King David and his son, King Solomon --case closed
(M)-adman
JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King
David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed
by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit
She'an.
The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the
University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to
the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the
biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.
The distinguished Hebrew University archeologist, the late Professor Yigael
Yadin, argued more than 40 years ago that a series of monumental structures
and particularly the city gates of Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer as well as
certain Megiddo palaces were founded by Solomon, as recorded in the First
Book of Kings (9:15).
[]
In the article in Science, Mazar, Bruins and Van der Plicht write of
radiometric carbon 14 tests that were carried out at Groningen on charred
grain and olive pits found in various strata at Tel Rehov. The dates
achieved in this research were particularly precise, making it one of the
best sets of radiometric dates based on stratigraphic sequence from any site
related to the biblical period.
The results show that two strata at Tel Rehov are safely dated to the 10th
century BCE. One stratum was destroyed in heavy fire. The date of this
destruction fits very well with the reign of Shishak, the Egyptian Pharaoh
who invaded the Land of Israel around 925 BCE. Shishak's invasion is
mentioned both in the Bible (Kings I 14:25) and in his monumental
inscription at the temple of Amun at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where Rehov is
mentioned among many other places conquered at that time.
Shishak's military campaign was recorded in stone relief on the southern
wall of the Amun temple, listing the names of the places he raided in
ancient Israel and the Levant. The name Rehov appears on this list after the
term "The Valley," most likely referring to the Beit She'an/Jordan Valley,
and before the name Beit She'an. This sequence of place names at Karnak fits
the local geography in the region of Tel Rehov very well indeed, according
to the Science article.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
snex
> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King
> David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed
> by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit
> She'an.
>
> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew
> University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the
> University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to
> the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the
> biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.
since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the claims
of these archaeologists?
(M)-adman
I said dating methods can be unsound. I have questioned the calibration and
benchmarks when testing millions or billions of years out. I have even said
there is much that could skew the results. I have said that dating is
unreliable beyond 30,000 years or so. I still believe these things in the
absence of corroborating evidences or a solid benchmark.
This test, however, seems to be sound because there is written down and
archeological evidences that are corroborating evidences for the concluded
dates.
Mark VandeWettering
I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
snex
either the dating methods work or they do not work. they all rely on
the same basic assumptions.
Stuart
> snex wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 2:14 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by
> >> King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has
> >> been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from
> >> excavations near Beit She'an.
>
> >> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the
> >> Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
> >> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular
> >> significance to the running debate among archeologists about the
> >> authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the
> >> period and extent of their reign.
>
> > since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the claims
> > of these archaeologists?
>
> I said dating methods can be unsound. I have questioned the calibration and
> benchmarks when testing millions or billions of years out. I have even said
> there is much that could skew the results. I have said that dating is
> unreliable beyond 30,000 years or so. I still believe these things in the
> absence of corroborating evidences or a solid benchmark.
You have said a lot of things.
Practically nothing you have said is true.
Stuart
Will in New Haven
While this is controversial in some circles, it does not shed any
light on the controversies on _this_ newsgroup. There are probably
some people who think that the entire bible is lies from the start to
the finish but most people realize that some of the history sections
of the bible have some accurate information.
Doesn't mean squat about Genesis.
--
Will in New Haven
(M)-adman
If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating evidences.
yes, i do.
(M)-adman
opinions are like butts. We all got one
Mark VandeWettering
Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
Mark
Stuart
I wasn't stating opinions.
I was stating facts.
Stuart
Charlie Siegrist
<wett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>>
>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating evidences.
>> yes, i do.
>
>Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
What's the betting line on response/no response to this one? I've got
a dollar to put on the "no" line.
Mark Evans
wrote:
It also does not support any of the stories about Dave & Sol, just
that there were buildings, societies, wars and people in the area at
that time. It does not rule them out either.
Mark Evans
Inez
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Where did you brainlessly cut and paste this from, junior. I *know*
you're not literate enough to have written it yourself.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
wf3h
> snex wrote:
>>
> > since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the claims
> > of these archaeologists?
>
> I said dating methods can be unsound. I have questioned the calibration and
> benchmarks when testing millions or billions of years out. I have even said
> there is much that could skew the results. I have said that dating is
> unreliable beyond 30,000 years or so. I still believe these things in the
> absence of corroborating evidences or a solid benchmark.
>
IOW he accepts evidence which supports his theocon beliefs
and rejects evidence which contradicts them
yep...typical creationist.
(M)-adman
oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
(M)-adman
What is yours like?
Mark VandeWettering
No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been carried
out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites. They do not
support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older than the circa
2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
Mark
heekster
wrote:
Yet you are one of the few who keeps his head therein.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating evidences.
> yes, i do.
You are sounding just like Ms. Palin in her "debate" with Biden.
Just answer the question, coward.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
>
> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King
> David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed
> by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit
> She'an.
Yes, by two ambiguous frescos that appear to mention a king named
"David."
What does this have to do with evolution?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>
>
He said he accepts carbon dating within limits.
Bob Kolker
Jim Willemin
news:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>> On 2008-10-06, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>>>>
>>>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating
>>>> evidences. yes, i do.
>>>
>>> Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
>>>
>>
>> oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
>
> No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been
> carried out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites.
> They do not support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older
> than the circa 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
>
> You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
> Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
>
For the sake of completeness, the paper is
Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J.,
Wenke, R., Wölfli, W., Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon, v. 43, pp.1297-1320(24), 2001.
A single-page technical summary is available at
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2001/06.
pdf
and a popular summary at
http://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
If you lack access to a research library that carries the jounal
Radiocarbon, I'm sure the Interlibrary Loan department at your local
library can get it for you (ILL folks are magicians).
I wonder if Ray knows about this....
Boikat
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
Gee, 30,000 years is within the reliable range that carbon dating is
used for, idiot. It's reliable out to 50,000 years. Why the 30,000
year limit imposed by you? Anything older than that relies on
different methods.
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
You and truth are alien to each other.
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> snex wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2:14 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by
>>> King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has
>>> been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from
>>> excavations near Beit She'an.
>
>>> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the
>>> Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>>> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular
>>> significance to the running debate among archeologists about the
>>> authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the
>>> period and extent of their reign.
>
>> since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the claims
>> of these archaeologists?
>
> I said dating methods can be unsound. I have questioned the calibration and
> benchmarks when testing millions or billions of years out. I have even said
> there is much that could skew the results. I have said that dating is
> unreliable beyond 30,000 years or so. I still believe these things in the
> absence of corroborating evidences or a solid benchmark.
Actually there is good independent corroborating evidence out
to about 350 million years ago. Read about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2007_06.html
Scroll down to the paragraph near the end that begins:
"It is well known that the rotation of the Earth is slowing down ..."
zo...@yahoo.com
> Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote innews:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
>
> > On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>
> >>>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating
> >>>> evidences. yes, i do.
>
> >>> Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
>
> >> oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
>
> > No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been
> > carried out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites.
> > They do not support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older
> > than the circa 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
>
> > You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
> > Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
>
> For the sake of completeness, the paper is
>
> Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J.,
> Wenke, R., Wölfli, W., Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
> Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon, v. 43, pp.1297-1320(24), 2001.
>
> A single-page technical summary is available athttp://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2001/06.
>
>
> and a popular summary athttp://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
>
> If you lack access to a research library that carries the jounal
> Radiocarbon, I'm sure the Interlibrary Loan department at your local
> library can get it for you (ILL folks are magicians).
>
> I wonder if Ray knows about this....
And of course, in addition to this study, we have two pieces of
historical evidence that indicate the Great Pyramid was built by
Cheops/Khufu. The Inventory Stela, and the grafitti left above the
King's Chamber within the pyramid itself.
Boikat
There should have been a "?" there.
>
> > --
> > A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> You and truth are alien to each other.
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boikat
Those limits being, "if it supports my views"
Boikat
(M)-adman
coral polyps?
umm... no.
nice try
>
>> This test, however, seems to be sound because there is written down
>> and archeological evidences that are corroborating evidences for the
>> concluded dates.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Friar Broccoli
There are (I believe - I'd need to double check) other methods
using the same principle.
> umm... no.
This doesn't give a lot of indication about just exactly
what you think the problem might be.
>
> nice try
Does this mean you don't think there has been life on
earth for 100's of millions of years, and that the earth is
not billions of years old?
Cory Albrecht
> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King
> David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed
> by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit
> She'an.
>
> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew
> University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the
> University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to
> the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the
> biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.
>
Unfortunately, none of the evidence from Tel Rehov ever mentions David,
Solomon or Rehoboam, during whose reign Shoshenq I did his pillaging.
