Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 4:47 AM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, celestialGyoud, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,203 Year: 15,239/19,786 Month: 1,962/3,058 Week: 336/404 Day: 3/51 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 139 of 657 (599100)
01-04-2011 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 10:26 PM


Re: Corroborating Crossing Evidence.
...that secularist marine scientists are reticent to research and falsify, concerned that they will confirm them to be valid.

Knock off the "secularist" nonsense!

It seems you think that anyone who fails to find the evidence you believe has to be there (somewhere) is one of those dreaded "secularists."

Sorry, but when it comes to archaeology and the things that drive archaeologists (and I presume the other sciences as well) you have no clue. You would do better to keep silent in such matters lest you be thought... well, you know.

If I, as an archaeologist of some 40 years experience, were to find evidence of a global flood that I could conclusively document, I would spread it as far and wide as I could and then demand that the Nobel Committee coin a special Nobel Prize for archaeology. I could retire to a life of luxury and acclaim on the lecture circuit. The name "Coyote" would surpass that of Darwin in history.

Problem is, in 40 years of research I have found the opposite; my own research proves that the global flood did not occur about 4,350 years as described. So that makes me a dreaded "secularist," eh?

Get a grip!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 10:26 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 10:51 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 11:19 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 142 of 657 (599104)
01-04-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Corroborating Crossing Evidence.
actually, i suspect the first thing you'd do, being a good scientist, is get some geologist friends to look at it and try to find problems. then you'd likely do some more research, write a study, and submit it for peer review.

Correct. That's part of what I meant by "conclusively document."

We routinely work with geomorphologists and a variety of other -ologists. When we don't know something, we know find experts who do.

Then we put that evidence out there in excruciating detail--the more far-reaching the claim, the more evidence you need--for peer review.

That's the problem with the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. The evidence since the early 1800s has all been against such a belief. The early geologists were creationists, seeking to prove the flood happened. The last of the early diehards gave up in something like the 1820s or thereabouts.

And that is why someone who could provide convincing evidence of such a global flood now would become so famous.

But I wouldn't want to bet the rent money that it will happen.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 10:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 11:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 146 of 657 (599110)
01-04-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 11:19 PM


Re: Corroborating Crossing Evidence.
Coyote writes:

Problem is, in 40 years of research I have found the opposite; my own research proves that the global flood did not occur about 4,350 years as described. So that makes me a dreaded "secularist," eh?

Eh, this thread is not about the flood. It's about something a whole lot more falsifiable. It's of significant archeological data relevant to ancient history as things like the pyramids, etc. It has to do with researching ancient Egypt and the whole region which has become so prevalent on the world scene.

Believe me, if it had nothing to do with supporting the Biblical record, Ballard and others would be on it like piranha fish on a chunk of steak.

Sorry, I can no longer believe much of anything you say.

You have consistently misrepresented or denied the evidence and misconstrued what other posters have said. Your religious bias has blinded you to all evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Example: you have selected the least important part of my post to rebut, while ignoring what I really said. That's pretty silly, but it reinforces what my post actually said.

Again: Get a grip!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 11:19 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 254 of 657 (602689)
01-30-2011 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Buzsaw
01-30-2011 9:20 PM


Re: Rate Of Population Increase
If the flood happened, the rest of the account in Genesis would have been true, including the alleged long life of humans being hundreds of years. Even by the time of the Exodus, Moses was 120 and died healthy, able to walk to the heights of the mountain.

Contrarily, if the flood never happened the rest of the account in Genesis could have been false.

I have presented you with several lines of evidence showing that the flood never happened, as have other members of this board.

QED.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2011 9:20 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2011 10:15 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 260 of 657 (602701)
01-30-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
01-30-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Rate Of Population Increase
Well, Coyote, this thread is about flood evidence relative to population and whether the flood hypothesis trumps the million man hypothesis.

Nice try.

Beginning an argument with a ridiculous hypothetical, such as "If pigs could fly" and then proceeding to build detail upon detail on that ridiculous hypothetical is a very flawed way of debating an issue. It fails from the very beginning.

Likewise your arguments beginning with "flood evidence" also fail because, as a number of us have pointed out to you, Noah's flood ca. 4,350 years ago never happened. The evidence on that point is conclusive.

Because the biblical flood never happened, it makes no sense to base population estimates on that mythical flood.

But that's OK: the population estimates presented here that are based on the mythical flood fail anyway.

Imo, even if you discount yours, you can chalk up one for the young flood man and zero for your old evolved man.

Nonsense. You're peddlin' your catechism here, not providing any evidence that can be supported by scientific studies.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2011 10:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 266 of 657 (602707)
01-30-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Buzsaw
01-30-2011 11:04 PM


Re: Time and Populations
By that count, imo, the evolutionist time line of the million yr man is not truth. Show me the evidence that it took hundreds of thousands of years for the scanty early population to double and more hundreds of thousands to double again, etc.

Find it yourself. You don't accept anything we post to you anyway.

Also, science is not seeking "truth," or "Truth," or "TRUTH," or even "TRVTH." We'll leave that to the "TRVE" believers. We are just out for the best explanation for the facts--and that explanation has to account for all relevant facts, be contradicted by no significant facts, and to make successful predictions. That explanation is called a "theory."

