Re: Another transitional fossil found.

partso2@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:14 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
part...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 נובמבר, 16:19, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
part...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 23 נובמבר, 17:23, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[cont]

Contrast that with the flood: one account,
One account presented to you by millions countes as million accounts.
See, no one of them had any reason to write down an independent
account, as the Holy Bible is more than enough.
Like I said: one account. No, millions of people believing it doesn't
have anything to do with whether it's true. A million copies of the
bible is no more evidence than one.

Of course it is. If millions of people were to come to you and tell
you that they personally saw the Exodus, is it a single source
(assuming they tell an identical story)? of course not.

Of course not.

If millions
come and tell you that they heard it from other millions (which happen
to be their parents), is it a single source? and if millions tell you
they heard it from their parents who heard it from their own parent?
and if they all don't say "there was an Exodus" but rather "this book
is true", and this book contains the Exodus? of course it can't be
considered as a single source. That's my whole point: the source of
authority isn't the book itself but rather the millions' testify about
its truth (i.e. the ongoing testiry of all the generations).

Sorry, but the chain of custody is broken. The same "evidence" applies to almost every myth you could name. They can't all be true.

And if you insist on checking the stories of different cultures around
the world, be sure to remember that while such stories can't be
invented, they can be forgotten. But anyway, many Flood stories are
known around the world. They vary on details, but have the same point.
I guess you know the matter.
Of course such stories can be invented. They're invented all the time.
Did the Navajo really arrive on Earth through a hole in the bottom of
the world? Did the Japanese really descend from Amaterasu the sun
goddess? I doubt it, even though the stories exist and were believed by
the people concerned for some time; I imagine that many believe them
even now. And flood stories appear in many places, but all they have in
common is that they feature a flood. There are stories about all manner
of other disasters too.

[There may have been other disasters too].

See, the point is about witnessed-by-millions. The Exodus and Flood
are claimed to be witnessed by a whole nation/humanity.

No they aren't. The flood is claimed to be witnessed by 8 people, none of whom are even claimed to have written it down.

No other
religion / myth can claim so.

And that's nonsense. A great many of them make such claims.

That's another fundamental error of you:
you know that many believe the (e.g.) Ramayana, and therefore you
assume that it claims to have been witnessed by millions, who are the
ancestors of the current believers. As I showed you, the story isn't
claimed to be witnessed by more than 3 people (or 2 - I'm not sure
Rama's sister witnessed the monkeys). I beg you - check it out. Do
your research. Find *any* religion/myth (save for Biblecal events)
that claims to have been witnessed by millions, and is believed in by
their descendants. You won't find any.

You didn't show me any such thing.

And I'll tell you why you won't find any. The inventors of the stories
are familiar with crowd psychology (otherwise the stories aren't
likely to be successful). If they came to an audience, and told them
about a personal revealation, the crowd might believe in it, if it has
a good enough reason (e.g. a charismatic inventor). Had the invertor
told them that it was witnessed by millions, they'll ask "how comes
that the millions told it only to you, and not to us?" and will be
much more skeptic. But still, with a very good reason they'll believe.
But if he told them that the witnesses were their own (grand)parents,
no one will ever believe him, asking "how comes that our parents told
it *only* to you, and to none other of us, while this event is so
meaningfull to our lives???". It's unfakable. But don't believe me -
do your research, and don't just post any myth here, assuming it was
so publicly witnessed.


I'll give you another example on how the Bible works (in contrast to
any other religion/myth). See Haggai 2:15-19. Haggai describes the
poor economic situation before they founded the Temple (while is also
described in the beginning of Haggai), along with a promise that from
this very day on [the day the Temple was founded), the situation will
change. Specific sifures of the former situation is given, and Hagagi
promises they'll never return. Now, by all accounts, the Bible was
sealed in Haggai's generation, or (at most) one generation later. That
is, if this prophecy was faked, then the sealers of the Bible had to
convince the whole population of Judaea that they personally witnessed
a prophet (or their parents did) whose promise came true (obviously if
it had come false, no one would have believed such an obviously-
falsified Bible). See my point?

