Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[Emyunoxious]

This is an obscenely long response to a complex question, so I'll just sum up the conclusions here, because, come on, you weren't going to read the whole thing anyway.

1. There no evidence that Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt.
2. There is no evidence that any plagues were visited upon the people of Egypt, but there is evidence that this story is a legendary version of an actual volcanic eruption.
3. There are marine fossils on the summit of Everest, which not only supports the idea of plate tectonics, completely obliterates the idea of a worldwide flood.

Evidence of what? The ten plagues hold no evidence to examine. We're not going to find proof that locusts destroyed crops or that first born children died. Trying to figure it out with science is just plain stupid.

Alright. This is wrong for two reasons.

One, you are saying that you believe the plagues happen because there's no evidence for them. That doesn't make any sense at all. All you've claimed, in defense is Christianity is that the lack of evidence makes sense. That's not a belief, that's spite.

Two, there wouldn't be any evidence for the plagues, huh?

All natural explanations are taken from Wikipedia unless otherwise specified.

The first plague, the blood in the water (aka shark week), would have tons of evidence, were it to have occurred.
Two ideas dominate how the river turning red could have occurred, naturally.
1. The redness in the Nile could have actually been pollution caused by volcanic activity, specifically that of Santorini, which erupted around 1500 B.C. and whose ash is found in the Nile region. The silt could make the Nile turn blood red, and would also render it undrinkable. Heavy rains in the red-soiled area of Lake Victoria could have caused reddened water to wash downstream.
2. Alternatively, a red toxic algal bloom (red tide) could have produced large quantities of toxins that would kill fish.
However, is there evidence that this is what they were talking about in Exodus? Or that this happened in tandem with any other series of disasters? Or that rivers literally turned to blood?

No, there isn't. A river running red with blood would almost certainly have some sort of geological remnants: hemoglobin embedded in the sediment comes to mind. But hey, maybe there wouldn't be evidence for that. It happened so quickly, perhaps it was all washed away.

But you have to realize that the fact that there isn't evidence is not a good reason to believe it happened.

So let's move on!

The second plague, the one with frogs, is easy. Any blight on the water that killed fish (algae, volcanic ash) also would have caused frogs to leave the river and probably die.

The third and fourth plagues, the ones with biting flies and insects, is also easy and purely biological. The lack of frogs in the river would have let insect populations, normally kept in check by the frogs, increase massively.

The fifth and sixth plagues, the one with boils and livestock disease and shit, is the same deal. There are biting flies in the region which transmit livestock diseases; a sudden increase in their number could spark epidemics.

The seventh plague, the flaming hail, is supported by the idea of volcanic ash in the rivers. Volcanic activity not only brings with it ash, but brimstone, and also alters the weather system, occasionally producing hail. Hail could also have occurred as a completely independent natural weather event, with accompanying lightning as the "fire".

The eighth plague, THE LOCUST, is actually pretty interesting. The weight of hail will destroy most crops, leaving several insects and other animals without a normal food source. The remaining crops therefore would become targeted heavily, and thus be destroyed by swarms of locusts which would otherwise be distributed rather thinly. Or the locusts could have increased because of a lack of predators. Even without these explanations, swarms of locusts are not uncommon today.

The ninth plague, the darkness, is also supported by the idea of a volcano. There could be several causes for unusual darkness: a solar eclipse, a sandstorm, volcanic ash, or simply swarms of locusts large enough to block out the sun.

The tenth plague, aside from being the most barbaric, is also the most fascinating, and therefore requires extra explanation. I promise it's worth it, though.

1. If the last plague indeed selectively tended to affect the firstborn, it could be due to food polluted during the time of darkness, either by locusts or by the black mold Cladosporium. When people emerged after the darkness, the firstborn would be given priority, as was usual, and would consequently be more likely to be affected by any toxin or disease carried by the food. Meanwhile, the Israelites ate food prepared and eaten very quickly which would have made it less likely to be infected.

2. In the 2006 documentary Exodus Decoded, Jewish Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici hypothesised the selectiveness of the tenth plague was under the circumstances similar to the 1986 disaster of Lake Nyos that is related to geological activities that caused the previous plagues in a related chain of events. The hypothesis was that the plagues took place shortly after the eruption of Thera (now known as Santorini), which happened some time between 1550 BCE and 1650 BCE, and recently narrowed to between 1627–1600 BCE, with a 95% probability of accuracy. Jacobovici however places the eruption in 1500 BCE. According to the documentary, the eruption sets off a chain of events resulting in the plagues and eventually the killing of the first born. Jacobovici suggests that the first borns in ancient Egypt had the privilege to sleep close to the floor while other children slept on higher ground or even on roofs. This view, however, is not supported by any archaeological or historical evidence. As in Lake Nyos, when carbon dioxide or other toxic gases escape the surface tension of a nearby waterbody because of either geological activity or over-saturation, the gas, being heavier than air, "flooded" the nearby area displacing oxygen and killing those who were in its path. Jewish households escaped the fate because they were told to observe their first Passover rituals.

Now, let's say it was a volcano that caused all this shit to happen. Realize, then, that it wasn't all the firstborn of Egypt to die, or a river running red with blood, or anything like that. It was a group of people who underwent a terrible disaster and exaggerated the facts many years later.


