The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pure myth. No witnesses - Only speculation.

Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present.

Your silly objection here means we should shut down any and all forensics departments in the world.
Because if there are no witnesses of an accident, murder, a fire, etc.... then it is impossible to find out what happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where did you get those amino acids

For real.... we've known since the 1950s that amino acids happily form in nature through chemistry.

We even find them in space rocks. They really aren't rare, nor are the processes that produce them rare.

You might want to read up a bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God lead them that way to show his great power. The Egyptians army chasing them wouldn't have drowned in shallow water.

No such thing ever happened.
The only place you find this, is in jewish mythology.

Send me the links supposedly proving it could not have happened.

That's not how it works. That's shifting the burden of proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

none of this matters if it turns out I am right and you are wrong and that is the fundamental point you cannot sidestep.

See the thing is, there are only two basic outcomes:

1. I am right and you are wrong...you lose and I win
2. I am wrong...then we both end up the same way...kaput!

So in reality, I have hedged my bets and cannot really lose. You on the other hand are chosing to stand fast to your ignorance despite the possibility of me being right.

See if one who is an evolutionist was to actually think seriously about this, then id suggest you follow the model of animals. Let me illustrate briefly...

We have horses (and i have used this experiment with wild brush turkey's as well)...

If horses are in view of a horse who appears to be getting food, they all come over to investigate in the hope that they too will receive some despite not having the slightest clue whether or not that will actually happen.

So if an evolutionist was to take the horse illustration to its conclusion, then id suggest that given i potentially am on to something that could eventually result in significant reward the smart choice would be to hedge your bets.

Given the large amount of historical evidence in support of the bible narrative (both internal and particularly external evidence), one should choose Christianity because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from being one and there are a lot of resources historically that support its narrative...if you bother to actually go and find them to check (which most in your postiion do not bother)

This is Pascal's Wager and it's not a good argument.

You can actually lose here. You lose if it turns out that the Muslim god is the real one. Or the Jewish God. Or the Ancient Norse Gods. Or any other gods that humans have created during our time on this planet. You're just assuming if there is a god, it's the one you've chosen, when there are actually endless possibilities to choose from. Maybe it's turtles all the way down.

Also, evolution and unbelief in god are not the same things. There are plenty of religious people who accept evolution as the fact of life it is.

There are not large amounts of historical evidence that support the Bible narrative.

 

[Valjean]

Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present.

Your silly objection here means we should shut down any and all forensics departments in the world.
Because if there are no witnesses of an accident, murder, a fire, etc.... then it is impossible to find out what happened.

Yet the religious would ignore objective forensics and accept second hand hearsay with no corroborating evidence.

 

[Valjean]

No such thing ever happened.
The only place you find this, is in jewish mythology.


That's not how it works. That's shifting the burden of proof.

Nevertheless. You'd expect some mention of a large population of Hebrews amongst the Egyptians, both written and illustrated. You'd expect some Hebrew DNA somewhere.
You'd think the exodus of most of Egypt's population would be noted -- both by the Egyptians and surrounding nations. You'd expect it to alter Egyptian life and subsequent history considerably.
You'd think millions of people living in a desert for forty years would leave some evidence of their residence.
I'd be surprised if ~2.5 million people + livestock could survive a week in such an environment.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There are fossils in Cambrian rocks that provide evidence of changes in life, with the development of new forms, during the Cambrian period. There are microfossils in Archaean rocks that have been dated to about 3500 million years. These are facts, not myth or speculation.

Here is the problem. No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over where things came from. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive. It all had to start somewhere.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

On what objective evidence do you base this claim about YHWH? How do you explain the evidence that this didn't happen?

The evidence that it didn't happen is greater than the evidence that it did. I could even claim that there is no evidence that it happened, just a story in a book -- which cannot be considered real evidence.

What are you talking about? I believe it did happen. I was baffled that a Jew was believing it was just a myth.

 

[Pogo]

What are you talking about? I believe it did happen. I was baffled that a Jew was believing it was just a myth.

Tel Aviv University (They're Jewish Historians) says it is a myth. believe what you want, it doesn't make it true.

Exodus: History and myth, then and now​

Tel Aviv University researchers shed light on the origin and symbolic meaning of the story of Passover​

This is the story many of us know from childhood, but is there any historical truth to it? Is it possible that a group of people wandered the desert for 40 years, and were they the forefathers of the Jewish faith? We talked to Prof. Israel Finkelstein, a senior researcher at the Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and one of the most prominent scholars in the field of biblical archeology today.

"The question of historical accuracy in the story of Exodus has occupied scholars since the beginning of modern research," says Prof. Finkelstein. "Most have searched for the historical and archaeological evidence in the Late Bronze Age, the 13th century BCE, partly because the story mentions the city of Ramses, and because at the end of that century an Egyptian document referred to a group called ’Israel‘ in Canaan. However, there is no archaeological evidence of the story itself, in either Egypt or Sinai, and what has been perceived as historical evidence from Egyptian sources can be interpreted differently. Moreover, the Biblical story does not demonstrate awareness of the political situation in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age – a powerful Egyptian administration that could have handled an invasion of groups from the desert. Additionally, many of the details in the Biblical story fit better with a later period in the history of Egypt, around the 7-6th centuries BCE – roughly the time when the Biblical story as we know it today was put into writing.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Tel Aviv University (They're Jewish Historians) says it is a myth. believe what you want, it doesn't make it true.

