Answering Atheists

[joelr]

You know this? Okay. One question. How do you know this?

I mean the general universe, solar systems, clusters of galaxies, black holes, elements created in nova and supernova.
We can account for all these processes from the laws of physics.

We disagree. However, what evidence do you have that they are made up by people?

Ot stories mirror Mesopotamian myths, Christianity are Persian/Hellenism. No science beyond what men already knew. Nothing but vague prophecies. /very similar to all other man-made religions like Vedic scripture. We have thousands of accounts of people making myths but claiming they are messages from God. All look the same, same science, same wisdom. All made by men.

Where have you been? That's been repeatedly done.
I don't see any wisdom in repeating, especially for joelr.

I study science and biblical history and archeology. I have never ever heard a scholar say we have a prophecy or some science that even slightly suggests considering the myths are true. Never. Not even the slightest hint of something supernatural.
I did read dozens of promises in the OT that didn't come true?

May I ask what is the point of your opinion?
Some of the details of the Noah story seem mythical, so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh." These ancient narratives were already being passed down from one generation to the next, centuries before Noah appeared in the Bible.

"The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans," said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. "There's one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it's the same story."

The same account told from different cultures, and "colored" with their own beliefs.
Facts : 1) The account happened.

Not a fact. The Mesopotamian myth was written down, yes. It's a myth. A world flood has been ruled out by modern geological flood science. Didn't happen.

"Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly

Geochronology[edit]
This Jurassic carbonate hardground shows generations of oysters and extensive bioerosion, features incompatible with the conditions and timing postulated for the Flood.[7]

The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through geologic time.[113]
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.


Paleontology[edit]
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.

eochemistry[edit]
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[

Sedimentary rock features[edit]
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top

2) The Biblical account differs from the mythical flavors within the others.

Genesis was written using older myths to be the religious mythology of a new people. Like always it is not history but mythology. It was a copy of older flood stories written in 1200 BC. It isn't real.
Just like the Jesus savior demigod story was a different version (Hellenism/Judaism) Noah was a new flood myth (Mesopotamian/Israelite). It's the small details that show it was copied.

"
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. "

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I may answer this:
No, not really.
If that were true, ie, that everything functioned as God intended, then there’d be no plants dangerous to humans, for one thing.
For another, we wouldn’t have killer storms.
None of these existed in the Garden of Eden.. But when A&E chose to side with the Rebel, that gave validity to those challenges to God’s person and His sovereignty. So Jehovah has temporarily removed His spirit & protection from the Earth and mankind — stepping away, so to speak— to give humans a try at their own sovereignty, ruling themselves.

Although Jehovah has given us some measure of intelligence and a conscience to guide us (and during His absence He’s provided a 1500-page letter to those who do value His guidance), human rule still hasn’t worked out too well, has it?

Seems like you either missed my point or I didn't communicate clearly.

@nPeace was talking about the design of objects and asking what might be the hallmarks of design.

Do you think there are any undesigned objects in the world? Is there anything that doesn't carry the hallmarks of design?

The point I'm getting at: a normal person would say that a wristwatch is designed and a rock is not, and look at the differences between the two objects when trying to figure out how we can tell whether something is designed.

But you think a rock is just as "designed" as a wristwatch, right? If so, what criteria do you use to say that something is designed or undesigned?

IOW: whatever we decide are the hallmarks of design, when none of those hallmarks are present in an object, we would infer that it's probably not designed... but you don't do this, do you?

You've heard of the watchmaker analogy, right? In that analogy, a designed object (the watch) is recognizable because it stands out against an undesigned background (the beach). But if the beach is also designed, then it would be like picking one watch out of a sea of watches and saying "this watch is designed in a way that all the others are not."

 

[idea]

All these arguments could be peacefully resolved if scriptures were treated as Aesops Fables.

Everyone loves, learns, and appreciates the moral lessons within Aesops Fables. The realities behind those fables come through loud and clear - and those fables do teach "real" lessons.

