5 ms·

It would depend on what was verified, and how good the verification was. Here is why the "what is verified" matters. Suppose we verified a large boat in about

by btilly 3y ago

It would depend on what was verified, and how good the verification was. Here is why the "what is verified" matters. Suppose we verified a large boat in about the right time and place with a flood that would have looked like the end of the world to those involved. This would suffice to change my mind from "Noah's Ark is the Judeo-Christian version of a flood myth found around the world" to, "Noah's Ark is an oral history of events witnessed." This wouldn't convince me that there was a world-wide flood. An example of a verification of this type is that https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/destruction-of-city-by-space-rock-may-have-inspired-biblical-story-of-sodom-180978734/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/destruction-of-cit... was sufficient to convince me that the Biblical record of the destruction of Sodom is likely an eyewitness account. While not convincing me that God did it to punish the gays. As for how good the verification is, before reading on please sit down and think what it would take you convince you that your understanding is wrong. Convincing me of the literal truth of the Biblical narrative would require evidence sufficient to override the following lines of evidence: 1. Either the date is earlier than Biblical analysis like https://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood https://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood describes, or there needs to be an explanation of how the Methuselah tree could predate the Flood. 2. It has to explain how a global flood could have left Lake Suigetsu in Japan undisturbed for 150,000 years of lake sediment. See https://www.socsci.ox.ac.uk/japanese-lake-sediment-unlocks-150000-years-of-history https://www.socsci.ox.ac.uk/japanese-lake-sediment-unlocks-1... for more. 3. We have even longer cores from undisturbed ice in Antarctica and Greenland. 4. There has to be an explanation for the lack of signs of water damage to geology around the world. This problem was first convincingly demonstrated by Louis Agassiz roughly 200 years ago. 5. You have to explain things like the Wallace Line (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line for what that is) which are conventionally explained by evolution and continental drift. The distribution of weird species on islands (see Darwin's finches for an example) also poses a problem. I could go on, but it would take rather overwhelming evidence for me to discount this physical evidence of the history of our world. Which makes me wonder what evidence you think you have that is more compelling than all of this.

captainvicman 3y ago
References? Beside Wikipeda please
- btilly 3y ago
  You mean besides Wikipedia and the University of Oxford? If you want to engage in an intellectually honest exploration, I highly recommend picking up a standard textbook, or becoming familiar with Google. If you want to hear about the distribution of species as described by the discoverer of the Wallace Line, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32021 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32021 is public domain.
  - captainvicman 3y ago
    I'm in agreement about the need for intellectual honesty. But that honesty requires all prior assumptions pertaining to statements of fact, brought to an argument to be revealed, and those assumptions' assumptions to be acknowledged, as well as honestly assessing the degree of confidence one can place on these assumptions' veracity, must to be discussed. In other words, objectivity is required. Just appealing to authority is dishonest, if you're after truth. Further, one must have a discussion of all potential conflicts of interest of those who are used as authoritative in the discussion. Such as, how strong is their interest in maintaining employment, getting tenure, and meeting requirements (holding to tradition) for obtaining funding for research, etc. Stating rather arrogantly/condescendingly "you mean University of Oxford?" without acknowledging what is really required for honesty, beyond what Institution they belong to; implying that belonging to said institution implies integrity, is bordering on dishonest manipulation of the discussion and mere sophistry. Are you willing to reveal your view regarding the existence of objective truth? If you don't hold to the need for objectivity, I could care less what your opinions are; they only amount to opinion. What metaphysics do you base your world view on? I would guess that it is that God does not exist, or, if He does exist He has not spoken clearly in history. An honest discussion will take some time, and can't exist in a cancel culture, or censorship. I believe that in the final analysis, with our limitations of rationality and experience, an appeal to authority is required; but what authority has the most historical proof and universal reach to back it up and earn our confidence and trust? It can't just apply to the intellectual or elite class, they have proven themselves unjust, corrupt, bankrupt and without clothes.

by btilly 3y ago

captainvicman 3y ago

References? Beside Wikipeda please

btilly 3y ago
You mean besides Wikipedia and the University of Oxford? If you want to engage in an intellectually honest exploration, I highly recommend picking up a standard textbook, or becoming familiar with Google. If you want to hear about the distribution of species as described by the discoverer of the Wallace Line, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32021 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32021 is public domain.
- captainvicman 3y ago
  I'm in agreement about the need for intellectual honesty. But that honesty requires all prior assumptions pertaining to statements of fact, brought to an argument to be revealed, and those assumptions' assumptions to be acknowledged, as well as honestly assessing the degree of confidence one can place on these assumptions' veracity, must to be discussed. In other words, objectivity is required. Just appealing to authority is dishonest, if you're after truth. Further, one must have a discussion of all potential conflicts of interest of those who are used as authoritative in the discussion. Such as, how strong is their interest in maintaining employment, getting tenure, and meeting requirements (holding to tradition) for obtaining funding for research, etc. Stating rather arrogantly/condescendingly "you mean University of Oxford?" without acknowledging what is really required for honesty, beyond what Institution they belong to; implying that belonging to said institution implies integrity, is bordering on dishonest manipulation of the discussion and mere sophistry. Are you willing to reveal your view regarding the existence of objective truth? If you don't hold to the need for objectivity, I could care less what your opinions are; they only amount to opinion. What metaphysics do you base your world view on? I would guess that it is that God does not exist, or, if He does exist He has not spoken clearly in history. An honest discussion will take some time, and can't exist in a cancel culture, or censorship. I believe that in the final analysis, with our limitations of rationality and experience, an appeal to authority is required; but what authority has the most historical proof and universal reach to back it up and earn our confidence and trust? It can't just apply to the intellectual or elite class, they have proven themselves unjust, corrupt, bankrupt and without clothes.