No. Similar things happen all the time. Stories change, gradually. Things that happened long ago can't be checked against the memories of those now living. Stories that weren't intended to be believed literally gradually become accepted as fact. Stories based on real events become completely different from those events. Even when those stories include big crowds. The strawman scenarios you reject have no resemblance to the way these things actually work.

For a good example of how stories can evolve over time, consider the character of Etzel in the Nibelungenlied, apparently a garbled version of the historical Attila. Oral traditions are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing, and the people in each successive generation believe the current version of the story.

The only flood stories that really resemble the
biblical one are a few Mesopotamian ones, presumably because they
originated in the same legend. None of this is evidence that the stories
are true.

no
observable subsequent effect,
Of course there are.... only it depends on your initial assumptions.
If you insist that (e.g.) nature laws werenot changed, indefinitely
into the past, you'll never discover any evidence for the Flood, as it
contradicts you assumption.
What evidence is there of the flood? Aside from the existence of a
story, that is.

And I count a living tradition as an observable fact. It can't be
explained by any other theory.
Then you must believe in all the various legends of peoples around the
world, including the ones I've mentioned above. Do you?

and no accompanying physical evidence. Yet
the flood, if it happened, would have left incomparably more evidence
than the life of Alexander possibly could.
You brought examples of stories of events, which (the sotries) claim
were widely witnessed. What you should have brought, to refute this
point, is an example of an event that *many* peoplpe *today* really
believe was witnesses by *many* of their *ancestors*. In short, you
should take a bit of history (e.g. alexander) and refute it. Not a
single act of Alexander (which may not have been widely witnessed) but
the whole figure. I simply argue that such things can't be invented.
Show that I'm worng.
There is no way to show you that you're wrong, because you won't see.
Now of course many people today to believe that the ascension of
Mohammed was witnessed by their ancestors, and many believe that their
ancestors participated in the invasion of Sri Lanka with the help of a
monkey army. Why aren't those history?
Very simple. Each of this stories should be searched for a weak spot.
If none is found, then yes, I am obligated to accept it. Here, I'll
give you a general example: Christians say that, 3 days after the
Crucification, Jesus was reincarnated. How is it known? three women
witnessed that, and told it to a large crowd. Assuming that the crowd
was big enough, we must accept the fact, becase too many people can't
agree on a single faked story.
Three people could, assuming that there were even three witnesses. And
the only evidence that these three witnesses existed or told anything to
a large crowd is the biblical story. You are being circular here.

So we must believe that these three
women told it to them. Does it prove the Reincarnation? of course
not.... because three women CAN fake a story. It doesn't mean the
sotry is false, of course - it only means that Christians should prove
it using another method.
What method would that be?

I don't think you'll find, anywhere in the world, a religion or myth
that is based on a direct testify of millions (or even hundereds of
thousands) of witnesses, except some Biblical events. Check it out.
No biblical story is based on the direct "testify" of millions.

The preservation of the Bible (and the resulting commandments) is
their testify.

How so? And do you mean "testimony" here? Is the Iliad testimony of the power of Athena and Apollo? You know that their exploits on the battlefield were witnessed by thousands of Greeks and Trojans, right?

And just to answer your example - I checked some sources for the Sri
Lanka thing, and all of them say that Rama invaded it with monkeys.
None mention any humans involved (unless you count Rama himself, and
his brother, and the Lankans that got killed....).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana
Could be. I'm not an expert on the Ramayana. But wouldn't the Sinhalese
be witnesses?