And just because you (and some unbelieving historians) believe it not to be true, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not trying to force anyone to believe anything. We all have free will.

 

[Pogo]

Here is the problem. No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over where things came from. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive. It all had to start somewhere.

Here is the problem, people who argue that we don't know everything therefore my ancient book is more correct than what we do know are committing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Argument from ignorance
Description
Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

And just because you (and some unbelieving historians) believe it not to be true, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Read the article and try not to make every post an
Argument from ignorance
Description
Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. Wikipedia

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Here is the problem, people who argue that we don't know everything therefore my ancient book is more correct than what we do know are committing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

So that same thing should apply when someone tries to claim there is no God. Or that God didn't create things. Asserting that there is no God because it has not yet been proven to be true. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wow, so when YHWH said he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of slavery, it was just a myth how he did it. Deuteronomy 5:6 I didn't realize that was how the Jews feel about it.

It all depends which Jew you ask. We are far from monolithic. There are Jews who believe every word of Exodus quite literally, and there are Jews who think it is entirely myth. My intuition is that something certainly happened, but what it literally was cannot be determined because the only memory of it was passed down orally for so many generations that the account we now have is not reliable.

That's not a problem for me. The story of the Exodus tells me who I am as a Jew, and what my relationship is to God. I do not need for it to be a historical account for that to work.

Here is a video I recently watched on this subject, made by a Jewish historian:

And here is a fairly decent discussion of whether the Exodus happend, by "the Casual Historian"

 

[Valjean]

Here is the problem. No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over where things came from. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive. It all had to start somewhere.

But why attribute it to magic, and why deny what we do know -- how life changed once it got here?
Science doesn't "skip over" it. Abiogenesis is an active field of investigation.

So: If science doesn't yet have a comprehensive understanding of a process... Goddidit! -- by magic!

Think about it. Is that a reasonable conclusion? It doesn't explain the process, it just attributes it to an unevidenced agent. Attributing it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pixies would be just as reasonable, and would have exactly the same truth-value.

Not that long ago science couldn't explain storms, tides, earthquakes, volcanoes, reproduction, or vision. Was that evidence for a magical god?

Science doesn't yet have the complete picture of the advent of life on Earth. It does have a lot more more than the theists seem aware of, and our understanding increases all the time.

 

[Pogo]

So that same thing should apply when someone tries to claim there is no God. Or that God didn't create things. Asserting that there is no God because it has not yet been proven to be true. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

That is why I don't claim there is no god, that's from the bible. I claim that there is no evidence for any god and the
Christian god is so internally inconsistent that it is a logical impossibility.;

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It all depends which Jew you ask. We are far from monolithic. There are Jews who believe every word of Exodus quite literally, and there are Jews who think it is entirely myth. My intuition is that something certainly happened, but what it literally was cannot be determined because the only memory of it was passed down orally for so many generations that the account we now have is not reliable.

That's not a problem for me. The story of the Exodus tells me who I am as a Jew, and what my relationship is to God. I do not need for it to be a historical account for that to work.

Here is a video I recently watched on this subject, made by a Jewish historian:

And here is a fairly decent discussion of whether the Exodus happend, by "the Casual Historian"

Maybe all those miracles performed were just a story. Maybe he didn't part the waters of the Jordan either. Maybe Moses didn't strike the rock and water come out. If it's only a story, maybe it's only a myth that you were the people of God? After all if you can't trust what was written, how do you know that part is accurate either. Maybe it was just wishful thinking. ( I agree with those that believe it did happen.)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is why I don't claim there is no god, that's from the bible. I claim that there is no evidence for any god and the
Christian god is so internally inconsistent that it is a logical impossibility.;

And that Pogo is an argument from the definition of ignorance fallacy that you sent.

 

[Valjean]

So that same thing should apply when someone tries to claim there is no God. Or that God didn't create things. Asserting that there is no God because it has not yet been proven to be true. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Absolutely not! That simply doesn't follow.
Please learn how to reason.

Atheists are making no claim. We have no burden of proof.
No god, Leprechauns, Easter bunnies or unicorns is the logical, epistemic default. Deferred belief waits only for the believers to meet their burden.

 

[Valjean]

So that same thing should apply when someone tries to claim there is no God. Or that God didn't create things. Asserting that there is no God because it has not yet been proven to be true. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

But basic atheism makes no such claim. It just withholds belief pending evidence, just as it does with leprechauns.

Yes, some atheists do make a positive claim, and thereby assume a burden of proof. How well they defend their claim varies with the individual. Most can defend it better than theists can defend their God claim.