Surely, one can assume the flood calculation to be more accurate than the alternative, given the Biblical implications which I've cited.

No, one cannot assume that. You might, but you have shown yourself to be impervious to fact and logic when it contradicts your particular beliefs. It has been an amazing display of religious fervor that you have given us.

Likewise, you have given us no cause to take your opinion on anything as scientifically accurate.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2011 11:04 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2011 12:13 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 269 of 657 (602710)
01-31-2011 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Buzsaw
01-31-2011 12:13 AM


Re: Time and Populations
Coyote, how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.

Exodus?

I've absolutely no interest in the exodus. I am refuting the idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. I am refuting that idea from my own research, as many other archaeologists have also done.

I have posted this evidence numerous times, but you just ignore it as if I hadn't posted at all.

Let's review one refutation: the biblical scholars place the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. I have mtDNA evidence from 5300 years ago which matches more recent skeletal data as well as living individuals in the same area. There is no way that scenario could happen with a global flood. You can equivocate all you want, but your "what ifs" don't make the evidence go away, except in your own mind.

I have seen others refute the exodus myth on this thread, but you won't accept that evidence either.

Can you tell me why you refuse to accept the evidence of the natural world? How can you live in such a fantasy world? I really can't understand that at all.

On second thought, I don't want to know. Good night.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2011 12:13 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 345 of 657 (603330)
02-03-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Buzsaw
02-03-2011 7:51 PM


Re: The Scientific Method
The scientific method is being applied to falsify the Biblical record.

So? What's wrong with that. You want a special exemption or something?

The scientific method has already falsified the flood story. Even my own personal archaeological research has done that--it's so easy almost anyone can do it now!

Any religious belief that can't stand up to scrutiny isn't worth much to start with, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 7:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 9:04 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 350 of 657 (603337)
02-03-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Buzsaw
02-03-2011 9:04 PM


Re: The Scientific Method
The Exodus evidence corroborates the reliability of the Biblical record which alleges that Noah's flood happened.

That's the problem right there!

The exodus evidence so far is not convincing to anyone who is not already a true believer. On its own it is less than flimsy, while being contradicted by a lot of other evidence.

That is nothing with which to support the idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.

And the idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has been thoroughly falsified, starting just about 200 years ago.

You can't use one of these to bolster the case for the other. You need real evidence if you are going to get anywhere.

And from what I know of archaeology and how it works, I don't think the evidence is there. If it was we would all be able to find it in the peer-reviewed literature. You would be able to find it in reputable journals and provide us citations and links and we would be able to see the actual evidence as described and interpreted by professional archaeologists. So far that evidence is not there.

As an aside: you'd be amazed at what archaeologists can do with the tools provided to us by the various physical sciences. Metal can be analyzed and compared to known specimens. That might give approximate age and origin. Pollen and other floral remains can be analyzed and that can give some indication of climate and physiographic setting. Plant and animal proteins can be extracted from stones and analyzed! And that's just a start. If a real archaeologist was working on this exodus project, and had materials to analyze, you'd have data of some kind to work with. Just grainy pictures that might be any of several things is not legitimate evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 9:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 357 of 657 (603359)
02-04-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Buzsaw
02-03-2011 11:48 PM


Buzz?
Buzz, how about considering my Message 350?

You don't get to ignore posts that you don't like, and just pretend they aren't there.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 11:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 402 of 657 (604072)
02-09-2011 11:20 PM


Evidence
Has any of this evidence been examined by a real archaeologist?

Doctors and lawyers and other non-professionals doing serious archaeology went out of style about 1900. Amateurs now work largely under the supervision of trained professionals.

I have provided examples of what can be done with a chariot wheel, if one is indeed found. But showing someone a picture and claiming a particular shape is a chariot wheel of a certain age and provenience is just not evidence.

I've seen some pretty good pictures of bigfoot and UFOs, but no such photograph is going to substitute for real evidence. And no amateur is going to substitute for a real professional when such a significant claim is made.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 424 of 657 (604299)
02-10-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Buzsaw
02-10-2011 11:36 PM


May the truth prevail. Yea, verily!
Buzsaw writes:

May the truth prevail.

The best way for the "truth" to prevail is to present legitimate evidence supporting it.

Unfortunately you have a tendency to present to us anything that you see supporting your position, while ignoring vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. And when we point out the problems with your posts it is our fault for being atheists or some such and failing to fall all over ourselves accepting your "evidence."

Buz, you simply have to become more of a skeptic. When someone presents you with flimsy evidence, make them show their work even if it supports your beliefs. But you apparently want your beliefs supported so badly that you blindly accept any argument that supports them--no matter how flimsy their evidence or how duplicitous the source. Then you are in the position you find yourself in here so often, trying to support flimsy claims that you have accepted uncritically.

With this kind of a posting history you are not "enlightening" anyone here. You are only hurting your position with flimsy "evidence."

Don't you think you owe it to yourself to at least check into the sources you are citing? And to examine the "truth" they are peddling? It may be that they are less credible than you think.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2011 11:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 442 of 657 (607275)
03-02-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Purpledbear
03-02-2011 10:00 PM


When god turned that lady into salt what kind of salt was it? Just regular salt, sea salt or Epsom salts?

Taken with a grain of salt?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Purpledbear, posted 03-02-2011 10:00 PM Purpledbear has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019