Worse yest, nor does any of the archaeological evidence at Tel Rehov
even show thatthere was an Israelite kingdom at this time.
All it shows is that tel Rehov was inhabited during the 10th century. It
is a very big and unsupported leap to go from Tel Rehov being inhabited
to David and Solomon actually existing.
Louann Miller
@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net:
> All it shows is that tel Rehov was inhabited during the 10th century. It
> is a very big and unsupported leap to go from Tel Rehov being inhabited
> to David and Solomon actually existing.
>
Which is ironic because I'd always assumed that David et al. were probably
among the historical parts of the OT -- absence of wall-to-wall miracles,
realistic human behavior from individual characters, etc.
(M)-adman
It means I think the talk origin web site is riddles with flaws presented as
truth.
(M)-adman
Yet more of your rationalizations Cory. Or was it an outright lie this time?
It simply amazes me how many of you can even survive in this world with your
curent level of denial regarding truth. Even when that truth is in your face
using your very own science you will find a rationalization not to believe
what does not suit your narrow view of the world and history.
The events and descriptions "as recorded in the First Book of Kings" are now
confirned with archelogical evidence and carbon dating by REAL scientists at
three different major universities. But that is not good enough for you. In
Cory-land only what you believe is truth it would appear.
However, i will be sure to let the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands know they YOU think they
are wrong and that these finds do NOT match the events, the buildings, the
gates and the other assorted artifacts as described in the book of Kings.
Friar Broccoli
Since you don't appear to know what your own position is
on the age of the earth and universe, how can you know that
our position on those questions is flawed?
(M)-adman
Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been inhabitated by
intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but, man himself has probably
been here longer. (no apes involved)
Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there was a creation
of everything (with a few destructive periods) and a seperate creation of
God's Garden roughly 6 to 12 thousand years ago.
Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older then that, it
is fine with me. What use is the answer other then to prove or disprove
creation? I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for the begining of
the universe via big bang. Either the matter has always existed or the
matter was created. And since everything science has discovered so far has
an origin, then the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
Anything else distracts from scientific endevers that are more worthy.
Boikat
Feel free to refute any of the articles presented there, fucktard.
Boikat
Boikat
Where's the *physical* evidence to support that claim?
>
> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there was a creation
> of everything (with a few destructive periods) and a seperate creation of
> God's Garden roughly 6 to 12 thousand years ago.
>
Again, where is your *physical* evidence to support this belief?
> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older then that, it
> is fine with me.
Oh, how nice of you to grant "science" permission to research reality,
rather than bow to your fantacies. Oh, thank you! (FUCTARD!)
> What use is the answer other then to prove or disprove
> creation?
If reality conflicts with your personal views, who's problem is that?
> I already know everything started with a creator.
Oh? And how do you *know* this?
> There is no
> other logical answer.
Sorry. Your inability to grasp concepts more complex than "Goddidit"
does not mean you are being "logical". In your cae, it appears to
mean that you are too intellectually challenged to handle anything
that actually involves *thinking* or *understanding*.
> Because there are only two choices for the begining of
> the universe via big bang. Either the matter has always existed or the
> matter was created.
In the Big Bang, and the time shortly therafter.
> And since everything science has discovered so far has
> an origin, then the matter in the universe probably has an origin too.
Yes, Hydrogen, a lesser amount of Helium, and an even lesser amount of
Lithium. All other elements were generated in the first generation of
stars.
> Which
> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
Or in the reality that we *observe* in the universe.
>
> Anything else distracts from scientific endevers that are more worthy.
Your fantasies are not *science*.
Boikat
(M)-adman
Jim Willemin wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
>> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>> On 2008-10-06, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>>>>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating
>>>>> evidences. yes, i do.
>>>> Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
>>> oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
>> No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been
>> carried out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites.
>> They do not support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older
>> than the circa 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
It is not a "lunatic idea". It is just an 'idea'. Besides, Carbon Dating is
not and should not be considered a final authority.
>> You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
>> Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
I am very much intrested in ancient history, languages, etc. (thanks for the
info)
But i am not going to constrain my research to popular belief as you seem to
do. Sometimes real truth is hidden, not obvious.
> For the sake of completeness, the paper is:
> Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J.,
> Wenke, R., Wölfli, W., Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
> Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon, v. 43, pp.1297-1320(24), 2001.
> A single-page technical summary is available at:
> http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2001/06.pdf
> or http://tinyurl.com/4qgoyz and a popular summary at
> http://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
[]
Did you read both pages; Look at the charts?
The first page, which is the one I would go with, it has dates ranging <
2500 BC up to 3400 BC. with a error of +- 400. Which means the pyramids
could feasibly be 2900 years old and the one at the 3400 mark could be as
much as 3800 years old..
"The length of a solid black bar corresponds to the BC time span, and the
width of the bar is proportional to the statistical weight of the range. For
comparison, the historical chronology of the monuments is shown as hatched
rectangles."
The average dates may be 2500, but that is clearly an average. And an unsure
one at that. The benchmark is the established historical dates and the wood
was a problem as I will show below.
~~~~~~~
Now, if you go with the second web page,in the summary: It explains problems
with the wood and getting an accurate date
"This may be the reason for the wide scatter and history-unfriendly
radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom.[] While the multiple
old-wood effects make it difficult to obtain pinpoint age estimates of
pyramids, the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project now has us thinking
about forest ecologies,"
~~~~~~~
" history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results"
It does not get any more clearer then that.
It seems to me that this round of testing was not conclusive and had
problems like the testing in 1984.
In this current testing the range could be as high as 3800 years old. Which
is just a quibble but illustrates my point on how dating methods can be
unreliable depending on other factors. In this case, the wood. I do not
totally discount this test because there is historical evidence to go with
the carbon dating. And they match.
However,,
I suspect the pyramids are much older. But save your attacks. It is just my
opinion that they are older based on antidotal evidences in other texts----
that I really do not care to go dig for to prove the point.
Thanks for the intresting discussion.
Boikat
> PIGGYBACKING
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> >news:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
> >> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
> >>>>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating
> >>>>> evidences. yes, i do.
> >>>> Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
> >>> oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
> >> No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been
> >> carried out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites.
> >> They do not support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older
> >> than the circa 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
>
> It is not a "lunatic idea". It is just an 'idea'. Besides, Carbon Dating is
> not and should not be considered a final authority.
Unless it supports your fantasies. Right.
<snip>
Boikat
Jim Willemin
news:FBfHk.39485$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Then again, sometimes the real truth is obvious, if disappointing. In
this case, there is a confluence of data to indicate that the pyramids
date to around 2500 BCE: historical, archaeological, radiometric,
astronomical (e.g. take a look at Kate Spence's paper
K. Spence, Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation
of pyramids, Nature v.408, pp 320-324 (2000). ).
In general, if a large number of independent lines of evidence suggest
something is true, it's a good bet the real truth is the obvious one.
Of course, one needs must evaluate each line of evidence, which means
one needs to learn enough to understand each line of evidence, which,
alas, is hard work and highly distateful to those with lazy minds.
>
>> For the sake of completeness, the paper is:
>> Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J.,
>> Wenke, R., Wölfli, W., Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
>> Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon, v. 43, pp.1297-1320(24), 2001.
>> A single-page technical summary is available at:
>>
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2001/06
>> .pdf or http://tinyurl.com/4qgoyz and a popular summary at
>> http://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
> []
>
> Did you read both pages; Look at the charts?
>
Indeed I did. Having done so, however, I realized that both are mere
summaries, and that to properly understand and evaluate the results I
would need to read the original Radiocarbon paper, which is something I
have not yet done. Before you sally forth in judgement, I would urge
you to look at the original paper and actually see what they did.
Further, I'd urge you to consider their discussion of the results,
which I am sure is more full and detailed than that in either summary.
Remember, ILL is your friend - you'd be amazed at the things
interlibrary loan can find. Print this page, take it to your library,
and see what they can do for you.
<snip judgement without understanding>
Friar Broccoli
This is a preliminary reply, just to thank you for actually
telling me some of your position. I will reply properly this
evening at the end of my work day.
zo...@yahoo.com
> PIGGYBACKING
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> >news:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
> >> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/4qgoyzand a popular summary at
The ancient builders needed a lot of wood. It went into the mortar
that held the pyramid's stone blocks together. The wood was gathered
from all across Egypt, trees were felled, old wood was gathered. This
is a solid explanation for the small divergence in dates.
There are also two pieces of egyptian historical evidence that support
the pyramid being built by Khufu (see my post a couple posts up).
