Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that is possible? Did you go and see what dating methods were used?

The scientific article said that the first method of dating was that of the sediment, which was clearly thousands of years old. Which is reminiscent of fossils with soil leaching into the bones, turning the bones into rocks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay. So what?

So what??? ??? at this point if you don't understand the "so what" in reference to accurate information, again -- have a good one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you only made allegations that do not make sense. Because, as it has been said by scholars, gigantic flood accounts were spoken of. Now why Moses recorded the account about Noah is explainable because that's what God wanted him to write. Since you don't believe in God or the Bible or His holy spirit as His communication in written word, there is not going to be a meeting of the minds right now. In the meantime, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a rather interesting explanation of the event. Noah | biblical figure | Britannica This does not say, of course, that it happened, but the idea is that there was at least one mention of a flood in the Gilgamesh account., although different from the biblical account. Therefore, I conclude there was a flood of enormous proportions. And while it seems astounding, I will not take a stand against it.

Again..............................


It matters not what people wrote down. It matters not how many wrote it down. It matters not how many believe what was written down.

If the predicted evidence of reality doesn't validate what was written down, then what was written down was incorrect. Period. Regardless of how many people believe(d) it.

A bazillion people can claim that the colosseum was destroyed and turned into a gigantic crater by a meteor strike. But the fact that it is still standing means those bazillion people are simply wrong. Period. End of story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what??? ??? at this point if you don't understand the "so what" in reference to accurate information, again -- have a good one.

I think it's funny how you will put immense importance on objective evidence when you think it suits your religious agenda, and yet completely ignore and reject any and all evidence when it doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you only made allegations that do not make sense. Because, as it has been said by scholars, gigantic flood accounts were spoken of. Now why Moses recorded the account about Noah is explainable because that's what God wanted him to write. Since you don't believe in God or the Bible or His holy spirit as His communication in written word, there is not going to be a meeting of the minds right now. In the meantime, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a rather interesting explanation of the event. Noah | biblical figure | Britannica This does not say, of course, that it happened, but the idea is that there was at least one mention of a flood in the Gilgamesh account., although different from the biblical account. Therefore, I conclude there was a flood of enormous proportions. And while it seems astounding, I will not take a stand against it.

No, I made valid claims. If you did not understand them you should have asked questions. What I posted hardly needs any links. Just as the fact that archaeologists have shown that Moses is fictional. Or legendary at best.


And yes, the Hebrews copied their myth from the epic of Gilgamesh, and that myth was copied from an older one. There was a large flood that probably inspired the myth.. But it was nothing like the biblical myth.

There may have been a man in a boat with some animals in it and they could have been in the flood for a while. But nothing even close to the mythological one ever happened.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since it's dead, it doesn't feel anything. But the mystery of possible mistaken dates in museums lingers on. The justice is that the researchers told the truth about possibilities of mistaken dates given by museums.

We know from the research by scientists that the initial dating of the horse remains was based on the age of the substrate it was found in and this was corrected using multiple established methodologies.

It is always possible that any conclusion is wrong. This is not a recent discovery by you. It is possibility that scientists are aware of and built into science to test. It is what was done by scientists in the case of the Nehi horse. Otherwise, you wouldn't even have the example. But you need evidence to go from possibility to fact. Do you have evidence that other remains are incorrectly dated? The way you write it sounds as if you do, yet this is the only example you can find and one that was corrected rather quickly to update the initial conclusion.

You keep beating it trying to make it the test case for your belief that all dating is wrong, because it creates conflict with your faith groups demands. It doesn't create conflict with a belief in God. God created everything in my view and gave us freewill, intelligence and senses to observe and understand that creation. From my position, you are telling others to reject those gifts, ignore God and do you what you and your faith group say based on no other reason that personal opinion. The atheist may not believe, but at least they are using valid means and evidence to draw the same conclusions that any in faith could do.

You can beat this all you wish, but it isn't the "Gotcha" moment I think you believe you found. In fact, continued beating is digging a hole for your ideas that is deeper than the one that horse was found in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The article was concise in discussing only the Lehi horse and mistaken idea of date at first. It went on to talk about how museums may have mistaken dates. (No kidding...)

It is evidence for a possibility that already existed and something to keep in mind and test when reviewing other fossil evidence and historical remains so that such mistakes are not repeated. It is not evidence that dating is wrong and you can ignore and deny it without cause. I am confident that ultimate position is where you want to take this example.

Unfortunately, you don't appear to have thought this through very far, and the example you picked does the opposite of what you appear to want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific article said that the first method of dating was that of the sediment, which was clearly thousands of years old. Which is reminiscent of fossils with soil leaching into the bones, turning the bones into rocks.

That was not a "scientific article". That was a popular science article. Not the same thing at all.