Oh, did I say many years later? "A volcanic eruption which happened in antiquity and could have caused some of the plagues if it occurred at the right time is the eruption of the Thera volcano 650 miles to the northwest of Egypt. Controversially dated to about 1628 BC, this eruption is one of the largest on record, rivaling that of Tambora, which resulted in 1816's Year Without a Summer. The enormous global impact of this eruption has been recorded in an ash layer deposit found in the Nile delta, tree ring frost scars in the bristlecone pines of the western United States, and a coating of ash in the Greenland ice caps, all dated to the same time and with the same chemical fingerprint as the ash from Thera.
However, all estimates of the date of this eruption are hundreds of years before the Exodus is believed to have taken place; thus the eruption can only have caused some of the plagues if one or other of the dates is wrong, or if the plagues did not actually immediately precede the Exodus."

It's that last possibility that makes the most sense. A people made up a story about their rulers during a time when they were brutally ensla-



Wait, what? There's no evidence that there was ever a mass enslavement of Jewish people in Egypt? Or evidence of any slave race at all?

There is no evidence at all. There are no inscriptions from the relevant period that ever mentioned the Israelites. Although the ancient Egyptians kept extraordinarily detailed records of their daily lives, including all kinds of contracts and transactions, they never mentioned a race of slaves in their midst, even over a supposed period of 430 years. This omission is all the more surprising if we literally accept the number of Hebrew slaves claimed by the Book of Exodus - 600,000 fighting men, equivalent to 2.5 million men, women and children, or two thirds of the Egyptian population at the time. At a time when average life expectancy was around 50 years, the Israelites were said to live for 120 to 137 years. The Egyptians could be expected to want to know the secret of almost eternal youth, yet nothing was ever written about slaves who lived to such great ages. No Egyptian wrote of the great plagues of Moses and the loss of the slaves was never mentioned even though, if true, this would have had a devastating impact on the Egyptian economy, no doubt making many contracts unenforceable. Conversely, there is no reference in the Bible to the Egyptian dominion over Canaan, an omission that by itself strongly suggests that the biblical record is not historic.

There is no archaeological evidence of large-scale Hebrew presence in Egypt, nor of the 40 year sojourn in the desert, nor of the conquest of Canaan. Even if the band of fleeing Hebrews had been much smaller than claimed, they would still have left some evidence behind. Archaeologists say they have found occasional camp-site evidence from previous centuries as well as from later periods, but nothing from the Exodus.

Some believe that Egyptian power declined inexplicably in the late fifteenth century BCE, saying that this must be evidence of a loss such as the loss of so many slaves, but Egypt remained at the height of its power. The remarkable Amarna letters attest that this was still true in the mid-1300s BCE and that even then Egypt was the undisputed power throughout Palestine and Syria, supported by a network of petty Canaanite rulers.

Others see obscure evidence in the succession of Amenhotep II after the long reign of Thutmose III, but Amenhotephad already been co-regent, so naturally succeeded his father.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_evidence_of_Israelite_slavery_in_Egypt#ixzz1Epyuo1sR

So why the story?


If the Israelites were never enslaved by Egyptians, and therefore had no reason to make up a story about their god saving them, why have this story at all?

Well, to start off with, I don't know. I can't say for sure.

But, there are some possibilities.

From: http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar..._god_send_frogs_locusts_boils_pg2.html?cat=34

Why Did God Send the Ten Plagues?
At the time the Egyptians did not worship the one God that Moses believed in. Instead the Egyptians had many gods that they worshiped. There were gods of the sky, gods of the waters, gods for just about everything. Each one of the ten plagues that God sent through Moses were not just random plagues. Each of the ten plagues were specifically designed to defy some of the Egyptian gods.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Blood?
Two of the Egyptian gods were Khnum and Hopi. Khnum was the guardian of the Nile and Hopi was the spirit of the Nile. When God turns the Nile River into blood it is a sign that God is more powerful than Khnum or Hopi.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Frogs?
The Egyptians also worshiped a god of resurrection named Heqt. Heqt was believed to take the form of a frog. The plague of Frogs was a way of saying that God could control any form of frog.

Why Did God Send the Plague on Cattle?
Apis was the symbol of fertility and took the form of a bull god. The plague on the cattle was a sign that even God could strike down any cattle, even a bull god.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Boils?
The Egyptians also worshiped Imhotep, the god of medicine. When boils appeared on the people of Egypt and not even Imhotep can cure them it was a sign that God was more powerful.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Hail?
The plague of hail was sent to defy the god of Nut. Nut was the sky goddess and normally would be the one to control the weather.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Locusts?
Seth was the Egyptian god that was supposed to be the protector of the crops. The locusts destroyed crops so the plague of locusts was a way to defy Seth.

Why Did God Send the Plague of Darkness?
The Egyptians had many sun gods. Four of the Egyptian sun gods were Re, Aten, Atum and Hours. The plague of darkness was to challenge the sun gods.

Why Did God Send the Plague of the Firstborn?
Osiris was the Egyptian god that was considered the giver of life. Osiris supposedly has the ability to give people to life but was unable to stop every firstborn from being killed.

It was a story of conversion. This sort of thing happens all the time in the Bible.

Look at any demon in the Bible, and you can find evidence that that "demon" was once worshiped as a god by a group of people who opposed the Israelites. For example, there's Paul's sermon at Mars Hill.

22"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious[3].
23"For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.

—Acts 17:22-17:31, KJV

And before someone says "OH BUT THEY FOUND CHARIOT WHEELS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RED SEA THAT MEANS SOMETHING FUCKING STUPID"


NO


THEY DIDN'T

Wyatt's focus on Nuweiba and his claims of finding chariot remains on the floor of the sea have brought other adventurers to the site but even Wyatt's supporters urge caution about their enthusiastic findings. Richard Rives, the president of Wyatt Archeological Research in Tennessee, told journalist Joe Kovacs, "All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts." Wyatt's wife, Mary Nell, told Kovacs the same. She went diving with Wyatt at the Red Sea site and said that at first she thought everything was a chariot wheel.