There is also the fact that all around the pyramid are Khufu's
relatives, and his possessions (i.e. the solar boat).
There is also the fact that there was an immense work camp near by,
with living quarters, bakeries, etc. large enough to support the
workforce necessary to build the GP.
Pharoah's power steadily declined after Khufu as local rulers got more
powerful. That's why the other two pyramids at Giza are smaller.
I could go on... do you find the above all easy to ignore?
(M)-adman
I do not see how you can say "judgement without understanding". The very
same evidence posted clearly states in the conclusion:
" history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results"
It does not get any more clearer then that.
--
(M)-adman
I do not ignore. And i said above: "I do not totally discount this test
because there is historical evidence to go with the carbon dating. And they
match."
But there is the issue with the wood and the fact that their own conclusion
states this was an " " history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results"
IMHO the tests are inconclusive but good enough to stand because of the
historical documents. I base this on their conclusion of "
history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results".
zo...@yahoo.com
You keep repeating that phrase. It's no subsitute for digging through
the details. It's like political bumper sticker style analysis.
>
> IMHO the tests are inconclusive but good enough to stand because of the
> historical documents. I base this on their conclusion of "
> history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results".
Out of curiosity, when do you believe the Great Pyramid was built and
by whom? What is your world view that it requires (perhaps a bad
choice of word) that you disbelieve the conventional wisdom about the
GP? I am honestly curious.
Friar Broccoli
Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
I cannot see how any such ancient writings could contain
anything more than speculative myths about the remote past.
> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there
> was a creation of everything (with a few destructive periods)
> and a seperate creation of God's Garden roughly 6 to 12
> thousand years ago.
Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
is?
> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
> then to prove or disprove creation?
It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
> I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
> other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for
> the begining of the universe via big bang. Either the matter
> has always existed or the matter was created. And since
> everything science has discovered so far has an origin, then
> the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
I agree that the Big Bang was likely a creation event.
However, I don't understand what is wrong with looking at what
happened during the 13.5 billion years which followed?
> Anything else distracts from scientific endevers that are more
> worthy.
Why is the study of nature unworthy?
Do you think God wants us to ignore most of His creation
including billions of distant galaxies and all the weird
creatures that have come and gone since the Cambrian?
Mark VandeWettering
> PIGGYBACKING
>
> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:slrngeli4t.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
>>> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-10-06, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I'm confused: do you accept carbon dating or not?
>>>>>> If the dating is under 30,000 years and there is corroborating
>>>>>> evidences. yes, i do.
>>>>> Except with respect to the Pyramids at Giza?
>>>> oh, you mean a different kind of dating method
>>> No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been
>>> carried out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites.
>>> They do not support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older
>>> than the circa 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
>
> It is not a "lunatic idea". It is just an 'idea'. Besides, Carbon Dating is
> not and should not be considered a final authority.
It is a lunatic idea. No evidence exists to suggest that the dates of
10,000 B.C. are reasonable. Khufu's pyramid was built ~2500 B.C, during
the Fourth Dynasty, for Khufu.
>>> You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
>>> Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
>
> I am very much intrested in ancient history, languages, etc. (thanks for the
> info)
>
> But i am not going to constrain my research to popular belief as you seem to
> do. Sometimes real truth is hidden, not obvious.
Apparently you think that here it is so hidden as to be unsupported by
any evidence.
>> For the sake of completeness, the paper is:
>> Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J.,
>> Wenke, R., Wölfli, W., Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
>> Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon, v. 43, pp.1297-1320(24), 2001.
>> A single-page technical summary is available at:
>> http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2001/06.pdf
>> or http://tinyurl.com/4qgoyz and a popular summary at
>> http://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
> []
>
> Did you read both pages; Look at the charts?
I did.
> The first page, which is the one I would go with, it has dates ranging <
> 2500 BC up to 3400 BC. with a error of +- 400. Which means the pyramids
> could feasibly be 2900 years old and the one at the 3400 mark could be as
> much as 3800 years old..
But not 10,000, as your other cites claimed (and, in fact, as Edgar
Cayce believed, whose founded the ARE who did the initial radiocarbon
studies at Giza).
> "The length of a solid black bar corresponds to the BC time span, and the
> width of the bar is proportional to the statistical weight of the range. For
> comparison, the historical chronology of the monuments is shown as hatched
> rectangles."
>
> The average dates may be 2500, but that is clearly an average. And an unsure
> one at that. The benchmark is the established historical dates and the wood
> was a problem as I will show below.
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Now, if you go with the second web page,in the summary: It explains problems
> with the wood and getting an accurate date
>
> "This may be the reason for the wide scatter and history-unfriendly
> radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom.[] While the multiple
> old-wood effects make it difficult to obtain pinpoint age estimates of
> pyramids, the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project now has us thinking
> about forest ecologies,"
>
> ~~~~~~~
> " history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results"
> It does not get any more clearer then that.
>
> It seems to me that this round of testing was not conclusive and had
> problems like the testing in 1984.
Yes, but none of which permit a 10,000 B.C. date as you suggested.
> In this current testing the range could be as high as 3800 years old.
Not for Giza.
> Which
> is just a quibble but illustrates my point on how dating methods can be
> unreliable depending on other factors. In this case, the wood. I do not
> totally discount this test because there is historical evidence to go with
> the carbon dating. And they match.
>
> However,,
>
> I suspect the pyramids are much older.
But no evidence suggests that they are much older.
> But save your attacks. It is just my
> opinion that they are older based on antidotal evidences in other texts----
> that I really do not care to go dig for to prove the point.
You cannot prove (or even support) your point.
> Thanks for the intresting discussion.
Mark
(M)-adman
> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>
> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>
> I cannot see how any such ancient writings could contain
> anything more than speculative myths about the remote past.
I cannot see how any such myth regarding the age of the earth, and where we
all came from, could come from anything more than a speculative pipe dream.
>> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there
>> was a creation of everything (with a few destructive periods)
>> and a seperate creation of God's Garden roughly 6 to 12
>> thousand years ago.
>
> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
> is?
creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
"How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>
>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>
> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
I thought science is not in the God business
>
>> I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
>> other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for
>> the begining of the universe via big bang. Either the matter
>> has always existed or the matter was created. And since
>> everything science has discovered so far has an origin, then
>> the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
>> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
>
> I agree that the Big Bang was likely a creation event.
> However, I don't understand what is wrong with looking at what
> happened during the 13.5 billion years which followed?
Nothing. As long as it is accurate
>> Anything else distracts from scientific endevers that are more
>> worthy.
>
> Why is the study of nature unworthy?
It is a priorty thing.
Hint: We have had an oil crisis since 1973.
> Do you think God wants us to ignore most of His creation
> including billions of distant galaxies and all the weird
> creatures that have come and gone since the Cambrian?
From my readings, i think God wants our focus on each other, Him, things
like that.
What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor hit
Jupiter?
There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on them.
We need focus IMHO.
JohnN
> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King
> David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed
> by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit
> She'an.
But nothing about David's BFF, Jonathan.
JohnN
er...@swva.net
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 10:21 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> snex wrote:
> >>>> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by
> >>>> King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has
> >>>> been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from
> >>>> excavations near Beit She'an.
>
> >>>> Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
> >>>> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular
> >>>> significance to the running debate among archeologists about the
> >>>> authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the
> >>>> period and extent of their reign.
>
> >>> since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the
> >>> claims of these archaeologists?
>
> >> I said dating methods can be unsound. I have questioned the
> >> calibration and benchmarks when testing millions or billions of
> >> years out. I have even said there is much that could skew the
> >> results. I have said that dating is unreliable beyond 30,000 years
> >> or so. I still believe these things in the absence of corroborating
> >> evidences or a solid benchmark.
>
>
> > Practically nothing you have said is true.
>
> > Stuart
>
> opinions are like butts. We all got one
>
>
>
> >> This test, however, seems to be sound because there is written down
> >> and archeological evidences that are corroborating evidences for the
> >> concluded dates.
>
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
And you are all butt.
Eric Root
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: the site does not agree with me, so it must be wrong.
However I can't point to any specifics that are wrong (since I don't
understand the subject at all) so I'll just toss out some bs.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> [.]
>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
Actually it can. These guys (are part of it):
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
They had brains about 3 times the size chimps and
3/4ths as large as modern humans.
> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
Well, assuming the average child was born to a 20 year old
mother, 300,000 years is 15,000 generations.
I have four great grandfathers, and I don't know the name of (or
anything else about) any of them. How could I as a child know that
the ancestor being described to me by an elder, existed 15,000 or
100 or 10 generations ago?