 

[gnostic]

Now, do you know where the Hebrews got their myth from?

Do you? Furthermore it must have been a pretty big flood for it to be in so many accounts/myths.

The Hebrews got their flood myth from the Neo-Babylonians (6th century BCE, during their exile in Babylon) or even earlier by the Neo-Assyrians (7th century BCE).

The Babylonian myths predated the Neo-Babylonian (or the Chaldean) dynasty, existing in the previous Babylonian dynasties, in the previous millennium(eg Amorites dynasty (1st dynasty of Babylon) with the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh), and the Kassite dynasty (2nd dynasty of Babylon), with Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Assyrians and Babylonians weren't just invaders, they also do trade, and at times, cultural exchange.

If they weren't executed after being conquered, royal and noble people would be hostages, were often educated in the culture and etiquette of their hosts, as the hosts would also learned from the hostages.

And if the priests of Judah were also hostages at Babylon, then they would have learned of their host's religion.

There are no evidence that Judah and Israel have any scriptural literature PRIOR TO 7th century BCE: Jewish & Christian traditions that books attributed to Moses as author, such as Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, & Genesis, don’t exist in the late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE).

There are no original Hebrew sources (eg Genesis, Exodus, etc) in the second half of 15th century BCE, the supposed time of plagues of Egypt and mass exodus out of Rameses (Egyptian Pi-Ramesses, “House of Ramesses”) and the start of Joshua’s & Israelite conquest in 1407 BCE. There are no mention of these events or people (eg Moses, Joshua, etc) in any Egyptian or Canaanite sources in this century.

In fact Pi-Ramesses (biblical Rameses) don’t exist until the 13th century, in which Seti I named the city which he started building after his father, Ramesses I, who was the founder of the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1189 BCE).

It is highly doubtful that Israelites have their own Flood story prior to 6th century Exile, because as I said earlier, Genesis didn't exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE).

As I said earlier, there are earlier texts and myths, older Babylonian sources to the myths of Atrahasis (eg Epic of Atrahasis, c 17th century BCE) and of Utnapishtim (eg Epic of Gilgamesh, c 18th century BCE).

The myths of Utnapishtim & Atrahasis were the same character, but just under different names, but they were based on older myths, in which the Flood hero was named in Sumerian as Ziusudra.

Ziusudra appeared in number of Sumerian clay tablets in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE, hence Early Bronze Age (EBA is dated from c 3100 - c 1950 BCE):

• Fragments of clay tablets found in Eridu, in which it narrated the myth of creation and flood, hence translators and scholars often referred the tablets as Eridu Genesis. But only portions survived, eg
  • humans were created by An, Enlil, Enki & Ninhursag;
  • people drowned in flood water;
  • and post-Flood when the smell of sacrifices drew the gods to Ziusudra
• Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames, where Ziusudra & the Flood are alluded to, but not narrated.
• The Instructions of Shuruppak (tablet dated to around 2600 BCE), a wisdom monologue from Shuruppak to his son Ziusudra.
• There are several Sumerian king lists, but only one, that mentioned Ziusudra and the flood, in the recension version, WB-62

The points of this history lessons in regarding to Ziusudra, Atrahasis & Utnapishtim, is the connection between Ziusudra and the Sumerian city Shuruppak, because there are real evidence that devastating flood hit Shuruppak around 2900 BCE.

This is where the legend of Sumerian and Babylonian myths developed from, based on a real river flood. As Genesis flood was based on Babylonian Utnapishtim, the Babylonians based their story on Sumerian Ziusudra...but myth of Ziusudra is based on real river flood at Shuruppak, not on the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis.

People who think the Genesis flood is based on the black sea deluge hypothesis is relying on flimsy false equivalence & confirmation bias.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Hebrews got their flood myth from the Neo-Babylonians (6th century BCE, during their exile in Babylon) or even earlier by the Neo-Assyrians (7th century BCE).

The Babylonian myths predated the Neo-Babylonian (or the Chaldean) dynasty, existing in the previous Babylonian dynasties, in the previous millennium(eg Amorites dynasty (1st dynasty of Babylon) with the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh), and the Kassite dynasty (2nd dynasty of Babylon), with Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Assyrians and Babylonians weren't just invaders, they also do trade, and at times, cultural exchange.

If they weren't executed after being conquered, royal and noble people would be hostages, were often educated in the culture and etiquette of their hosts, as the hosts would also learned from the hostages.

And if the priests of Judah were also hostages at Babylon, then they would have learned of their host's religion.

There are no evidence that Judah and Israel have any scriptural literature PRIOR TO 7th century BCE: Jewish & Christian traditions that books attributed to Moses as author, such as Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, & Genesis, don’t exist in the late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE).