The bottom line is that at this point all that seems to exist to support the claims of chariot parts on the bottom of the red sea are pictures, most of which are of coral formations. No documented artifacts have been retrieved and preserved from the site and now the Egyptian government prohibits bringing any findings to the surface to the questions may remain for a long time to come.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm

Also, nearly as certain as that, someone is going to mention the Ipuwer Papyrus, a document that is claimed by some fundamentalists to support the idea of the historicity of the plagues.

This is totally bogus. The only parallel that this text has with the plagues is that they both mention rivers running red with blood. It is so unlikely that these two sources were even aware of each other that the only reason I bother to mention it at all is to save the poster who inevitably will mention it from the embarrassment of doing so.



Okay.


That's it for the first part of the reply.


Deep breath.

Okay, NEXT

And there is evidence that there was a great flood. The Garden of Eden is allegedly underwater now [citations needed] and aquatic fossils are found on mountaintops. Sure this can all point toward the Earth being a multi-billion year legacy of crap, but it could also point toward something more probable, like a flood.

Okay. I'm going to try not to use so many words to make my point here, because it's snowing outside and I want to put on face paint and raid a nearby village, so let's be brief.

Are you familiar with plate tectonics?

That's how mountains form. Imagine that land there is the sea floor getting pushed up.


Do you see, now, how mountain building works?


For someone else's explanation of this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/10/...mountains-proves-the-truth-of-noahs-flood.htm

"When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
— John McPhee, a geologist

Everest is formed from rocks that were once at or below sea level, but have been elevated by the action of continental drift. Mountain complexes result from irregular successions of tectonic responses due to sea-floor spreading, shifting lithosphere plates, transform faults, and colliding, coupled and uncoupled continental margins.


Also, are you familiar with the process by which fossils form?

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm

You know what? I'll be nice this time.

Although fossils can be found in sediments deposited in turbulent (high energy) environments near the coastline, complete/articulated skeletons require undisturbed conditions. A quiet seafloor with minimal light, low oxygen levels and a soft muddy composition are among the conditions suitable for preserving organic remains.

I'll give you this: everest has low oxygen levels, that's for sure. However, it does not, and even were it submerged, it would not, have minimal light or a soft, muddy composition. The summit is rock.

"Mountains form due to plate tectonics. They are literally the result of the earth being pushed upwards and together, like creases in the earth's surface. Take a piece of cloth, grab either side of it lengthwise and start pushing them together -- now imagine that same process happening in the earth's plates. Fossils that were buried on the ocean floor were shifted along with the rock, and locked in place when the mud from the floor of the ocean condensed into rock.

Once again, this is not proof of a global flood. Fossils couldn't find their way into solid rock unless they've been there for millions of years, not several thousand. The fossils were already present before Everest came to its full size and position. There is absolutely no way that they could have have been embedded in the rock after it formed, even if there had been a global flood.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081215214021AAZlD77"


Now, I have to ask you, because you brought up the topic of probability.

Which is more likely, do you think:

Either
a) a space wizard broke every law of geology we know of in order to embed marine fossils in solid, sedimentary rock, which would only bolster those who already believe in him, while simultaneously providing more evidence for the alternative, natural, secular idea held by people who have actually studied this topic for years
or
b) not that?


Indeed, all of this issues you have mentioned serve only to support the idea of a natural world, not detract from it.

 

[Jquestionmark]

There's quite a few of my questions/requests I presented to you that I'm hoping to see responses to. For now, I will respond to what I've been given to work with.

Evidence of what? The ten plagues hold no evidence to examine. We're not going to find proof that locusts destroyed crops or that first born children died. Trying to figure it out with science is just plain stupid.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect on two counts. First of all, we have to consider what effects such events would have had that we could detect. For example, if the entire Nile turned to blood, the chemicals from the blood would have soaked into the sediment, staining it (please note, I don't mean colour, I mean chemically) to a point that would be easy to detect today. In an effort to be fair to the claims of the story, we'll assume that this only happened within Egypt's borders, and it did not actually affect the entire Nile river, all the way down past Kenya.

The sheer number of animals/creatures claimed to manifest and died would have likely also left permanent evidence when they became corpses (the majority of livestock in Egypt, enough frogs to fill the Nile).

Should such evidence have existed, it would not have been difficult to locate. Unfortunately, there appears to be no such evidence. This brings me to an idea known as the evidence of absence. To sum it up, lets quote the philosopher/logician Irving Copi: "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." To sum that up even further: absence of evidence is a form of evidence against something having occurred. Basically, the inability to provide evidence for these plagues implies quite simply that they did not occur. But we'll come back to that idea again shortly.

So, the first issue is that such events (assuming they are literal accounts and not fiction) would have left evidence that could be figured out by science.

Second, Research into documentation throughout history would likely provide the best evidence. Unfortunately, not all information survives. That being said, events such as these ones should have generated enough documentation in enough of the places surrounding Egypt and in Egypt itself that some recorded evidence should have survived. After all, there was a series of troubles that befell Egypt quite some time before the whole supposed troubles of Exodus. But that's the problem: those recorded issues were a separate event that do not fit chronologically with the mythological Biblical plagues.