If I have no way of knowing how far back the ancestors described
to me go (or even if the guy telling me the story just made it
up to look important), how can I then write down a reliable
history?
[snip]
>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>> is?
> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
I am raising the issue because it sets the time scale for events
since our universe formed. It is extremely obvious evidence,
left by God, that makes an earth that is billions of years old
appear likely, while making an earth that is thousands of years
old appear absurd.
I care, because I like my beliefs to conform with observations
that are clear and obvious.
>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
> I thought science is not in the God business
Science is in the business of discovering the Truths that God
left us to find.
[snipping for brevity]
> What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor hit
> Jupiter?
> There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on them.
> We need focus IMHO.
Individual scientists (like individual people) differ on which
Truths are worth focusing on. Whatever the value of those
truths, I am raising them here, because I want to convince you
that many of the most obvious of those truths are inconsistent
with the positions you are presenting here.
Shane
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> [.]
>>
>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>>
>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
>
> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
Wow a hunch, backed up by nothing, now there is a compelling argument.
>> I cannot see how any such ancient writings could contain
>> anything more than speculative myths about the remote past.
>
> I cannot see how any such myth regarding the age of the earth, and where we
> all came from, could come from anything more than a speculative pipe dream.
So your lack of vision is somehow a problem for science?
>>> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there
>>> was a creation of everything (with a few destructive periods)
>>> and a seperate creation of God's Garden roughly 6 to 12
>>> thousand years ago.
>>
>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>> is?
>
> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
Well that explains why you dance around the point so much.
> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
Science cares. Why should you get to dictate what science should study?
>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>>
>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>
> I thought science is not in the God business
Who said it was?
>>> I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
>>> other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for
>>> the begining of the universe via big bang. Either the matter
>>> has always existed or the matter was created. And since
>>> everything science has discovered so far has an origin, then
>>> the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
>>> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
>>
>> I agree that the Big Bang was likely a creation event.
>> However, I don't understand what is wrong with looking at what
>> happened during the 13.5 billion years which followed?
>
> Nothing. As long as it is accurate
It is as accurate and the knowledge of the day is. Sometimes, like you
demonsrtate, things change and knowledge is increased in which case the
story changes. You have admitted this in your own posts, why you
consider it to be a problem for science when it is not a problem for you
is anyones guess, as there is surely no logic behind your position.
>>> Anything else distracts from scientific endevers that are more
>>> worthy.
>>
>> Why is the study of nature unworthy?
>
> It is a priorty thing.
>
> Hint: We have had an oil crisis since 1973.
So how do you know which branch of science is going to solve the
problem?
>> Do you think God wants us to ignore most of His creation
>> including billions of distant galaxies and all the weird
>> creatures that have come and gone since the Cambrian?
>
> From my readings, i think God wants our focus on each other, Him, things
> like that.
You should read more. For example the Christian god specifically
requires people to work and do things that take time away from
contemplation of him. In fact he requires it so much that he condemns
those who do not fulfill their obligations to their family. If studiying
the evidence of the past is how someone makes their living, the
christian god not only requires that they do it in order to provide for
their family, but also requires them to do it well.
> What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor hit
> Jupiter?
Probably more good than the billions spent building and decorating
buildings supposedly to glorify god, as if the poverty of the people who
worship there is somehow a glory to him/them as well. Physician, heal
thyself.
> There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on them.
What a pity that some good minds are sidetracked into thinking about god
rather than the problems at hand, irrrespective of the fact that we do
not know where the next breakthrough is going to come from. Your
attitude would have condemned James Watt for watching the kettle boil
when he should have been out their solving the problems.
> We need focus IMHO.
What problem has focussing on god ever solved?
(M)-adman
> On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> [.]
>
>>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>
>>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
>
>> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
>> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
>
> Actually it can. These guys (are part of it):
>
> http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
>
> They had brains about 3 times the size chimps and
> 3/4ths as large as modern humans.
I supose the assumption is "Peking Man" is as dumb as a rock and covered
with hair.
Interestingly, the protruding jaw and ridged forehead reminds me of a
documentary where a computer generated what the human skull would look like
should humans live thousands of years as is claimed in ancient Sumerian
texts and others. The forces of gravity would protrude the jaw and eyebrows
into what looks exactly like the pic your link and other so called
evolutationary stages of man.
>
>
>> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>
> Well, assuming the average child was born to a 20 year old
> mother, 300,000 years is 15,000 generations.
>
> I have four great grandfathers, and I don't know the name of (or
> anything else about) any of them. How could I as a child know that
> the ancestor being described to me by an elder, existed 15,000 or
> 100 or 10 generations ago?
>
> If I have no way of knowing how far back the ancestors described
> to me go (or even if the guy telling me the story just made it
> up to look important), how can I then write down a reliable
> history?
Well, the texts survived. I see no real reason for the people that recorded
the genealogy to have lied.
Mankind has had several information periods that are simply dark.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>>> is?
>
>> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
>
>> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>
> I am raising the issue because it sets the time scale for events
> since our universe formed. It is extremely obvious evidence,
> left by God, that makes an earth that is billions of years old
> appear likely, while making an earth that is thousands of years
> old appear absurd.
I have no doubt the world is billions of years old. IMHO there is some
confusion regarding creation. There was a second mini-creation of the garden
in eden.The reason is unimportant for the purpose of this discussion. This
second creation is where the bible starts. Cain did not marry his sister, he
found a wife in Nod.
> I care, because I like my beliefs to conform with observations
> that are clear and obvious.
I like mine to conform to history. I see no reason for hundreds of thousands
of ancient texts on God, Creation, mankind and the like to be lies. Maybe
they are embellished, maybe they have lost facts over time, but i am sure
the main points are grounded in fact.
>
>>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>
>>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>
>> I thought science is not in the God business
>
> Science is in the business of discovering the Truths that God
> left us to find.
Then I have respect for you and for your work if you indeed work in the
science field.
You would be one of the "real" scientists doing "real science" that i
mention in other postings
>
> [snipping for brevity]
>
>> What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor hit
>> Jupiter?
>
>> There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on
>> them.
>
>> We need focus IMHO.
>
>
> Individual scientists (like individual people) differ on which
> Truths are worth focusing on. Whatever the value of those
> truths, I am raising them here, because I want to convince you
> that many of the most obvious of those truths are inconsistent
> with the positions you are presenting here.
Would one be evolution?
(M)-adman
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:09:17 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> [.]
>>>
>>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>>>
>>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
>>
>> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
>> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
>
>> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>
> Wow a hunch, backed up by nothing, now there is a compelling argument.
Backed up by history
>
>>> I cannot see how any such ancient writings could contain
>>> anything more than speculative myths about the remote past.
>>
>> I cannot see how any such myth regarding the age of the earth, and
>> where we all came from, could come from anything more than a
>> speculative pipe dream.
>
> So your lack of vision is somehow a problem for science?
Unless scientists have a crystal ball, or can get the wizard of oz to
transport them back millions of years, then science works on hunches also.
You use your evidences for your hunches, I use history and ancient texts for
mine. Call them hypothesis instead of hunches if that gives you a warm fuzzy
feeling. I do not really care to play semantics.
>
>>>> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there
>>>> was a creation of everything (with a few destructive periods)
>>>> and a seperate creation of God's Garden roughly 6 to 12
>>>> thousand years ago.
>>>
>>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>>> is?
>>
>> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
>
> Well that explains why you dance around the point so much.
That would be you
>
>> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>
> Science cares. Why should you get to dictate what science should
> study?
>
Fine. If you do not care about future generations, i will not either.
>
>>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>>>
>>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>>
>> I thought science is not in the God business
>
> Who said it was?
You have risen to k00k-level.
>
>>>> I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
>>>> other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for
>>>> the begining of the universe via big bang. Either the matter
>>>> has always existed or the matter was created. And since
>>>> everything science has discovered so far has an origin, then
>>>> the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
>>>> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
>>>
>>> I agree that the Big Bang was likely a creation event.
>>> However, I don't understand what is wrong with looking at what
>>> happened during the 13.5 billion years which followed?
>>
>> Nothing. As long as it is accurate
>
> It is as accurate and the knowledge of the day is.
Exactly. So why present it as anything other then that unless there is an
agenda
>Sometimes, like you
> demonsrtate, things change and knowledge is increased in which case
> the story changes. You have admitted this in your own posts, why you
> consider it to be a problem for science when it is not a problem for
> you is anyones guess, as there is surely no logic behind your
> position.
