The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, they are a 'religious propaganda' outfit - that is, they promote the Biblical world-view. That is their stated purpose. But why should that disqualify them from being a source of factual information?

Well because they repeatably lie and distort and manipulate the truth in the pursuit of that "Biblical world-view" Heck they almost admit as much on their mission statement and in their articles.

And while I wouldn't want to tarnish every religious propaganda group with the same brush, AnswersInGenesis certain set a very bad example for the rest of them, and the actions of these so called "Christians" would certain make me vary weary of trust information come from any religious propaganda group.

Why one asks an atheist like myself why do they not automatically trust the early Christians to present the original versions of the New Testament as truthful, factual accounts of their early religion, one simply has to point to AiG to see how religious followers can produce such garbage while still claiming to seek truth and enlightenment.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, my latest posting was of them quoting Stephen Gould as saying Darwin had anti-Christian views before he published his theory.

Creationist groups, including Answers in Genesis, have repeatable misquoted and misrepresented Gould's quotes and writing, much to his own annoyance while he was alive and to the annoyance of those who knew him after he passed.

Now I don't know if the quote from Gould is accurate or not. But I would never ever trust AiG with any quotes after some of the absolute rubbish I've seen them do to the quotes of brilliant men like Gould in the past.

Disrespecting the memory of the dead by misrepresenting their work for your own agenda isn't a trait I would have normally associated with a "Christian" group. But there you go.

AiG has no credibility to quote anyone, let alone Gould.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The issue for us should be is this true, did Gould say this - rather than refusing to check it because it came via AiG.

No, I could not be bothered checking if it is true or not because I don't trust anything AiG says.

The real issue is that you need to stop using AiG as a source for anything if you want anyone on this forum to discuss things with you.

It is a bit rich to quote from such a joke of an organisation and then expect us to do your fact checking for you.

You find out if it is true or not by using a source with more credibility, and then get back to us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When I brought you another source on the world-view of the inventors of evolution, a secular one to boot

I very much doubt you will find a secular source that uses the term "inventors of evolution", so forgive me if I don't believe you

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

There's nothing there to suggest the work of atheists. In fact, Wikipedia (yes, the Wikipedia ) thinks it was built by a masonic order with Christian origins.

What's so bad about subjective morality anyway? It got us this far, one could argue.

Yes, atheist may be too vague a term. Someone who doesn't believe in God, anyway. Neo-gnostic? Interesting article on Spiritual evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_evolution - especially the section Evolution towards Godhead

I'm not saying subjective morality is without value. While it is applied, it may well do good. It is just that anything knowingly based on an invented concept is unlikely to endure the heat of adversity.

When temptation comes, the reasoning man will soon find good excuses to ditch his 'outdated' opinions. He knows they were only constructed to serve him at the time - now a new circumstance has arisen that would be to his disadvantage if he continues to apply his morality.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

When temptation comes, the reasoning man will soon find good excuses to ditch his 'outdated' opinions. He knows they were only constructed to serve him at the time - now a new circumstance has arisen that would be to his disadvantage if he continues to apply his morality.

...and why couldnt this lead to a better, more up-to-date* morality?







*One that doesn't belong to a backward people 4,000 years ago.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

When temptation comes, the reasoning man will soon find good excuses to ditch his 'outdated' opinions. He knows they were only constructed to serve him at the time - now a new circumstance has arisen that would be to his disadvantage if he continues to apply his morality.

Actually the opposite it true.

With out the belief that morality comes from God there is no reason or excuse to ditch ones own moral opinions. At least not without looking like a ridiculous hypocrite. You can ditch your old moral opinions but you have no authority to say that you were once wrong but now you are some how right.

On the other hand Christianity is littered with people ditching their old moral opinions and creating new ones.

When it is asked why does this not make them a hypocrite the answer is always that their old moral opinions where "misinterpretations" of God's true message, and now amazingly they have managed to reinterpret it to find God's "true" message.

When your moral opinions are not your own, when you don't have to stand behind them or justify them yourself, it is all too easy to find excuses to drop them or change them over anything reason you like

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Well because they repeatably lie and distort and manipulate the truth in the pursuit of that "Biblical world-view" Heck they almost admit as much on their mission statement and in their articles.