So all of this extremely detailed documentation about the exact events surrounding the plagues in Egypt survived in the hands of people that supposedly wandered the desert for 40 years (also an issue, as there's only a few weeks of desert walking distance between the point of origin and the final destination for the Jews that fled), but nothing survived in or around Egypt in powerful, long-lived civilizations to document the incredible events that happened in the entire Egyptian empire? I'm not really sure that paints a believable picture. At all.

Not to mention, there's a distinct lack of evidence that Jews were even in Egypt as slaves ever, at any point in time, at all.

So, in regards to documentation of the plagues and archeological and documentation of the Jew's presence in Egypt, we return to this idea: the evidence of absence. Since there is no evidence beyond a book that exists only to encourage belief in a certain religion (and not to accurately record events), we are stuck with the sobering conclusion that those things just didn't happen.

To sum up the second issue: regardless of science, there should be evidence of the plagues.

And there is evidence that there was a great flood. The Garden of Eden is allegedly underwater now and aquatic fossils are found on mountaintops. Sure this can all point toward the Earth being a multi-billion year legacy of crap, but it could also point toward something more probable, like a flood.

I'm keeping this paragraph whole for now, to avoid taking you out of context. I'll be examining your comments on eden shortly, and focusing on the flood first.

Before I even start, though I doubt this is the actual source of the issue, I'd appreciate if you'd define probability and give me a breakdown of how you think mountains form and how fossils form. As part of this request, please provide full details of your reasoning regarding mountain formation and the fossilization process (as well as the chemical/physical process involved in the fossilization) or a reputable source explaining the process as you see it working. I'd also like an explanation of how those fossils got into the rock on the mountaintops and how this is more probable than the standard and current scientific explanations of fossilization and plate tectonics (mathematical probabilities would be nice, but aren't necessary).

I'm not sure how the marvels of the natural world versus arbitrary divine intervention leads to the world being a "legacy of crap." If you could explain just what that means, I'd appreciate it.

It's also worth noting that the fossils are not only evidence of the flood, but evidence against it. You yourself said it can point to that. That being the case, this evidence only half satisfies my request. I asked that you provide evidence for the flood instead of against it. You admitted that this evidence can point to both the flood having happened and it not having happened (the evidence is both - simultaneously for and against) and made an unsupported argument that probability implies the flood did happen. I fail to see how the claim of one text document (worth noting that no other civilizations around during the flood wrote about it, and worth noting that the document is religious in nature, not historic or scientific) that doesn't agree with other contemporary text documents is the more probable conclusion. Regardless, if there is any probability that plate tectonics are true, then your "evidence" is insufficient for my request.

Your explanation for the flood also avoids the topic of the ark, and how all of life on earth was contained in the ark in pairs (and boarded in the course of a single day). As this is a major part of the flood myth, I feel it needs to be addressed. Please address this.

Now, on to eden.

The Garden of Eden is allegedly underwater now

I have two issues with this statement. It doesn't appear to have any specific contextual information attached to it from the surrounding statements in that paragraph, so I'm going to analyze it on its own.

First, you have stated that the garden is "allegedly" underwater. This raises two issues: 1) how would the garden continue to be intact, guarded by angels and a flaming sword (I feel like the flaming sword would not be so flaming underwater) and 2) who alleged this? I have a feeling this claim does not come from the most reputable source.

Second, this statement provides zero evidence for eden. It makes an evidence-free claim for the existence of eden, while providing a location that cannot be investigated. Based on this statement, we have equal reason to believe that eden is:

- underwater
- on the dark side of the moon
- in the center of the earth
- in the center of the sun
- in a different galaxy
- in a different dimension
- not a real place

This claim is not evidence for eden, and does not satisfy my request. It was facetious of me to say we have equal reason to believe all of those above listed things. Due to the lack of evidence for any one of them, we are forced to rank the one which says eden is not a real place as the most believable. Once again, absence of evidence provides evidence of absence.

To top it all off, lets list a few more points of fiction from the Bible that would have to be resolved to consider it a historically accurate work:

- dragons
- unicorns
- giants
- two distinct creation events
- people living for hundreds of years
- the earth is only 6000 years old
- animal/human life in american continents post-flood
- the tower of babel
- the cattle/goats offspring colouration by forcing them to look at colour patterns while breeding (Jacob - Genesis 30:37-39)
- 40 years of a few hundred thousand people wandering about in a desert undiscovered and undocumented by other cultures
- the chronological discrepancy between the civilization of Ai and the Israelites
- according to some passages of the bible, the earth is set on pillars

I'll go ahead and call it there for now. There's plenty more, but those seem to be adequate concerns to start with. Actually, lets bring just one more in. It's worth a mention, since Josephus came up in a different thread. Since his accounts are well regarded and drawn upon for evidence of Jesus existing as a real (normal) human, we should take note of a noteworthy event that does not come up in any of his records:

Around the time of Jesus' supposed birth, the Bible claims Herod ordered the death of all infants 2 and younger. Josephus did not just make enough mention of Jesus to provide evidence for some, he also wrote quite a bit about Herod's life. Yet, in all of that, he neglected to mention such a massacre. If he's such a reliable source, how did such a vital event as this not make the cut?

As I said before, historical fiction. Managing to avoid such a terrible fate (even if it wasn't something that actually happened) makes the birth of Jesus seem all the more special. Personally, I would have rather they just included more badass giants.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

For example, if the entire Nile turned to blood, the chemicals from the blood would have soaked into the sediment, staining it (please note, I don't mean colour, I mean chemically) to a point that would be easy to detect today. In an effort to be fair to the claims of the story, we'll assume that this only happened within Egypt's borders, and it did not actually affect the entire Nile river, all the way down past Kenya.

