Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 10:27 PM
446 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Modulous (AdminModulous) (3 members, 443 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,052 Year: 6,658/21,208 Month: 2,419/2,634 Week: 82/525 Day: 57/25 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   A Bronze Standard
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 31 of 41 (788498)
08-01-2016 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
08-01-2016 10:54 AM


My (truely) last post on this thread. Even if I get more b.s. responses.
quote:

And the fact is that even if the flood were a thousand years earlier it would still fall within the Bronze Age and so your dating is still irrelevant.

Egyptian and Levantine historians date the start of the Bronze Age later than the 3300 date scientists will accept as latest.
Here is a link with a chart that has the archaeological dates with the "Min. accepted" column and then "Calibrated 14C" dates. Notice that the generally accepted date for the start of the Early Bronze Age is 3300 but the carbon dates have it at 4800-4100 BCE. It is actually taken as starting later by many Egyptologists.

http://www.academia.edu/...Improving_the_Egyptian_Chronology

quote:

The Great Dating Problem, Part I - Improving the Egyptian Chronology

Early archaeologists were concerned that radiocarbon dates often seemed to too early in respect to the old belief system. But we now accept that radiocarbon dates are not too early. Instead, supposed
“historical” dates turn out to be too late.
....
Of these revisions, the most obvious difference is that the beginning of the Early Kingdom is now dated 300 years later than according to Breasted. However, regarding the Early and Old Kingdoms, new research and the radiocarbon dating method increasingly
show that Breasted’s dates w
ere actually closest to the truth. So we are basically back to square one but with new insights and many improvements.
....
This means we will have to accept that the Early Kingdom of Egypt began circa 3600 BC, not 3000 or 3100 BC. This corresponds with the archaeology of adjacent countries, like the Western Sahara, Nubia and Palestine

http://www.academia.edu/...Improving_the_Egyptian_Chronology


Then for part 2

quote:

Egyptologists are generally unbelievably uncritical in this matter, since they have not much else to go on than what their favourite authorities or the establishment tell them. That is because they need a consensus for communicational purposes. Therefore, most do as if it is already certain that the First Dynasty started between 3100 BC and 2900 BC, because that is what most authorities now say, and they even dare
call it “established”. The great public doesn’t know better, because the schemes of those authorities are promoted and defended a priori by a gang of loyal followers.
....
The problems become all the more awkward when the Predynastic is involved. Here the differences with archaeological, geological and climatological data climb up from half a thousand to a thousand years or more. These huge differences are of course unacceptable. The currently accepted predynastic dates are only an extension of the accepted dynastic chronology, simply calculated backwards by minimum estimations. On these shaky grounds then the Ancient World History is hung. Assyriologists and other historians have been forced to follow the same line of minimalistic dating schemes in order to remain synchronized. And the transition from archaeological designations like Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze, to what Egyptologists call Predynastic and Early Dynastic instead, poses yet another huge synchronization problem. This is simply because all predynastic and dynastic dates are artificially and deliberately kept unchanged, while the rest of the scientific world has already evolved to a better understanding of the pas

http://www.academia.edu/...Radiocarbon_Dates_and_Early_Egypt


Jar is not correct about a flood 1000 years earlier being in the Bronze Age, if one is going to use Egyptian dates as his guide.

It would be more like 3200 to 3000 BCE for the start of the Bronze Age according to them.

Egyptian historians reject the current scientific dating methods, because they feel is is contrary to their astronomical calculations, and other historical records.

The conflict actually gives YECs something to use to argue against the radiometric dating methods.

(my last post for sure)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 10:54 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:09 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 32 of 41 (788500)
08-01-2016 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
08-01-2016 10:33 AM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
If you accept a date in the 4300-4500 range, why are you concerned with rocks and geological strata? Those are all far older.

Are you really unable to figure out the answer to this, meaning you're so stubbornly glued to the OE system you can't think outside the box, or are you simply insisting on it even knowing the answer? The answer of course is that I don't believe they are older, I reject the dating systems you use. I don't accept anything that contradicts the Bible.

When no evidence for a global flood is found in soils which date around 4300 years ago, you and many other creationists look to rock layers dated many million to hundreds of millions of years ago.

What? If I don't agree that those rocks are that old then I'm not switching my position in the slightest, and it's you who are simply imposing your false dates on me. The "no evidence" in the soils YOU date to the time WE believe the Flood occurred, is based on YOUR preconception that I reject. You miss the real evidence for the Flood because you are glued to your own paradigm. You really should at least acknowledge the position of your opponents even if you don't agree with it, instead of dogmatically pronouncing yours correct.

You may think you are sticking to the 4300-4500 date range but your claims for a global flood rely on geological strata that are millions of years old.

