My Ten Tribes Challenge

[Kylie]

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

Tolkien said it, that settles it!

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Just as an fyi:
All this also came up in several previous threads, also hijacked by @Mountainmike in his forlorn attempts to make his unscientifically based claims.
He even made some offers to provide access to the material for others to read, (IIRC).
Meanwhile, posters even searched for, read and (re)posted direct quotes from some of his reference authors. (I was one of them).
He completely ignored everything except his own PoV.

Such intransigent behaviours provide the hard evidence of faith based, Truth-seeking with no evidence of the scientific method.

 

[Mountainmike]

Please read my post again.

1/ You cannot say where or when abiogenesis from random chance chemistry happened, you cannot say whether it happened, and you have no evidence it actually did. You cannot say what happened. Since you have no structure for the living first cell (defined by self evolving, self replicating) nor the genome for it. You have no evidence at all.

You only have belief. (and a few plausibility arguments for some parts that may or may not be part of a process, that may or may not have happened, and even if it did , it may or may not be how life started)
You have no valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Even your high priest Dawkins admits he has no idea how life started (but says , like you, but it must have been like this then no substance in his conjecture)

I can say where, when eucharistic miracles happen and as for what happened you can find the tissue sections online for each of them and a precis of the results. You can get the forensic reports if you want to. Regardless of whether you do get the evidence, those reports exist. You are the one refusing to do home work and commenting from ignorance.

So I have compellling evidence of life from no life in the eucharist. The verdict of a (non religious) pathologist. Many independent pathologists comment on independent instances.

There is little point in commenting further until and if you get some evidence it actually happened, where , when and what happened. So there can be an experiment to test it.

As I keep pointing out, I do not oppose the idea in principle, although it is fantastic and there are many valid counter arguments- like why have none of the intermediate stages been found or ineed the first protocells been found?

But you let your faith in it, run way ahead of the evidence.

Please read post 135 again.



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.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just as an fyi:
All this also came up in several previous threads, also hijacked by @Mountainmike in his forlorn attempts to make his unscientifically based claims.
He even made some offers to provide access to the material for others to read, (IIRC).
Meanwhile, posters even searched for, read and (re)posted direct quotes from some of his reference authors. (I was one of them).
He completely ignored everything except his own PoV.

Such intransigent behaviours provide the hard evidence of faith based, Truth-seeking with no evidence of the scientific method.

So you have bought or read serafinis book? or tesorieros?
I hardly think so.
Posters did not read or object to the materials and certainly not you.

You have read the forensic reports? Which arguments do you object to on tixtla? buenos airies or sokolka or legnica. And - by what temerity can you challenge the results of qualified pathologists or forensic lab tests?

The one thing I agree on is it was forlorn.
Your faith in abiogenesis will never allow actual evidence in.

You prefer to attack the poster.
It is pointless continuing this till one of you actually reads the evidence.
But lets go back a stage.
There is actually forensic evidence for eucharistic miracles.
When . Where. What. Tests of what type of cell. Evidence they were recently living. And nobody knows how to fake the details even now.

For abiogenesis from random chance there is none that says when, where, or what happened. What was the first living cell structure ( by present definitions), and what were the precursors to that step? That step is abiognesis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please read my post again.

No thanks.

1. This is *way* off topic. Please restrict your discussion to the relevant (or semi-relevant) topics of the thread. Create your own thread if you are compelled to discuss these things.

2. You're top posting again.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Even your high priest Dawkins admits he has no idea how life started (but says , like you, but it must have been like this then no substance in his conjecture)

Aren't you supposed to be a scientist? This certainly gives the lie to that claim.

I can say where, when eucharistic miracles happen and as for what happened you can find the tissue sections online for each of them and a precis of the results. You can get the forensic reports if you want to.

You cannot say where any miracle happened. The best you can do is make a claim that one did, so you're no better off than you accuse others of being.

So I have compellling evidence of life from no life in the eucharist. The verdict of a (non religious) pathologist. Many independent pathologists comment on independent instances.