There are no original Hebrew sources (eg Genesis, Exodus, etc) in the second half of 15th century BCE, the supposed time of plagues of Egypt and mass exodus out of Rameses (Egyptian Pi-Ramesses, “House of Ramesses”) and the start of Joshua’s & Israelite conquest in 1407 BCE. There are no mention of these events or people (eg Moses, Joshua, etc) in any Egyptian or Canaanite sources in this century.

In fact Pi-Ramesses (biblical Rameses) don’t exist until the 13th century, in which Seti I named the city which he started building after his father, Ramesses I, who was the founder of the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1189 BCE).

It is highly doubtful that Israelites have their own Flood story prior to 6th century Exile, because as I said earlier, Genesis didn't exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE).

As I said earlier, there are earlier texts and myths, older Babylonian sources to the myths of Atrahasis (eg Epic of Atrahasis, c 17th century BCE) and of Utnapishtim (eg Epic of Gilgamesh, c 18th century BCE).

The myths of Utnapishtim & Atrahasis were the same character, but just under different names, but they were based on older myths, in which the Flood hero was named in Sumerian as Ziusudra.

Ziusudra appeared in number of Sumerian clay tablets in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE, hence Early Bronze Age (EBA is dated from c 3100 - c 1950 BCE):

• Fragments of clay tablets found in Eridu, in which it narrated the myth of creation and flood, hence translators and scholars often referred the tablets as Eridu Genesis. But only portions survived, eg
  • humans were created by An, Enlil, Enki & Ninhursag;
  • people drowned in flood water;
  • and post-Flood when the smell of sacrifices drew the gods to Ziusudra
• Sumerian poem of the Death of Bilgames, where Ziusudra & the Flood are alluded to, but not narrated.
• The Instructions of Shuruppak (tablet dated to around 2600 BCE), a wisdom monologue from Shuruppak to his son Ziusudra.
• There are several Sumerian king lists, but only one, that mentioned Ziusudra and the flood, in the recension version, WB-62

The points of this history lessons in regarding to Ziusudra, Atrahasis & Utnapishtim, is the connection between Ziusudra and the Sumerian city Shuruppak, because there are real evidence that devastating flood hit Shuruppak around 2900 BCE.

This is where the legend of Sumerian and Babylonian myths developed from, based on a real river flood. As Genesis flood was based on Babylonian Utnapishtim, the Babylonians based their story on Sumerian Ziusudra...but myth of Ziusudra is based on real river flood at Shuruppak, not on the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis.

People who think the Genesis flood is based on the black sea deluge hypothesis is relying on flimsy false equivalence & confirmation bias.

The point is not the determination of the black sea deluge, but rather.that there was more than one account of a catastrophic flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is not the determination of the black sea deluge, but rather.that there was more than one account of a catastrophic flood.

And that is because at different times, at different places there were catastrophic local floods. There were a series of them in my state at the end of the last continental glaciation. Odds are that they led to some of the Native American flood myths. A global flood would have left massive global evidence all of the same age. We do not see that. Instead when we test various claims of the Noah's Ark myth they all fail.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that is because at different times, at different places there were catastrophic local floods. There were a series of them in my state at the end of the last continental glaciation. Odds are that they led to some of the Native American flood myths. A global flood would have left massive global evidence all of the same age. We do not see that. Instead when we test various claims of the Noah's Ark myth they all fail.

Yes, I know there are tsunamis and other cataclysmic events. This does not mean that the account of Noah was not inspired. One might speculate on the physical possibility, but I have not gone into the details of that although others have. It sounds possible to me. Including the waste which some people bring up. I can't say, but it also does say that Noah kept a log book which is not available for us to read now.
Especially as a person who embraces the theory of evolution as to how we got here, and one who says there is no God, you would take no note of the significance of the record. I believe it is true. As far as things hard to believe, it was apparently hard for physicists to believe what Einstein was saying about the theory of relativity. What does this mean? It means that I believe that the telling of the account about Noah and the worldwide flood is of divine making. Since you don't believe in God, you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know there are tsunamis and other cataclysmic events. This does not mean that the account of Noah was not inspired. One might speculate on the physical possibility, but I have not gone into the details of that although others have. It sounds possible to me. Including the waste which some people bring up. I can't say, but it also does say that Noah kept a log book which is not available for us to read now.
Especially as a person who embraces the theory of evolution as to how we got here, and one who says there is no God, you would take no note of the significance of the record. I believe it is true. As far as things hard to believe, it was apparently hard for physicists to believe what Einstein was saying about the theory of relativity. What does this mean? It means that I believe that the telling of the account about Noah and the worldwide flood is of divine making. Since you don't believe in God, you do not.

You are not listening. We can test the Noah's Ark myth by the claims it makes. You were the one that improperly assumed that various local floods was evidence for that myth.