I do not consider it to be a problem. UNTIL it is reported as truth. Things
like big bang are not truth yet. The singularity defies known laws of
physics.
--
(M)-adman
Translation: If the site does not agree with me and the TO website, it must
be wrong. Especially if it comes from a christian web site, or a person that
believes in God.
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>Well, the texts survived. I see no real reason for the people that
>recorded the genealogy to have lied. Mankind has had several
>information periods that are simply dark.
Does your credulity extend to the recorded genealogies connecting Queen
Elizabeth II to Woden, Hirohito to Amaterasu, and Julius Caesar to
Venus?
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> [.]
>
>>>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>
>>>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>>>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>>>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>>>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
>
>>> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
>>> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
>
>> Actually it can. These guys (are part of it):
>
>>http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
>
>> They had brains about 3 times the size chimps and
>> 3/4ths as large as modern humans.
> I supose the assumption is "Peking Man" is as dumb as a rock and
> covered with hair.
Well there is evidence for the use of fire going back at least
800,000 years so that together with their need for vitamin D
suggests to me that they had little hair. The general
consensus seems to be that we haven't had much hair for more
than 2 million years.
Intelligence? Certainly smarter than the outgoing president.
> Interestingly, the protruding jaw and ridged forehead reminds
> me of a documentary where a computer generated what the human
> skull would look like should humans live thousands of years as
> is claimed in ancient Sumerian texts and others. The forces of
> gravity would protrude the jaw and eyebrows into what looks
> exactly like the pic your link and other so called
> evolutationary stages of man.
I'm afraid we now have rather a lot of evidence for those
evolutionary stages. I periodically put up a set of links
to some of the most interesting fossils. Here is a link to
my most recent post of that evidence:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a5c2d1525fc3bfa7
>>> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>
>> Well, assuming the average child was born to a 20 year old
>> mother, 300,000 years is 15,000 generations.
>
>> I have four great grandfathers, and I don't know the name of (or
>> anything else about) any of them. How could I as a child know that
>> the ancestor being described to me by an elder, existed 15,000 or
>> 100 or 10 generations ago?
>
>> If I have no way of knowing how far back the ancestors described
>> to me go (or even if the guy telling me the story just made it
>> up to look important), how can I then write down a reliable
>> history?
>
> Well, the texts survived. I see no real reason for the people
> that recorded the genealogy to have lied.
We don't actually need to assume lying. False information is
frequently the result of misinterpretation, misunderstanding
or wishful thinking.
When the Egyptian pharaoh Hatshepsut claimed divine birth from
the god Amun was she lying or engaging in wishful thinking?
What about Augustus Caesar when he claimed divinity? People
make themselves believe all sorts of weird things, especially
when it benefits them.
> Mankind has had several information periods that are simply dark.
Well, as a matter of fact, I am the direct descendant (the
living incarnation actually) of earths greatest God/King from
the most recent of those blank periods. For that reason you
should be obedient to me and send me all your money.
>>>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>>>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>>>> is?
>
>>> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
>
>>> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>
>> I am raising the issue because it sets the time scale for events
>> since our universe formed. It is extremely obvious evidence,
>> left by God, that makes an earth that is billions of years old
>> appear likely, while making an earth that is thousands of years
>> old appear absurd.
.
> I have no doubt the world is billions of years old. IMHO there
> is some confusion regarding creation. There was a second
> mini-creation of the garden in eden. The reason is unimportant
> for the purpose of this discussion. This second creation is
> where the bible starts. Cain did not marry his sister, he
> found a wife in Nod.
I am happy to learn that you agree with both Old Earth and the
marriage of Adam's children to pre-existing people.
I hope I can convince you that something like God's
acknowledgment of us as His special creation is what occurred
roughly 6,000 years ago.
>> I care, because I like my beliefs to conform with observations
>> that are clear and obvious.
> I like mine to conform to history. I see no reason for
> hundreds of thousands of ancient texts on God, Creation,
> mankind and the like to be lies. Maybe they are embellished,
> maybe they have lost facts over time, but i am sure the main
> points are grounded in fact.
I am a computer technician who works on detecting tax fraud.
I'm afraid I am not inclined to trust what people tell me,
in the absence of confirming evidence.
>>>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>>>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>
>>> I thought science is not in the God business
>
>> Science is in the business of discovering the Truths that God
>> left us to find.
> Then I have respect for you and for your work if you indeed work in the
> science field.
> You would be one of the "real" scientists doing "real science" that i
> mention in other postings
I'm afraid, I am no kind of scientist at all. Just a 58 year
old man who has spent his entire life on a personal quest to
see as much truth as is possible. (I am hopeful that I will
live long enough to know the ultimate nature of physical
matter.)
>>> What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor hit
>>> Jupiter?
>
>>> There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on
>>> them.
>
>>> We need focus IMHO.
.
>> Individual scientists (like individual people) differ on which
>> Truths are worth focusing on. Whatever the value of those
>> truths, I am raising them here, because I want to convince you
>> that many of the most obvious of those truths are inconsistent
>> with the positions you are presenting here.
>
> Would one be evolution?
Evolution is really a group of theories. Some of them are
clearly and obviously true, others are not so obvious.
One of the conceptual divisions I like best is:
- the tree of common descent (dinosaurs to birds and monkeys to
people etc.)
- the operation of natural selection on variation between the
offspring of each generation as the mechanism by which the
tree came to be what we see today. (reproduction of the best
adapted)
- random mutations are the exclusive method by which that
variation was generated.
The tree of common descent is self-evidently true just from
looking at:
- the fossil record, Trilobites, dinosaurs etc.
- modern groups like mammals, birds, reptiles etc.
- their subgroups like horses, dogs, the weasels etc.
- The genetic and physical similarities within those groups
and subgroups.
Common descent is so self-evident that it is accepted by
Michael J. Behe, the biologist who wrote Darwin's Black Box.
At the other end, while I personally believe that random
mutations are the exclusive source of variation between
organisms, I recognize that that belief arises out of my world
view and not from overwhelming evidence.
Consequently, I believe a reasonable person could hold the view
that at least some of the variation we see between species arose
due to direct intervention by God, although I actually believe
that God is perfectly capable of setting up a universe that
would achieve His objectives without any need for fine tuning.
Sorry about the length of this thing.
Hope you got this far.
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:09:17 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>>
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> [.]
>>>>
>>>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
>>>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
>>>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
>>>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
>>>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
>>>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
>>>
>>> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
>>> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
>>
>>> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>>
>> Wow a hunch, backed up by nothing, now there is a compelling argument.
>
> Backed up by history
So all the errors in that tradition doesn't worry you at
all. I mean have those traditions even got one thing of
similar magnitude to the gross errors right yet? You know
the errors I am referring too.
Rain--totally at the behest of god--WRONG.
Mental disorders totally due to demon posession--WRONG
Sun orbiting the earth--WRONG
Global flood--WRONG
Sin the only cause of sickness--WRONG
Earth, fat and square--WRONG
Firmament enclosing the earth--WRONG
Stars attached to firmament--WRONG
Rainbows not a property of light refraction for years--WRONG
God not the author of confusion--WRONG.
etc. etc. etc.
>>>> I cannot see how any such ancient writings could contain
>>>> anything more than speculative myths about the remote past.
>>>
>>> I cannot see how any such myth regarding the age of the earth, and
>>> where we all came from, could come from anything more than a
>>> speculative pipe dream.
>>
>> So your lack of vision is somehow a problem for science?
>
> Unless scientists have a crystal ball, or can get the wizard of oz to
> transport them back millions of years, then science works on hunches also.
> You use your evidences for your hunches, I use history and ancient texts for
> mine. Call them hypothesis instead of hunches if that gives you a warm fuzzy
> feeling. I do not really care to play semantics.
So why do you play them then? Your hunches are not
hypotheses, nor does science need a crystal ball or a wizard
to do its stuff. A scientist may sometimnes use hunches to
decide on a path of investigation, but the word hunch is not
one that Nobel prizes are made of. Their hunches, unlike
yours, will eventually be backed up by evidence or be
dropped. See where your hunches differ from the real deal?
>>>>> Which is all i am concerned with. I personally believe there
>>>>> was a creation of everything (with a few destructive periods)
>>>>> and a seperate creation of God's Garden roughly 6 to 12
>>>>> thousand years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>>>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>>>> is?
>>>
>>> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
>>
>> Well that explains why you dance around the point so much.
>
> That would be you
Nope, I dont minuet.
>>> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>>
>> Science cares. Why should you get to dictate what science should
>> study?
>>
>
> Fine. If you do not care about future generations, i will not either.
