Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

GR Morton's Biblical Mediterranean Fllod Model

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
    But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
    On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      No assumption of fact, just conclusions based on the evidence. It is you who are making assumptions with no evidence.



      If you feel it is 'not exceptionally advance,' Where is the evidence of any such technology before ~5600 BCE? Any vessels found before this date are dugout canoes made by the burnout technique.

      The evidence remains that ship building is a technology that did not exist actually until the first Egyptian ship ~2500 BCE and the first Sea going vessel from Dover, England in ~about 1500 BCE.

      Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?

      You're the one that keeps saying 'X couldn't happen because the tech didn't exist' when it simply isn't true - any technique that will shape stone will also work on wood. The argument that they couldn't shape wood is stupid - you cannot disprove a contention based on a falsehood.

      It's equally stupid to assume that because X could be done that it was done. Basically, you're being ridiculous.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        You're the one that keeps saying 'X couldn't happen because the tech didn't exist' when it simply isn't true - any technique that will shape stone will also work on wood. The argument that they couldn't shape wood is stupid - you cannot disprove a contention based on a falsehood.

        It's equally stupid to assume that because X could be done that it was done. Basically, you're being ridiculous.
        I am not saying it is impossible, or couldn't possibly happen. I am saying there is absolutely no, zip, nada, negatory, nil evidence that it ever happened, nor capable of happening.

        No, on the scale of the Arc, there is no evidence that any technique will work. Research is quite extensive on the history and what techniques are capable of achieving such a task.

        The bottom line is I go by the evidence, and not an emotional attachment to ancient literature to justify what I believe ignoring the evidence.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-08-2014, 01:37 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I am not saying it is impossible, or couldn't possibly happen. I am saying there is absolutely no, zip, nada, negatory, nil evidence that it ever happened, nor capable of happening.

          No, on the scale of the Arc, there is no evidence that any technique will work. Research is quite extensive on the history and what techniques are capable of achieving such a task.

          The bottom line is I go by the evidence, and not an emotional attachment to ancient literature to justify what I believe ignoring the evidence.
          There is evidence - you're deliberately ignoring the evidence. Whether or not physical evidence exists, documentary evidence does. Evaluating that evidence along with any other is called correct evidentiary procedure - not mere clinging to a type of evidence to support an emotional attachment to a certain theory.

          And you did say they could not have shaped wood timbers - at least stay consistent in your assertions.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
            But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
            On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)
            What do you base your proposed date or range of dates on? Actually, though totally flawed by the evidence the literal interpretation of the time the Biblical Noah is closer to the time when the technology existed to build an Arc.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?
              Begging your pardon, may I not venture to ask, did you not agree that no evidence does not necessarily mean nonexistence or nonoccurrence?
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                There is evidence - you're deliberately ignoring the evidence. Whether or not physical evidence exists, documentary evidence does. Evaluating that evidence along with any other is called correct evidentiary procedure - not mere clinging to a type of evidence to support an emotional attachment to a certain theory.
                I consider evidence to be as defined in standard English dictionaries. No such evidence exists. Actually the Biblical literature used to justify the Arc does not date any further back then about ~600 to ~800 BCE (maybe?), and there is no firm evidence for versions of the Books of the Pentateuch existing even at this time. The pre-Babylonian and Babylonian text that the much of the Pentateuch. likely originated does not date any further back then ~2000 to ~3000 BCE. There is absolutely no other evidence other then this where Bronze/Iron Age technology was known as described in the OT text in building anything.

                If you can provide other evidence I am willing to listen.

                And you did say they could not have shaped wood timbers - at least stay consistent in your assertions.
                I said there is no evidence they had the technology, nor any other evidence of timber shaping prior to about ~5600 BCE.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-08-2014, 02:21 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  Begging your pardon, may I not venture to ask, did you not agree that no evidence does not necessarily mean nonexistence or nonoccurrence?
                  Yes, but I base my conclusions on the evidence not on conjecture and maybes of what might have happened without any evidence. Vague stretches of possibilities based on ancient literature does not translate into evidence.

