This is an open debate. You don't have a monopoly on who responds to you. If it were that important and you didn't want anyone else to comment you could have easily PM him. Since PM is not the structure of this thread I will comment to whomever I like regardless if they like or not or want me to or not...so deal with it.
Then why are you complaining about it being boring? My point is - if you don't like the discussion you do not have to participate. You're not tied here, you know.
Apparently you don't really think its so boring.
It shows that they had an understanding of the cycle in order to setup sophisticated irrigation systems.
Which cycle? Again, we're not talking about irrigation.
They knew the clean water made it from the mountains so they setup their villages in these areas along the rivers.
That has nothing to do with the hydrological cycle of the earth.
As in the case of the Sumerians and the Egyptians you can't setup a decent irrigation system unless you understand the hydrological cycle and can have a some what decent guess concerning the start and end of the rainy seasons.
That, apparently, is YOUR guess You have not established that either.
Principles of water resources ... - Google Books
"Many ancient cultures utilized the science of hydrology to create sophisticated practices to control or moving surface water. This was especially true for cultures in arid settings such as the Anasazi Indians of Southwest Colorado, the Sumerians along the Tigris and Euphrates river and the Egyptians along the Nile river."
Irrelevant!
So basically what Anthropologist are saying is that the knowledge of hydrology was well known for a very long time. Your bible is written much, much, much later, well after the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations that predate the Jewish culture.
Once again, you miss the point! Solomon did not write about hydrology. He described the world's water cycle. You seem to have trouble understanding that.
Even so, the understanding, as history clearly shows, was already well known by others before the this scroll. The Sumerians knew, the Egyptians knew and researchers contend that the Hindus knew as far back as the Vedic period as indicated in their scriptures.
Knew what? We're still not discussing hydrology. Yet none of their works described the hydrological cycle. If you had proof you would have included it.
Solomon (king of Israel) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
And yet one of his wives was from Egypt as the encyclopedia says. Additionally the encyclopedia says the following about Solomon.
"Palestine was destined to be an important centre because of its strategic location for trade by land and sea. By land, it alone connects Asia and Africa, and, along with Egypt, it is the only area with ports on the Atlantic-Mediterranean and Red SeaIndian Ocean waterways. It was Solomon who fulfilled the commercial destiny of Palestine and brought it to its greatest heights. The nature of his empire was predominantly commercialit served him and friendly rulers to increase trade by land and sea."
Your source is full of lies and distortions. For example, it says:
"As soon as he acceded to the throne, Solomon consolidated his position by liquidating his opponents ruthlessly, one by one. Once rid of his foes, he established his friends in the key posts of the military, governmental, and religious institutions. In an ancient Middle Eastern empire, this was almost the only means of establishing stable government."
None of this is true. I wonder why they furnished no proof of that!
"During Solomons reign (of 40 years) there was peace, and Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing. And Judah and Israel continued to dwell in security, everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree, from Dan to Beer-sheba, all the days of Solomon.1Ki 4:20, 25; Insight Vol. 1, p. 748.
It also says:
Solomon also strengthened his position through marital alliances.
There was only one such alliance.
A different situation prevailed with the entry of the nation of Israel into Canaan, the Land of Promise. The Sovereign God had given Israel full right to the land in fulfillment of his promise to their forefathers. They were, therefore, not entering as alien residents, and Jehovah prohibited their making alliances with the pagan nations in the land. (Ex 23:31-33; 34:11-16)
They were to be subject only to Gods laws and statutes, not to those of the nations due for eviction. (Le 18:3, 4; 20:22-24)
They were particularly warned against forming marriage alliances with such nations. Such alliances would intimately involve them not only with pagan wives but with pagan relatives and their false religious practices and customs, and this would result in apostasy and a snare.De 7:2-4; Ex 34:16; Jos 23:12, 13.(Insight vol. 1 p.75)
Your very own bible says he did have dealings with Arabia.
1Kings 10:
Beside [that he had] of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.
Basically it says....
This did not include the additional revenue he received from merchants and traders, all the kings of Arabia, and the governors of the land.
In that same chapter it shows he received goods from Egypt and other surrounding countries....but I'm sure if I dig a little more I'd find more verses showing his dealings with others.
Apparently he did!
Nope. It was to illustrate that they had an understanding of the land around them. Solomon, as you can see from the encyclopedia as well as your own bible, did business and had women from everywhere so he as well as those who were around him had intimate knowledge of the mountains and the life cycle of water considering these same cultures of people he dealt with knew this centuries before the scroll was written.
Yet you cannot find a single description of the hydrologic system matching Solomons in any ancient book of the same age.
What you have done here is, not prove your claims, but resort to conjecture. That is not proof.
Show me the writings of these ancient peoples describing the hydrologic cycle and Ill be satisfied.
If you cant, youre just flapping your gums.
How about that fossil I posted. Where does it fit if man was created fully formed?[/quote]
First, you have to get past the problems with mutations. They do not support the claims that they improve any organisms.
"The limits of selection due to the absence of hoped-for positive mutations were most severely felt in mutation breeding at the end of the 1970s and in the 1980s after some 40 years of worldwide mutation research with cultivated plants as maize, rice, barley, peas, and others.
Mutation induction was originally thought to revolutionize plant breeding and substitute the costly and time-consuming "old" recombination method on a global scale. By mutation genetics, three time-lapse methods were available to the breeders: (a) raising the numbers of mutations so enormously in a few years, that nature would have needed millions of years to produce similar amounts of hereditary changes; (b) well-aimed and careful selection and conservation of promising genotypes, which often would have been lost in nature; and (c) well-aimed recombination of rare genotypes for which the chance to ever meet and mate in nature would again be very small.
After the neo-Darwinian school of biologists had taught plant breeders that mutation, recombination, and natural selection were responsible for the origination of all life forms and structures on earth, the possibility of the threefold time-lapse-method led to a previously unknown
euphoria among geneticists in order to revolutionize plant breeding.
Literally
billions of mutations were induced by different mutagenic agents in many plant species. However, relatively few useful mutants were obtained, mostly loss-of-function-mutants losing undesirable features like toxic constituents, shattering of fruits, spininess and so on.
Due to the limits summarized by the law of recurrent variation (also pertinent to the processes in nature, i.e. for natural selection), these efforts ended in
a worldwide collapse of mutation breeding some forty years later.
It is self-evident that selection, whether artificial or natural, cannot select structures and capabilities which were hoped or believed to arise, but never did (Lönnig, 1993, 1998). Thus, qualitative limits in generating positive mutations point to t
he limits of natural selection."
NATURAL SELECTION
Without that engine driving evolution, you could not possibly arrive at transitional fossils.
You may be looking at a deformed human skeleton or that of an ape.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