I dispute that. You are prefectly entitled to your opinion, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When I brought you another source on the world-view of the inventors of evolution, a secular one to boot

I very much doubt you will find a secular source that uses the term "inventors of evolution", so forgive me if I don't believe you

No, the secular scource indicated Darwin and the inventors of evolution were not the reluctant converts from Biblical Christianity being portrayed here. The term to describe them is mine. Check out reviews of the book in question in: http://www.amazon.com/Erasmus-Darwin-Life-Unequalled-Achievement/dp/1900357089/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201802374&sr=1-2 and http://www.gilesdelamare.co.uk/page19.htm

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I dispute that.

how unchristian of you ... :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the secular scource indicated Darwin and the inventors of evolution were not the reluctant converts from Biblical Christianity being portrayed here.

I have never portrayed Darwin as a "reluctant convert", nor do I think Darwin "invented" evolution

Do you think Newton invented gravity?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

...and why couldnt this lead to a better, more up-to-date* morality?

*One that doesn't belong to a backward people 4,000 years ago.

It could, if the temptation was to do good. If one was tempted to pay one's employees an unexpectedly generous raise, rather than the minimum one thinks they will accept. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more common.

Backward people? Not like the cultured society of 20th C. Germany? Or the civilised Americans who have murdered more than 45 million babies since 1973? Or who carried out the forcible sterilization of 25,000 Native American women in 1975?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I have never portrayed Darwin as a "reluctant convert", nor do I think Darwin "invented" evolution

I was thinking more of what Scofflaw said:
Really, wolfsbane, you will need to do a good deal better, particularly considering the known religious leanings of not only Darwin but many early champions of the theory.

Do you think Newton invented gravity?

No, he observed it in action and developed a theory. If he had been incorrect, we could then rightly say he had invented gravity.

Darwin and his predecessors did not observe evolution in action, but theorised from what they saw in contemporary life. They got it wrong, so I can correctly say they 'invented' evolution.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Actually the opposite it true.

With out the belief that morality comes from God there is no reason or excuse to ditch ones own moral opinions.

To gain the object of temptation.

At least not without looking like a ridiculous hypocrite. You can ditch your old moral opinions but you have no authority to say that you were once wrong but now you are some how right.

You mean, no one can rightly change his mind about morality?

On the other hand Christianity is littered with people ditching their old moral opinions and creating new ones.

Yes, people can genuinely change their minds about issues - divorce & remarriage, for instance - but most changes come from people who never really held to principled morality in the first place, Christian or otherwise.

When it is asked why does this not make them a hypocrite the answer is always that their old moral opinions where "misinterpretations" of God's true message, and now amazingly they have managed to reinterpret it to find God's "true" message.

Yes, I have seen adulterers and homosexuals try to justify their sin and their continued membership of a church. That just proves that not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' is truly a Christian:
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

When your moral opinions are not your own, when you don't have to stand behind them or justify them yourself, it is all too easy to find excuses to drop them or change them over anything reason you like

Well I agree with that. If one doesn't truly believe in them, they have no weight at all in the conscience.

But no matter how strongly one holds one's own morals, knowing you invented them in the first place gives you little reason to hang on to them when things get hot.

wolfsbane

sdep said:

For the minutes, I note we're on a different question now - i.e. whether atheism (rather than evolution, as previously) is any foundation for morality.

Well, it's only atheistic evolution I have in mind here. Theistic evolution has different moral problems to cope with.:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Indeed, if atheists are correct, then wolfsbane's "absolute" Biblical morality is also a human invention - which, from our perspective, proves that humanity is certainly capable of inventing a morality which is "perfect".

Hmm. I think I like it, head-bending though it is.

I agree, the morality would be the same - but it would not then be "perfect" - just an idiotic pretence. It would lead many of its adherents to lives of pointless sacrifice, when they could rather say “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:32;&version=50;

As an atheist, I think morality is to an extent up for grabs.

An honest answer.

But without a leap of faith, there's no alternative to deciding it, collectively, for ourselves.

Real faith is never a leap, but a response to inwardly known truth.

And achievements like the UN declaration of human rights show what can be done.

Some commendable things in it. Just like in most people's moralities. Conscience informs all men, to a greater or lesser extent.

As a timely aside, I heard yesterday of the 9th Century Abbasid Caliphate scholar Al-Jahiz, whose 'Book of Animals' is said to set out evolutionary ideas like Darwin's, but a thousand years earlier. Wikipedia gives a synopsis of the ancient text by palaeontologist Gary Dargan, who aims at reconciling evolution and Islam, invoking early scholars to do so. Unfortunately I can't find out how much selection and interpretation Dargan used in coming up with his summary, which was quoted verbatim and uncritically on Radio 4's 'Start The Week'. Interesting all the same though.