How do you kinow that the technology that secures the future
is not going to come about from the study of light, or
astronomy?
>>>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>>>>
>>>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>>>
>>> I thought science is not in the God business
>>
>> Who said it was?
>
> You have risen to k00k-level.
Can't answer the question I see.
>>>>> I already know everything started with a creator. There is no
>>>>> other logical answer. Because there are only two choices for
>>>>> the begining of the universe via big bang. Either the matter
>>>>> has always existed or the matter was created. And since
>>>>> everything science has discovered so far has an origin, then
>>>>> the matter in the universe probably has an origin too. Which
>>>>> would equal a creator in a dimention we do not yet understand.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the Big Bang was likely a creation event.
>>>> However, I don't understand what is wrong with looking at what
>>>> happened during the 13.5 billion years which followed?
>>>
>>> Nothing. As long as it is accurate
>>
>> It is as accurate and the knowledge of the day is.
>
> Exactly. So why present it as anything other then that unless there is an
> agenda
For the same reason that even you, basing your posts on the
best information you have, have ocassionbally been found to
have posted stuff which you admit was in error. Why do you
do that? or more to the point, why do you think it is
reasonable for you to do that, but not other people?
>>Sometimes, like you
>> demonsrtate, things change and knowledge is increased in which case
>> the story changes. You have admitted this in your own posts, why you
>> consider it to be a problem for science when it is not a problem for
>> you is anyones guess, as there is surely no logic behind your
>> position.
>
> I do not consider it to be a problem. UNTIL it is reported as truth.
Yet you add your sig to every post that says you are a
source of truth and have done so on posts that you
subsequently admitted were erroneous. Is truth not important
to you?
> Things
> like big bang are not truth yet.
And you know this how? Was the germ theory of disease
somehow wrong before germs were actually discovered and
isolated?
> The singularity defies known laws of
> physics.
Not for singularities it doesn't.
I notice you have failed to answer this most important of
theistic questions. Unless you are preparing a more detailed
response, I will assume it is for the obvious reason.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2e2871b2-3d89-49ee...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
Now there's a question that he'll never answer.
>
> Boikat
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
spintronic
> On Oct 6, 2:14 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> since you dont believe in carbon dating, why do you accept the claims
> of these archaeologists?
More importantly, are you *NOW* saying carbon dating is innacurate?
spintronic
> On Oct 6, 3:21 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > snex wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 2:14 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > >> King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has
> > >> been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from
> > >> excavations near Beit She'an.
>
> > >> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the
> > >> Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
> > >> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular
> > >> significance to the running debate among archeologists about the
> > >> authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the
> > >> period and extent of their reign.
>
> > > of these archaeologists?
>
> > benchmarks when testing millions or billions of years out. I have even said
> > there is much that could skew the results. I have said that dating is
> > unreliable beyond 30,000 years or so. I still believe these things in the
> > absence of corroborating evidences or a solid benchmark.
>
> > archeological evidences that are corroborating evidences for the concluded
> > dates.
>
> > A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> > ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> the same basic assumptions.
Bull.
Same with D.N.A sequencing. It drifts exponentially with distance.
spintronic
> On 2008-10-07, \(M)-adman <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> No. I don't. Radiocarbon dating of samples from Giza have been carried
> out, as well as for many other Egyptian pyramids and sites. They do not
> support the lunatic idea of the Pyramids being much older than the circa
> 2500 B.C. date that archaeologists have arrived at.
>
> You could read the paper "Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
> Monuments in Egypt" if you were interested.
Out of curiosity. Who said Giza was older than 2500 B.C?
Boikat
No. He questions why your pet assmonkey accepts certain carbon dating
results, and not others. Your pet monkey claims that there is some
sort of documentary evidence to substantiate the 10,000 BC dates
(Which is bullshit in and ove itself), yet there are doubtless other
results that your pet monkey would reject that also have cross-checked
verification. Your pet troll is simly cherrypicking in order to
support his fantasies.
Boikat
Boikat
Your pet troll, adman the assmonkey. Aren't you paying attention?
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 8:01 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > More importantly, are you *NOW* saying carbon dating is innacurate?
>
> No. He questions why your pet assmonkey accepts certain carbon dating
> results, and not others.
One of you boons uses a nice "ruler" analogy in the other thread.
Adman is correct.
Boikat
Analogies are not always accurate, asshole. Also, you did not address
my observation. But then again, you and assman are probably sharing
your two brain cells.
>
> Adman is correct.
Adman is a dumbshit troll, and so are you.
Boikat
(M)-adman
ha! I guess we agree on THAT.
I speculate man was much more smarter then the bones and archeological
evidence tells us. There are many ancient texts that support this, but I'll
use the most common name familiar to most. And that name is Adam. Adam and
Eve resided in a cave on a mountain after they were driven out of God's
garden. They were shown how to make clothes out of animal skins. They lived
in caves and were quite intelligent but are considered to be those dumb
prehistoric cave creatures by modern science. They went from never having to
be concerned over food to having to hunt and gather. And I am sure they made
use of whatever was around them as tools to survive. They obviously had a
language because they passed their oral traditions down for generations.
Which I would imagine was easy since they lived much longer and under quite
different conditions then what live under today. I suspect their numbers
grew slowly however for the obvious reasons.
>
>> Interestingly, the protruding jaw and ridged forehead reminds
>> me of a documentary where a computer generated what the human
>> skull would look like should humans live thousands of years as
>> is claimed in ancient Sumerian texts and others. The forces of
>> gravity would protrude the jaw and eyebrows into what looks
>> exactly like the pic your link and other so called
>> evolutationary stages of man.
>
> I'm afraid we now have rather a lot of evidence for those
> evolutionary stages. I periodically put up a set of links
> to some of the most interesting fossils. Here is a link to
> my most recent post of that evidence:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a5c2d1525fc3bfa7
What i will say is going against the norm. This is opinion, based on texts.
This is man seeing evidence as man wants to. We have no idea what those
species looked like back then and we speculate as to if they and we are
related. That is my opinion. The older species of homo could be more similar
to us then we realize. There is evidence of species as large as man but
walking similar to apes. Have you seen an 80 year old human with bad
arthritis? Well, imagine arthritis but being 900 or more years old. And
there is evidence in writting that some lived older.
>
>>>> Oral tradition, latter written down is my hunch.
>>
>>> Well, assuming the average child was born to a 20 year old
>>> mother, 300,000 years is 15,000 generations.
>>
>>> I have four great grandfathers, and I don't know the name of (or
>>> anything else about) any of them. How could I as a child know that
>>> the ancestor being described to me by an elder, existed 15,000 or
>>> 100 or 10 generations ago?
>>
>>> If I have no way of knowing how far back the ancestors described
>>> to me go (or even if the guy telling me the story just made it
>>> up to look important), how can I then write down a reliable
>>> history?
>>
>> Well, the texts survived. I see no real reason for the people
>> that recorded the genealogy to have lied.
>
> We don't actually need to assume lying. False information is
> frequently the result of misinterpretation, misunderstanding
> or wishful thinking.
I am sure there is *some* False information, misinterpretation,
misunderstanding or wishful thinking. But to attempt to explain ALL of
ancient texts and tradition away as that is denial and rationalization.
>
> When the Egyptian pharaoh Hatshepsut claimed divine birth from
> the god Amun was she lying or engaging in wishful thinking?
> What about Augustus Caesar when he claimed divinity? People
> make themselves believe all sorts of weird things, especially
> when it benefits them.
>
>> Mankind has had several information periods that are simply dark.
>
> Well, as a matter of fact, I am the direct descendant (the
> living incarnation actually) of earths greatest God/King from
> the most recent of those blank periods. For that reason you
> should be obedient to me and send me all your money.
>
Science can be abused too. We can get just as much false information,
misinterpretation, misunderstanding or wishful thinking from science as
well.
>
>>>>> Your explanation for how light reached us from the nearest
>>>>> major Galaxy; Andromeda, which is 2 million light years away
>>>>> is?
>>
>>>> creation---> garden----> Andromeda? Gimme a minuet to catch up.
>>
>>>> "How light reached us"?. Who cares. It is there, and i can see it.
>>
>>> I am raising the issue because it sets the time scale for events
>>> since our universe formed. It is extremely obvious evidence,
>>> left by God, that makes an earth that is billions of years old
>>> appear likely, while making an earth that is thousands of years
>>> old appear absurd.
>
> .
>
>> I have no doubt the world is billions of years old. IMHO there
>> is some confusion regarding creation. There was a second
>> mini-creation of the garden in eden. The reason is unimportant
>> for the purpose of this discussion. This second creation is
>> where the bible starts. Cain did not marry his sister, he
>> found a wife in Nod.
