Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[Milton Platt]

Stroke?

Engineer as well here. (4 degrees in engineering, over 25 patents and 42 years if technical experience in industry)

Hey, It's almost as if you knew what your were doing....LOL

 

[PruePhillip]

Marvel comics mentions New York, Time Square, Manhatten, events in New York and elsewhere in the world, president Obama and I'm pretty sure that there was / is at least one "Peter Parker" registered as a resident in Manahatten. But that doesn't mean Spiderman is real.

Now imagine, New York has been lost for a thousand years. Destroyed by an enemy just
the Philistines who destroyed Shiloh. That thousand years would put you back to before the
Norman conquest of England. And someone "makes up" this story about a fabled city called
New York and a fabled nation called America - complete with details of kings, prophets,
cities, towns, wars etc..
And then we find these places and people really did exist, when the skeptics said they didn't.

 

[Polymath257]

Now imagine, New York has been lost for a thousand years. Destroyed by an enemy just
the Philistines who destroyed Shiloh. That thousand years would put you back to before the
Norman conquest of England. And someone "makes up" this story about a fabled city called
New York and a fabled nation called America - complete with details of kings, prophets,
cities, towns, wars etc..
And then we find these places and people really did exist, when the skeptics said they didn't.

Good point. Would we then say that Spiderman existed?

The stories were not all made up. Some were transmitted orally (a rather poor way to transmit information over generations). Some were stories made up about the ruins that were seen. Some were legends made up about people who became almost mythical.

Another aspect of this. Suppose that we found that George Washington actually existed. Would we say that it verified that he actually chopped down a cherry tree? Or that Abraham Lincoln walked miles to repay a nickel? Would we say that the British were evil and the French were good?

So, yes, sure, some of the people existed. Some of the places existed (although perhaps not at the times claimed). But many of the stories are also legendary. Some of the stories are later creations to bolster the power of later kings.

 

[Astrophile]

I accept the theory of evolution as you've defined it, I've seen in my lifetime new species of dogs arise, for example. Next, try asking the forum geniuses here whether dogs can give birth to cats, and they'll give you double-speak about well defined clades that are "good" and "unlikely" to change, meaning, they agree, dogs can become new species of dogs but NEVER cats or birds or fish... just like the Bible says. The Bible is compatible with modern science.

Do you accept that dogs, cats and bears evolved from a common ancestor?

 

[Polymath257]

Same as there is no preBB because that puts it before. IMO either something always existed or it just magically appeared.

How about space, time, mass, and energy all being coexistent? It is the spacetime structure, not the spatial cross sections, that simply exists. No causality required.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good point. Would we then say that Spiderman existed?

The stories were not all made up. Some were transmitted orally (a rather poor way to transmit information over generations). Some were stories made up about the ruins that were seen. Some were legends made up about people who became almost mythical.

Another aspect of this. Suppose that we found that George Washington actually existed. Would we say that it verified that he actually chopped down a cherry tree? Or that Abraham Lincoln walked miles to repay a nickel? Would we say that the British were evil and the French were good?

So, yes, sure, some of the people existed. Some of the places existed (although perhaps not at the times claimed). But many of the stories are also legendary. Some of the stories are later creations to bolster the power of later kings.

I am not aware that anything in the bible "bolstered" the power of any king.
Even the most quoted king, David, was shown to be a complex and flawed
man.
As for the miracles - it's understood these must be taken in faith - but Jews
did not doubt they were slaves in Egypt, or there was a King David.
And most powerfully, the bible seems to understand past and future in a way
that defies logic - just look at what it told the Jews, BEFORE the Babylonian
captivity, they will return a second time to Israel, and take it back with a sword.
And they will remain as a people (not dispersed) but a people few in number,
but a blessing to the very few nations that would bless them.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not aware that anything in the bible "bolstered" the power of any king.

Then I might suggest you need to study the archeology a bit more. The 'discovery' of older writings was even mentioned int he Bible. The standard thinking is that the priests were writing a mythical history to bolster their power.

Even the most quotes king, David, was shown to be a complex and flawed man.

The writings were used to support the later kings to justify their power.