It wouldn't matter what religion an inventor of evolution had, if his religion specifically excluded the concept of evolution - as does Islam, Judaism and Christianity - the inventor can hardly be classed as such.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Really? As far as i can see morality which stems from the Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity belongs in antiquity. According to you guys its immoral for two consenting human beings to have sex outside marriage. That kind of thinking belongs in the past.

Don't you think our society would be better if marriage was the place for sex, rather than every bed, backseat or alleyway in town?

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Really? So it is moral to keep slaves as in the Bible, well if I had known that I could have saved myself so much work...

It was never moral to treat your neighbour badly. That was true for the Old testament as well as the New:
Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD...34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

That God tolerated lesser standards is true, but it was to restrain man without having to utterly destroy him, e.g:
Matthew 22:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Slavery, divorce, etc. were regulated - but the command to love as oneself was always the moral standard God required.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't you think our society would be better if marriage was the place for sex, rather than every bed, backseat or alleyway in town?

No.

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote:

Don't you think our society would be better if marriage was the place for sex, rather than every bed, backseat or alleyway in town?

No.

Seconded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alas, we have reached the stage of fishy transaltation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cur non respondére vos ad e epistulae meus???

Cur timidus tu??

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

There is of course, individual peer review......but Academic Conference Programme Committees can also provide peer review for Academic Papers published as Proceedings from such Conferences. ......and indeed practically all 'routine' / 'ordinary' science research is published this way nowadays !!:D

No, it's not! You know nothing about peer review, it's clear. Why are lying about it?

Why not just say: "I don't really know anything about peer review and I'm sorry I ever brought it up. I am even more sorry for pretending to know about it and making things up about it. It's not even relevant to this thread; I was merely trying to convince people that I know lots about science. Furthermore, I am unreservedly sorry that I keep editing and re-editing my posts, days after the fact, to cover up my mistakes - making it very difficult for people to follow the discussion."

Yes, that will do nicely! Alternatively, maybe you would like to post yet more lies about peer-review?? Or maybe creation science peer review is different?

Note to self: remember to use quote tags when posting to J C. :rolleyes:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

No, it's not! You know nothing about peer review, it's clear. Why are lying about it?

Why not just say: "I don't really know anything about peer review and I'm sorry I ever brought it up. I am even more sorry for pretending to know about it and making things up about it. It's not even relevant to this thread; I was merely trying to convince people that I know lots about science. Furthermore, I am unreservedly sorry that I keep editing and re-editing my posts, days after the fact, to cover up my mistakes - making it very difficult for people to follow the discussion."

YES, I sometimes edit my posts.....which I am perfectly entitled to do!!!!

Is it true that there is individual peer review......which is generally confined to important/controversial issues/papers? ....ANSWER :-YES


Is it true that there is group peer review......for example by Academic Conference Programme Committees on Papers to be presented / published as Proceedings from such Conferences. ......and indeed nearly all 'routine' / 'ordinary' science research is published this way nowadays? ....ANSWER :-YES

.......and WHAT academic 'planet' have YOU been residing on for the past 40 years????:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Is it true that there is group peer review......for example by Academic Conference Programme Committees on Papers to be presented / published as Proceedings from such Conferences. ......and indeed nearly all 'routine' / 'ordinary' science research is published this way nowadays? ....ANSWER :-YES

Rubbish! Conference committees decide who to invite as speakers. The contributions are accepted far in advance by the normal peer-review process (i.e. sent out to multiple individual reviewers) or else accepted without edit in the case of abstracts for some conferences (i.e. the ones that aren't any good or competitive). In addition, abstracts that go on to be published in manuscript form go through another, more stringent, peer review process by a journal.

And I don't know where you get the idea that "nearly all 'routine' / 'ordinary' science research is published this way nowadays." You're saying that all 'routine' or 'ordinary' science (whatever that means!) is published as conference proceedings after direct review by the committee? Hardly. You really have no clue about the peer review process.

Oh, and where are these 'University Peer Review Committees' you spoke of? Do you retracted this comment?

J C wrote: »

.......and WHAT academic 'planet' have YOU been residing on for the past 40 years????:D

The one that actually exists. The one where I both submit and review manuscripts for publication. The 'routine' and 'ordinary' kinds as well as the the 'important' kind. Can you say the same?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

To gain the object of temptation.

That isn't a reason.