Treat all scripture like Aesops Fables - as symbols which point, like a finger to the moon, to deeper realities and lessons which are buried behind the symbols.

I do believe in an underlying spiritual conscience / intelligence / connection within the universe.
I do not believe any set of scriptures are "true" - they are all fables, but they are fingers pointing towards lessons and real spiritual truths.

Blessings to all on their journey. May we all be humble enough to learn, wise to see patterns behind symbols, loving to find value in all views, and humble enough to learn from all.

Atheist or believer - conservation of mass, conservation of energy, we are all in this eternal game together, made of the same atoms, alive through the same energy, existing in the same universe to finally be mixed together into the same churning cosmos. It is beautiful however you look at it.

 

[nPeace]

I mean the general universe, solar systems, clusters of galaxies, black holes, elements created in nova and supernova.
We can account for all these processes from the laws of physics.



Ot stories mirror Mesopotamian myths, Christianity are Persian/Hellenism. No science beyond what men already knew. Nothing but vague prophecies. /very similar to all other man-made religions like Vedic scripture. We have thousands of accounts of people making myths but claiming they are messages from God. All look the same, same science, same wisdom. All made by men.

Since your answer is not "Becase I know everything", and you cannot prove that you do, what you said here means nothing.

I study science and biblical history and archeology. I have never ever heard a scholar say we have a prophecy or some science that even slightly suggests considering the myths are true. Never. Not even the slightest hint of something supernatural.
I did read dozens of promises in the OT that didn't come true?

Can I be blamed if people keep company with the wrong crowd, and think they are in good company.

Not a fact. The Mesopotamian myth was written down, yes. It's a myth. A world flood has been ruled out by modern geological flood science. Didn't happen.

Yes, by opinions it has.
Those vary, and some has not ruled it out. So people get to pick which opinions they accept.
You picked yours. Fine. That's okay.

"Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

Yes, the scientific method has been used to reach wrong conclusions. What's meaningful point can you share, to establish your opinion as fact?

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly

Geochronology[edit]
This Jurassic carbonate hardground shows generations of oysters and extensive bioerosion, features incompatible with the conditions and timing postulated for the Flood.[7]

The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through geologic time.[113]
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.


Paleontology[edit]
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.

eochemistry[edit]
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[

Sedimentary rock features[edit]
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top

If you agree that we don't have all the facts, then you agree that speculating on what we think is simply a matter of thinking our limited knowledge is all there is.
I don't believe that is the case. If you do, then you must be able to tell me everything about nature... accurately. You can't, and science does not either. Want to get me started on what they got wrong, and what is being debated... or not known?
Why would I rely on that to tell me history, as opposed to first hand or primary and secondary sources, that have been verified by trustworthy sources?
Doesn't make sense to me. I'd won't be surprised if that makes sense to you though.

Genesis was written using older myths to be the religious mythology of a new people. Like always it is not history but mythology. It was a copy of older flood stories written in 1200 BC. It isn't real.
Just like the Jesus savior demigod story was a different version (Hellenism/Judaism) Noah was a new flood myth (Mesopotamian/Israelite). It's the small details that show it was copied.

You have not demonstrated how you know this. So I assume you just want me to take your word for it. Okay. No,

"
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. "

May I ask, what with this modern scholar - appeal to authority? If they said the opposite, would you accept?
I'm sorry, but depending on people who are often wrong, and at best, offers their best opinions, is not for me, and a whole set of people, as you know.
So again, I fail to see any meaning to your presenting your choice of opinion as facts.

 

[nPeace]

Seems like you either missed my point or I didn't communicate clearly.

@nPeace was talking about the design of objects and asking what might be the hallmarks of design.

Do you think there are any undesigned objects in the world? Is there anything that doesn't carry the hallmarks of design?

The point I'm getting at: a normal person would say that a wristwatch is designed and a rock is not, and look at the differences between the two objects when trying to figure out how we can tell whether something is designed.

But you think a rock is just as "designed" as a wristwatch, right? If so, what criteria do you use to say that something is designed or undesigned?

