My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

 

[DaisyDay]

It's a riddle about an egg. There may well have been an egg that fell off a wall - more than one, in fact. I don't know that anyone has argued that all the king's horses and all the king's men could put a smashed egg back together again but I sincerely doubt that they tried.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a riddle about an egg.

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

 

[dqhall]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them claim there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

According to legend, Humpty Dumpty was a canon mounted on the wall of a fortress that toppled over. I suppose the steel was not forged right and it cracked like the liberty bell. Even if the legend is true, it is of little importance to most people.

As for a global flood occurring over the course of 40 days and 40 nights within the past 10,000 years, it is only a legend. I do not know of any one getting a recent PhD in geology for trying to defend thesis of global flooding within the past 10,000 years. Limestone shell fossils on tall mountains are the result of uplift due to tectonic movements rather than global flooding. The Himalayas are rising at the rate of about an inch per year as the Indian continental plate collides with the Asian continental plate.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to legend,

Legends are a dime a dozen, aren't they?

Let's get some science in here and sort this thing out, eh?

Or is science myopic?

 

[RaymondG]

It was written in a book.....passed down from many generations.......written in many languages......everyone knows the story......Therefore it must be true..

 

[DaisyDay]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

But who says Humpty-Dumpty wasn't real? Who says there wasn't an egg that fell off a wall that horses (?) and men couldn't put together again. I wouldn't be surprised if there were thousands of Humpty-Dumpties in the history of walls, eggs, horses and king's men.

Global flood on the other hand, not so much.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree science is myopic but I am not sure this form of argument is the way to show it.
The proposition you beg is that "absence of evidence" is not necessarily "evidence of absence" whilst true leads nowhere.

It is better to point science into its true context, as an observation model - not underlying reality - that explains what things normally do, not what are they are or why they exist.

Take.

What IS gravity? Not what it does.. but what it is ie why does matter affect space? Why does it have the value it does? Why does it exist at all? When did it start? How can you prove it will not stop? Bertrand russels philosophical chicken shows what all investments say...history is no guarantee of future!
How do you prove it always was what it is today?How can you prove it will be tomorrow?

(and before anyone shouts "quasi science" I can say as ex director of an astronomical institute, that a serious piece of research concluded that some of the problems with einsteins folly the cosmological constant disappear if you assume the speed of light has changed, despite the fact that science says it cannot)

ALL you can conclude is gravity is a model of what happens, that works well within limits that says what observations do. It has little to say about what is or indeed the fundamental question of what the universe actually IS... Coming to which - What is matter (and at a philosophical level -moving the problem elsewhere does not help..because what is a quark begs the same question). Does it exist before you observe it? Is it the same seen by you and me? Are there lots of you and me?

- the answer to all of those ask fundamental questions about science and reality.
And when you put science back in its true philosophical box, the field is then open to ask the question why is and what is?

The trouble with humpty dumpty is you will be dismissed as clutching at intellecutual straws, whilst actually trying to open a serious question of "what is"

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

 

[HitchSlap]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

I was there, and it occurred exactly as written.

 

[AirPo]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

That's easy, you showed it's a negative in the first place by using the prefix "non."

 

[Tanj]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

You think an anonymous post on a Christian forum corresponds to "challenging academia"?

If science is myopic, then you are Mr Magoo.

 

[Strathos]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

This analogy would only work if the story claimed that the egg had a global impact that would leave obvious evidence. Say, for example, that it was an egg the size of the moon that broke after crashing into the earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

Why should I support the negative at all? The rhyme NEVER states that Humpty Dumpty is an egg. It could just as easily refer to a person that fell off a wall and was injured so badly they couldn't recover:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Seeing as tons of people have died falling off of walls, there's no reason the events of the riddle couldn't have occurred exactly as stated.

Obviously, it is historically known to be a riddle for which the answer was "an egg", but nothing in it, taking the words literally, makes for an impossible event, especially considering that "Humpty Dumpty" is old slang for a drunk. You can read it, without taking the words as not being literal, to mean that a drunkard fell off a wall and died.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

There's your mistake.
The burden of proof is on the side of the positive claim.
You need to support that it DID happen.

Having said that, one could falsify the proposition that it DID happen, by testing the testable predictions that the story makes. If they don't check out, then you can safely discard that specific version of the claim.

If the story doesn't make testable predictions, then it is unfalsifiable and thus indistinguishable from events that never occured.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

Ok, easy enough:

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

That's short for "did NOT".

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

All this tells us that it's a claim without merrit. Might as well be making claim about undetectable pink unicorns.

 

[AV1611VET]

Might as well be making claim about undetectable pink unicorns.

The biggest point I got from this post: Science is myopic.

 

[AirPo]

The biggest point I got from this post: Science is myopic.

You already believed science, so at best all you got was affrimation of your own myopic view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

As said already, the only reason why we have evidence that the flood didn't occur, is because the flood story makes predictions that we can test. And when tested, the predictions fail.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The biggest point I got from this post: Science is myopic.

Maybe you should read it again then. With a bit more attention.

 

[AV1611VET]

As said already, the only reason why we have evidence that the flood didn't occur, is because the flood story makes predictions that we can test. And when tested, the predictions fail.

Oh please do tell me what predictions it made.

And if they're negative predictions, don't leave God out of the picture.

I'm sure if you can see predictions, He saw therm too.

God even made one for you:

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Has that one been analyzed for accuracy by PhDs?

(I know five year olds that can answer that one.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you should read it again then. With a bit more attention.

Sorry.

When I ask for actual, specific evidence for something, then get some philosophical "thats-not-how-it-works" excuse, I tend to get a little testy.