As for the miracles - it's understood these must be taken in faith - but Jews
did not doubt they were slaves in Egypt, or there was a King David.

Too bad the Egyptian slavery time has absolutely no evidence to back it up. You might be able to twist the Hyksos rule into something, but not the Biblical story.

And most powerfully, the bible seems to understand past and future in a way
that defies logic - just look at what it told the Jews, BEFORE the Babylonian
captivity, they will return a second time to Israel, and take it back with a sword.

Except that the actual writings were from *after* the captivity. Not as impressive that way.

And they will remain as a people (not dispersed) but a people few in number,
but a blessing to the very few nations that would bless them.

 

[PruePhillip]

Then I might suggest you need to study the archeology a bit more. The 'discovery' of older writings was even mentioned int he Bible. The standard thinking is that the priests were writing a mythical history to bolster their power.

Yes and no. If priest witnessed great things in their day (as those of AD 68-70 did)
then it's their duty to record it - power or no power. The one I have been reading about
in archaeology is the cultic center of Shiloh - home to the Ark of the Covenant. In Samuel
we read of the priest Eli not controlling his corrupt sons and their effect upon Israel. We
read the Ark was taken and the Philistines destroyed Shiloh. It's all there in archaeology -
the horns of the altar, the sacred pomegranite, the sacrificed animal bones -cut on the
right side, as Moses commanded in Leviticus. Someone didn't make this up a thousand
years later in Greek or Babylonian times.

 

[PruePhillip]

Too bad the Egyptian slavery time has absolutely no evidence to back it up. You might be able to twist the Hyksos rule into something, but not the Biblical story..

Recent studies of mining activity in ancient Edom, ca 1000 BC (King David's time)
show that nation was significantly larger than archaeology thought possible. This led
to the notion of "transparent archaeology."
"Evidence" comes through monuments and grand buildings - not through nomadic
or tent dwelling people There could have been 50,000 people living in the hills of
Judea it is speculated - without "evidence." Think Ghengis Khan.

The term "no evidence" is often not science but an abuse of science. No evidence
is just that - it could have happened, we just don't have the evidence.

I always believed the story of King David - it was hard not to. But growing up I had
to read that this king was just a myth as there was "no evidence." But now there's
evidence, but the damage is done.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that the actual writings were from *after* the captivity. Not as impressive that way.

It's not known, or more like not acknowledged, that after the return
from Babylon there were some more additions to the Old Testament.
Ezra and Nehemiah, Amos and Malachi I think. But then NOTHING,
the bible was "sealed" as the Jewish cannon.
This is why Maccabees etc is not in the cannon. Daniel was written
during Babylon despite being "dated" later - and his comments about
the Messiah and Rome were not some post Christ fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Recent studies of mining activity in ancient Edom, ca 1000 BC (King David's time)
show that nation was significantly larger than archaeology thought possible. This led
to the notion of "transparent archaeology."
"Evidence" comes through monuments and grand buildings - not through nomadic
or tent dwelling people There could have been 50,000 people living in the hills of
Judea it is speculated - without "evidence." Think Ghengis Khan.

The term "no evidence" is often not science but an abuse of science. No evidence
is just that - it could have happened, we just don't have the evidence.

I always believed the story of King David - it was hard not to. But growing up I had
to read that this king was just a myth as there was "no evidence." But now there's
evidence, but the damage is done.

Links to reliable sources are always a good idea when making claims.

 

[ecco]

I always believed the story of King David - it was hard not to. But growing up I had
to read that this king was just a myth as there was "no evidence." But now there's
evidence, but the damage is done.

Of course, there is evidence. Of course, he was real...

A statue of King David, created about 400 years ago by the sculptor Nicolas Cordier.

How else could someone have made a statue of him?


On the other hand...

Was King David Truly a Powerful King?
However, archaeological evidence for King David is limited, and there is an ongoing debate among archaeologists and other scholars about the size of David's kingdom and how many of the biblical stories are true.
When, exactly, he ruled is also uncertain.
The archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited, and much of it is controversial.
While a few inscriptions have been found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, none mention King David, and it's debatable whether King David ever controlled the site.
​

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course, there is evidence. Of course, he was real...

