Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[dom.donald]

That doesn't change anything though. It ends with an extremely tentative suggestion that within certain clumps (clades), the timing of the branching may be so compressed, as to render any meaningful resolution into a clear lineage impossible. It seems like that, in the detail, the whole system (based on this dataset and this particular method of analysis) may not resolve into a straightforward tree. But life is incredibly complex, so why would we expect there to be a totally elegant solution that works in every detail, at every level? It's the same in physics. So, further work may be required in this field, but scientists know this anyway. Micro adjustments, not wholesale gaps in a solid theory that is based on mountains and mountains of empirical evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

What evidence is firmly against it?

The complete lack of requisite archaeological and anthropological evidence to establish support for that claim. We know where Egypt is, and where to dig to find information about the events and culture of the time period during which the Jews are supposed to have been enslaved there. As it turns out, we do have a good bit of information from that time, and not one shred of it suggests mass enslavement of Jews in Egypt, nor their wandering in the nearby desert for 40 years. If the Bible's claims were true, there would absolutely be evidence in this case. It's one of the rare instances where absence of evidence does actually constitute evidence of absence.

One of the most important indicators of a model's accuracy is its predictive power. The Theory of Evolution, for instance, has been able to predict the discovery of certain kinds of fossils in specific strata of rocks. Predicting when and where a scientific discovery will happen is a HUGE checkmark in favor of that model's veracity.

If the Bible were accurate, we would expect it to have the same predictive power. If the Bible is true, and it says the Jews were in a certain place in large numbers during a certain time period, then we should be able to go to that place, dig up things from that time period, and find evidence of huge numbers of Jews. We have done that digging, and we've found plenty of evidence to suggest that people were living in those areas at that time...just not a bunch of Jewish slaves. That really doesn't look good for the Biblical model.

Your post made me question.... what did they find?   I have heard, that archeology is not an exact science; and I have seen a number of archeology websites quote Carl Sagan “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”  Some recall it being the first thing that their professors taught them.  

I do agree, that currently, we do not have any evidence, which puts the Jewish people specifically enslaved in Egypt.  But what tell tale sign did you expect to find, and did not?  And exactly when where they looking (there is some controversy over the dating of exodus, are they considering the entire range of possible dates?  Some seem to question if the Hebrews even existed at that time, which makes me feel the need to ask if they would even know what they where looking for in this time period to say that they where Jewish.  

I did find the following discussion (which I think is reasonable)  http://tinyurl.com/gvry6x2
One of the people involved in the discussion says that they have found evidence of Semitic and Asiatic slaves in Egypt at this time.  There are a number of other good points, as well (such as details within the story, which have shown to be consistent for the time).  I also learned some things about the numbers, and what is typically translated in the bible.

I have become skeptical when archeologist and historians make claims of what didn't occur or exist, because they haven't found evidence concerning the Bible.  Sometimes we do find evidence, and they have to eat crow.   People, places, sometimes even books of the Bible which are late dated, and then found in a cave.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Absense of evidence IS evidence of absence if we do not find the evidence we should expect where we should expect to find it. It isn't Confirmation of absence, but it's can fairly be considered evidence.

[robvalue]

I totally agree.

No dead bodies and smashed up buildings? Godzilla almost certainly didn't just walk down my street.

The religious can't admit we won the argument, because it would mean admitting their beliefs are unfounded. So they have to be ready to admit that as well.

I got a rare insight on that today, actually. For those of you who view the forum at large, you'll know I was at a really low point yesterday. Suicidal. Now, I knew full well "my depression" was lying to me. It was telling me all sorts of shit about myself and other people, which I knew were flatly contradicted by the available evidence. I knew, on some level, these things weren't true. But I believed them anyway. The emotional grip my depression puts me in makes it almost impossible not to believe what it says.

I don't expect this is exactly the same as with religion, but I feel it gave me some sort of empathy.

PS: I'd respect a theist who said, "I agree with you now, this argument is invalid. However I still believe the conclusion is true, because... "

Instead it's like hoping we don't notice when they do a merry go round of hundreds of lame arguments and then back to the first one.

[Redbeard The Pink]

The complete lack of requisite archaeological and anthropological evidence to establish support for that claim. We know where Egypt is, and where to dig to find information about the events and culture of the time period during which the Jews are supposed to have been enslaved there. As it turns out, we do have a good bit of information from that time, and not one shred of it suggests mass enslavement of Jews in Egypt, nor their wandering in the nearby desert for 40 years. If the Bible's claims were true, there would absolutely be evidence in this case. It's one of the rare instances where absence of evidence does actually constitute evidence of absence.

One of the most important indicators of a model's accuracy is its predictive power. The Theory of Evolution, for instance, has been able to predict the discovery of certain kinds of fossils in specific strata of rocks. Predicting when and where a scientific discovery will happen is a HUGE checkmark in favor of that model's veracity.

If the Bible were accurate, we would expect it to have the same predictive power. If the Bible is true, and it says the Jews were in a certain place in large numbers during a certain time period, then we should be able to go to that place, dig up things from that time period, and find evidence of huge numbers of Jews. We have done that digging, and we've found plenty of evidence to suggest that people were living in those areas at that time...just not a bunch of Jewish slaves. That really doesn't look good for the Biblical model.

Your post made me question.... what did they find?   I have heard, that archeology is not an exact science; and I have seen a number of archeology websites quote Carl Sagan “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”  Some recall it being the first thing that their professors taught them.  

I do agree, that currently, we do not have any evidence, which puts the Jewish people specifically enslaved in Egypt.  But what tell tale sign did you expect to find, and did not?  And exactly when where they looking (there is some controversy over the dating of exodus, are they considering the entire range of possible dates?  Some seem to question if the Hebrews even existed at that time, which makes me feel the need to ask if they would even know what they where looking for in this time period to say that they where Jewish.  

I did find the following discussion (which I think is reasonable)  http://tinyurl.com/gvry6x2
One of the people involved in the discussion says that they have found evidence of Semitic and Asiatic slaves in Egypt at this time.  There are a number of other good points, as well (such as details within the story, which have shown to be consistent for the time).  I also learned some things about the numbers, and what is typically translated in the bible.

I have become skeptical when archeologist and historians make claims of what didn't occur or exist, because they haven't found evidence concerning the Bible.  Sometimes we do find evidence, and they have to eat crow.   People, places, sometimes even books of the Bible which are late dated, and then found in a cave.

The wandering in the same desert for a whole generation would have definitely left a major mark behind, especially if they had the numbers your scholars estimate. All we've found suggests a few small, nomadic groups in the presumed region.


Really, though, if you're looking for a good example of something that isn't supported by what we observe, look no further than the Flood. If the globe really had been flooded a few thousand years ago, there would be significant evidence of it the world over. It would have drastically affected both geology and the fossil record. The evidence we observe is not consistent with that assertion, however, and if that had really happened, it absolutely would, and we would have been finding it practically every time we dig for the last several thousand years.

[robvalue]

Who cares if a book happens to have some accurate things in it? All it shows is it is slightly less fictional than previously thought. It doesn't make all the other extraordinary claims suddenly true.

I think I have the benefit of an unemotional and uninvolved perspective on matters of religion, science and history. I don't hang any of my identity or fundamental world views on the "truth" of anything in particular. Christianity is true? Don't care. Theory of evolution is false? Don't care. We were actually designed by aliens? Don't care. All I'd have is scientific curiosity, in any of these cases.

[vorlon13]