The sheer number of animals/creatures claimed to manifest and died would have likely also left permanent evidence when they became corpses (the majority of livestock in Egypt, enough frogs to fill the Nile)

This two things can easily be explained.
Frogs would decompose and become almost literally nothing. Their bones are cartilage- this is why you will not see ears and noses on skulls.
Livestock would be exposed to the elements and after 3500 years, more or less, they would be nothing.
But these two things are obsolete nonetheless because the Egyptians would have cleaned up the mess afterwards.

As for the Nile turning to blood, not only would 1000's of years of flowing water erase the chemicals, but the sediments they would have been on as well.



Documentation
I would say there has been a record of a plague in Egypt around 1500 BC, but I do not have the time to source it right now and am not going to exemplify it in argument.
Instead, I'll just say that recording anything during that time period was extremely difficult. People spent their entire lives writing copies of the Bible, for example, which was many centuries later. During the times of the Egyptians, what little they had to record with was likely destroyed. They are simply not going to carve these events into walls and demerit their own gods.
Nonetheless, their literary coding has yet to be completely analyzed.



Anyways, this debate has more or less moved into another thread, so I figured I would just wrap that last post up and save any other inquiry.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

But these two things are obsolete nonetheless because the Egyptians would have cleaned up the mess afterwards.

This kills your already ill-informed argument. Trash heaps and dumps are the best collections of anthropological evidence we have. If they cleaned it up it would just preserve the evidence even better, especially if they'd burned it.

As for the Nile turning to blood, not only would 1000's of years of flowing water erase the chemicals, but the sediments they would have been on as well.

No. And the sediments that were chemically stained would not just wash away into nothingness, they would gather in certain areas.

You don't know the first thing about anthropology or geology.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

This kills your already ill-informed argument. Trash heaps and dumps are the best collections of anthropological evidence we have. If they cleaned it up it would just preserve the evidence even better, especially if they'd burned it.


No. And the sediments that were chemically stained would not just wash away into nothingness, they would gather in certain areas.

You don't know the first thing about anthropology or geology.

Once again you have de-educated yourself with bias thought.
How would you be able to tell what and what isn't of diseased animal 1000's of years ago?
It speaks for itself.

And nothing oraganic is going to remain traceable in a flowing waterbed for 3500 years, whether it gathers or not.
This speaks for itself also.

Insulting me is not the best gambit for debating my logic. This is a very desperate argument you are throwing up and it's only moving against you.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Once again you have de-educated yourself with bias thought.
How would you be able to tell what and what isn't of diseased animal 1000's of years ago?
It speaks for itself.

It does speak for itself. Thank you for saying so. You would easily be able to tell bones apart from surrounding sediment by looking at them with your eyes, and you could date them with reliable dating methods.

I'm not sure where the word diseased came in, but it's not relevant, since the animals died from a few different plagues.

And nothing oraganic is going to remain traceable in a flowing waterbed for 3500 years, whether it gathers or not.
This speaks for itself also.

I suppose there haven't been any organic items preserved from before 3500 years ago? Aside from dinosaur bones, fossil fuels, hominid bones, plant matter, or anything of that nature.

Or are you saying everything that we have fossil evidence for existed at the same time as man?

Insulting me is not the best gambit for debating my logic. This is a very desperate argument you are throwing up and it's only moving against you.

I'm not so sure that saying "You don't know the first thing about anthropology or geology." is meant to be an insult. unadulteratedawesome is taking the information you have presented, and is using it to assess your understanding of those disciplines. You don't seem to understand plate tectonics (Emyu's post would be good to go over, and you still haven't responded with any argument against it), and your understanding of how we assess the past with anthropology/archeology seems to be very different from the actual sciences.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

How would you be able to tell what and what isn't of diseased animal 1000's of years ago?
It speaks for itself.

Let's say that we found several gigantic mounds of livestock (this is all of their livestock we're talking about) that all date to the same time period. Why would they slaughter all of their livestock in one fell swoop? They wouldn't. Something like disease would have had to take them, which would provide evidence for a plague of this magnitude. And if they were slaughtered by a biblical storm or a horde of beasts that would sure as hell be evident in their skeletons.

But we haven't found any physical evidence at all of this. Nothing. The only evidence we have is from the Bible, which is a religious text that consists of historical records of dubious quality and things of fantastical, unrealistic quality.

And nothing oraganic is going to remain traceable in a flowing waterbed for 3500 years, whether it gathers or not.
This speaks for itself also.

Blood also contains minerals. There'd be quite a lot if there was a literal river of blood.

Insulting me is not the best gambit for debating my logic.

It's a statement, not an insult. From what you've claimed about these issues you've exhibited no understanding of any science.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Let's say that we found several gigantic mounds of livestock (this is all of their livestock we're talking about) that all date to the same time period. Why would they slaughter all of their livestock in one fell swoop? They wouldn't. Something like disease would have had to take them, which would provide evidence for a plague of this magnitude. And if they were slaughtered by a biblical storm or a horde of beasts that would sure as hell be evident in their skeletons.

But we haven't found any physical evidence at all of this. Nothing. The only evidence we have is from the Bible, which is a religious text that consists of historical records of dubious quality and things of fantastical, unrealistic quality.


Blood also contains minerals. There'd be quite a lot if there was a literal river of blood.


