My Ten Tribes Challenge

[Mountainmike]

That is not evidence.
1/ it happened at all.
2/ where, when
3/ how. What actually happened , what was the structure of the first self evolving lcell and what were the antecedents.
Without 3/ you don’t have a hypothesis.

it is yet more plausibility / conjecture.

You need a course in critical thinking.

The forensic evidence of EM exists, whether or not you look it up.
It actually happened.

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."

 

[Mountainmike]

The Scopes trial was about a legal challenge to a new law. Scopes was *recruited* by the ACLU to violate the "don't teach evolution" law and go on trial. He lost as they knew he would. "science" didn't do anything here.
.

Courts and science don’t make good bed partners.
Some verdicts are crazy.

Whatever the merits of the case , the Dover/behe verdict judicial statement was ludicrous! It was actually self contradicting.

If behe had picked the minimum cell , not a flagellum, his opposition would be reduced to the word “ might be” in which case he could say equally “ might be” , and give the conjectures equal standing.

Which is just to say, it isn’t just about the principles.
The advocates are often not good, and too many judges have scant connection with reality, in USA verdicts smell political.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Courts and science don’t make good bed partners.
Some verdicts are crazy.

Yes, that was the point. The court case wasn't about science, per se, but about the legality of the law banning the teaching of evolution. That's what I was trying express to AV who put the trial on his list of scientific evils (or whatever it was).

Let's review the timeline...

Mar. 1925: Tennessee passes law banning the teaching of human evolution.

The ACLU offers to defend any teacher charged under the new law.

Civic leaders in Dayton realize trial might be a big civic booster for the town and recruit John Scopes to be the defendant in the trial. (Scopes was a HS teacher and had taught the biology course from the state mandated textbook that contained the discussion of human evolution. He is not certain whether he actually taught the offending content.)

Six weeks after the law is passed Scopes is charged with teaching human evolution

July 1925: Trial. ACLU brought in famous lawyers and the county prosecutor's team was joined by William Jennings Bryan a two-time nominee of the Democratic Party for President (1896, 1908) and former US Secretary of State (1913-15). Bryan actually *testified* as an expert on creationism despite being an attorney in the case. (Really! Though his testimony was stricken from the record.)

The jury found Scopes guilty and the judge imposed a $100 fine.

In 1926 the verdict was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court and among the arguments made were that the law violated the Tennessee state constitution's prohibition of state religious establishment. The court ruled that since the law didn't require the teaching of religious creationism it didn't establish religion. The law would stand until the US Supreme Court overruled similar laws in 1968.

If AV wants to blame someone for the trial, it is not the scientists or lawyers or even reporters, but rather the Tennessee legislature for passing the law and the civic boosters in Dayton who thought a trial would be good for tourism.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is not evidence.
1/ it happened at all.
2/ where, when
3/ how. What actually happened , what was the structure of the first self evolving lcell and what were the antecedents.
Without 3/ you don’t have a hypothesis.

The funny thing is, you have none of the above but don't consider that to be a reason to doubt your hypotheses.

You need a course in critical thinking.

Sure. And you don't?

The forensic evidence of EM exists, whether or not you look it up.
It actually happened.

How many times have you been asked to present this irrefutable evidence? If you want to win your point it would be very easily done if you just presented...... you're not interested in making a point, are you? You just want attention, right?

 

[Kylie]

That is not evidence.
1/ it happened at all.
2/ where, when
3/ how. What actually happened , what was the structure of the first self evolving lcell and what were the antecedents.
Without 3/ you don’t have a hypothesis.

it is yet more plausibility / conjecture.

You need a course in critical thinking.

The forensic evidence of EM exists, whether or not you look it up.
It actually happened.

it shows that it is entirely consistent with what we know about the universe, unlike miracles by God.

I would suggest you reacquaint yourself with Occam's Razor.

And once again, you seem utterly incapable of providing this evidence.

Need I remind you that I am not going to do your homework for you? If you claim there is evidence, then YOU must provide it.

 

[Mountainmike]

it shows that it is entirely consistent with what we know about the universe, unlike miracles by God.

Well done for owning up to yours being a faith statement!

It’s sad how few that pretend to use science know so little about it.
Read “ science before science “ rizzi to get proper context.

what you know of the universe is entirely by OBSERVATION
But only limited to what you can sense, through a complex projection of senses, so you do not see the phenomena only noumena . ( Kant)

The model so derived is just a model. Any extrapolation may be wrong. All you can know for sure is what you observe that repeats and only then to the extent you can sense it,

So called EM has been OBSERVED so is science.
And forensically examined, Lots of books read them.

Abiogenesis of your kind
Has NEVER been observed. It is pure faith that it happened at all.
A faith you are welcome to, But it’s faith, not science,

Nor is it simple, it is so complex nobody understands it.

So you abuse Occam’s razor and science.
You have no explanation at all so you cannot categorise it as the simplest.

 

[Mr Laurier]

There was a child who claimed that he had a big brother who lived in another city.
He liked to try to scare the younger kids by threatening to send his big brother to beat them up if they didn't give him their lunch money.
It did work, a few times.
...
There was a band of nomadic herdsmen that migrated into ancient Palestine.
They would scare small villages by threatening to send their big brother tribes to burn down the villages if the villages didn't hand over grain, figs, olive oil, sheep, and virgin girls.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a band of nomadic herdsmen that migrated into ancient Palestine.
They would scare small villages by threatening to send their big brother tribes to burn down the villages if the villages didn't hand over grain, figs, olive oil, sheep, and virgin girls.