IOW: whatever we decide are the hallmarks of design, when none of those hallmarks are present in an object, we would infer that it's probably not designed... but you don't do this, do you?

You've heard of the watchmaker analogy, right? In that analogy, a designed object (the watch) is recognizable because it stands out against an undesigned background (the beach). But if the beach is also designed, then it would be like picking one watch out of a sea of watches and saying "this watch is designed in a way that all the others are not."

Can you please point out what you find unsatisfactory about the criterion for design, stated here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you please point out what you find unsatisfactory about the criterion for design, stated here.

You mean this?

We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.

"Infer or perceive" sure sounds like gut feelings or pareidolia would qualify.

 

[nPeace]

You mean this?

We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.

"Infer or perceive" sure sounds like gut feelings or pareidolia would qualify.

Please don't get confused.
You asked what is the criterion of design.
What i gave is not made up.
What I said is that we perceive design from the criterion.
In other words, we perceive design quite easily from what constitute design.
i used the word perceived because I would not want to blow a fuse in your brain by saying we know.
We have to use perception and inference. That's how science works. Or maybe everything isn science is gut feeling. Do you think so?
Then please do not harp on the words that are irrelevant to what is factual.
See What is design? here. Do you accept that criterion?
We can only have this conversation if you understand what design is. So we need clarity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please don't get confused.
You asked what is the criterion of design.
What i gave is not made up.

So you're saying it's undesigned?

What I said is that we perceive design from the criterion.
In other words, we perceive design quite easily from what constitute design.

And you listed off a bunch of vague, subjective criteria.

i used the word perceived because I would not want to blow a fuse in your brain by saying we know.
We have to use perception and inference. That's how science works. Or maybe everything isn science is gut feeling. Do you think so?
Then please do not harp on the words that are irrelevant to what is factual.

No, the nonsensical "criteria" you gave aren't analogous to science.

All of them are begging the question: you told us that to infer that a thing is designed, you need to infer intent behind the form of the thing... i.e. infer design.

You gave us a long-winded tautology and a bunch of hand-waving.

See What is design? here. Do you accept that criterion?
We can only have this conversation if you understand what design is. So we need clarity.

I wasn't able to find any criteria in that wall of text.

 

[Sheldon]

Can you please point out what you find unsatisfactory about the criterion for design, stated here.

That's easy, you are assuming it, but without any objective evidence, you ignore the fact that designed and created things never occur naturally. Please do demonstrate an example though, as you ignored this request last time as well? Pointing to everything and saying "design" or "creation" isn't objectively different to saying "magic". As with your pervious post, you simply think you can wave facts, and logic away.

Since your answer is not "Becase I know everything", and you cannot prove that you do, what you said here means nothing.

So no human who is not omniscient can say anything meaningful? You see what you did there right?

Can I be blamed if people keep company with the wrong crowd, and think they are in good company.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy if ever there was one.

Yes, by opinions it has.
Those vary, and some has not ruled it out. So people get to pick which opinions they accept.
You picked yours. Fine. That's okay.

Geological science is not based on subjective opinion, the fact you have so dishonestly misrepresented what was said here speaks volumes.

Yes, the scientific method has been used to reach wrong conclusions.

And you know this how? Oh wait, it wouldn't be because of new scientific evidence would it? Again I'm guessing the irony of denying scientific efficacy while using the method to do it is lost on you, but not on others...

What I said is that we perceive design from the criterion. In other words, we perceive design quite easily from what constitute design. i used the word perceived because I would not want to blow a fuse in your brain by saying we know. We have to use perception and inference. That's how science works.

So it doesn't have to be falsifiable then?
So it doesn't have to be peer reviewed then?
So it doesn't have to produce a model of reality that makes predictions that can be objectively found in reality then?

You are funny.

Then please do not harp on the words that are irrelevant to what is factual.
See What is design? here. Do you accept that criterion?

No, it's asinine nonsense, we infer design from objective evidence, not from a "gut feeling" something is out of place. And how exactly if any designed thing distinguished in a universe where you claim every single thing is designed? That's hilarious

We can only have this conversation if you understand what design is. So we need clarity.

