My Ten Tribes Challenge

[Mountainmike]

Do semantics of words actually affect the prime argument? Travelling peoples do not leave permanent structures.

Whilst the word nomadic is associated with finding pasture, fundamentally it means a travelling population of no fixed location, so they leave no buildings. Nomadic has also been used of travelling merchants. Some nomadic populations have done so just to escape persecution.

Its true that the word migrant also fits , but that as you say is primarily those who intend to settle in a known remote location which also fits.

Has the distinction between the two words changed the idea that there is little to be found in archeology because they were travellers who left no permanent structures.

Nomads? Nomads?!? NOMADS? Really?

The Israelites described in Exodus are not nomads, they are migrants. Those are different things.

Nomads are people with a non-localized *lifestyle*. They live without fixed abode as a long-term economic solution. Nomads may adopt this lifestyle because the landscape doesn't provide the resources sufficient to sustain the group for the full year.

Migrants are relocating from one place to (hopefully) a new place. They may have initiated their journey without knowing the destination (for example: some refugees), but they don't intend to be wanderers.

What about the Israelites?

The text is very clear they left one place (Egypt) to travel to a new place (Canaan). They *are* migrants.

Did they live a nomadic lifestyle outside their travel? Nope. They were a settled people in Egypt and eventually settled into Canaan. They *are* migrants.

Finally the text claims about 2 million total people in this group. No nomadic group traveling together are anywhere near this size. They *are* migrants.

(Anticipating counter claims)

"wandering in the desert" -- This is because they were guided to intentionally "lost" in the desert for 40 years by an angry god.

"lived in tents" -- unless there were enough motel rooms to say in each night, tents are efficient and effective temporary shelter. It's perfectly normal for large migrant groups (and similarly armies in the field) to use tents for portable shelter.

[This does give me an idea for an alternative version of the story that you won't like, but is potentially more consistent with observed reality]

In the Late Bronze Age a group of Canaanites were living and working in Egypt. (Perhaps a single extended family, like that of Joseph in Genesis.) After a few generations, they had adopted some influence from the Egyptians, but maintained a significant Canaanite character, including that the largely worshiped just the Canaanite gods. They were influenced by the monotheism in the rise and fall of the Aten cult and rapidly moved toward worship of only the chief Canaanite god El. For reasons unknown they were forced to flee Egypt, hundreds or a few thousand, and became nomads in the Sinai. Their leader (let's call him Moses) claimed visions from god and the theology and laws of their new monotheistic religion rapidly developed. They came to call themselves Israelites. After a long time as nomads (the ancient Hebrew usage of '40' is often like 'bazillions', a generic large number), they emerged from the desert into the Judean hill country where a less urban version of the collapsed Canaanite civilization existed. (Probably with some religious evolution of their own.) The hill peoples found the Israelite's religion compelling and quickly adopted it with the ex-nomads as the priests. (And they created themselves as the hereditary priesthood whose ancestors all *did* flee Egypt and wander in the desert for a long time.) A new nation called Israel coalesced around this new religion and after centuries of religious reforms and revivals the waxing and waning of monotheism eventually wiped out the remnants of Canaanite polytheism among the people of Israel and they came to see themselves no longer as Canaanites, but a separate people. The story of Moses and the exodus likely grew in some versions to become a larger tale of the whole Israelite nation migrating and the Late Bronze Age Collapse of Canaan that had created the hill country settlements became mythologized into a great conquest lead by Joshua. When the scribes created a single religious text after their Babylonian captivity, the "whole-nation" migration version of the story of Moses became the only version committed to writing.

[There are almost certainly some timing issues that make one or more parts of my sketch unlikely or out of sequence, but I have even tried to be precise with the dates.]

 

[Mountainmike]

obnoxious accusation?.

Believing in abiogenesis is now obnoxious in your view?
Perhaps you had better change belief then!

All the same post applies to you.

1/ You believe in abiogenesis with no actual evidence it ever happened, where, when or what happened. The reason there are no papers describing when where or how, is there is no actual evidence it did happen, when or where , to analyse, or indeed what actually happened!

2/ Yet you oppose eucharistic miracles despite the forensic science evidence of when where and what happened, indicative of creation of life.

So you cannot claim to be evidence based since you believe
1. despite lack of evidence but reject 2. despite the evidence.

The difference with theists is we admit we have a belief.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Believing in abiogenesis is now obnoxious in your view?
Perhaps you had better change belief then!

All the same post applies to you.

1/ You believe in abiogenesis with no actual evidence it ever happened, where, when or what happened. The reason there are no papers describing when where or how, is there is no actual evidence it did happen, when or where , to analyse, or indeed what actually happened!