If an atheist comes to a moral opinion and then does something against it he knows that by his own standards what he is doing is wrong. He might do it anyway, but he has no method to convince himself that his old moral opinion was wrong and his new one is right.

A Christian on the other hand has an easy and convent way to delude himself that his old moral standard was in fact a mistake, and can whole heartily embrace a new moral standard when ever he wants, by simply saying that his understand/interpretation was originally flawed, and now he understands better.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mean, no one can rightly change his mind about morality?

An atheist cannot rightly change his mind about morality without realising that he is doing just that, and admitting that his original moral opinion was flawed.

A Christian doesn't do that because he is convinced this morals are not his own.

He believes in a perfect absolute morality but has the ability to change that to what he likes by simply convincing himself that he is attempting to "discover" this perfect morality. Any time he changes he doesn't have to admit that to himself, he simply says that his original understand was mistaken, but this perfect morality is still out there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I have seen adulterers and homosexuals try to justify their sin and their continued membership of a church. That just proves that not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' is truly a Christian:

Well actually what it does is demonstrate that your system of morality, based around the flawed and some would say dangerous belief that you can know an absolute morality, is just as "bad" if not worse than an atheists form of morality, where at least they admit to themselves and others this shifting nature of moral opinion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well I agree with that. If one doesn't truly believe in them, they have no weight at all in the conscience.

Yes but no Christian truly believes in the morality he gets from the Bible because the morality is not his own. You can't truly believe in something unless you truly understand it, and you can't truly understand the ideas of someone else, even God.

You can certainly form your own moral opinion that matches those in the Bible, so you can say you fully agree with the moral message in the Bible, but then the Bible becomes secondary. I can do that as well just as much as you can.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But no matter how strongly one holds one's own morals, knowing you invented them in the first place gives you little reason to hang on to them when things get hot.

No actually knowing you invented them gives you the ONLY reason to hang on to them when things get hot.

A person who doesn't determine his own morality can drop this borrowed morality when ever he wishes because it isn't his own.

Ekancone

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22717687/

Sorry guys, it seems you colleagues have given up on the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Or maybe they are lying as usual.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22717687/

Sorry guys, it seems you colleagues have given up on the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Or maybe they are lying as usual.

I'm sorry, are you saying the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum dates it at 40,000 years?

My reading - a quick one, admittedly - took it to be the auction house:
Heritage Auction Galleries says the skull is estimated to be 40,000 years old, and projects it will fetch upward of $160,000.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you saying the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum dates it at 40,000 years?

My reading - a quick one, admittedly - took it to be the auction house:
Heritage Auction Galleries says the skull is estimated to be 40,000 years old, and projects it will fetch upward of $160,000.

Two possible solutions to this, wolfy. As by allowing the auction house to value it based on its age, they are willingly going along with it, no?

1) They are acknowledging that the artifact is 40,000 years old.

2) They are lying about the age in order to make a profit.

Which is it, wolfy?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To gain the object of temptation.

That isn't a reason.

It is the motivation - the motivating reason.

If an atheist comes to a moral opinion and then does something against it he knows that by his own standards what he is doing is wrong. He might do it anyway, but he has no method to convince himself that his old moral opinion was wrong and his new one is right.

Yes, he might admit what he is doing is wrong. Or he might say his previous moral principle was wrong and he is now behaving properly. Exactly the ame for the Christian, only the latter has to offer a credible reconciliation with Scripture. The atheist owns his morality, so he has no outside, objective standard to reconcile with.

A Christian on the other hand has an easy and convent way to delude himself that his old moral standard was in fact a mistake, and can whole heartily embrace a new moral standard when ever he wants, by simply saying that his understand/interpretation was originally flawed, and now he understands better.

As I pointed out above, it is not an easy and convent way, but a rather difficult one if it is not genuine.

Yes but no Christian truly believes in the morality he gets from the Bible because the morality is not his own. You can't truly believe in something unless you truly understand it, and you can't truly understand the ideas of someone else, even God.

Rubbish. We all believe in the teaching/testimony of others, even when we don't fully understand it. If we know the person and trust him, or if we see his teachings proved time after time.

You can certainly form your own moral opinion that matches those in the Bible, so you can say you fully agree with the moral message in the Bible, but then the Bible becomes secondary. I can do that as well just as much as you can.

Christians don't do that - we take our morality from the Bible, not have ours confirmed by it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But no matter how strongly one holds one's own morals, knowing you invented them in the first place gives you little reason to hang on to them when things get hot.