And in what post did I say that there is no god? You appear to be more confused than usual tonight.

And no, Einstein properly supported his work so it was accepted rather quickly.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not listening. We can test the Noah's Ark myth by the claims it makes. You were the one that improperly assumed that various local floods was evidence for that myth.

And in what post did I say that there is no god? You appear to be more confused than usual tonight.

And no, Einstein properly supported his work so it was accepted rather quickly.

Oh sorry. I thought because you are an atheist if I remember correctly that means you do not believe in the existence of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not listening. We can test the Noah's Ark myth by the claims it makes. You were the one that improperly assumed that various local floods was evidence for that myth.

And in what post did I say that there is no god? You appear to be more confused than usual tonight.

And no, Einstein properly supported his work so it was accepted rather quickly.

So you think there may be a God or gods? I didn't read all of your posts lack of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh sorry. I thought because you are an atheist if I remember correctly that means you do not believe in the existence of God.

Yes, a theists do not believe in a god. But you made a mistake. Do you think that you can spot it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think there may be a God or gods? I didn't read all of your posts lack of time.

You do not need to read all of mine. You merely need to know what atheism is.

I will save you from trying to figure out your error. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods. That is not the same as believing that a god does not exist. Very often when someone says "I believe . . . ." that puts an investment into an idea on their part. They quite often cannot think rationally if that belief is threatened. You are often a good example of that. Atheists have a lack of beliefs in gods because no god claim has met anything even close to its burden of proof.

Atheists would change their mind if proper evidence was provided. Many believers unfortunately tell us that they are irrational. In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham most people recognized when Ken Ham lost the debate. The debate was about evolution and creationism and which one was more reasonable. They were each asked what it would take to change their minds. Bill Nye answered "Evidence". If given reasonable evidence he would change his mind. Ken Ham totally lost it when he said "Nothing". Now that may be appreciated by believers that only have faith, which as you know is not a pathway to the truth. But the debate was not about who believes harder. It was which concept was reasonable. And the showed that he could not reason rationally when it came to his faith.

It is far better to say "the evidence does not support that belief, in fact it runs counter to it so I will reject that belief for now" than to say "I do not believe . . . " Show me proper evidence for a god and I will change my mind. I can tell you how if you rely on the Bible that that book refutes your version of God. It does not refute all versions of God. The problem is that one has to be rational when reading it. One has to have consistent rules on what is moral and what is not. Believers tend not to be rational.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not need to read all of mine. You merely need to know what atheism is.

I will save you from trying to figure out your error. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods. That is not the same as believing that a god does not exist. Very often when someone says "I believe . . . ." that puts an investment into an idea on their part. They quite often cannot think rationally if that belief is threatened. You are often a good example of that. Atheists have a lack of beliefs in gods because no god claim has met anything even close to its burden of proof.

Atheists would change their mind if proper evidence was provided. Many believers unfortunately tell us that they are irrational. In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham most people recognized when Ken Ham lost the debate. The debate was about evolution and creationism and which one was more reasonable. They were each asked what it would take to change their minds. Bill Nye answered "Evidence". If given reasonable evidence he would change his mind. Ken Ham totally lost it when he said "Nothing". Now that may be appreciated by believers that only have faith, which as you know is not a pathway to the truth. But the debate was not about who believes harder. It was which concept was reasonable. And the showed that he could not reason rationally when it came to his faith.

It is far better to say "the evidence does not support that belief, in fact it runs counter to it so I will reject that belief for now" than to say "I do not believe . . . " Show me proper evidence for a god and I will change my mind. I can tell you how if you rely on the Bible that that book refutes your version of God. It does not refute all versions of God. The problem is that one has to be rational when reading it. One has to have consistent rules on what is moral and what is not. Believers tend not to be rational.

Sometimes I am a slow learner. So an atheist does not believe in a God or gods, even if they exist, do I have that right now?

 

[Audie]

I think it's funny how you will put immense importance on objective evidence when you think it suits your religious agenda, and yet completely ignore and reject any and all evidence when it doesn't.

It’s called intellectual dishonesty

 

[Audie]

Yes, I know there are tsunamis and other cataclysmic events. This does not mean that the account of Noah was not inspired. One might speculate on the physical possibility, but I have not gone into the details of that although others have. It sounds possible to me. Including the waste which some people bring up. I can't say, but it also does say that Noah kept a log book which is not available for us to read now.
Especially as a person who embraces the theory of evolution as to how we got here, and one who says there is no God, you would take no note of the significance of the record. I believe it is true. As far as things hard to believe, it was apparently hard for physicists to believe what Einstein was saying about the theory of relativity. What does this mean? It means that I believe that the telling of the account about Noah and the worldwide flood is of divine making. Since you don't believe in God, you do not.

“ divine” or not, it didnt happen