in order to express new
ideas, then you would be correct, but trivially so.

>One to one equivalence is not math (or maths).

It is if you are using a short one to to measure a longer one.

>Then rowing with one oar to turn the boat makes the oar a rudder? A
>paddle has to give the single paddler complete control of the canoe, but
>that does not make it a brake, reverse gear, rudder, etc. Recall "If I
>call the tail of a dog a leg, ..."

The story talked about rudders, and yes, the teachers of canoeing actually use the
term, rudder to describe how to use the paddle. You use your hand to attach it to
the boat, the other hand is free to wiggle it. Have you ever been a canoeist?

>Within the context of antiquity, God did say that the earth is very old.

DAvid, sometimes I think you just say things like this to see if you can get away
with it. It is very clear that you actually haven't researched this. Compared with
the antiquity of the Sumerian chronology, the Biblical Chronology which you claim
was long in context, is truly a very short chronology. Here is the list of
Sumerian dynasties written by the Sumerians themselves.

Early Dynastic I
Ante-diluvian kings, legendary, or earlier than ca. the 26th century BC. Their
rules are measured in sars - periods of 3600 years - the next unit up after 60 in
Sumerian counting (3600 = 60x60), and in ners - units of 600.

"After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug,
Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years."

Alulim of Eridug: 8 sars (28800 years)
Alalgar of Eridug: 10 sars (36000 years)
En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 12 sars (43200 years)
En-Men-Ana 1, 2
En-Men-Gal-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 8 sars (28800 years)
Dumuzi of Bad-Tibira, the shepherd: 10 sars (36000 years)
En-Sipad-Zid-Ana of Larag: 8 sars (28800 years)
En-Men-Dur-Ana of Zimbir: 5 sars and 5 ners (21000 years)
Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppag: 5 sars and 1 ner (18600 years)
Zin-Suddu 1

Then the first dynasty lists a bunch of kings who had the misfortune of ruling for
only 1000 years or so each. The total time is 22,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list#The_list

I have the scholarly article in my garage on this so this just isn't something off
the internet.

Total time in just these two SUMERIAN dynasties is something over 250,000 years!!!!

Don'y you think now, in context that a piddling 6000 years is not a long chronology
given the context of the Middle East? Will you acknowledge that your statement
above is false?

>Much later the term for the largest number in Greece was "muriad" or
>myriad. I would say that usually is simply conveyed the notion that the
>number was too big to count. It took the genius of Archimedes to talk
>about myriads of myriads with specific numerical reference. Additionally,
>how is "out of the mud came life" "more true" than "Let the earth bring
>forth grass, ..." With the former you'd object that it was either next to
>a vent or in a warm pool.

YOu have just illustrated the point I made above. If you insist that language
can't change then of course it can't express any new concepts--like numbers, but
myriads of myriads is not much different than my suggestion of how I would take a
language with only one, two and many and convert it to a counting language. I
would use a base 4

one, two many, onemany, twomany, two-one-many.... That would work and is what that
Genius of Archimedes basically did and it is what the Chinese appear to have done,
but for some reason you deny that it would work.

>
>> Let me reverse the question. How WRONG does God have to be before
>> you quit giving
>> him A+'s for his ability to communicate theological truth?

You ignored this question of mine. I find questions like this are ignored by the
Old earthers like questions about Supernova 1987A are ignored by YECs.

Please answer this question above. Intellectual honesty should drive one to try to
find an answer and you have plenty of intellectual honesty.

>> So, please tell me what experiment you have carried out to answer
>> the question of
>> God's control of the universe? When did that issue become
>> scientific rather than
>> mere belief? If it is a matter of science, then God should have
>> corrected, if not,
>> then you have produced a shiny bright red herring.
>>
>Don't you remember that I'm a philosopher?

I remember that you are a philosopher, but you made a scientific claim that seems
to be unsupported by observational data. When people make scientific claims that
seem unsupported, I ask for their data. Do philosophers make a habit of making
unsubstantiated scientific claims and then duck out of the responsibility by
claiming merely to be a philosopher?

And I am curious are you going to answer the philosophical question of how wrong
must God be in order for him not to get that A+ for communication ability that you
seem to give him?

ONe of the things I note in all these threads is that when I put an atheist hat on
and argue the atheist case here, the defenses and logic seem awfully weak to me.
That is another reason to try having the Bible teach something real about nature.
When I argue with atheists, I can back them into a corner over the issue of
existence and the anthropic principle. But the argumentation and logic here is not
sufficient to that task.
Received on Mon Jun 5 22:34:44 2006