About the Flood undeniable - see above. A person living a few
generations after the Flood will conclude its factuality from the
structure of human society and culture at her time.
Indeed one might, but we don't live a few generations after this
nonexistent flood. You have no evidence that anyone lived a few
generations after the flood. And I have much evidence that it never
happened.
Again, sotries of this kind can be forgotten, but can't be invented.
What? They're invented all the time, probably gradually. Stories get
embellished and changed to make them better stories.
Really? stories that claim to have happened in front of millions of
people? stories of unfakable nature (too big an impact)? stories that
are taken to be true by millions of the descendants of said witnesses?
really??? show me one, please.
Yes. Most stories of this sort claim to have had lots of witnesses. Most
stories have a crowd of some sort in them.

Who knows the
origin of the flood story, if indeed there's any event at its core? What
we do know is there was no worldwide flood, ever, and certainly not
within the last few thousand years. That would have left worldwide
evidence, which we don't see.
Once, you said that omphalism is unrefutable. I take it you meant
complete omphalism (that the worlds was instantly created, fully
functional). Why do you reject partial omphalism? that the laws of
nature changed abruptly without prior notice? if only one changed, it
would have left some evidence (and I'm not sure it's possible, as many
laws seem to be mutually-dependent.. And many constants). But if
enough of them changed, or even all of them, what possible evidence
could you look for? the very investigation of any evidence relies on
knowledge of what laws it was subject to. For example, if (long ago)
the year/day ratio was very different (say, 6), how could you detect
it? it may mean that the earth rotated much more slowly, or orbited
the sun must faster. Let's gamble on the last possibility. If it was
on it's present orbit, it means that Kepler laws were violated (and a
different orbit will mean a hotter or cooler earth). Kepler's laws are
provable using the Gravity law, so we must assume that it behaved
differently. Maybe gravity on the earth's surface was the same, the
change occuring only on large distances (violates current laws, I
know, but that's omphalism). You could try to detect that by examining
evidence on the earth, but by that you assume that currently-known
laws acted as we know them. If you omit this assumption, you can
analyze no evidence. So, if indeed we have a reliable tradition of
observation that this indeed happened, your only claim against it is
that your current theories contradict it. But an observation overcomes
a theory. So if indeed I prove that this tradition is reliable, and
you insist on contradictory evidence, you'll have to abandon your
theories (or accept partial omphalism), not reject the observation.
You haven't proven that any tradition is reliable. I agree that
omphalism can't be refuted, but if you're into that you might as well be
a solipsist. The sort of omphalism that is completely indetectable
requires that the perpetrator have a deceptive purpose. Otherwise, even
alterations in many physical laws at once would leave detectable effects
on the world. If you want to believe in a lying god, that's your
prerogative, but you should at least be aware of your choice.

Why would the change of laws leave evidence? please clarify.

In many ways. The relationship of one law to another would change, and this would have effects on the world. If, for example, gravity had been much weaker in the past then it is now, the earth would have been farther from the sun, and thus much cooler. Years would have been considerably longer. There is no sign of this. There is however evidence that days were once shorter.

If enough poeple believe it, it means it's true, bucase this
undeniability in those following generations makes this story
unfakable.
Then all myths are true, because plenty of people either believe them
now or believed them at one time. Your criterion forces you to accept
all manner of mutually contradictory claims.
As noted, every such myth has a weak link in its chain (3 women etc.).
Find a chains with no weak link.
The bible stories all have weak links, in that sense. I don't see your
point. The flood was supposedly witnessed only by 8 people, none of whom
apparently wrote anything down. Is that weak enough?

You forgot - I thought we agreed that the Flood was undeniable to
anyone living in the few following generation. That gives a lot of
(indirect) witnsees. Though not the the specific details of the Flood
(e.g. that it was water). But anyway this catastrophe occured, which
is enough in the creationism-evolution issue.

But it didn't occur. We have no evidence that it happened, and much that it didn't. We have no more reason to believe in the flood than in the monkey army. There are potentially 8 witnesses, and no more than a few dozen witnesses to its later effects.

