Ya gotta love 'em!
Posted on 06/02/2005 2:06:01 PM PDT by dread78645
If you have a closed, airtight system, then water does not continue to evaporate until there is no liquid water left. Rather, water evaporates until there is a certain, temperature dependent, partial pressure of water vapor present in the system. Once this partial pressure has been achieved, then evaporation stops. If mineral deposits on the bone surface sealed it off making an airtight system, then it is entirely possible that the equillibrium water vapor would be reached rather quickly thereafter, and further evaporation would be halted.
Recently?
I guess us Crevo's are the poorer ones here, as not much positive stuff is written 'bout US, either!
I guess my question would be:
If the languages 'evolved' to stay within a tight little group, then why haven't those humans got physical characteristics that differ markedly from their 'remote' relatives?
Don't be coy. You Crevos do nothing but write about yourself and your viewpoints.
Indo-European languages "evolved" from a common ancestor, which linguists call Indo-European.
then why haven't those humans got physical characteristics that differ markedly from their 'remote' relatives?
Different groups of humans look different, of course. Be that as it may, comparing language development to human evolution is kind of silly.
Ya gotta love 'em!
Why??
Wouldn't your same rules apply??
WhAt is slang but mutations in the word streaM?
There must be SOME 'selection process' that accepts and keeps new words and drops older ones.
Why??
You've got E folks that whip out an 'evolving' software program and claim that somehow IT shows how ET is supposed to work.
Languages have too much of an aspect of "intelligent design" to really be comparable to biological evolution.
Not really. A lot of language is consciously and intentionally designed.
Although the fundamental premise of the creationist approach emphasized the infallibility of literal reading of the bible, few were as aware as those who hold the bible as a daily guide to their lives that the good book was rife with improbabilities and in some cases outright contradictions. Whitcomb and Morris, in one of those necessary departures from literal reading of the scriptures that nonetheless surprise anyone trying to follow their reasoning, concluded that the traditional Ussher flood date of 2450 BC (or its variant of 2459 BC) is probably too recent. On the other hand, noting the similarity of the Sumerian and Biblical flood stories, they consider it impossible that the flood could be vastly older than the stories because the Sumerian version (having been passed on by mere oral tradition, rather than having its truth covered by a divine assurance) was so strikingly similar to the biblical account; surely it would never have retained its similarity to the biblical story if the two traditions had bifurcated many thousands of years before their respective recordings in the first millennium B.C.
Morris quotes one authority who places the date at 3835 BC (based on Abraham birth date of 2167 BC and 1688 years elapsed time between birth of Abraham and flood (John Urquhart, How Old is Man, 1904 Morris p 481)) Elsewhere Morris suggests that the date was in excess of 5000 years ago, though he allowed that some interpretations suggesting that as much as 5000 years had elapsed between the deluge and Abram, which pushes the date of the flood as far back as 7000 BC, stretched the limits of Genesis "almost to the breaking point."
Most ingenious of the recent creationist claims have been those of G.E. Aardsma whose recent paper (Radio carbon and Biblical Chronology ) argues that the Ussher chronology (flood at 2350 B.C.) is too short by exactly a millennium. According to this interpretation, Kings 6:1 should read "1480 years" not "480 years," Aardsma believes; correction of this apparent clerical error would then push Usshers flood date back to 3350 B.C.
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/bibchron.html
The long and the short of it is that I don't know exactly when 'The Flood' occured. You said that "Papyrus was invented around 3000 BC." Estimates for the flood range from as recent as 2350 BC to an improbable 7000 BC.
Not necessarily. If the original atmosphere had a pretty constant high humidity, then the evaporation rate would be very slow. In order to maintain the proper vapor pressure in a small, enclosed space, not much water is really needed. Even without an originally humid atmosphere, only some mechanism for sealing is needed, not fossilization to prevent further evaporation. Fossilization can occur after this alternative mechanism occurs. The alternative could be something as simple as immersion underwater or in mud, which would pretty much prevent the water vapor inside the enclosure from escaping.
Oxygen is needed for things to burn. And I am a Chemist, at least by proffesion, a Molecular Biologist by training.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.