My Ten Tribes Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Then where is the evidence of *that* in the Egyptian records?

Gone? decayed? crumbled to dust? hidden somewhere? not hidden, but pending discovery? none of the above?

Keep looking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gone? decayed? crumbled to dust? hidden somewhere? not hidden, but pending discovery? none of the above?

Keep looking.

Your new "go look for the things I need to prove you wrong" tactic is new, but it has already grown tiresome.

Now before we can check the Egyptian records we need to know the Pharaoh whom Moses demand of "Let my people go!"

Where should we start? Who was the pharaoh?

 

[AV1611VET]

It would show evidence from the real world.

Would you even recognize the "real world" if you lived in it?

What does the "real world" look like?

Does it contain a generation of Thalidomites? a ninth planet downgraded on paper? a plethora of astronauts whose missions were cut short? an unsinkable passenger vessel at the bottom of the ocean? oil washing ashore in the Gulf of Mexico? a lifesaving footbridge hauled off to the landfill?

Does a "real world" contain ...

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

I submit most don't know what all our "real world" contains.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you reject evidence from reality?

Because it doesn't make it through my heuristics.

Why do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your new "go look for the things I need to prove you wrong" tactic is new, but it has already grown tiresome.

LOL -- solid gold!

Run a FIND on my "new tactic" and read all 236 results!

Here's the oldest one -- note the date:

My suggestion Frumious, is that if you can't find physical evidence of something you want to find in the Bible --- keep looking.

 

[Kylie]

Would you even recognize the "real world" if you lived in it?

What does the "real world" look like?

The real world is the one we can find out about by investigating it with science.

Does it contain a generation of Thalidomites? a ninth planet downgraded on paper? a plethora of astronauts whose missions were cut short? an unsinkable passenger vessel at the bottom of the ocean? oil washing ashore in the Gulf of Mexico? a lifesaving footbridge hauled off to the landfill?

Does a "real world" contain ...

Those tricks grow tiresome, AV. It was science that found the dangers of thalidomide. Your complaints about Pluto are meaningless, since nothing about Pluto itself was changed. The shipbuilders never claimed the Titanic was unsinkable. Your oft-repeated cries of how science should have prevented some thing viewed as wrong are old and tired, AV. Science has NEVER claimed to be able to prevent bad things.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

I submit most don't know what all our "real world" contains.

Perhaps. I'll agree that there is a lot about the universe we don't know.

But whatever it is, it won't contradict the things we DO know.

And we can't just assume that something exists just because we can't say for sure one way or another.

 

[Kylie]

Because it doesn't make it through my heuristics.

So you reject reality if reality isn't the way you think it should be?

Good luck with that.

Why do you?

Why do I what? Reject reality? I don't reject reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

But whatever it is, it won't contradict the things we DO know.

Why should they?

The things you DO know contradict themselves eventually.

Like when they "knew" Nebraska Man was a missing link -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" Pluto was our ninth planet -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" Thalidomide was a "prenatal wonder drug" -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" the Challenger was GO FOR THROTTLE UP -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" ...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you reject reality if reality isn't the way you think it should be?

I reject reality if reality doesn't make it through my heuristics.

 

[Kylie]

Why should they?

The things you DO know contradict themselves eventually.

Like when they "knew" Nebraska Man was a missing link -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" Pluto was our ninth planet -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" Thalidomide was a "prenatal wonder drug" -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" the Challenger was GO FOR THROTTLE UP -- until it wasn't.

Or like they "knew" ...

Please read my post 66 again. Specifically the bit where I said, "Your oft-repeated cries of how science should have prevented some thing viewed as wrong are old and tired, AV. Science has NEVER claimed to be able to prevent bad things."

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL -- solid gold!

Run a FIND on my "new tactic" and read all 236 results!

Here's the oldest one -- note the date:

Revived then. I'm not a AVologist.

 

[Kylie]

I reject reality if reality doesn't make it through my heuristics.

So you declare reality to be wrong, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you declare reality to be wrong, huh?

I declare academia's paper reality "wrong," if it doesn't meet my standards.

Do you need to see them again?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I reject reality if reality doesn't make it through my heuristics.

We are well aware you try to define your own reality. It does not convince anyone.

 

[Kylie]

I declare academia's paper reality "wrong," if it doesn't meet my standards.

Do you need to see them again?

So of course, you know better than the experts...

 

[AV1611VET]

So of course, you know better than the experts...

Let's put it this way:

I know when they're wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Let's put it this way:

I know when they're wrong.

No you don't.

All you do is say, "The experts say something that disagrees with my preconceived ideas, therefore they must be wrong because my preconceived ideas have to be right."

That's not knowing. That's rejecting things just because you disagree with them.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not knowing. That's rejecting things just because you disagree with them.

Maybe you need to see my standards again then:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I reject things because the BIBLE rejects them.

 

[Belk]

Your new "go look for the things I need to prove you wrong" tactic is new, but it has already grown tiresome.

Now before we can check the Egyptian records we need to know the Pharaoh whom Moses demand of "Let my people go!"

Where should we start? Who was the pharaoh?

No it isn't.

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe you need to see my standards again then:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I reject things because the BIBLE rejects them.

Yes .. the Bible a major source for causing many of the world's disagreements.