See how you're hard to be convinced! you doubt it because
such a magnificient story is incredible. But the believesrs of the
Flood aren't much more foolish than you. If they did accept it, it
means it was credited to them. How? simply, because their parents did
believe it, and so on by induction. The incredibility of the story is
exactly the reason to accept it (provided that enough people believe
it, and the story claims that it was witnessed by enough people which
are the ancestors of the current believers, etc. - I'm not goint to
cite the whole article again).
Good. The entire point of the article is ridiculous. Millions of people
believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon and the teachings of
Scientology. Are they true therefore?
Why do they believe in it? because of a revealation in front of
millions???? (3rd time I repeat it. Never mind).
Good. Now of course each claims to have been witnessed by millions, just
like your claims of biblical revelation.

"If it had happened, people would have noticed it" isn't an argument
that it happened.
Along witrh the fact that people do really believe it today, it is an
argument (that's why Lord of the Rings fails here. If true, it would
have been noticed by a lot of people, but unfortunately no one today
believes it, so that's exactly the reason to reject it).
That's not the reason. The reason is that we know who wrote it,
Had you not known who wrote it (say you live 41234267 years in the
future). will you believe it??? That's not the reason. The reason is
that no one believes in it, and it's unfakable (leaves enough impact,
if true), therefore false.
But we have the same reason for believing that Genesis isn't true.

Does no one believe in Genesis? funny, I thought some did.

That's not a reason to believe it's true. Genesis would be unfakable, i.e. leaving enough impact if true. But we don't see that impact. Therefore it's false.

[got to go. The most of the rest repeats already-discussed topics].

he made
it all up, and it doesn't fit into known history at all. We may not know
who wrote Genesis (probably many people over a long period), but we do
know it doesn't fit into known history.
It *is* known hostory, much more reliable than Alexander.
Only because you declare that it is. You haven't provided any actual
reasons.

But tell me. Suppose I really do prove my case to you. Will you take
it as true, chaging your beliefs accordingly? because, frankly, if you
lack thisminimal honesty, there's really no point in this discussion.
So please let me know before we go on.
Sure, if you proved your case I would have to believe it. But you would
have to show why all the evidence is wrong, and your contempt for
evidence makes that unlikely even if it were possible.
Well, you wouldn't expect to find any evidence for any miracle if you
work assuming currently-known laws of nature, which prevent miracles,
right? but that's only another way to say partial omphalism. Or didn't
you mean physical evidence?
No, we would expect to find evidence of miracles, or at least for the
events of the miracle if not the cause. If your claim is that all the
miracles were performed in such a way as to present perfectly
consistent, false evidence of the past, that would be consistent with
the evidence, but would require god to be pointlessly deceptive. Why
does god want us not to believe in the flood?

Legends arise for all sorts of reasons. If that's an
argument for one bizarre legend, it's an argument for all of them.
Mohammed's ascent to heaven was witnessed by a great many people. So was
the building of a causeway to Sri Lanka by a giant army of monkeys. Are
those true too?
Are they?
Well?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... no one of them had any reason to write down an independent ... But anyway, many Flood stories are ... None of this is evidence that the stories ... assuming that there were even three witnesses. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... And don't you believe the flood story, despite it's having been witnessed, supposedly, by only 8 people? ... But anyway, many Flood stories are ... Further, the evidence they would have seen around them would also be evident to us, now, if it were actually true. ... But if he told them that the witnesses were their own parents, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... witnesses for a specific event, ... All evidence should be ignored, ... of a better reason. ... The child may conclude that Greeks ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... I rely on the multiple independent accounts and wealth of physical evidence. ... And I agree that you can make farfetched connections among unrelated stories, ... of a better reason. ... The child may conclude that Greeks ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... no one of them had any reason to write down an independent ... bible is no more evidence than one. ... you that they personally saw the Exodus, is it a single source ... But if he told them that the witnesses were their own parents, ...
    (talk.origins)