My Ark Challenge

[Colter]

If my challenge questions go unanswered, why should I even think people can determine the motive of the myth [sic], let alone their ability to ascertain what it accomplishes?

Because your challenge questions are no different than asking hypothetical questions about the Starship Enterprise.

1) How come crew members don’t fall down when they jump to warp speed?

2) What is that thing Spok is always looking into?

3) What if they get a chip in the front window at warp speed? Is there an auto glass place that will meet them in whatever galaxy they are in?

 

[Colter]

Crimes have motives, determining motives helps investigators rule out suspects and dead end theories.

The Hebrew priest had a motive when they inserted and expanded a localized flood legend into their exalted history. “as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah's flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.”

The flood story is about the proud “chosen people” appropriating ancient Mesopotamian lore in order to establish their own authoritative claims. Bloodlines were everything!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet scientologists are very sincere in there beliefs.

And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?

Would they be justified in thinking: "In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you'll just ridicule the challenge and leave me wondering why you even replied"?

 

[Colter]

And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?

Would they be justified in thinking: "In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you'll just ridicule the challenge and leave me wondering why you even replied"?

But we also wounder why you even asked the questions knowing that there isn’t any logical answer to the fundamental claims of the flood story? From the implied accusation that God regretted his preveous creative acts, erased mankind only to end up with the same circumstances that he sought to change? If the story isn’t rediculous enough to a common reading on its own merits, the consequences for the concept of omnipotence are catistrophic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because your challenge questions are no different than asking hypothetical questions about the Starship Enterprise.

So we're just supposed to sit idly by and smile at those who steamroll through Genesis with their academic knowledge and not challenge them with good thought-provoking questions?

In case you haven't noticed, educatees don't ask us how the Ark was seaworthy … they TELL us how it couldn't be seaworthy.

Then when we come back with a challenge to them as to how it could have been, we get the m-word (myth) thrown at us, instead of an answer.

This is my favorite example:

Believer: What did Humpty Dumpty sit on before he fell?
Educatee: Humpty Dumpty is a nursery rhyme.
Believer: I disagree, but for the record, what did he sit on before he fell?
Educatee: You're spaced out, man. I can't believe you believe this stuff.
Believer: Pretend I don't. What did Humpty Dumpty sit on?
Educatee: Who cares? It's a nursery rhyme, for crying out loud.

* later *

Educatee (to another Believer): Do you realize we educatees know more about Humpty Dumpty than you Believers do?

 

[AV1611VET]

The flood story is about the proud “chosen people” appropriating ancient Mesopotamian lore in order to establish their own authoritative claims.

And what are those "authoritative claims"?

Can you answer my OP as I wrote it?

Just to show me you know what you're talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

But we also wounder why you even asked the questions knowing that there isn’t any logical answer to the fundamental claims of the flood story?

Then give me theological ones -- just so I know you know what it is you're harping against.

I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.

All you guys can do is take the cowardly easy way out and call it a "myth."

Homework's a drag, isn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?

Would they be justified in thinking: "In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you'll just ridicule the challenge and leave me wondering why you even replied"?

Sure and likely, they'll also pretend as if all the other threads, in which it is very clearly argued and explained with evidence why exactly calling it a myth is extremely justified, never happened. Just like you, they'll happily ignore all that evidence and rational argumentation. Or just say that evidence can take a hike, or whatever.

Sure.

I don't think reasonable discussions with Tom Cruise, or exposure to actual evidence, is going to make him realise that he believes rather ridiculous things.

To quote Dr Gregory House: "you can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place..."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.

But not with actual evidence.

The point exactly.

I can give you a rather detailed description of the Death Star as well, using the Star Wars books and the blue prints shown in the movies.

Doesn't mean that the Death Star is an actual object in the real universe though.

All you guys can do is take the cowardly easy way out and call it a "myth."
Homework's a drag, isn't it?

Ignoring the many many MANY threads where all the evidence that literally falsifies a literal flood story kept on piling up and up and up, doesn't make them go away.

The only place where this flood occured, is in that book of yours.
Just like the only place where the Death Star exists, is in the Star Wars books and movies.

Not in the actual real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

But not with actual evidence.

Actual evidence can sit PENDING until you show me you know what the evidence is supposed to pwn.