You have claims and circumstantial evidence. It certainly cannot be considered compelling - if it were compelling there would be no argument, would there?

But you let your faith in it, run way ahead of the evidence.

Ironic statement.

 

[Mountainmike]

No thanks.

1. This is *way* off topic. Please restrict your discussion to the relevant (or semi-relevant) topics of the thread. Create your own thread if you are compelled to discuss these things.

2. You're top posting again.

If you go back to where this started. I reacted to a post where @Kylie said she is evidence driven.

I put a counter case. As for off topic, the thread itself is not a science forum topic.

But it raises the generic question of how it is possible to validate or invalidate ancient history of which science has a part to play but it can say little.

Abiogenesis is the most ancient history of people of all.
So it is an extremis example. It' s impossible to validate because of the age, and lack of witness or evidence, but there are plenty on here who are willing to defend it.

The exodus is the same but several orders of magnitude of date later. It is so old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That comes down to what you believe.

There is a kernel of truth in most ancient writings of all civilisations, but viewed through the lens of the belief set of the writers.

 

[Mountainmike]

Aren't you supposed to be a scientist? This certainly gives the lie to that claim.
You cannot say where any miracle happened. The best you can do is make a claim that one did, so you're no better off than you accuse others of being.
You have claims and circumstantial evidence. It certainly cannot be considered compelling - if it were compelling there would be no argument, would there?

Ironic statement.

Hans blaster is right this is now going off topic. I was only putting the counter case to Kylie claiming to be evidence driven. In the main I use the phrase "so called " eucharistic miracle to avoid asserting cause Because i can say where it happened , when and the outcome described in science. I cannot actually prove the cause. So I cannot state it was a miracle as a scientist.

But i can comment, the change is inexplicable by science, transubstatiation is a core doctrine of catholicism, and then I quote Einstein when he said "coincidence is Gods way of staying anonymous"
I can call it a miracle as a believer. Just as abiogenesis is a belief of most of you here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you go back to where this started. I reacted to a post where @Kylie said she is evidence driven.

I remember how this started when use dug up an old discussion from a different thread to accuse her of being faith-based on things.

I put a counter case. As for off topic, the thread itself is not a science forum topic.

It was started by AV. What do you expect?

 

[AV1611VET]

It was started by AV. What do you expect?

DNA can take a hike, can't it?

It's good for finding crooks, but not for substantiating anyone in the Bible -- right?

Science is myopic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

DNA can take a hike, can't it?

It's good for finding crooks, but not for substantiating anyone in the Bible -- right?

Science is myopic.

Fictional people don't have DNA, now do they.

(I also never suggested that DNA would be useful in solving your "challenge".)

 

[AV1611VET]

Fictional people don't have DNA, now do they.

Would it matter?

Find Christopher Columbus, using only DNA.

(I also never suggested that DNA would be useful in solving your "challenge".)

Then forget DNA.

Use your best science tools and find Judge Crater.

If you can't, don't tell me the Exodus didn't happen and expect me to agree -- especially when the Bible says otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Would it matter?

Find Christopher Columbus, using only DNA.Then forget DNA.

Did he even leave decendents? Looking for a group that might still exist, but be lost, is quite different than looking for a dead man. Have you tried his tomb?

Use your best science tools and find Judge Crater.

1. Don't know who Judge Crater is.
2. My best science tools don't work on people. I'm not allowed to experiment on people.

If you can't, don't tell me the Exodus didn't happen and expect me to agree -- especially when the Bible says otherwise.

False dichotomy.

Looking for the "lost tribes" is a matter of searching for a vanished cultural group. One semetic people in an array of semetic peoples. (Assuming they ever existed.) The place to look would be culture and civilization. Perhaps DNA would be useful, but without reference samples I have my doubts.

Searching for the exodus is a very different thing involving the physical examination of a specific place -- the Sinai.

