My Ten Tribes Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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

Then do it, if you can.

I've given challenge after challenge and encouraged people to use that science knowledge of theirs to impress the living halo out of me.

But instead, they prefer to mock, ridicule, make fun, and scratch themselves to death trying to figure them out.

So be it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The exodus people were on the move.

I think academia thinks, like Hansel & Greta did, that they could follow a trail back to the source.

The difference between the fictitious Hansel & Gretel and today's science though is a simple one:

Hansel & Gretel learned something.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Sounds like excuse making.

 

[Kylie]

... and you have no evidence it actually did.

I provided evidence.

We're not going to get anywhere so long as you are ignoring what I say.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Those ancient cities like the one in Turkey are quite compact and tend to have populations of 10-20,000 people.

It sounds like you are talking about the Türkmen-Karahöyük site. The stone found in a irrigation ditch by a farmer indicated that the nearby tell (mound) already being investigated might be the "lost" short-term Hittite capital of Tarhuntassa (or the capital of a briefly lived rival empire. Tarhuntassa was known from written records, but not located. The archeologists were already engaged in a broad survey of the whole region and specifically a more intense survey of the tell near Türkmen-Karahöyük which really, really, really looks like the ruin of an ancient city. (So many of these in the region are built-up dirt mounds.) Here is a fascinating talk about the diggings at the site and the inscription found nearby:

Basically, they knew there was probably an ancient city there for a long time, but hadn't performed a detailed dig, and didn't realize the possible importance of the site.

As for the Sinai...

It is similar, systematic surveys that I suspect the Israeli archeologists conducted will looking for the traces of the Exodus. (They were literally trying to prove that that part of their history was true in part to solidify their claim to Palestine based on the very next part of the text --- Joshua's conquests.) If they hadn't been thorough, I doubt they and more recent Israeli archeologists would be quite so firm about the absence of evidence claim I have repeated from them because I trust their expertise.

Only the coastal portions of the Sinai are dunes, in the rest, the standard techiniques of test trenches, etc. are feasible. For your reference I have included a link to a geological map of the Sinai (tan w/ dots is dune landscape), be warned that the file is large and loads slowly.

https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/Eudasm/Africa/images/maps/download/afr_egsgam.jpg

 

[Mountainmike]

According to this it could have been only a few thousand people, permanently on the move. So they probably didn’t leave structures or manufacture much.


The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI on JSTOR

Finding unknown civilisations in deserts is not unique.
So they can be well hidden.

Peru: 150 Mummies of Ancient Unknown Civilisation Discovered in Atacama Desert [PHOTOS]

So expecting to find evidence of peoples is not always reasonable , certainly of a group on the move.

Those ancient cities like the one in Turkey are quite compact and tend to have populations of 10-20,000 people.

It sounds like you are talking about the Türkmen-Karahöyük site. The stone found in a irrigation ditch by a farmer indicated that the nearby tell (mound) already being investigated might be the "lost" short-term Hittite capital of Tarhuntassa (or the capital of a briefly lived rival empire. Tarhuntassa was known from written records, but not located. The archeologists were already engaged in a broad survey of the whole region and specifically a more intense survey of the tell near Türkmen-Karahöyük which really, really, really looks like the ruin of an ancient city. (So many of these in the region are built-up dirt mounds.) Here is a fascinating talk about the diggings at the site and the inscription found nearby:

Basically, they knew there was probably an ancient city there for a long time, but hadn't performed a detailed dig, and didn't realize the possible importance of the site.

As for the Sinai...

It is similar, systematic surveys that I suspect the Israeli archeologists conducted will looking for the traces of the Exodus. (They were literally trying to prove that that part of their history was true in part to solidify their claim to Palestine based on the very next part of the text --- Joshua's conquests.) If they hadn't been thorough, I doubt they and more recent Israeli archeologists would be quite so firm about the absence of evidence claim I have repeated from them because I trust their expertise.

Only the coastal portions of the Sinai are dunes, in the rest, the standard techiniques of test trenches, etc. are feasible. For your reference I have included a link to a geological map of the Sinai (tan w/ dots is dune landscape), be warned that the file is large and loads slowly.

https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/Eudasm/Africa/images/maps/download/afr_egsgam.jpg

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to this it could have been only a few thousand people, permanently on the move. So they probably didn’t leave structures or manufacture much.


The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI on JSTOR

Cool.

I've never argued against that.