It's a statement, not an insult. From what you've claimed about these issues you've exhibited no understanding of any science.

First, you are seriously trying to feed a dead horse. Evidence of blood/minerals in a flowing river,, 3500 year old livestock remains? You can think of any rationale and it will be smashed by basic logic.

I know more about science than you do, because I know it's limitations. So I wouldn't try to flatter the idea that I know nothing about it. You are just a ridiculous person.

 

[der Astronom]

First, you are seriously trying to feed a dead horse. Evidence of blood/minerals in a flowing river,, 3500 year old livestock remains? You can think of any rationale and it will be smashed by basic logic.

Then please identify the logical fallacies or present your argument that uses this logic that shows this is incorrect, and explain how that refutes their claims.

No more excuses. No more dancing around the issue. We want an answer, here, and now.

I know more about science than you do, because I know it's limitations. So I wouldn't try to flatter the idea that I know nothing about it. You are just a ridiculous person.

Oh really? Then can you please answer these questions for me?

Do you or do you not believe that science can prove things? If you think it does, why do you expect it to?

What assumptions do you think science is making that you find unreasonable?

Do you think science is infallible or falsifiable? If you believe it is falsifiable, why is it a lie and not simply something that needs to be fixed or improved upon?

Do you expect science to tell us anything and everything about the world? Why?

If you really claim to know more science than we do, answering these questions should be easy for you to do. If you fail/refuse to answer them, we might be convinced you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Then please identify the logical fallacies or present your argument that uses this logic that shows this is incorrect, and explain how that refutes their claims.

No more excuses. No more dancing around the issue. We want an answer, here, and now.

Lmao.
Ok, that is the most hypocritical nonsense I've ever heard. How about proving to me that it can be done?

The last time I checked, a debate goes something like this:
I say something. You agree or disagree. And then, you explain why.
It's amazing that you are sooo damn logical and yet when a debate starts getting hot, your IQ all of sudden shrinks and I have to play teacher.
As for what you have said about no one doing my homework for me.. I've done my homework. That's why I presented it.
How about educating yourself instead of labeling everything as false because you lack the knowledge?
The reason why I have not put sources up for what I've claimed is because it will do nothing to reverse these stubborn arguments pinned against me. Besides, a lot of what I have claimed is self-explanatory anyways, which really makes my blood boil when I hear such a 'logical' person not even able to comprehend it.

Science can achieve many things, but it has it's limits. You simply cannot tell if an animal was diseased or a river flowed with blood 3500 years ago.
I mean wtf?? You really believe that?

Let me go ahead and break it down for you: In order for this ridiculous claim to be right, science has to be able to do these things: One, be able to specify the remains of the livestock and the exact times they died within their short lifespans. Two, have the ability to even know if something over 3500 years old was diseased by their dust and bone. Three, have the ability to locate minerals within blood throughout a moving river which has eroded everything that these minerals could bear on. Four, be able to even assume that 90% of the blood blood wasn't washed away before it broke down into it's elementary components, which leaves very little left even before 3500 years of flowing water and erosion.

Thus, I have pointed out a logical fallacy.

Science has made no false claims. Scientists have.
Pretty much answers the other questions.

This is why I believe I am more versed in science, as I know the difference between it and assumption.

 

[der Astronom]

Lmao.
Ok, that is the most hypocritical nonsense I've ever heard. How about proving to me that it can be done?

The last time I checked, a debate goes something like this:
I say something. You agree or disagree. And then, you explain why.

And if we disagree, and can explain why, maybe you should provide a refutation if you still think we're wrong. And by the way, vaguely saying your logic is sound without demonstrating it or complaining about the nature of the debate does not count as a sound refutation.

It's amazing that you are sooo damn logical and yet when a debate starts getting hot, your IQ all of sudden shrinks and I have to play teacher.
As for what you have said about no one doing my homework for me.. I've done my homework. That's why I presented it.
How about educating yourself instead of labeling everything as false because you lack the knowledge?

It's not about the knowledge; it's about whether or not the knowledge you present is supported by evidence. If you're simply going to leave the validation of the things you're presenting up to us, you have no responsibility, and you're not providing us with a sound argument, because that may leave the possibility that we might find evidence that actually goes against your claims.

The reason why I have not put sources up for what I've claimed is because it will do nothing to reverse these stubborn arguments pinned against me.

That's an invalid assumption, and you'd actually have nothing to lose by doing so; as it stands now, if you don't provide any evidence for your claims, we're not going to believe you. If you do, there's a possibility that we might accept your arguments. There is no possibility that we'll believe you if you simply provide no evidence, and we're still not going to believe you either, just because you made an excuse for not doing it.

Besides, a lot of what I have claimed is self-explanatory anyways, which really makes my blood boil when I hear such a 'logical' person not even able to comprehend it.

Apparently, we don't agree, as there are a lot of things that aren't self explanatory. Perhaps you should explain why it's self-explanatory, and you shouldn't make assumptions about the character of your debaters.

Science can achieve many things, but it has it's limits. You simply cannot tell if an animal was diseased or a river flowed with blood 3500 years ago.
I mean wtf?? You really believe that?

And you have provided no logical argument that proves this is impossible. You have simply made an assertion without supporting it.

Let me go ahead and break it down for you: In order for this ridiculous claim to be right, science has to be able to do these things: One, be able to specify the remains of the livestock and the exact times they died within their short lifespans. Two, have the ability to even know if something over 3500 years old was diseased by their dust and bone. Three, have the ability to locate minerals within blood throughout a moving river which has eroded everything that these minerals could bear on. Four, be able to even assume that 90% of the blood blood wasn't washed away before it broke down into it's elementary components, which leaves very little left even before 3500 years of flowing water and erosion.