Such oversimplification is laughable. Evidence it did happen? It's all around you. When or where? How is that important? Let's apply your "logic" to a real example:
Archaeologists dig up a skeleton with damage to the skull caused by impact from a heavy object. They don't know what, exactly, the object was, they don't know when or where the event occurred. According to you it would be unreasonable to propose that the person died from blunt force trauma.

2/ Yet you oppose eucharistic miracles despite the forensic science evidence of when where and what happened, indicative of creation of life.

The difference is that you are unwilling to present any of the supporting reports. Simply asserting that they are irrefutable isn't good enough.

 

[Mountainmike]

The usual falasies.

On abiogenesis There is no "skeleton". No actual evidence abiogenesis occurred, when or where, or what actually happened. Nobody witnessed it. What was the structure of the self evolving reproducing first cell? what were the non living precursors? I cannot look up your documentation because there is none, just a speculative list of only parts of a process that might have happened, somewhere. sometime. Perhaps . Maybe. No demonstration that even if it did happen, that those "parts of the process" actually were part of the process.


You can look up the forensic evidence and reports on so called eucharistic miracles 2/. I do not have to do it for you. They exist. The reports of the statements of the forensic pathologists well documented in a variety of books and reports. When. Where . What. all documented. One non religious pathologist lawrence went as far as saying "evidence of created life".

Your preference for 1. over 2. is not based on evidence you have none..
It is based on your faith 1 happened in absence of evidence and that 2 did not despite the evidence.
It is a faith shared by most of the posters here which is "life is a chemical accident, consciousness is a chemical process".

I will throw your own weak argument on skeletons back at you. The only vague (and actually false) challenge on analysis of so called eucharistic miracles here is an assumption on lack of chain of custody. But It does not matter where they happened, the samples are not falsifiable by any known process wherever they happened. The evidence actually exists and was analyzed by pathologists.
2/ Has evidence. 1/ Does not.




I am not after reliving discussion. I just noted @Kylie said her position was based on evidence in a previous post. I noted that her position on a variety of issues seems to contradict that.

Such oversimplification is laughable. Evidence it did happen? It's all around you. When or where? How is that important? Let's apply your "logic" to a real example:
Archaeologists dig up a skeleton with damage to the skull caused by impact from a heavy object. They don't know what, exactly, the object was, they don't know when or where the event occurred. According to you it would be unreasonable to propose that the person died from blunt force trauma.

The difference is that you are unwilling to present any of the supporting reports. Simply asserting that they are irrefutable isn't good enough.

 

[BerthaSeven]

It is a faith shared by most of the posters here which is "life is a chemical accident, consciousness is a chemical process".

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The distinction between "migrant" and "nomad" does have some relevance as the archeologists exploring the Sinai *HAVE* found evidence of nomads from various periods and the *HAVE NOT* found evidence of those 2 million migrating (very poorly) across the smallish desert peninsula.

So, I guess it does beyond demonstrating again you don't know what you are talking about. There is *no* way the Sinai could support 2 million nomadic people in ancient time. The current population of the Sinai is only 600k, and 2/3rds of those live in settlements of at least 10k people.

Do semantics of words actually affect the prime argument? Travelling peoples do not leave permanent structures.

Whilst the word nomadic is associated with finding pasture, fundamentally it means a travelling population of no fixed location, so they leave no buildings. Nomadic has also been used of travelling merchants. Some nomadic populations have done so just to escape persecution.

Its true that the word migrant also fits , but that as you say is primarily those who intend to settle in a known remote location which also fits.

Has the distinction between the two words changed the idea that there is little to be found in archeology because they were travellers who left no permanent structures.

 

[BerthaSeven]

The distinction between "migrant" and "nomad" does have some relevance as the archeologists exploring the Sinai *HAVE* found evidence of nomads from various periods and the *HAVE NOT* found evidence of those 2 million migrating (very poorly) across the smallish desert peninsula.

So, I guess it does beyond demonstrating again you don't know what you are talking about. There is *no* way the Sinai could support 2 million nomadic people in ancient time. The current population of the Sinai is only 600k, and 2/3rds of those live in settlements of at least 10k people.

Perhaps God cleaned up the Sinai after the big party. For safety reasons.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The usual falasies.

On abiogenesis There is no "skeleton". No actual evidence abiogenesis occurred, when or where, or what actually happened. Nobody witnessed it. What was the structure of the self evolving reproducing first cell? what were the non living precursors? I cannot look up your documentation because there is none, just a speculative list of only parts of a process that might have happened, somewhere. sometime. Perhaps . Maybe. No demonstration that even if it did happen, that those "parts of the process" actually were part of the process.