                  Again

                  Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Shuny, maybe you are a logic positivist or something like that. If so, you should know that this philosophy is untenable. With your permission I shall show why I think so.
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      Shuny, maybe you are a logic positivist or something like that. If so, you should know that this philosophy is untenable. With your permission I shall show why I think so.
                      Your over stating the supposed 'logical positivism' in my argument, and evading the problems with considering the Genesis flood and Noah's Arc in anyway historical. I do give priority to Methodological Naturalism as far as the nature of our physical world, and I give priority in standard academic historical methods to understand our history and the available evidence. Ancient literature alone is not reliable evidence. It qualifies as the human view of the world the authors lived in set in history. these historical narratives may be used to understand history, but they are not considered accurate history in and of themselves.

                      Rejecting the witness of ancient narratives, unless corroborated by outside evidence, does not make me a logical positivist.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-08-2014, 08:58 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Oakham's razor. So, you rule out the account in the Bible as easy as that
                        According to the linguistic conventions that I follow, to rule out a hypothesis is to demonstrate its impossibility. Occam's razor never rules anything out in that sense. The only result of applying Occam is a statement of preference.

                        Perhaps you think biblical hypotheses should be treated as exceptions to Occam's razor. Please feel free to explain why.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          Oakham's razor. So, you rule out the account in the Bible as easy as that [snaps fingers].
                          I agree with Doug, your response misuses Ockham's Razor. The preference inferred by Ockham's razor would be between two hypothesis of equivalent value. In this case the preferred would the simplist hypothesis with the least assumptions.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-09-2014, 06:19 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            OK, so it isn't disproven. So, you conclude that the Bible is 100% myth?


                            Not quite correct, but there were most likely many authors spread out over centuries. Anyway, so, did you conclude from that evidence that the Bible is 100% myth?
                            That's what I said. (well, except for the "spread out over centuries" bit).
                            I conclude from available evidence that the Bible is substantially correct, and contains scripture. I further conclude from available evidence - self evident and obvious references comprising that evidence - that not everything in the Bible is factual or scriptural.


                            That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference, with which many Bible scholars disagree. How do we know you were not strongly biased to read evidence as the Bible being 100% myth?
                            Sad innit? Nothing I have said could possibly have led to the conclusion that I consider the Bible to be 100% myth. You have misnamed yourself.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              OK, so it isn't disproven. So, you conclude that the Bible is 100% myth?


                              Not quite correct, but there were most likely many authors spread out over centuries. Anyway, so, did you conclude from that evidence that the Bible is 100% myth?


                              That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference, with which many Bible scholars disagree. How do we know you were not strongly biased to read evidence as the Bible being 100% myth?
                              Careful with using statements like ". . . many Bible scholars disagree." Without some coherent argument as to which scholars 'disagree' and why, this is a logical fallacy appealing to popularity.

                              The accusation or assumption that someone is arguing 100% one way or another without specific reference in his argument is either another fallacy, or the sarcasm needle just pegged. No any ancient literature from any culture is neither true nor false 100% of the time. It is written, edited or compiled by one or more authors of a very human view of the world at the time they lived. The evidence indicates that ancient literature of the Pentateuch evolved over time from earlier sources.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-09-2014, 06:31 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                What do you base your proposed date or range of dates on? Actually, though totally flawed by the evidence the literal interpretation of the time the Biblical Noah is closer to the time when the technology existed to build an Arc.
                                Simple enough - the first known h sap sap remains are in the vicinity of the Omo River in Africa. If those people had been - shall we say - castaways from an offshore original home of h sap sap which was obliterated in a Krakatoa like event, there would be no way to establish what the state of technology was at that time, or even a prior existence of h sap sap. It is also fairly certain that below a certain population, technology cannot be maintained: the constraints of day to day living make it impossible even in a relatively benign environment.
                                Assuming that there was some exploration by boat originating on such an island, evidence of hunting, or other evidence, earlier than 200 000 years past might exist. What an archaeologist might attribute that evidence to is anyone's guess. Given that no evidence for H Sap Sap existing prior to 200 000 years past, it would likely be attributed to some other member of genus homo, perhaps even the one for which only a genetic trace exists, a recent discovery for which no archaeological evidence is available.
                                The Biblical count of generations is definitely wrong. Nothing in the derived time period makes a Noah event possible. This thread and the associated checks taken show that if Noah was not H Sap Sap, the event would of necessity have occurred even further into the past.
                                If "Noah's Island" existed, the story could be regarded as simply being assigned an incorrect chronology. However, in the absence of acceptable evidence to that effect arising: the story of Noah can't be reasonably asserted to be true - it must be accepted as mythological.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X