TacticalLoco

What a surprise that Dave demonstrates his lack of scientific comprehension right at the gitgo. As has been pointed out numerous times, just because we don't understand how something happened does not make it a miracle. Heck, I don't really understand how a transistor works, but that does not mean transistors are miraculous now does it? My understanding is what's lacking.
He then goes on the claim that even though scientists think they understand biological form and function, they really don't. Well, there you have it. The scientists are merely trying to fool you.

Later Dave admits Genesis is likely a compilation of other works then goes on to assert (without evidence) that other works resembling Genesis are proof it came first. Huh? I thought the accepted tradition was that the Jews picked up much of those older stories, including the earth coming from water and the flood, from the Enuma Elish not the other way around. (?)

ck1

I just wanted to point out that it is, in fact, possible to extract and sequence mtDNA, nuclear DNA and proteins from really old and seriously degraded samples. (The bigger problem in these analyses, I think, is the issue of contamination - the large amount of bacteria associated with old bones and the contamination that comes with handling by humans.)

What I object to in Dave's statement is that DNA must completely degrade within a 10000 year time span. After all, Dave thinks the dinosaurs died out shortly after the flood - about 4-5000 years ago in his timeline (not sure when he kills off the Neanderthals). So how can DNA/proteins survive 5000 years but not 10000? What is the basis for setting this limit except to force fit things into his timeline?

TacticalLoco

Exactly. That is the whole point. It has to be that way in order for his delusional worldview to be true.
It's the same with writing. Mankind must of always been able to write because otherwise how could Adam have recorded creation?

ericmurphy

Don't let Dave's misrepresentations about the Documentary Hypothesis lead you astray. The DH has nothing to do with whether Moses, or anyone else, was literate. It is a safe assumption that Genesis was written by people who knew how to write. The central argument of the DH is that the Pentateuch was not written by one person. And, given that 1) Moses was only one person, if he existed at all, and b) the Pentateuch contains an account of Moses' death, it is a safe bet that at least parts of the Pentateuch were written by persons other than Moses.

Chuck Rightmire

Thanks Eric, but I'm not being led astray. <edit> What I'm just saying, in a poor way, that moses and the whole Hebrew book of Genesis are really third or fourth generation on the mythological state. It is obvious, for instance, that the begats are just another Sumerian king list with the time relationships in true ratio even if the years are shorter. The whole book is copied from Sumer, where Abraham originated but with changes to fit a nomadic shepherd life rather than a settled farmer's life. I'm sure the book was compiled, in part, during the Babylonian sojourn or after the return with later books added. And then it was all put together in 70 CE before the diaspora and then remade in the Latin council of Nicea and then remade when the Douay and protestant versions of the bible were translated.
:notworthy:

ck1

Dave has stated elsewhere that Joshua added a few verses to Deuteronomy after Moses' death, but never explained how he knows this or how he knows what specifically Joshua added or changed in the Torah.

SpaghettiSawUs

Thought I'd have a poke around at Dave's "CM's shifting the goalposts" argument.

If details are questionable, is it not reasonable to doubt the whole until it is proven reliable?If something contradicts known science then it is even more questionable, no? How "fluid" is this modern science? Shoulders of giants anyone? Pretty stable at the foundations if you ask me. Not fluid. Organic? Maybe; developing? Definitely; solid? More "solid" than "fluid". Demonstrably false.
And how would one demonstrate its falsehood? By pointing out the contradictions against scientific knowledge perhaps? By pointing out discrepancies between the accounts in question and archaeological evidence perhaps? Perhaps...It is not a "joke" reference, it has a serious underlying connotation: the guy liked to make stuff up. The stuff he made up is demonstrably false. How do we know this?
Which details are "accurate"?
The details which have been verified! Or is this special pleading for the non-verified ones too? Reconciliation with other data is what demonstrates the truth value of a statement surely.

Now, is he called "The father of History" because his history was the "daddy of all histories" being so stupendously awesome and factually accrate in all details? Or is it perhaps because he's a very early historian and the term "Father of History" actually carries no implication as to the accuracy of his testimony?Seems to me that some bits are demonstrably false, except for those bits which aint. Also seems to me that Herodotus has the burden of proof as to his own truthiness.Indeed.The first quote relates specifically to how the accuracy of a witness is called into question. If the witness, or details of the witeness' testimony, contains demonstrably inaccurate details then the court is less likely to accept the rest of the testimony without strong corroborating evidence. i.e, if the testimony of a witness can be shown to be innaccurate as to details, then the whole testimony must be called into question.Meaning: not having a historical substance, made of non-historical stuff.Exactly. The court rejects the testimony because of serious questions as to the veracity of the witness.Go on then...That hasn't changed. This is a case against the validity of genesis as historical testimony, it would help Dave's case if he could produce some evidence of sufficient weight to support his stance. Alot of words wasted, no point made.Dave has described exactly the case against genesis which CM proposes viz: "Genesis is innacurate" therefore untrustworthy as historical testimony; "it's non-historical or what have you" as in cannot be regarded as a true history. Again: how does one go about verifying the claims of any historical book? Historical sciences come in useful no? And Dave admits that Genesis is at odds with science, would that include historical sciences? I hope Dave's not going to go all non-nomological on us again.
Cheers
Spags

Louis

Ah so many familiar faces and phrases. Why hush my mouth, have we been here before?

Louis

P.S. And Dave can't post in this thread! So we get Dave demolition (and all the inherent comedy gold he'll vomit forth treat us to with none of the annoying whining and drivel. It's like magical calorie free ice cream! All of the refutation of Dave's drivel with minimum Dave contact.

ericmurphy

Dave has also admitted that, although he believes the bible was originally inerrant, he is aware of no current translation that is free of error. He says he thinks the New King James Version is "close," but since he's never seen the original, inerrant version, he's never been able to explain how he knows it's "close." He also can't say which parts are correct and which aren't.

Which leaves open the question of how he can know that the Genesis account (which version) is correct, as well.

ericmurphy

I wonder if anyone else can see the distinction Dave is making between "The Genesis account is demonstrably false," and "The Genesis account cannot be viewed as an accurate historical record." Is there a distinction to be made? If something is an "inaccurate historical record," doesn't that mean it's "false"? Can something be an "inaccurate historical record," and still be "true"?

I don't think it can.