You've had clarity, sadly you dishonestly waved it away. Lets see if we can simplify this for you:

design
noun

1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

 

[nPeace]

So you're saying it's undesigned?


And you listed off a bunch of vague, subjective criteria.


No, the nonsensical "criteria" you gave aren't analogous to science.

All of them are begging the question: you told us that to infer that a thing is designed, you need to infer intent behind the form of the thing... i.e. infer design.

You gave us a long-winded tautology and a bunch of hand-waving.

I wasn't able to find any criteria in that wall of text.

I can't find anything i am not looking for either.
So since you don't have any idea what design is, it appears,, we are done then?

 

[nPeace]

That's easy, you are assuming it, but without any objective evidence, you ignore the fact that designed and created things never occur naturally. Please do demonstrate an example though, as you ignored this request last time as well? Pointing to everything and saying "design" or "creation" isn't objectively different to saying "magic". As with your pervious post, you simply think you can wave facts, and logic away.

I think we have not got past the objective bit yet. So it seems we are stuck and going nowhere.

So no human who is not omniscient can say anything meaningful? You see what you did there right?

No. However, we know that different minds tend to have different views, and right now, that's a strange view you just put there, imo.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy if ever there was one.



Geological science is not based on subjective opinion, the fact you have so dishonestly misrepresented what was said here speaks volumes.



And you know this how? Oh wait, it wouldn't be because of new scientific evidence would it? Again I'm guessing the irony of denying scientific efficacy while using the method to do it is lost on you, but not on others...



So it doesn't have to be falsifiable then?
So it doesn't have to be peer reviewed then?
So it doesn't have to produce a model of reality that makes predictions that can be objectively found in reality then?

You are funny.



No, it's asinine nonsense, we infer design from objective evidence, not from a "gut feeling" something is out of place. And how exactly if any designed thing distinguished in a universe where you claim every single thing is designed? That's hilarious



You've had clarity, sadly you dishonestly waved it away. Lets see if we can simplify this for you:

design
noun

1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

You remind me of someone on here, who is Atheist as well. If you were not both posting, I would think one person was using two accounts... although that isn't impossible.

Let's take it from here.
"we infer design from objective evidence"
What is objective evidence of design, or designed objects?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't find anything i am not looking for either.
So since you don't have any idea what design is, it appears,, we are done then?

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about my own ideas about what design is; I said that your criteria are nonsense.

This is the point where you can expand on your views and correct my first impression, if you care to.

 

[nPeace]

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about my own ideas about what design is; I said that your criteria are nonsense.

This is the point where you can expand on your views and correct my first impression, if you care to.

You said, quote I wasn't able to find any criteria in that wall of text. Unquote.
Clearly, you are not blind. So there must be another reason you can't see. Maybe you don't want to?

Also, I don't know what you heard, or read, but how you got from that post "putting words in my mouth" is baffling to say the least.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said, quote I wasn't able to find any criteria in that wall of text. Unquote.
Clearly, you are not blind. So there must be another reason you can't see. Maybe you don't want to?

I'm not willing to put a lot of effort into hunting for stuff that you couldn't be bothered to actually explain directly, no.

Also, I don't know what you heard, or read, but how you got from that post "putting words in my mouth" is baffling to say the least.

I'm sure it's less baffling than your approach is to me.

Instead of actually making your point - or even just copy-pasting the specific text you think is relevant into this thread - you decided to ask me to hunt through some long post in another thread... and when that doesn't work, you still avoid making your point clearly and instead go off on a new tangent.

These are not the tactics of someone who is interested in reasonable discussion.

 

[Sheldon]

I think we have not got past the objective bit yet. So it seems we are stuck and going nowhere.

You asked a question, now true to form you wave away the answer. We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact. We can see the designs, see things being designed, see the designs being used to manufacture things, and above all designed things don't just occur in nature. Even in Paley's watchmaker fallacy he recognised though, by placing a designed watch on a beach and contrasting it as if it was out of place. What he failed to recognise was it was out place because watches don't randomly appear in nature.