No actually knowing you invented them gives you the ONLY reason to hang on to them when things get hot.

This is certainly a comment on your poor logic. Unless of course you believe you are God and thus infallible. Mortal man would certainly question his own morality if it threatened his life.

A person who doesn't determine his own morality can drop this borrowed morality when ever he wishes because it isn't his own.

Not if it belonged to a God who would hold him to account.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Two possible solutions to this, wolfy. As by allowing the auction house to value it based on its age, they are willingly going along with it, no?

1) They are acknowledging that the artifact is 40,000 years old.

2) They are lying about the age in order to make a profit.

Which is it, wolfy?

I would go with:
3) They gave it to the auction house to sell. The auction house decides how to describe it, and did so by the conventional standard.

Are you suggesting the auction house would be happy to market it as 4000 years old? Or that the museum should demand they do?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would go with:
3) They gave it to the auction house to sell. The auction house decides how to describe it, and did so by the conventional standard.

Are you suggesting the auction house would be happy to market it as 4000 years old? Or that the museum should demand they do?

Surely so. If they believe the item cannot be the age the auction house describes it as, then they are allowing the auction house to commit fraud on their behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

krusty2101

The undisputable fact is that noody knows the answer. You may have an opinion and religions over the world use the word faith. They use this because they say you must believe what they preach without any evidence (using the dictionary defintion of the word).
I am not against religions. I believe that they help some people lead better lives than they would without it.
However the simple truth which we ALL know inside us is that when we die we cannot say what will happen to us.
Therefore I suggest that where we live, what we live in, what surrounds us etc etc is outside the realm of our understanding. We are advanced in our understanding of this world but there is so much we don't know and probably never will.
The universe started from a tiny molocule and the big bang - this is FACT. What came before that and why that tiny molocule was there is beyond us. You can apply whatever explanation you want to it but we will probably never know.
if you wish to find peace you have to look inside youself. People cling to religion because it is easy to follow rules and you are dictated to about the world around us. The fact is that at some time in our lives we have all found inner peace , sitting on a beach or in someones company or just the smell of food or a flower.
Understand that feeling and you will have all the happiness you will ever need.
The answer insn't out there - it's in here!!

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Surely so. If they believe the item cannot be the age the auction house describes it as, then they are allowing the auction house to commit fraud on their behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the museum were selling it, then they should indicate their beliefs about its age, but it is the auction house selling it. If you had a sword handed down to you by your family as used by a relative in the United Irish rising, but thought by most experts to be from the 1850s, would you insist it be described as 18th Century? Would not your auctioneers stick with the account most likely to be recognised by informed buyers?

In other words, must we impose our views on the auctioneers?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the museum were selling it, then they should indicate their beliefs about its age, but it is the auction house selling it. If you had a sword handed down to you by your family as used by a relative in the United Irish rising, but thought by most experts to be from the 1850s, would you insist it be described as 18th Century? Would not your auctioneers stick with the account most likely to be recognised by informed buyers?

In other words, must we impose our views on the auctioneers?

Museums are supposed to be expert. If a museum believed that a piece of porcelain was not, could not, be Ming Dynasty, they should not allow their auctioneer to sell it as Ming.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

krusty2101 said:

The undisputable fact is that noody knows the answer.

That of course is disputed.

However the simple truth which we ALL know inside us is that when we die we cannot say what will happen to us.

You speak for yourself and many others - but the Christian knows inside himself the reality of the judgement to come.

We are advanced in our understanding of this world but there is so much we don't know and probably never will.

True.

The universe started from a tiny molocule and the big bang - this is FACT.

That is disputed.

The fact is that at some time in our lives we have all found inner peace , sitting on a beach or in someones company or just the smell of food or a flower.
Understand that feeling and you will have all the happiness you will ever need.
The answer insn't out there - it's in here!!

God is good to us, in providing glimpses of real happiness and peace. Yes, the feeling is internal - but the cause of it is external, the realization of an order, meaning, goodness out there. Real peace comes when one encounters the source of all that - the Person who is the One True God. When we come to Him in repentance and faith, we find such peace and joy and hope that the world cannot take away:
Matthew 11:27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Museums are supposed to be expert. If a museum believed that a piece of porcelain was not, could not, be Ming Dynasty, they should not allow their auctioneer to seel it as Ming.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They - and all parties involved - know the disputed provenance of the item. No deceit is involved, just an avoidance of pedantry.