 

[Mountainmike]

I remember how this started when use dug up an old discussion from a different thread to accuse her of being faith-based on things.



It was started by AV. What do you expect?

Back on topic your post.
Are you surprised there is no evidence of exodus? Did you really expect it of a group on the move , so not putting down permanent structures, in desert/semi desert, millenia of sandstorms and the rest?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did he even leave decendents? Looking for a group that might still exist, but be lost, is quite different than looking for a dead man. Have you tried his tomb?



1. Don't know who Judge Crater is.
2. My best science tools don't work on people. I'm not allowed to experiment on people.



False dichotomy.

Looking for the "lost tribes" is a matter of searching for a vanished cultural group. One semetic people in an array of semetic peoples. (Assuming they ever existed.) The place to look would be culture and civilization. Perhaps DNA would be useful, but without reference samples I have my doubts.

Searching for the exodus is a very different thing involving the physical examination of a specific place -- the Sinai.

Looks like science is SOL then -- short on luck.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Back on topic your post.
Are you surprised there is no evidence of exodus? Did you really expect it of a group on the move , so not putting down permanent structures, in desert/semi desert, millenia of sandstorms and the rest?

If it happened there is a shocking lack of evidence.

Not all desert is sand dunes. (are there any significant dunes in the Sinai?)

The archeological surveys have found evidence of habitation from the classical period, Iron Age, Bronze Age, and earlier in both settlements and nomadic camps. Why aren't any of these Israelite? If they can find much smaller groups, why not the 2 million?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Looks like science is SOL then -- short on luck.

Non-responsive. It would seem you would rather complain about science than understand what scientific investigation can and cannot do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back on topic your post.

Thank you, Mike!

Are you surprised there is no evidence of exodus?

Not in the least.

Anyone who wants to tell me the Exodus didn't exist because science says it didn't is barking up the wrong tree.

Did you really expect it of a group on the move , so not putting down permanent structures, in desert/semi desert, millenia of sandstorms and the rest?

Not one bit.

And add to it the fact that the Amalekites -- elite desert warriors -- would have taken everything that wasn't nailed down after they left, I find it hard to believe grave robbers (paeloarchaeologists) would even find a toothbrush.

And add to it the fact that God led them through the wilderness, performing miracles as necessary, I would be somewhat surprised if they did find something.

Note this doosey of a miracle ...

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

I doubt they left anything behind, except their carcasses.

And as Hans pointed out, even DNA can't help them with this one.

Science is myopic.

They would need documentation to that effect: who went were, what they did, how long they stayed...

... oh, wait!

They do have Documentation.

They just don't know how to use It.

 

[Mountainmike]

If it happened there is a shocking lack of evidence.

Not all desert is sand dunes. (are there any significant dunes in the Sinai?)

The archeological surveys have found evidence of habitation from the classical period, Iron Age, Bronze Age, and earlier in both settlements and nomadic camps. Why aren't any of these Israelite? If they can find much smaller groups, why not the 2 million?

But then an entire lost kingdom and city of hundreds of acres has been found in turkey by accident, from much later date : a sizeable town just from one hieroglyphic stone digging a deep drainage channel. And that was only found from permanent remains. Nobody knew they existed but for luck.

And someone digging down for drainage

Isn’t the clue in the name? Sinai desert? Mostly Bedouin?
Most old civilisations are found from things they manufacture and for example , stone structures or holes for wood posts for permanent dwelling. The exodus people were on the move.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it happened there is a shocking lack of evidence.

Ya -- they look shocked.

The archeological surveys have found evidence of habitation from the classical period, Iron Age, Bronze Age, and earlier in both settlements and nomadic camps.

Nice.

Why aren't any of these Israelite?

Would they know if, if it was?

If they had a complete skeleton on a table to thoroughly analyze, could they tell if it was Pagiel (the son of Ocran), or Amalek?

If they can find much smaller groups, why not the 2 million?

They don't know what to look for -- (and wouldn't find it anyway).