I have consistently argued that the Exodus as described in the Torah did not happen. There are plenty of ways to modify the story to make it more plausible, and drastically reducing the number of migrants is definitely one of them. (Probably the best way to reconcile -- the scribes who redacted the Torah hundreds of years later exaggerated.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool.

I've never argued against that.

I have consistently argued that the Exodus as described in the Torah did not happen. There are plenty of ways to modify the story to make it more plausible, and drastically reducing the number of migrants is definitely one of them. (Probably the best way to reconcile -- the scribes who redacted the Torah hundreds of years later exaggerated.)

God would have still split the Red Sea, even if only one had to cross it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I provided evidence.

We're not going to get anywhere so long as you are ignoring what I say.

I’m ignoring you because you don’t understand the meaning of evidence.
You have a few plausibility arguments. None that it ever actually happened. You make a basic mistake in critical thinking. Evidence of a pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self evolving houses from random chemicals.

I follow abiogenesis research. For the last 50 years.

3/ So tell me , precisely where , and when did abiogenesis happen? What tangible evidence is there it happened at all, and it happened there? More importantly exactly what happened? what was the first self evolving structure, what genome did it have, what sequence? what non living antecedents did it have, and where is your proof? what evidence is there that first cell of that structure ever existed?


In contrast the so called Eucharistic miracles , have a date , a place , forensic evidence of what happened. Recently live traumatized Cardiac tissue. Multiple independent places and teams. The tissue sections are out there on the web.

That actual evidence trumps your void.

End of discussion unless you can come up with 3/
You have faith it happened, not evidence.

As I keep saying I’m not against it. But it is not even a valid hypothesis yet. Even high priest of new atheism Dawkins admits he has no idea how life started. He then uses a faith statement saying “but it must have been something like this”

as Hans blaster said. Wrong thread. . I simply challenged whether your views are based on evidence , or belief with an example. Still QED,

 

[Kylie]

I’m ignoring you because you don’t understand the meaning of evidence.
You have a few plausibility arguments. None that it ever actually happened. You make a basic mistake in critical thinking. Evidence of a pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self evolving houses from random chemicals.

I follow abiogenesis research. For the last 50 years.

3/ So tell me , precisely where , and when did abiogenesis happen? What tangible evidence is there it happened at all, and it happened there? More importantly exactly what happened? what was the first self evolving structure, what genome did it have, what sequence? what non living antecedents did it have, and where is your proof? what evidence is there that first cell of that structure ever existed?


In contrast the so called Eucharistic miracles , have a date , a place , forensic evidence of what happened. Recently live traumatized Cardiac tissue. Multiple independent places and teams. The tissue sections are out there on the web.

That actual evidence trumps your void.

End of discussion unless you can come up with 3/
You have faith it happened, not evidence.

As I keep saying I’m not against it. But it is not even a valid hypothesis yet. Even high priest of new atheism Dawkins admits he has no idea how life started. He then uses a faith statement saying “but it must have been something like this”

as Hans blaster said. Wrong thread. . I simply challenged whether your views are based on evidence , or belief with an example. Still QED,

You are committing the perfect solution fallacy.

Unless a solution is perfect, you view it as useless. You proclaim that abiogenesis is totally implausible as a theory unless we can explain every single minute detail about it.

I could very well use the same logic to say that you aren't real because you can't tell me the exact moment you were conceived.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In contrast the so called Eucharistic miracles , have a date , a place , forensic evidence of what happened. Recently live traumatized Cardiac tissue. Multiple independent places and teams. The tissue sections are out there on the web.

You have post quem and ante quem dates for when an event is claimed to have happened at a certain place. You then have claims of cardiac tissue. What you don't have is: exact date and time, exact location, the exact steps involved or even multiple independent places and teams reviewing each other's work. Yet you think others need all of that to be even vaguely credible.

That actual evidence trumps your void.

Your actual evidence is not as strong as you wish it were.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are committing the perfect solution fallacy.

Unless a solution is perfect, you view it as useless. You proclaim that abiogenesis is totally implausible as a theory unless we can explain every single minute detail about it.

I could very well use the same logic to say that you aren't real because you can't tell me the exact moment you were conceived.

You are committing the "I will pretend I have evidence when I have none, because it is something I believe falasy.."
Combined with the " I will pretend there is no evidence when there is because it is something I dont believe falasy."

Listen to your high priest Dawkins to know the true dogma of your faith:
"we have no idea how life started" (on which he is so totally right)
"but it must have been something like this" (sadly the science went out of the window)
Which is called a contradiction in terms falasy.