Thus, I have pointed out a logical fallacy.

No, you have just explained what you think needs to be done without explaining why these cannot be done within science.

Science has made no false claims. Scientists have.
Pretty much answers the other questions.

And why are they false? Just because you don't have any way of finding out what happened 3500 years ago? I'm sure the bible writers believed no one could discover the real shape of the Earth or its orbit, and they were dead wrong.

This is why I believe I am more versed in science, as I know the difference between it and assumption.

And you have assumed there is no way of finding out what happened 3500 years ago.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I have demonstrated quite thoroughly what you asked: I logically disassembled the entire claim.
What else can be done? Waste my time finding some source an the internet that will just be replaced by another?

In other words, why am I going to prove something I have already proved? If what I claim is so easy to be deemed false or unbelievable, why have you only fought it with denial and demands?

And adding to it, you don't even practice what you preach. I love how you and certain others can just claim something, and not have to put any backbone into it.
Which brings to light other things as well: I haven't asked for any proof or anything from anybody throughout this thread or the other, and yet I still smash the debate with my own.
The fact of the matter is, you are asking for proof because what I say makes sense and contends with your beliefs.

Instead of saying I fail to explain this or that, fill in the blanks and DEBATE.
This is not an exam, but a DEBATE. I don't care what you believe, I care about DEBATING.
So get off that non-existent pale horse and stop insulting your own intelligence.

 

[der Astronom]

I have demonstrated quite thoroughly what you asked: I logically disassembled the entire claim.
What else can be done? Waste my time finding some source an the internet that will just be replaced by another?

And again, I ask: prove the assertion that it is not scientifically possible to know what happened 3500 years ago.

In other words, why am I going to prove something I have already proved? If what I claim is so easy to be deemed false or unbelievable, why have you only fought it with denial and demands?

Because you haven't proven anything, and we've explained why. I'm sorry if you've just decided to ignore what we said about it because you don't like it, but our complaints fall into two categories:

-What you have explained is a fallacy. Effectively, this means you have explained nothing, and your proof has no solid basis.
-You have made an unsupported assertion, and thus, we see no reason to accept it.

And adding to it, you don't even practice what you preach. I love how you and certain others can just claim something, and not have to put any backbone into it.

Because the majority of our arguments involve refuting things that you are asserting, rather than asserting something ourselves, and if it is an assertion, it is largely supported. If you have an issue with it, you should be able to refute it by explaining why the evidence used to support the argument is insufficient. And you can do that by explaining why you think it's impossible for scientists to know what happened 3500 years ago as you've been saying.

Which brings to light other things as well: I haven't asked for any proof or anything from anybody throughout this thread or the other, and yet I still smash the debate with my own.

That's because we haven't made that many assertions, and even if we had, you're basically saying that any debater can make any assertion he wants and not have to justify it. You can't win a debate like that. It wouldn't be much of one if we could sit here all day long making assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven.

The fact of the matter is, you are asking for proof because what I say makes sense and contends with your beliefs.

On the contrary; I would be less likely to ask for proof if they agreed with what I believe. I'm asking for proof because you have yet to demonstrate the validity of your claims.
And please stop with the ad hominem attacks and claims about what we think or feel about it because they have no place in this discussion.

Instead of saying I fail to explain this or that, fill in the blanks and DEBATE.
This is not an exam, but a DEBATE. I don't care what you believe, I care about DEBATING.

And clearly, it seems you don't even understand what a debate is about. You made several assertions in your last post without supporting them, and we are asking you to provide a proper argument. That is what a typical debate is about. You don't get to come here and make baseless assertions and complain about how you can't make an assertion without supporting it, or that you don't like someone's refutation because you refuse to acknowledge their explanation, or not understanding the nature of debate or logic, and if you can't even do that, this debate with you is over.

So get off that non-existent pale horse and stop insulting your own intelligence.

And I ask once again: Please provide your argument for why you think science can't discover what happened 3500 years ago. Specifically, your claims regarding identifying livestock by their remains, determining whether or not organisms from 3500 years ago were diseased, whether or not minerals in blood in a river can be located, or being able to figure out if 90% of the blood wasn't washed away. And if all you have to say to this is because you can't figure out any way in which any of these things can be done by science, your argument fails, and you're done.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Don't sit here and act like you have any authority period. I started the debate, you entered it. This is just your way of not admitting that I bested you at your own scientific intrigue.

The fact that I must prove something so well endowed is absolutely ridiculous, as it is a cheap way of you being able to provoke without consequence.

It's a matter of physics. There is nothing I can source, which makes it your goddamn responsibility to prove otherwise, or do you not understand that?
This is how it has been since the topics on evolution and physics. You simply cannot prove it wrong, which I gotta tell you, is the irony of this whole thing.

Your failure to bring anything to the table other than this repeated, asinine attack is what's killing the debate, not me.

 

[der Astronom]

Don't sit here and act like you have any authority period. I started the debate, you entered it. This is just your way of not admitting that I bested you at your own scientific intrigue.

No, you started the assertions, and I'm simply pointing out to you that I find the justifications for them unsatisfactory. You have not bested me at anything, quite simply because I have not presented anything other than refutations to arguments that you have provided. In fact, based on what I have posted in this thread, you cannot make any accusatory comments regarding my knowledge about science, and even then, you'd have to demonstrate to me how that invalidates any of my refutations.