This "band of nomadic herdsmen" ... were they the ones, by any chance, that were attacked by the elite desert warriors (Amalekites) and crushed them?

 

[Mr Laurier]

This "band of nomadic herdsmen" ... were they the ones, by any chance, that were attacked by the elite desert warriors (Amalekites) and crushed them?

Does it matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it matter?

Yes it matters.

How did a band of nomads make it past a super army that was trained for desert combat?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yes it matters.

How did a band of nomads make it past a super army that was trained for desert combat?

Given that no such "super army" existed before the LRDG was created in 1940.
Long Range Desert Group - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that no such "super army" existed before the LRDG was created in 1940.

Oh -- now the Amalekites didn't exist either?

So no Exodus. No Israelites in the Sinai peninsula (except some rogue band)? and no Amalekites?

Were there any snakes in the desert perchance?

 

[sjastro]

Oh -- now the Amalekites didn't exist either?

So no Exodus. No Israelites in the Sinai peninsula (except some rogue band)? and no Amalekites?

Were there any snakes in the desert perchance?

Don't forget there was no great flood either in 2348 BC.
Archaeologists put paid to that idea so there is another group of individuals for you to despise along with the academics, astronomers and telephone hygienists.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Oh -- now the Amalekites didn't exist either?

They may have. But they would not have been elite desert warriors. More like shop keepers, merchants, farmers, potters, weavers, and smiths. Any military they had would be peasants levied for defense of the community. People who were civilians until called to war. And then went right back to being civilians as soon as the war ended.
Training was rudimentary at best. But more likely non-existent.
Babu the water carrier, was simply issued a spear, and put in line between Apnu the farmer, and Ga'hamaba the baker.

So no Exodus. No Israelites in the Sinai peninsula (except some rogue band)? and no Amalekites?

Wow. The leaps of logic.

Were there any snakes in the desert perchance?

Probably

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't forget there was no great flood either in 2348 BC.
Archaeologists put paid to that idea so there is another group of individuals for you to despise along with the academics, astronomers and telephone hygienists.

How about Nessie? Big Foot? Sasquatch? Chupacabra? taotaomonas? UFOs?

Has PAID been put to those guys as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

But they would not have been elite desert warriors.

I see.

So just conveniently downsize anything in the Bible in the name of science, and that's good enough.

Right?

After all, if everything was only a fraction of what the Bible says it was, then it's easy to make it look like the Bible's stories are not just myths, but exaggerated myths as well.

Right?

Only a band of ignorant, goat-herding, desert nomads escaped across the Red Sea in a rowboat, walked past the Amalekites, who were sitting in their tents knitting, invaded Canaan's small settlements, and voila.

Israel somehow gets put on the map?

Right?

 

[sjastro]

How about Nessie? Big Foot? Sasquatch? Chupacabra? taotaomonas? UFOs?

Has PAID been put to those guys as well?

How about making a post which makes sense for once.

The 19th dynasty Abydos king list records Egyptian pharaohs from the 1st dynasty.
If the great flood did occur in 2348 BC it would have occurred in the late 5th dynasty in the reign of Unas corresponding to cartouche no. 33 in the list.

The fact is not only did Unas survive but line of succession continued uninterrupted into the 6th dynasty with the pharaoh Teti corresponding to cartouche no. 34.

Archaeologists do not trust historians even ancient Egyptians and search for evidence for the existence of these pharaohs.
Both are attested for as their pyramids were excavated in the late 19th century.
The obvious question which arises is how these two individuals were able to build pyramids given they and the entire population would have been wiped out by the flood.

This only scratches the surface.
The first recorded ruler in history of an empire is Sargon of Akkad whose empire extended into Mesopotamia and reigned c. 2334–2279 BC.
His reign is uncomfortably close to 2348 BC to the point on can comfortably state Sargon wouldn't have been alive let alone rule an empire if the Biblical flood was a real event.

 

[AV1611VET]

His reign is uncomfortably close to 2348 BC to the point on can comfortably state Sargon wouldn't have been alive let alone rule an empire if the Biblical flood was a real event.

You mean this Sargon?

Isaiah 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;

 

[sjastro]

You mean this Sargon?

Isaiah 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;

It was this Sargon.
Sargon II - Wikipedia

As I have mentioned in a previous thread, the Bible does occasionally get it right when it comes to historical events.

 

[Kylie]

Well done for owning up to yours being a faith statement!

It’s sad how few that pretend to use science know so little about it.
Read “ science before science “ rizzi to get proper context.

what you know of the universe is entirely by OBSERVATION
But only limited to what you can sense, through a complex projection of senses, so you do not see the phenomena only noumena . ( Kant)

The model so derived is just a model. Any extrapolation may be wrong. All you can know for sure is what you observe that repeats and only then to the extent you can sense it,

So called EM has been OBSERVED so is science.
And forensically examined, Lots of books read them.

Abiogenesis of your kind
Has NEVER been observed. It is pure faith that it happened at all.
A faith you are welcome to, But it’s faith, not science,

Nor is it simple, it is so complex nobody understands it.

So you abuse Occam’s razor and science.
You have no explanation at all so you cannot categorise it as the simplest.

There's really no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, not if you are going to interpret what I say as whatever you want me to say.