No. However, we know that different minds tend to have different views, and right now, that's a strange view you just put there, imo.

That's not hat you said, you said:

nPeace said:
Since your answer is not "Becase I know everything", and you cannot prove that you do, what you said here means nothing.

So you're now dishonestly moving the goalposts.

Design is inferred from objective evidence and not from complexity as you claimed.

 

[joelr]

Since your answer is not "Becase I know everything", and you cannot prove that you do, what you said here means nothing.

I don't know if you are referring to the answer about the laws of physics being the answer to how we know why stuff happens or how we know scripture are myths made up by men?

Either way this is what the vast evidence presents. Saying the majority of evidence means nothing shows you are not at all interested in what is true.

Can I be blamed if people keep company with the wrong crowd, and think they are in good company.

You are saying biblical archeology, historicity and comparative religion scholarship are "bad company".
Ok, that makes this easy? You do not care about truth, what is true, supporting your beliefs with evidence or anything along those lines.
Writing off entire fields of scholars because they don't agree with belief in fiction is the highest level of ignorance.
So you are clearly not interested in facts or reasonable discussion, so why respond?

Yes, by opinions it has.
Those vary, and some has not ruled it out. So people get to pick which opinions they accept.
You picked yours. Fine. That's okay.

And we extend the ignorance to geology. Heh.

Sorry, I do get to pick my opinions but I don't get to pick which scientific facts I declare true or false. Unless I want to live in a fantasy world (I've seen this a bit lately). I would rather attempt to find out what is true.
As I pointed out, a world flood has been ruled out by flood geologists. I gave the brief arguments.

Yes, the scientific method has been used to reach wrong conclusions. What's meaningful point can you share, to establish your opinion as fact?

You are just going full on fantasy land? I thought you might try a little?
The meaningful point is flood geologists are in consensus on these 5 basic facts that demonstrate a world flood has not happened. Some of the reasons are extremely convincing and unlikely to be wrong. But the idea that they are wrong because they have to be to make a myth real, that method has never been correct.
again, this is another way of saying you do not care about what is true. You already decided from emotional attachments to a myth that it has to be true. I get it, you have no argument.
Islam is true for the same reasons.

If you agree that we don't have all the facts, then you agree that speculating on what we think is simply a matter of thinking our limited knowledge is all there is.
I don't believe that is the case. If you do, then you must be able to tell me everything about nature... accurately. You can't, and science does not either. Want to get me started on what they got wrong, and what is being debated... or not known?
Why would I rely on that to tell me history, as opposed to first hand or primary and secondary sources, that have been verified by trustworthy sources?
Doesn't make sense to me. I'd won't be surprised if that makes sense to you though.

In the case of flood geology, we have this covered. There is enough information to say there was no world flood. They are first hand sources, any of the work by any of these teams can be tracked down on all facts mentioned?

If you think the flood story is a 2nd hand source then you have no clue about Biblical historicity. Countless copies of these documents were made. The OT was canonized in the 2nd Temple Period, 300-100BC. The older texts were copies of copies of copies for many centuries. All historians know the flood narrative/Genesis was written after the fact and used older myths to construct a narrative for a new emerging people.

"
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)



As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.

"

You have not demonstrated how you know this. So I assume you just want me to take your word for it. Okay. No,

Every OT historian knows and says this. Above is from a paper by KL Sparks.
Here are quotes from Davies and VAn Seters:

"Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical."

May I ask, what with this modern scholar - appeal to authority? If they said the opposite, would you accept?
I'm sorry, but depending on people who are often wrong, and at best, offers their best opinions, is not for me, and a whole set of people, as you know.
So again, I fail to see any meaning to your presenting your choice of opinion as facts.

Sigh. I have to explain this to Christians so often. An appeal to authority is when you say a sccholar is correct because they are a scholar. I am sourcing their evidence. In their works they give sources and explanations how this is known.
I study historicity to see what was what. OF COURSE if a historian said otherwise and had EVIDENCE I would listen????? The VAST amount of evidence is the OT is a work of fiction used to unite Israel.