Well, there it is, your belief being treated as reality to disqualify mine. This is some kind of fallacy in a debate but I don't know what to call it. A form of begging the question perhaps. You pronounce those strata to be millions of years old without the slightest recognition that creationists have good reason to reject your dates. I AM sticking to the date range I gave because I do NOT recognize YOUR system of dating. What YOU think is millions of years old is simply NOT, it's only a few thousand years old. It doesn't matter if you personally believe this, in order to argue fairly you have to acknowledge it as a different view from yours. This is a case of ossified paradigm.

And in order to perform these mental gymnastics you must use the most tortured of rubber band years, compressing billions of years into a few thousand.

There is nothing tortured about my view of these things, I simply, very simply, absolutely reject your dating system. I experience no cognitive strain whatever, perform no mental gymnastics, and I do not in any way change my view of when the Flood occurred. I have no reason to. Your billions of years are a fiction, it costs me nothing to laugh and ignore them.

Unfortunately for those claims, all the scientific evidence shows that they are incorrect, but as those claims are based on belief rather than evidence this seems to be of no consequence.

This is the worst case of paradigm cramp I've ever seen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 10:33 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:05 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9332
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 33 of 41 (788505)
08-01-2016 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
08-01-2016 11:57 AM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
This is the worst case of paradigm cramp I've ever seen.

Surely you must mean other than your own posts.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 11:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:08 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 34 of 41 (788506)
08-01-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 12:05 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
I am capable of recognizing the point of view of the opposition that I am disagreeing with; Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does. To him the strata just ARE ABSOLUTELY hundreds of millions of years old, and he can't seem to recognize even the possibility that I really do see them as only thousands of years old.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:05 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 1:40 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9332
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 35 of 41 (788507)
08-01-2016 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LamarkNewAge
08-01-2016 11:20 AM


Re: My (truely) last post on this thread. Even if I get more b.s. responses.
Egyptian and Levantine historians date the start of the Bronze Age later than the 3300 date scientists will accept as latest.

That level of detail does not matter. Are there historians that exclude the period between around 2500 to 2000 BC from the Bronze age for the relevant area of the world in which Noah would have lived? If not, then what is your point?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-01-2016 11:20 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 36 of 41 (788514)
08-01-2016 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-01-2016 12:08 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does. To him the strata just ARE ABSOLUTELY hundreds of millions of years old, and he can't seem to recognize even the possibility that I really do see them as only thousands of years old.

I am fully aware that creationists have a different view of the evidence than do scientists, and that you see those ancient layers as only a few thousand years old.

But that view requires ignoring vast amounts of contradictory evidence, misrepresenting and misinterpreting the rest, and going on a massive scavenger hunt for anything that might possibly support your view--no matter how tenuous or contrary to the real-world evidence.

Your posts claiming that every type of scientific dating is completely wrong (without any evidence that this is so), and your insistence that the bible has to be correct (in spite of evidence to the contrary) show this very clearly.

In science and the real world, belief is not evidence!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9332
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 41 (788518)
08-01-2016 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-01-2016 12:08 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
I am capable of recognizing the point of view of the opposition that I am disagreeing with

Sometimes you do, yes. But I can cite plenty of occasions where you misstate the scientific point of view that you disagree with. Sometimes you do manage to get on the right track, but not always.

Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does.

In fact the view you have on some of the evidence he cites is pure dismissal without rationale. For example, you have no interpretation of radiometric dating other than to proclaim such dating wrong. Not a matter of interpretation at all.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 3:08 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 38 of 41 (788520)
08-01-2016 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 1:40 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
You are missing the point. He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about. It also doesn't matter if you think I get the opponents' view wrong, just being aware that there IS a point of view opposed to me is more than Coyote seems to be aware of. Getting my point of view WRONG would be an improvement.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 1:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 3:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 39 of 41 (788522)
08-01-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-01-2016 3:08 PM


Everyone understands your position
Faith writes:

He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about.

We all understand that you do not believe conventional dating but you need to understand that unless you can present a strong enough case to convince the whole scientific community that the conventional dating is incorrect you have no argument.

The problem is that not only would you have to overthrow ALL of the existing correlations involved in dating, all of physics and chemistry but also all of common sense. You need to explain how multiple lithification incidents can possibly happen within the time frame you propose.

So that is your challenge; totally overthrow all of physics and chemistry as well as all common sense. Support your objection.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 3:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:22 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 40 of 41 (788531)
08-01-2016 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-01-2016 3:19 PM


Re: Everyone understands your position
I'm sorry, you've changed the subject. I made a completely different point and I'm leaving it there for now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 3:19 PM jar has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9332
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 41 of 41 (788535)
08-01-2016 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-01-2016 3:08 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
just being aware that there IS a point of view opposed to me is more than Coyote seems to be aware of.

Again, with respect to radiometric dating, you don't have any kind of interpretation. You simply say that dating is wrong. Coyote is certainly aware that you reject dating for non scientific reasons. His posts describe your belief accurately. So yes he is acknowledging your point of view.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 3:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017