>
> I am happy to learn that you agree with both Old Earth and the
> marriage of Adam's children to pre-existing people.
>
> I hope I can convince you that something like God's
> acknowledgment of us as His special creation is what occurred
> roughly 6,000 years ago.
We could discuss this for weeks.
>
>>> I care, because I like my beliefs to conform with observations
>>> that are clear and obvious.
>
>> I like mine to conform to history. I see no reason for
>> hundreds of thousands of ancient texts on God, Creation,
>> mankind and the like to be lies. Maybe they are embellished,
>> maybe they have lost facts over time, but i am sure the main
>> points are grounded in fact.
>
> I am a computer technician who works on detecting tax fraud.
> I'm afraid I am not inclined to trust what people tell me,
> in the absence of confirming evidence.
Why take your work home with you? As I have said before, I see no real
reason for ancient man to lie to us. He probably did not realize there would
even be an us all these years latter. What I am saying, is the main points
written down in every culture are similar. The chances these main points are
true is high. You should know this is you are an investigator that detects.
>
>>>>>> Now, If science wants to waste time looking for answers older
>>>>>> then that, it is fine with me. What use is the answer other
>>>>>> then to prove or disprove creation?
>
>>>>> It answers the question of HOW God created our universe.
>>
>>>> I thought science is not in the God business
>>
>>> Science is in the business of discovering the Truths that God
>>> left us to find.
>
>> Then I have respect for you and for your work if you indeed work in
>> the science field.
>> You would be one of the "real" scientists doing "real science" that i
>> mention in other postings
>
> I'm afraid, I am no kind of scientist at all. Just a 58 year
> old man who has spent his entire life on a personal quest to
> see as much truth as is possible. (I am hopeful that I will
> live long enough to know the ultimate nature of physical
> matter.)
>
You use similar skills that a scientist uses to detect what is really going
on.
We are very similar creatures as i also want live long enough to know the
ultimate truth. Maybe we have to die to find it. If we do find the answer by
dying, then there is the answer. If we don't, then it will not matter,
everything we are will be gone. I choose not to believe that. And that is
all science and religion is. A choice of what to believe. Neither can say
with authority they and only they have absolute truth. So we walk by the
faith in our choicer, not by sight.
I think truth is going to lie somewhere in-between the extremes of religion
and science. Problem is, neither will take a back seat to the other. Quite
the paradox.
>
>>>> What real good have we done by spending billions to watch a metor
>>>> hit Jupiter?
>>
>>>> There are so many dire problems that need our best minds working on
>>>> them.
>>
>>>> We need focus IMHO.
>
>
I believe evolution happens. But within the species. A modern day example
would be dogs. Because of selection, natural or otherwise, genetic
drift, ---add in some external pressures and ancient wolves become the
variety of dogs we see today via evolution. From ancient texts this would be
"each after their own kind".
Adding evolution to, but staying within, what has been recorded in ancient
texts, we get dogs from something that was clearly another type of dog at
one time. We do not get rats. If the natural reproductive process of a rat
and a dog will not produce a new species, how can we expect evolution to do
the same no matter the amount of mutations and time?
Each species are determined on how their DNA is read and decoded. I posted a
link to that discovery oday even though i suspected that much all along. You
will never get me to believe you a dino can come from a bird. Or a man from
an ape. To me that is not logical, nor does it line up with anything
recorded in history. It matters not the amount of DNA we share with another
species but how that DNA is read to form the species. IMHO.
DNA is a brilliant blueprint for life. With just a few modifications we get
an entirely new species. Surly something like DNA can not evolve on it's
own. It was designed.
Next, I simply do not believe we have the necessary amount of bones to prove
evolution on such a wide scale; but, we do have observed evidence of things
like new "kinds" of dogs evolving via selection.
Finally, I am like you in that I recognize that my belief arises out of my
world view, religious background, and interest in ancient history.
(M)-adman
I did.
heekster
That question has a hell of a lot of company.
Mark VandeWettering
Yes, but as we've ascertained, you are a blithering idiot.
Mark
Stuart
Um no. We use forensic evidence like the relative abundance of
radionuclides.
I use history and ancient texts for
> mine. Call them hypothesis instead of hunches if that gives you a warm fuzzy
> feeling. I do not really care to play semantics.
You use a collection of stories which you assume to be history.
That doesn't make it so.
Stuart
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Intelligence? Certainly smarter than the outgoing president.
>
> ha! I guess we agree on THAT.
This is just to note that although I know pretty much what
I want to say, due to other pressures (including getting up eight
late POTM pages), I will not be replying immediately.
I am very interested in following up on this discussion and
will reply no later than Sunday morning Oct 19th, and
probably a lot sooner.
Cory Albrecht
> Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> (M)-adman wrote, on 2008-10-06 15:14:
>>> JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by
>>> King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has
>>> been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from
>>> excavations near Beit She'an.
>>>
>>> The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the
>>> Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>>> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular
>>> significance to the running debate among archeologists about the
>>> authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the
>>> period and extent of their reign.
>>>
>>> Yigael Yadin, argued more than 40 years ago that a series of
>>> monumental structures and particularly the city gates of Hatzor,
>>> Megiddo and Gezer as well as certain Megiddo palaces were founded by
>>> Solomon, as recorded in the First Book of Kings (9:15).
>>>
>>> []
>>> In the article in Science, Mazar, Bruins and Van der Plicht write of
>>> radiometric carbon 14 tests that were carried out at Groningen on
>>> charred grain and olive pits found in various strata at Tel Rehov.
>>> The dates achieved in this research were particularly precise,
>>> making it one of the best sets of radiometric dates based on
>>> stratigraphic sequence from any site related to the biblical period.
>>>
>>> The results show that two strata at Tel Rehov are safely dated to
>>> the 10th century BCE. One stratum was destroyed in heavy fire. The
>>> date of this destruction fits very well with the reign of Shishak,
>>> the Egyptian Pharaoh who invaded the Land of Israel around 925 BCE.
>>> Shishak's invasion is mentioned both in the Bible (Kings I 14:25)
>>> and in his monumental inscription at the temple of Amun at Karnak in
>>> Upper Egypt, where Rehov is mentioned among many other places
>>> conquered at that time.
>>>
>>> Shishak's military campaign was recorded in stone relief on the
>>> southern wall of the Amun temple, listing the names of the places he
>>> raided in ancient Israel and the Levant. The name Rehov appears on
>>> this list after the term "The Valley," most likely referring to the
>>> Beit She'an/Jordan Valley, and before the name Beit She'an. This
>>> sequence of place names at Karnak fits the local geography in the
>>> region of Tel Rehov very well indeed, according to the Science
>>> article.
>> Unfortunately, none of the evidence from Tel Rehov ever mentions
>> David, Solomon or Rehoboam, during whose reign Shoshenq I did his
>> pillaging.
>>
>> Worse yest, nor does any of the archaeological evidence at Tel Rehov
>> even show thatthere was an Israelite kingdom at this time.
>>
>> All it shows is that tel Rehov was inhabited during the 10th century.
>> It is a very big and unsupported leap to go from Tel Rehov being
>> inhabited to David and Solomon actually existing.
>
> Yet more of your rationalizations Cory. Or was it an outright lie this time?
Show me where I either rationalized or where I lied.
Every time you have claimed in the past that I lied, you've never
actually show where I lied. (Or mad a rationalization, for that matter.)
> It simply amazes me how many of you can even survive in this world with your
> curent level of denial regarding truth. Even when that truth is in your face
> using your very own science you will find a rationalization not to believe
> what does not suit your narrow view of the world and history.
What truth in what face? Tel Rehov simply provides no evidence
whatsoever for the existence of David or Solomon.
> The events and descriptions "as recorded in the First Book of Kings" are now
> confirned with archelogical evidence and carbon dating by REAL scientists at
> three different major universities. But that is not good enough for you. In
> Cory-land only what you believe is truth it would appear.
Like I said before, it is a very big and unsupported leap to go from Tel
Rehov being inhabited circa 1000 BCE to David and Solomon actually
existing. Especially when Tel Rehov has provided no evidence of a royal
bureaucracy at that time.
> However, i will be sure to let the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
> Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands know they YOU think they
> are wrong and that these finds do NOT match the events, the buildings, the
> gates and the other assorted artifacts as described in the book of Kings.
When you do contact them, please ask them what evidence they have from
Tel Rehov for King David and/or King Solomon actually existing. Ask them
whether Tel Rehov has provided any stelae that mention either David or
Solomon, or similar ancient writings.