"Genesis is an example of a creation myth, a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth.[24] The most notable examples are found in the work of Greek historians of the 6th century BC: their intention was to connect notable families of their own day to a distant and heroic past, and in doing so they did not distinguish between myth, legend, and facts.[25] Professor Jean-Louis Ska of the Pontifical Biblical Institute calls the basic rule of the antiquarian historian the "law of conservation": everything old is valuable, nothing is eliminated.[26] Ska also points out the purpose behind such antiquarian histories: antiquity is needed to prove the worth of Israel's traditions to the nations (the neighbours of the Jews in early Persian Palestine), and to reconcile and unite the various factions within Israel itself.[26]"

 

[nPeace]

I'm not willing to put a lot of effort into hunting for stuff that you couldn't be bothered to actually explain directly, no.


I'm sure it's less baffling than your approach is to me.

Instead of actually making your point - or even just copy-pasting the specific text you think is relevant into this thread - you decided to ask me to hunt through some long post in another thread... and when that doesn't work, you still avoid making your point clearly and instead go off on a new tangent.

These are not the tactics of someone who is interested in reasonable discussion.

I told you the specific part to look at. I did not tell you to read the whole post. For me to have to copy paste the part I specifically told you to read, to put it somewhere else on a forum is backwards. Say what!
When you can just read that portion there.

I don't think you are lazy. I don't think that's it. However, sometimes we make things difficult, just because we want to.
It's on you. Not me. To hunt for something, means to search for it. You don't have to search for something that someone points you to. Sorry, your poor excuse fails miserably.

 

[nPeace]

You asked a question, now true to form you wave away the answer. We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact. We can see the designs, see things being designed, see the designs being used to manufacture things, and above all designed things don't just occur in nature. Even in Paley's watchmaker fallacy he recognised though, by placing a designed watch on a beach and contrasting it as if it was out of place. What he failed to recognise was it was out place because watches don't randomly appear in nature.




That's not hat you said, you said:



So you're now dishonestly moving the goalposts.

Design is inferred from objective evidence and not from complexity as you claimed.

If I called you dishonest every post I made, it would likely be considered a personal attack. I'll keep those thoughts to myself.
All you keep doing is saying what you believe.

Look.
Quote
We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact. We can see the designs, see things being designed, see the designs being used to manufacture things, and above all designed things don't just occur in nature.
Unquote

A whole lor of long talk, and you cannot even point out what that objective evidence is. Lol.
Is the objective evidence seeing something being done?
Then none of science is objective, where they do not see things. Every thing they infer, or interpret, is subjective. Is that okay with you?
Have you ever seen a wolf become a whale, or a reptile become a bird? How then is there objective evidence for a transitional fossil?

Therefore, there is no objective evidence for the evolution theory. Is that okay with you.?
If it is not, then please stop just stating things that you believe, and start making some statements that are actually factual, and meaningful for discussion.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know if you are referring to the answer about the laws of physics being the answer to how we know why stuff happens or how we know scripture are myths made up by men?

Either way this is what the vast evidence presents. Saying the majority of evidence means nothing shows you are not at all interested in what is true.

You said... Outside of watches and objects humans created, the entire visible universe has created itself with natural laws.
I asked how you know this, and, you give me this... We can account for all these processes from the laws of physics.
...and you want a pat on the back.

You have given me nothing. Your limited knowledge is just that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but scientist know very little. The vast amount they think they know, is very little... and honest scientists admit that, by the way.

You are saying biblical archeology, historicity and comparative religion scholarship are "bad company".
Ok, that makes this easy? You do not care about truth, what is true, supporting your beliefs with evidence or anything along those lines.
Writing off entire fields of scholars because they don't agree with belief in fiction is the highest level of ignorance.
So you are clearly not interested in facts or reasonable discussion, so why respond?

