[btilly]

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-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 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-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 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.

[mcphage]

> there needs to be an explanation of how the Methuselah tree could predate the Flood

How long can that species of tree survive underwater?

[captainvicman]

References? Beside Wikipeda please

[btilly]

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 is public domain.

[captainvicman]

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.

[btilly]

The most basic requirement of honesty, is having some.

You criticized me for only referring to Wikipedia, when I had also linked to the University of Oxford. The honest response on your part would be, "Oh, I see that you had references." It would have ALSO been to thank me for telling you how to find more references, including a link to a book written by the discoverer of the Wallace Line.

You did not do that. You launched into an argument about the analysis needed to decide whether to accept a particular piece of evidence. Ending with a criticism against any information given to you by elites.

In short, you behaved dishonestly.

If you behaved honestly, you'd have acknowledged your mistake. You could have also read the book that I offered. And proceeded to verify Wallace's claims about where you find placental mammals like tigers and monkeys versus marsupials like kangaroos and wombats. Which, depending on your energy, you could do with anything from National Geographic, to travel guides, to actually taking a vacation. A trip that I assure you is far easier to do today than it was 170 years ago back when Wallace was doing it.

Given that you didn't do that, I'll let other people make their own minds up about which of us has been more reasonable. If they doubt me, I've just told them how to question my references, and how to validate them with no need to believe intellectual elites.

If they doubt you, well, you've yet to provide anything that looks like a reference. Or show any sign that you're capable of even the basic integrity of being able to say, "I was wrong. You did provide references. And thank you for providing me with more."

Which means that if they doubt you, you've given them absolutely no reason to stop doubting you.

[captainvicman]

"what would it take to change your mind"? I launched into a misdirected diatribe that really was an attack on the concept that any historical evidence is sufficient in itself to change anyone's mind. That is, I thought to argue that one's view of these kinds of evidences amount to personal interpretations of the historical artifacts emerging from one's world-view, after we place them into an incomplete model of some sort, itself a product of one's world-view. I unfortunately (or fortunately as I appreciate your response), hijacked your contribution to vent on. Attempting to salvage some of what I clumsily said initially, I might better state as a question; Is merely engaging in "my references are better than your references" argumentation an entirely honest approach, in that it (imho intentionally) ignores the bigger, weightier, more personal foundation, rarely transparently discussed; Which is, what is our view/belief of the nature of reality? These views/beliefs, in my opinion, are the filter we all use in choosing our "references". Are any of us truly objective? Do we even believe we should be? Arguments that satisfy one person fail to satisfy another just as intelligent person. And what about persons not so intelligent, and whose minds are convinced by other considerations? Should they/we really be at the mercy of the prevailing pronouncements of the intelligentsia in vogue today? That's why I don't place my faith in the "science" or some worldly authority figure, who I know, put their pants on the same as I, and reside somewhere on a spectrum of non-objectivity, just as I. But then, why am I even butting in again (I drank too much coffee!)?? The original question wasn't directed at me, a believer, but to an unbeliever.

[btilly]

The problem for all people is this. We all suck at being objective and rational on that which is most important to us. This makes it hard to have conversations across divides of belief. Not impossible, but hard.

You may find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJX28l54YxE very enlightening on that. It shows Sean McDowell having a cordial conversation with an atheist about how to talk with people of different beliefs. How it is possible to have different beliefs, and still have a real conversation.

On this topic, I've worked hard at doing as well as I can in hard conversations. I've wound up on the science side of things. But with respect for those who believe otherwise. I, personally, have no choice but to believe the evidence that I have encountered. However I am also painfully aware that my views do not offer anything to replace major sources of emotional comfort that a lot of religious people have. I have no percentage in converting anyone else. But I do have a percentage in being very clear on what I believe, why I believe it, and what it would take for me to change my beliefs.

I feel that clarity on this is part of the ideals that make science possible. Richard Feynman did a pretty good job of stating the ideals of science in http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/. The pithy version of it says, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Therefore it is important not to quote what the experts said. But rather how the experts reasoned, so that you can check it for yourself and not trust what they said.

Feynman did an even better job of stating the ideals of science in https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm. Again, he stressed how knowing what was said is less important than knowing how to check it for yourself. Furthermore, it is important to know that it has been checked.

Nothing should be believed simply because some authority claimed it. Rather, we should know by what reasoning we ourselves are currently convinced. And we should stand ready to change our minds upon encountering the right evidence. Even if we think it extremely unlikely that we ever will encounter such evidence.

[captainvicman]

The book you referenced (Gutenberg) appears fascinating and engagingly written. I think it would be very interesting to read and discuss his theories, and also discuss how the Noah's Ark account in the Bible, and other scriptural "truth claims" would relate to these topics. Thanks for providing this reference.

[captainvicman]

You are right. I was insincere in asking for references, not really intending to read any. My response was a rant, and misdirected. I should have read what you graciously provided, and then responded thankfully, honestly and sincerely. Thanks for not letting that slide and calling me out on that (really). I'm truly sorry for being disingenuous and making false accusations about your honesty, when my own was lacking. (I guess I'm my own bad example). I (now) intend (thanks to your rebuke) to read the references you kindly provided, and I hope to respond more sincerely in this thread after doing so.