You can look up the forensic evidence and reports on so called eucharistic miracles 2/. I do not have to do it for you. They exist. The reports of the statements of the forensic pathologists well documented in a variety of books and reports. When. Where . What. all documented. One non religious pathologist lawrence went as far as saying "evidence of created life".

Your preference for 1. over 2. is not based on evidence you have none..
It is based on your faith 1 happened in absence of evidence and that 2 did not despite the evidence.
It is a faith shared by most of the posters here which is "life is a chemical accident, consciousness is a chemical process".

I will throw your own weak argument on skeletons back at you. The only vague (and actually false) challenge on analysis of so called eucharistic miracles here is an assumption on lack of chain of custody. But It does not matter where they happened, the samples are not falsifiable by any known process wherever they happened. The evidence actually exists and was analyzed by pathologists.
2/ Has evidence. 1/ Does not.




I am not after reliving discussion. I just noted @Kylie said her position was based on evidence in a previous post. I noted that her position on a variety of issues seems to contradict that.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[SelfSim]

Believing in abiogenesis is now obnoxious in your view?

The obnoxious part, is your accusing someone of holding undistinguished beliefs of any kind, without your providing evidence of them holding such beliefs in the first place.

@Kylie is not alone in this regard when it comes to your frequent usage of this tactic as your default, overt abuse of other forum members.

Perhaps you had better change belief then!

All the same post applies to you.

QED .. yet more evidence supporting your abuse of other members by continuing to make unsupported accusations.
Such a crudely blunt, and blatantly dishonest, weapon, that is ..

The difference with theists is we admit we have a belief.

Err .. What???
Since when have you (ever) made such a disclosure?
All I've ever seen you (falsely) claim is of being a self-proclaimed 'scientist'!
How does this new (above) disclosure, in any way, form a consistent basis for your numerous, self-professed, 'objective analyses' leading to your assertions about the objective existence of so-called 'miracles'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The obnoxious part, is your accusing someone of holding undistinguished beliefs of any kind, without your providing evidence of them holding such beliefs in the first place.

@Kylie is not alone in this regard when it comes to your frequent usage of this tactic as your default, overt abuse of other forum members.

Not to mention making every thread about his favorite bug-a-boos. This thread is on the "lost tribes". Even the Sinai stuff isn't quite on topic, but it's a lot closer than any bit about abiogenesis.* The lost tribes and the lost desert migrants are at least plausible scenarios that can be examine by various archeological and historical methods.

*Of course Mike's favorite discussion of "abiogenesis" is not actually, but rather the transformation of ground wheat into human tissue, something nearly all living humans can do once they start ingesting solid food.

 

[BerthaSeven]

*Of course Mike's favorite discussion of "abiogenesis" is not actually, but rather the transformation of ground wheat into human tissue, something nearly all living humans can do once they start ingesting solid food.

Not to nitpick but the ground wheat transforms into human tissue BEFORE it is eaten. It's rare that you get to test it before it goes into a congregant's mouth to be ingested even though it literally happens every single time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not to nitpick but the ground wheat transforms into human tissue BEFORE it is eaten. It's rare that you get to test it before it goes into a congregant's mouth to be ingested even though it literally happens every single time.

Not in the real world does it transform, but my point is really that ground wheat to dead human is *not* abiogenesis, because the wheat flour is already the byproduct of life, and therefore not equivalent to the study of the origin of life on Earth. It's a stupid word game he wants to play to divert the discussion to his favorite obsession and (as you can already see) try to paint those of us who are dismissive of such "miracle" claims as being close minded with pre-set opinions.

 

[BerthaSeven]

Not in the real world does it transform,

Are you perchance suggesting that Mike's faith is not the absolute truth? I find that VERY unsettling. I mean I can understand how all those other faiths' miracles are just people being mistaken, but miracles from the "capital C" are bona fide. Real scientists investigating things. Did you know that some people who investigated eucharistic miracles were actual scientists? Yup. QED. And they found things.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you perchance suggesting that Mike's faith is not the absolute truth? I find that VERY unsettling. I mean I can understand how all those other faiths' miracles are just people being mistaken, but miracles from the "capital C" are bona fide. Real scientists investigating things. Did you know that some people who investigated eucharistic miracles were actual scientists? Yup. QED. And they found things.

Uh oh .. (To self: should take this to some other thread, methinks ..)

 

[Kylie]

1/You believe in abiogenesis. But you cannot say where it happened, when it happened, precisely what happened, the structure of the first self replicating evolving cell or the immediate precursors of that turned into it. So you have nothing in actual evidence.

Do you think that a scientific theory is worthless unless we know every detail about it?