You can say what you like.
We know for a fact that biblical archeologist, and scholars vary in their opinions. So because I point that fact out, and you don't like the fact that I do not have to accept the scholars opinions that you favor, you want to call it not caring about truth. You are free to choose "which pool you will swim in".
Some pools have sharks. Some don't. You choose the company you keep.

And we extend the ignorance to geology. Heh.

Sorry, I do get to pick my opinions but I don't get to pick which scientific facts I declare true or false. Unless I want to live in a fantasy world (I've seen this a bit lately). I would rather attempt to find out what is true.
As I pointed out, a world flood has been ruled out by flood geologists. I gave the brief arguments.

Scientific facts??? LOL.
That's a good one. Start posting them, and we can talk about them. So far, you have not even got past hypotheses, and I am not even sure you touched on a theory... did you?

You are just going full on fantasy land? I thought you might try a little?
The meaningful point is flood geologists are in consensus on these 5 basic facts that demonstrate a world flood has not happened. Some of the reasons are extremely convincing and unlikely to be wrong. But the idea that they are wrong because they have to be to make a myth real, that method has never been correct.
again, this is another way of saying you do not care about what is true. You already decided from emotional attachments to a myth that it has to be true. I get it, you have no argument.
Islam is true for the same reasons.

Wait wait wait. Hold up. Now I didn't just hear the word "unlikely". Did I just hear you say, "unlikely to be"?
Okay. We can stop there. You just said it all. No need to go any farther.

In the case of flood geology, we have this covered. There is enough information to say there was no world flood. They are first hand sources, any of the work by any of these teams can be tracked down on all facts mentioned?

If you think the flood story is a 2nd hand source then you have no clue about Biblical historicity. Countless copies of these documents were made. The OT was canonized in the 2nd Temple Period, 300-100BC. The older texts were copies of copies of copies for many centuries. All historians know the flood narrative/Genesis was written after the fact and used older myths to construct a narrative for a new emerging people.

"
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)



As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.

"


Every OT historian knows and says this. Above is from a paper by KL Sparks.
Here are quotes from Davies and VAn Seters:

"Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical."




Sigh. I have to explain this to Christians so often. An appeal to authority is when you say a sccholar is correct because they are a scholar. I am sourcing their evidence. In their works they give sources and explanations how this is known.
I study historicity to see what was what. OF COURSE if a historian said otherwise and had EVIDENCE I would listen????? The VAST amount of evidence is the OT is a work of fiction used to unite Israel.


"Genesis is an example of a creation myth, a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth.[24] The most notable examples are found in the work of Greek historians of the 6th century BC: their intention was to connect notable families of their own day to a distant and heroic past, and in doing so they did not distinguish between myth, legend, and facts.[25] Professor Jean-Louis Ska of the Pontifical Biblical Institute calls the basic rule of the antiquarian historian the "law of conservation": everything old is valuable, nothing is eliminated.[26] Ska also points out the purpose behind such antiquarian histories: antiquity is needed to prove the worth of Israel's traditions to the nations (the neighbours of the Jews in early Persian Palestine), and to reconcile and unite the various factions within Israel itself.[26]"

Did I say the flood account is a second hand source? Where?
You have no idea what the primary and secondary sources are, and how they were verified, do you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I told you the specific part to look at. I did not tell you to read the whole post. For me to have to copy paste the part I specifically told you to read, to put it somewhere else on a forum is backwards. Say what!
When you can just read that portion there.

I don't think you are lazy. I don't think that's it. However, sometimes we make things difficult, just because we want to.
It's on you. Not me. To hunt for something, means to search for it. You don't have to search for something that someone points you to. Sorry, your poor excuse fails miserably.

I'm giving you tremenous benefit of the doubt by even entertaining that you might have a valid point, and that you might really have a reasonable test for "design." This benefit of the doubt has limits, though.

At some point, if you're interested in making your point, you'll have to clearly express it. My benefit of the doubt is not license for you to get me to shlep around the internet to find the stuff you can't even be bothered to copy-paste.

So: do you have a point? If so, get on with it and make it already.