Creation/evolution3

[Tonus]

It shows those who point to a lack of evidence as 'proof it did not happen' that their's is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The lack of evidence in the desert is far from the only factor that makes the exodus seem all but impossible. It's not even one of the more compelling factors-- the sheer numbers being put forth by the account are much more so, which is one point I keep making. There is no archaeological record of a group that large being held in Egypt, or a group of that size conquering the area supposedly promised to the Israelites.

The fact that you are explaining away the complete lack of evidence by saying that they didn't use stone and reused everything until it either turned to dust or was used in the conquest of the promised land (again, no evidence of that either) doesn't mean that the story is plausible.

[FatAndFaithless]

Hell even most Jewish historians and archaeologists don't bother claiming the exodus as true "due to the complete lack of direct evidence for its historicity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ient_times

[Drich]

Which of these cities were inhabited for thousands of years and left nothing but stone foundations? The only groups discussed so far were small tribes that nonetheless left tools and pottery along with those stone structures.

I provided a link to a natgo artical that pointed to 60 different period cities in that region all found by using 1960's satalite imagery...
All that is left are their foundations!

Which "cities?" Small tribes establishing villages or towns would definitely have had to find ways to deal with the relatively small amounts of waste they produced, whereas you have a group of millions of people and livestock producing massive amounts of waste every day after consuming even more massive amounts of food and water.

Inorder to be concidered a 'city' there was a urban size requirement and/or an estimated population requirment, a building height reqirement, as well as several factors. The artical clearly identifies ancient cities found by satalite imagery.
http://www.ancient.eu/city/

And, of course, re-purposing every last tool and utensil they had.

Again do you think when they entered the promise land they just dropped everything and went in? Or do you think it is realistic that they took all of their possessions in with them? If they took them in with them then why would you be looking for them in the sinai? why not where they ultimatly settled?

All without a even a single crude forge or altar

An alter is a crude pile of rocks... and they would have only needed the one when they stopped... If you don't think it is plausible for someone to have knocked it down or it just fell over after 4000 years then i am speaking to the wrong person.

Even if it survived, what makes you think someone now would be able to identify it as anything more than a pile of rocks??

or any kind of contraptions for keeping the livestock together

So youre not familiar with the term 'shepard?' google it then google how it is a shepard of that region tended a flock. pay close attention on how they managed them.

or anything other than small campfires (tens of thousands, every night!), apparently.

Again only modern white people build a camp fires that do not consume every last scrap of fuel/wood. In an area where wood is scarce like say the sinai desert with hundreds of thousands of other people even the little black bits of unburnt wood are thrown back into the next fire.

Even now white people do this, but it took Henry Ford to package it in such a way as to make it finally make sense to them. ( 'charrcoal briquettes')

Ask yourself now after you let your charrcoal grill burn completely out what is left? Now put what is left (Ash and tiny little burn crusties) in the middle of the desert and fast forward 4000 years. What would be left?

If you want to continue this conversation you willl need to directly answer my questions. why? because everything I have said here I have now said to you specifically two or three times. Show me your reading and processing what I have to say.[/quote]

---

It shows those who point to a lack of evidence as 'proof it did not happen' that their's is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The lack of evidence in the desert is far from the only factor that makes the exodus seem all but impossible. It's not even one of the more compelling factors-- the sheer numbers being put forth by the account are much more so, which is one point I keep making. There is no archaeological record of a group that large being held in Egypt, or a group of that size conquering the area supposedly promised to the Israelites.

The fact that you are explaining away the complete lack of evidence by saying that they didn't use stone and reused everything until it either turned to dust or was used in the conquest of the promised land (again, no evidence of that either) doesn't mean that the story is plausible.

this is not my arguement. At this point you need to completly outline my side of the arguement. Because nothing of what you said here even closly resembles what I have been saying.

---

Hell even most Jewish historians and archaeologists don't bother claiming the exodus as true "due to the complete lack of direct evidence for its historicity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ient_times

Pointing to the Lack of evidence as evidence for anything is a logical fallacy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[FatAndFaithless]

Hell even most Jewish historians and archaeologists don't bother claiming the exodus as true "due to the complete lack of direct evidence for its historicity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ient_times

Pointing to the Lack of evidence as evidence for anything is a logical fallacy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Good lord Drich, for one post try to actually have one bit of an honest discussion.

I'm not saying that "Exodus definitely did not happen, there were never any Jews as in the story, and it is false."

The point, that you seem so willing to ignore, is that there is no evidence that it did happen, so claiming that it did is to make a baseless assertion without any justification or reasoning.

[Drich]

Pointing to the Lack of evidence as evidence for anything is a logical fallacy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Good lord Drich, for one post try to actually have one bit of an honest discussion.

I'm not saying that "Exodus definitely did not happen, there were never any Jews as in the story, and it is false."

The point, that you seem so willing to ignore, is that there is no evidence that it did happen, so claiming that it did is to make a baseless assertion without any justification or reasoning.

I've allready conceed the fact that what I said here does not regester as evidence that it did happen. I am pointing out that the Exodus account is plausible. Just as all of the other 'historical' stories of cities, and men lost to the desert with absolutly no evidence.

[FatAndFaithless]

Good lord Drich, for one post try to actually have one bit of an honest discussion.

I'm not saying that "Exodus definitely did not happen, there were never any Jews as in the story, and it is false."

The point, that you seem so willing to ignore, is that there is no evidence that it did happen, so claiming that it did is to make a baseless assertion without any justification or reasoning.

I've allready conceed the fact that what I said here does not regester as evidence that it did happen. I am pointing out that the Exodus account is plausible. Just as all of the other 'historical' stories of cities, and men lost to the desert with absolutly no evidence.

Your comparisons are all of different scales of size, length of time, and time period. You're babbling on about random stones and spamming laughing-smileys to get us to say that Exodus is "plausible"?

Forgive me, but

[Drich]

forgiven

[Roxy904]

Drich, I fail to see why you continue to ignore the points and valid arguments made, and continue to insist that the Bible is factual, when, in fact, even my religion teacher, who teaches in my catholic school, claims that the Bible is NOT meant to be taken literally.
My catholic mother is a college biology teacher.
You can have faith in your religion, and still believe in evolution.
The points have been reiterated and re-explained to you, and you continue to provide the same arguments.
Of course, some of the Bible is plausible, and of course, some events reflect possible historical events at the time. But that does not mean that you can take the word of the Bible as the literal word of God.

[Tonus]

If you want to continue this conversation you willl need to directly answer my questions. why? because everything I have said here I have now said to you specifically two or three times. Show me your reading and processing what I have to say.

I have explained why what you are saying does not suffice, in at least two or three different ways. If you disagree that's fine, but I'm not under any obligation to discard the major issue with your claims just to focus on everything except that major issue. As I said, your need to salvage the story is not my problem; I am not forced to discount the 800-lb gorilla in the room (the sheer size of the group and the long time scale) in order to discuss the issue.

[dyresand]

Christianity in modern times.
1. it is useless.
2. creates more issues.
3. supports things like racism, most of the world is still dealing with it.
4. promotion of forgiveness for wicked things in the after life giving anyone with a sick twisted mind to do horrible things and pray sin away because jesus.
5. people believed it happened when there is evidence to the contrary.
6. faith it kills.
7. forcing beliefs onto others still a big issue.
8. it can and has ruined cultures the Hawaiians were fine without religion have to poke its fat ugly head up.
9. the belief system and useless and the guidelines of what you have to do and do is so immoral you can go to jail for it and possibly more than likely executed for following the bible 100%
10.Hell threatening people with hell...
personally i think the world would be better off without abrahamic religions