And you've just given me an idea for another challenge thread -- thanks!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actual evidence can sit PENDING until you show me you know what the evidence is supposed to pwn.

And you've just given me an idea for another challenge thread -- thanks!

The biblical flood story makes testable predictions.
When tested, the predictions fail.

That debunks the flood story.

It really is that easy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The biblical flood story makes testable predictions.

When tested, the predictions fail.

When what (specifically) is tested?

By academia's own admission:

[pic] Then A Miracle Occurs [/pic]

 

[DogmaHunter]

When what (specifically) is tested?

By academia's own admission:

[pic] Then A Miracle Occurs [/pic]

To name just two:
- it predicts a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things (which does not exist)
- it predicts a global layer in the geological column (which also doesn't exist)

Those two are already enough to consider the story utterly debunked.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those two are already enough to consider the story utterly debunked.

But the way it's worded creates a dead-end conversation.

Here's how you worded it:

- it predicts a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things (which does not exist)

Now let's reword it:

- it predicts a universal genetic bottleneck should have occurred in all living things (which did not occur)

See the difference?

Now the conversation can progress:

Why didn't it occur? did something (or Someone) intervene?

As the caption goes: "We need to be more specific in Step Two."

 

[DogmaHunter]

But the way it's worded creates a dead-end conversation.

No. These predictions naturally flow from the story.
If A, then B. It's that simple.

If a big space rock falls to earth, it creates a crater. No such crater = no falling space rock.

It's that simple.

Here's how you worded it:


Now let's reword it:


See the difference?

I see a silly attempt at trying to escape the obvious falsification of the story you like to believe for some reason.

Now the conversation can progress:
Why didn't it occur?

Because it didn't happen.

did something (or Someone) intervene?

There's no evidence of that, so no reason to think so.
See, this is what happens when you try to super-impose a priori beliefs on reality.

You end up grasping at straws and positing the most illogical nonsense, just to be able to hold on to your beliefs.

This is why it's never a good idea to pretend to have the answers before actually asking the questions.

This is the inevitable result when you start pretending to know the truth.
But I know this is what you do... You assume the story is the Truth (capital T) and when the evidence of reality points at the exact opposite... you don't rethink the story like rational folks would do... nope... you simply assume reality is incorrect.

Trying to reason with a mind like that, is an exercise in futility.

As the caption goes: "We need to be more specific in Step Two."

Or.... "we need to stop pretending to have the answers before actually asking the questions".

 

[Colter]

And what are those "authoritative claims"?

Can you answer my OP as I wrote it?

Just to show me you know what you're talking about?

The authoritative claim was that the Israelites bloodlines could be traced directly back to Adams religion.

 

[Colter]

Then give me theological ones -- just so I know you know what it is you're harping against.

I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.

All you guys can do is take the cowardly easy way out and call it a "myth."

Homework's a drag, isn't it?

Superstitious claims can’t be validated in the logical world by appealing to still more scriptural claims.

 

[RealityCheck01]

We can determine the motive of the myth of the flood by considering what it accomplishes.

The motives of the authors of the myth can be implied by the outcomes of the flood. It is basically their propaganda. God is powerful. God is willing to be cruel, i.e. killing innocent babies and children. God is benevolent (saves animals). God makes a covenant with all human beings (Genesis 9) and does not punish people for breaking it, e.g.
* "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it"
* "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed"

 

[RealityCheck01]

I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.

Let us start with:
19 June 2018 AV1611VET: Please state specifically how the Ark was made seaworthy and cite the Scripture reference about the Ark supporting that statement.

Specifically
1. in a specific manner : in a definite and exact way : with precision
2. used to indicate the exact identity, purpose, or use of something

My guess is that we will get the first reply to your questions of mostly "magic", i.e. unrecorded miracles by God. That has the unfortunate effect of making the Ark story even more dubious by implying the authors lied by omitting some obvious events. For example,
The animals hibernated during the Ark journey removing the need for feeding, etc.?
Or the animals turning up as miniature versions so that they fit the Ark?
Or "kinds" turning into modern spaces after they leave the Ark?
Or the wooden Ark turning into iron or steel?
Or anything else people's imaginations can force into the gaps in the Ark story?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or anything else people's imaginations can force into the gaps in the Ark story?

Would it be too much to ask RealityCheck to give us RealityCheck's answers?