You are welcome to your beliefs Kylie - but stop pretending they have anything to do with status of evidence. You believe in abiogenesis. Great. I remain to be persuaded. As yet it is not even a valid hypothesis.

I also believe in eucharistic miracles. But thats because I have evidence. Plenty of pathologists and cardiologists lining up to tell me what the tissue is. That it intermingles with bread at the edges , (impossible to fake- if you think not then explain how, it beats the pathologists how) And it was recently live.

I do not need them to be true, it is not an article of faith. I can be impartial on them. You cannot, because of your faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

You have post quem and ante quem dates for when an event is claimed to have happened at a certain place. You then have claims of cardiac tissue. What you don't have is: exact date and time, exact location, the exact steps involved or even multiple independent places and teams reviewing each other's work. Yet you think others need all of that to be even vaguely credible.

Your actual evidence is not as strong as you wish it were.

Lets disregard the fact that your answer is false, which shows a woeful lack of research.
When where and what all documented forensically, several repeats.

Lets just compare with evidence for abiogenesis. You do not know whether it happened at all ,even once let alone several times, , where even which planet it happened on , when (to the nearest billion years), or even what actually happened, when if you say what happened happend, that your really dont seem to know what happened.. Nobody saw it. There is no evidence of the first cell. There is nothing to analyse. There is not even a model for the first self evolving self replicating cell (aka life) the precursors for that step (aka no life). ie not even a valid hypothesis.

So evidence stakes,

I win hands down. You have nothing at all! Even high priest Dawkins of the faith says he has no idea...listen to your priest, you are off message!

 

[Kylie]

You are committing the "I will pretend I have evidence when I have none, because it is something I believe falasy.."
Combined with the " I will pretend there is no evidence when there is because it is something I dont believe falasy."

Listen to your high priest Dawkins to know the true dogma of your faith:
"we have no idea how life started" (on which he is so totally right)
"but it must have been something like this" (sadly the science went out of the window)
Which is called a contradiction in terms falasy.


You are welcome to your beliefs Kylie - but stop pretending they have anything to do with status of evidence. You believe in abiogenesis. Great. I remain to be persuaded. As yet it is not even a valid hypothesis.

I also believe in eucharistic miracles. But thats because I have evidence. Plenty of pathologists and cardiologists lining up to tell me what the tissue is. That it intermingles with bread at the edges , (impossible to fake- if you think not then explain how, it beats the pathologists how) And it was recently live.

I do not need them to be true, it is not an article of faith. I can be impartial on them. You cannot, because of your faith.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I actually presented the evidence?

Here it is again.

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-scientists-breakthrough-life-earthand-mars.html

Is anyone saying this is proof? No. But there is a lot of evidence to show how it could have happened. For you to say that there is no evidence at all is indeed the all-or-nothing fallacy.

Oh, and you still haven't presented a shred of evidence for the Eucharist miracles. Until you do, I'll use your own words: "You are welcome to your beliefs - but stop pretending they have anything to do with status of evidence."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then do it, if you can.

I've given challenge after challenge and encouraged people to use that science knowledge of theirs to impress the living halo out of me.

But instead, they prefer to mock, ridicule, make fun, and scratch themselves to death trying to figure them out.

So be it.

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not an archeologist, so there would be no value gained by me trying to "do it"?

 

[AV1611VET]

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not an archeologist, so there would be no value gained by me trying to "do it"?

Looks like you're SOL then -- short on luck.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Looks like you're SOL then -- short on luck.

Rather, I am willing to defer to experts. It feels perfectly natural, especially when you have your own area of expertise. I'm not sure how I can help you with this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather, I am willing to defer to experts.

The experts are Short On Luck. They're just as clueless as you are.

So they simply say, "Well, they looked two hundred years ago and didn't find a thing, so it didn't happen."

It feels perfectly natural, especially when you have your own area of expertise.

It doesn't matter what area of expertise they're in. They aren't going to find anything.

I'm not sure how I can help you with this.

Well remarks like this certainly don't:

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

I don't care what scientific investigation can and cannot do. They're looking for something that isn't there.

Two hundred years ago, they looked and didn't find anything.

Today, if they looked again, they aren't going to find anything.

Stop trying to make ME look bad.

I predict they won't find anything, they predict it didn't happen -- who's right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop trying to make ME look bad.

No one needs to help you with that. You're doing fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one needs to help you with that. You're doing fine.

Scientists are morons when it comes to the Bible -- absolute clueless morons.