The fact that I must prove something so well endowed is absolutely ridiculous, as it is a cheap way of you being able to provoke without consequence.

And I fail to see how complaining about it helps your argument, as discussing things in detail is part of debate. What's cheap is being able to make an argument, and not having to support it, or only with vague statements, and then declaring victory.

It's a matter of physics. There is nothing I can source, which makes it your goddamn responsibility to prove otherwise, or do you not understand that?

You haven't explained how this has anything to do with physics; anyone can say that, and they may as well not know what they're talking about. What specific things do we know about in physics prevents us from discovering that stuff from 3500 years ago?

This is how it has been since the topics on evolution and physics. You simply cannot prove it wrong, which I gotta tell you, is the irony of this whole thing.

And if that's what you think, you have demonstrated a gross ignorance of science.

Your failure to bring anything to the table other than this repeated, asinine attack is what's killing the debate, not me.

A refutation does not kill a debate; pointing out what's wrong with your argument does not kill the debate. In fact, I am trying to get this argument going somewhere and focusing it so that you'll stop making unreasonable complaints about things that don't concern the debate, like the nature of the people debating you, or other red herrings you're throwing in to avoid answering the refutations people have been providing. Ignorance of people's refutations, and refusal to demonstrate anything, and instead complaining about it is a waste of time, and does kill the debate.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It's a matter of physics:

There is nothing to look for in the Nile

There is nothing to look for in the bones of livestock

Because after 3500 years, any trace of blood components or disease would literally be swiped clean.
There is no source stating this, because it is basic logic.

There has only been one thing regarding the plagues in science, and it is the claim that red algae blossomed in the river, causing a montage of other plagues to unfold, such as frogs and disease. It has even been stated that ash and moisture in the air caused 'firestorms' when lightning struck the chemicals in clumps of hail.
This odds of this is astronomical, even without considering that it happened right when Moses proclaimed it and set on an exodus.

So now, prove me wrong_

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

It's a matter of physics:

There is nothing to look for in the Nile

There is nothing to look for in the bones of livestock

Because after 3500 years, any trace of blood components or disease would literally be swiped clean.
There is no source stating this, because it is basic logic.

I only claimed that there might be evidence of a massive amount of livestock deaths within a short period of time (which we can date to a specific time period), not that we could identify one-time fatal disease in the bones. Try and actually read what I post next time. As for the river turning to blood, who knows. There really isn't a precedent for an event like that so I can't claim evidence of absence for it. But there's no other evidence beyond the Bible, so that claim is just as weak as the other.

EDIT: Also, it's not a "matter of physics". Wrong field of science, bro.

So now, prove me wrong_

That's not how that works. The greater burden of proof rests upon the person claiming that something is rather than the person claiming it isn't. You're awfully illogical for someone tooting his own horn.

You are claiming that this crap happened, we are claiming that it hasn't. You haven't shown any evidence (beyond the Bible) that it happened, I've at least reasoned that there is an evidence of absence of the event based on the evidence we have at hand.

I am simply saying that, with the evidence we have available, it is illogical to think that this stuff happened. If you're going to continue claiming that it did, fine. But the Edda has as much credibility as your 'source'.

 

[blakstang98]

Just to step in here for a moment. Lets not undermine others thoughts and opinions. Posting in a debate thread is not about winning a debate, but having a reasonable discussion about the topic at hand, usually point and counterpoint. Lets not get this idea that we have won the debate and others have lost. If there is nothing more you can post to have your point be heard, then stop posting, simple as that. Remember, post because you have something to say, not because you have to say something.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Also, it's not a "matter of physics". Wrong field of science, bro.

First off, you need to know the difference between 'literal' and 'pun', because that statement is just plain stupid.

Anyways, there is something about science that needs to be realized. When studying theory and practices in any field, it is always important to stay in touch with the obvious and not get strayed.
A good example would actually be the bloody river and diseased livestock. A scientist decides to go and sample the Nile for traces of blood minerals but finds none. This doesn't discount in any way that the river flowed with blood, it simply just can't be examined. The scientist never concluded anything.
This causes people, however, to forget the obvious- that there wasn't likely to be any traces anyway.
And the diseased livestock is the same way. Sure a scientist may have gone searching for clues, but came up with nothing. This isn't surprising- bones deteriorate much faster in the elements rather than in the ground.
3500 years would've either turned them to dust and away in the wind, or buried and shifted in the sand so far and deep that it would be impossible to locate them.

And I never argued that it happened. The only thing I have argued is that science does little to say it didn't.

Prove me wrong- this is how it works now. I have explained in 20 different ways how this is false and have heard crap long enough. It's someone elses turn to bring something to the table.

Walk the talk.

 

[der Astronom]

We don't have to prove anything, and here's why--your assertion that it is impossible for scientists to know what happened 3500 years ago simply because they did not find what you thought they should have found proves nothing, so we are just as unknowledgeable about the plagues happening as we were before. I have no reason to believe that the plagues happened precisely because we found nothing. Maybe something happened, and there was no evidence, or maybe nothing happened, and the fact that there was no evidence supports it. Either way, we can't make a conclusion, and don't know if the plague occurred, so you'd basically be asking me to prove I don't know something, which is absurd. We just don't believe it happened because it's the default position to take in lack of evidence (I'm sure you don't know if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but you don't believe in them either, do you?). If you have any other reason to assert that the plagues happened (other than not expecting there to be evidence), please do share it.