A statue of King David, created about 400 years ago by the sculptor Nicolas Cordier.

How else could someone have made a statue of him?


On the other hand...

Was King David Truly a Powerful King?
However, archaeological evidence for King David is limited, and there is an ongoing debate among archaeologists and other scholars about the size of David's kingdom and how many of the biblical stories are true.
When, exactly, he ruled is also uncertain.
The archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited, and much of it is controversial.
While a few inscriptions have been found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, none mention King David, and it's debatable whether King David ever controlled the site.
​

We now know that the almost non-existent kingdom of Edom was quite large,
as attested by extensive and huge copper mining activities.
This is known as "invisible archaeology" - dealing with people who did not leave
grand monuments or large earthen cities behind. It is suspected that as many
as 50,000 Jews lived in the Judaen hills, living like the Edomites, Moabites,
Amalekites and many other groups.
Satellites tell us that Egypt was much more populous than earlier believed.
This reappraisal is going on all over the ancient world. I am sure that DNA
will give us a very accurate picture of population sizes, as it has done with
the Neanderthals. And of course, DNA now gives us a direct genetic link
to Moses via the Levite tribe.

 

[PruePhillip]

Links to reliable sources are always a good idea when making claims.

Re Edom
Evidence of Solomon's mines: Archaeologists dates mines in south of Israel to days of King Solomon

"In Timna Valley, we unearthed a society with undoubtedly significant development, organization, and
power," says Ben-Yosef. "And yet because the people were living in tents, they would have been
transparent to us as archaeologists if they had been engaged in an industry other than mining and
smelting, which is very visible archaeologically."

 

[Subduction Zone]

We now know that the almost non-existent kingdom of Edom was quite large,
as attested by extensive and huge copper mining activities.
This is known as "invisible archaeology" - dealing with people who did not leave
grand monuments or large earthen cities behind. It is suspected that as many
as 50,000 Jews lived in the Judaen hills, living like the Edomites, Moabites,
Amalekites and many other groups.
Satellites tell us that Egypt was much more populous than earlier believed.
This reappraisal is going on all over the ancient world. I am sure that DNA
will give us a very accurate picture of population sizes, as it has done with
the Neanderthals. And of course, DNA now gives us a direct genetic link
to Moses via the Levite tribe.

You need a valid source to support that Moses claim. I am betting that some DNA evidence was misinterpreted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Re Edom
Evidence of Solomon's mines: Archaeologists dates mines in south of Israel to days of King Solomon

"In Timna Valley, we unearthed a society with undoubtedly significant development, organization, and
power," says Ben-Yosef. "And yet because the people were living in tents, they would have been
transparent to us as archaeologists if they had been engaged in an industry other than mining and
smelting, which is very visible archaeologically."

Now that is a bit better. It shows there was a civilization there earlier than people thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Got it! Total sum = zero. Neither of us exist.

Well if you're going to be juvenile about it, it's going to be kind of hard to have an adult conversation...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Restated from your "work" above: The Universe had no finite beginning. Got it.

And once again, if you're going to be juvenile about it, it's going to be hard to have an adult conversation on the topic.

So, do you understand and acknowledge the point being made concerning how the universe could be said to have always existed, considering that "always" means "for all of time"?

If not, I invite you to point me to a specific point in time where the universe did not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abiogenesis is a unproven theory

Every scientific theory is "unproven". That includes plate tectonics, relativity, germs, atoms, evolution,...
Theories are never considered "proven". The fact that you feel the need to put so much emphasis on it by bolding and underlining it, is just one more piece of evidence concerning how scientifically illiterate you really are. No person with even only mega basic knowledge of the scientific method would ever say such a thing and pretend it was an argument.

What you really mean is "unconfirmed hypothesis". Aka, a work in progress.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now imagine, New York has been lost for a thousand years. Destroyed by an enemy just
the Philistines who destroyed Shiloh. That thousand years would put you back to before the
Norman conquest of England. And someone "makes up" this story about a fabled city called
New York and a fabled nation called America - complete with details of kings, prophets,
cities, towns, wars etc..
And then we find these places and people really did exist, when the skeptics said they didn't.

It still wouldn't make spiderman real.