In any case, you are not correct. We do have a very good idea how it could have occurred. This is an article I saw just the other day: https://phys.org/news/2022-06-scientists-breakthrough-life-earthand-mars.html

And another article about it that I've come across:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

2/ You can easily obtain the forensic reports and pathologist comments for the actual physical evidence of Eucharistic miracles, which happened at known time , place and they have been analysed by different teams in different places.
Forensic scientists are scientists. The clue is in the name

Utterly irrelevant. It is not sufficient for you to assure me that the forensic reports exist. If you claim they support your claim, then you must provide them. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, since you are the one making that claim.

You don’t believe in 2/ despite the scientific evidence , yet you believe in 1/ in absence of evidence.

There is evidence for 1. You have provided no evidence for 2.

Your entire view is faith based.
It is not as you claim evidence based.

No it is not.

You see the world through a lens that eg - life is a chemical accident, consciousness is a chemical process etc etc. that is a faith. You won’t let anything else in, or you would have studied /2

I will accept anything for which there is evidence. So far, you have provided none. Just assuring me that the evidence exists is not enough to convince me.

 

[SelfSim]

This is an article I saw just the other day: https://phys.org/news/2022-06-scientists-breakthrough-life-earthand-mars.html

And another article about it that I've come across:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

Both of these study findings represent major steps forward in the field of molecular evolution, (OOL or, real abiogenesis research). The 'missing link' of how amino acids and nucleobases interwork in the RNA-peptide coevolution hypothesis, has now been filled in, and points the way to further tests doable in situ, on Mars, and potentially other bodies in the local solar system.

In the words of Bin Liu etal (the second paper):

While previously reported nucleic acid-based self-replicating systems rely on presynthesis of (short) oligonucleotide sequences, self-replication in the present systems start from units containing only a single nucleobase. Self-replication is accompanied by self-assembly, spontaneously giving rise to an ordered one-dimensional arrangement of nucleobase nanostructures.

Their conclusion:

We have shown that exponential replicators featuring nucleobases and amino acids can emerge spontaneously from mixtures of relatively simple building blocks.

The findings reinforce the importance of prior autocatalysis research hypotheses and shows how science's incremental approach of combining theory with empirical research can demonstrate the physical feasibility of the occurence of abiogenesis via autocatalysis:

The present system has the advantage over previously reported assemblies of nucleobase analogues in that they form autocatalytically.

Completely swamps the completely nonsensical belief in the occurrence of 'one-off miracles', in an overwhelming amount of objectively sourced, lab based, independently replicatable, empirical evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Do you think that a scientific theory is worthless unless we know every detail about it?

Nope . Didn’t say that, and abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis yet, let alone a theory.Till you have a process to test,

In any case, you are not correct. We do have a very good idea how it could have

I am correct I said you have no evidence . Of where. When . What . Or even evidence it ever actually happened.
An idea is not evidence.

You have faith in it, not evidence,

Otherwise tell me. When and where did it happen. What was the structure of the first self evolving cell, the genome? , and what were the non living antecedents?
You know jack! About it.

I can tell you all of that for so called Eucharistic miracles. Because they have actually happened in our time and so there is evidence.

Which exists if you look for it and whether or not I present it here.
I have referenced books containing reports. Your loss if you refuse to read them.

Does the moon not exist unless I present it?

 

[SelfSim]

I am correct I said you have no evidence . Of where. When . What . Or even evidence it ever actually happened.
..
I have referenced books containing reports. Your loss if you refuse to read them.

I'm seriously beginning to doubt your abilities to read anything!

Did you not read the extracts of one of @Kylie 's references, which I (re)posted in post#136?

 

[Mr Laurier]

No I don't.

There is a list of the ten northern tribes of Israel that was carried away by the Assyrians.

Validate their existence with science, if you can, please.

There are 4 farthings to the Shire. Validate their existence with science.

 

[Kylie]

Nope . Didn’t say that, and abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis yet, let alone a theory.Till you have a process to test,



I am correct I said you have no evidence . Of where. When . What . Or even evidence it ever actually happened.
An idea is not evidence.

You have faith in it, not evidence,

Otherwise tell me. When and where did it happen. What was the structure of the first self evolving cell, the genome? , and what were the non living antecedents?
You know jack! About it.

Please read post 135 again.

I can tell you all of that for so called Eucharistic miracles. Because they have actually happened in our time and so there is evidence.

Which exists if you look for it and whether or not I present it here.
I have referenced books containing reports. Your loss if you refuse to read them.

Does the moon not exist unless I present it?

And yet you are still not able to actually present any evidence for it. Once again, you need to do more than assure me that it's out there. If you are going to tell me that there are books that describe them, how am I supposed to get these books? Are you going to purchase them and send them to me? If so, I'll read them. But I'm not going to buy them myself. It's bad enough you expect me to do your homework for you. I'm not going to spend any money to do your homework for you.