(M)-adman
no rush.
take care
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
Your dating methods are unsound, your geological column is not complete and
the dates are guesses.
I wish I could make guesses for a living.
(M)-adman
You obviously cannot read, or refuse to accept the reports from people that
are obviously better qualified then you or I. Everything they found lines up
with what has been recorded in hebrew tradition and in the torah.
>
>> However, i will be sure to let the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
>> Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands know they YOU
>> think they are wrong and that these finds do NOT match the events,
>> the buildings, the gates and the other assorted artifacts as
>> described in the book of Kings.
>
> When you do contact them, please ask them what evidence they have from
> Tel Rehov for King David and/or King Solomon actually existing. Ask
> them whether Tel Rehov has provided any stelae that mention either
> David or Solomon, or similar ancient writings.
I sure will.
Cory Albrecht
You, obviously, cannot read for comprehension because nothing found at
Tel Rehov ever mentions David or Solomon. Nada. Nothing. Nil. Nix. Null.
Naught. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Squat. Bupkus. Goose egg. Cipher. Bugger all.
Fanny Adams. Sweet fuck all.
Just because Tel Rehov was inhabited circa 1000 BCE does not mean that
either David or Solomon existed any more than fragments of 6th century
Mediterranean amphorae found at Glastonbury Tor mean that King Arthur
existed.
The only thing confirmed about 1 Kings is that Tel Rehov was pillaged by
Shosenq I - only because his inscriptions at Karnak mention it and not
because of anything found at Tel Rehov.
>>> However, i will be sure to let the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
>>> Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>>> and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands know they YOU
>>> think they are wrong and that these finds do NOT match the events,
>>> the buildings, the gates and the other assorted artifacts as
>>> described in the book of Kings.
>> When you do contact them, please ask them what evidence they have from
>> Tel Rehov for King David and/or King Solomon actually existing. Ask
>> them whether Tel Rehov has provided any stelae that mention either
>> David or Solomon, or similar ancient writings.
> I sure will.
I shan't hold my breath.
Desertphile
<gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> On Oct 8, 11:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> [.]
> >
> >>>> Judging by ancient texts, i would say the earth has been
> >>>> inhabitated by intelligent man for roughly 300,000 years, but,
> >>>> man himself has probably been here longer. (no apes involved)
> >
> >>> Can you explain how this works? My understanding is that the
> >>> oldest "writing" (really drawings on clay tablets or bones or
> >>> shells) date to about 6000 years ago. How could those people
> >>> have known what happened 300,000 years earlier?
> >
> >> Science can tell us what happened 4 billion years ago with confident
> >> accuracy and cannot tell us what was going on mere 300,000 years ago?
> >
> > Actually it can. These guys (are part of it):
> >
> > http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
> >
> > They had brains about 3 times the size chimps and
> > 3/4ths as large as modern humans.
> I supose the assumption is "Peking Man" is as dumb as a rock and covered
> with hair.
Smarter than all Creationists combined.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Friar Broccoli
This is a reply to
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fffbe35b8e1ad21b
with most of our previous discussion cut, so I can focus on the
usefulness of biblical "kinds" to realistically describe the
animals we see in nature.
> I believe evolution happens. But within the species. A modern
> day example would be dogs. Because of selection, natural or
> otherwise, genetic drift, ---add in some external pressures
> and ancient wolves become the variety of dogs we see today via
> evolution.
Well since you use dogs (including wolves) as an example of a
semi-immutable kind, I guess that's as good a place as any to
begin.
Consider the following list of dog like animals:
- aardwolves
- African Wild Dog
- coyotes
- dholes (Asiatic Wild Dog)
- dingoes
- dogs (domestic)
- foxes
- jackals
- raccoons
- wolves
Can you tell me which are dogs?
Roughly 20 minutes in Wikipedia will give you one grouping as
follows:
* Excluding the aardwolves (which look like dogs but are in fact
a type of Hyena and thus in the cat family) they are all in
the:
Suborder: Caniformia, or Canoidea which literally means "dog-like"
* Then, excluding the raccoons all of the remainder are in the
Family: Canidae (though it is argued that foxes be moved
farther away from Canis/dogs)
* Then, excluding the:
Genus: Lycaon (African Wild Dog)
Genus: Cuon (dholes)
Genus: Vulpes (foxes)
The remainder are in the Genus: Canis
(dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingoes, and jackals).
The point I am making here is that there is no obvious line
between an animal that is clearly a dog and one that is clearly
a cat or a weasel. Species often grade into one another without
any clear line separating them. This in fact, is one of the
most annoying problems faced by taxonomists when trying to
develop meaningful classification systems.
I hope you will take a few minutes to track any of the groups
that are unknown to you, to verify that the above is sensible.
> From ancient texts this would be "each after their own kind".
OK, this leads to an alternative classification system. It is
proposed by many Christians that the animals we see are grouped
into [semi-]immutable "kinds" (Hebrew "min") following their
creation.
To see if this classification system is better, I think it will
be useful to begin by looking into scripture to see what "kinds"
are. This should be pretty easy since the Bible only uses
kind/(min) in four places.
Here are all four from the NIV translation:
/===================================================================/
(1) Leviticus 11:13-23
13 These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are
detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red
kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned
owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little
owl,
the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the
osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
20 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to
you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all
fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on
the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid,
cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have
four legs you are to detest.
Leviticus 11:29
29 Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean
for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,
/===================================================================/
(2) Deuteronomy 14:12-13
11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the
eagle,
the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite,
any
kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the
screech
owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl,
the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the
stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
/===================================================================/
(3) Ezekiel 47:10-12
10 Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En
Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will
be of many kinds -- like the fish of the Great Sea. 11 But
the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be
left for salt. 12 Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both
banks of the river.
/===================================================================/
(4) Genesis 1:11-13
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing
plants
and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to
their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced
vegetation:
plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing
fruit
with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was
good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning -- the third
day.
Genesis 1:20-25
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God
created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving
thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
every
winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and
fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the
earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and
wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God
made
the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according
to
their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
/===================================================================/
Now, if you do a little googling you will find that there are
MANY possible ways to translate these phrases, producing many
possible meanings. One (of many) alternative variants is
discussed here:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/biblevol.html
so I will mention only in passing that if we accept this NIV
translation then (see Deuteronomy 14:13) there are "kinds" of
both ravens (Genus: Corvus) and falcons (Genus: Falco), but
right away we see a problem, because if the members of a genus
are broken into "kinds" it is roughly equivalent to saying that
there are "kinds" of dog (Genus: Canis), and thus presumably
that domestic dogs and wolves are of different "kinds".
The details of the foregoing argument may or may not be fair,
depending on what the original text was intended to mean, but it
highlights the point that the Hebrews did not divide up animal
groups in at all the same way we do.
We see another grouping problem immediately prior to the quoted
text in Leviticus 11:4-6 where we have the famous passage in
which rabbits and camels are grouped together because they both
chew the cud.
From the quoted text we see that (the 1100 mammalian species of)
bats are grouped together with birds. We also see from the
above (Leviticus 20:23) that insects are described as having
four legs.
So I think we can say with some confidence that the authors of
these texts did not have a good understanding of species and
their anatomies, throwing yet more doubt on the value of "kind"
for any realistic model of animal classification.
But even if we assume that none of these problems is important and
that "kinds" means something like Genus, it still isn't obvious
that the word "kind" was used in a way that contradicts
evolution.
Consider that the Genesis 1 verses 20 and 24 begin:
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures ...
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according
to their kinds:
These phrases are fully consistent with God LETting the water
and the land produce animals by an evolutionary process, and
such an evolutionary process produces genera or "kinds".
So, as far as I can tell, nothing in Genesis forces us to
concluded that the various kinds were created instantaneously
(instead of by evolution) and you have already acknowledged that
evolution is proceeding now.
So, it is not clear to me why you believe that dogs, foxes,
raccoons and aardwolves aren't kinds that have resulted from an
evolutionary process guided by God.
Are you certain that you are not reading into scripture a
meaning that simply is not there, especially given that God has
left us so much other evidence to examine?
Bye;
(M)-adman
> Hi Adman;
Hey there. I hope all is well with you.
Thanks, i know them all.
The problem is man has established "Orders and Families and Genus" for this
or that. Clearly what the bible means is the "Canis". A nitpic is the
jackal. It does not belong with wolves that have given rise to dogs.
They starting off saying "This huge group (or order) are carnivors and then
split that group up again and again. The bible does not do that. The bible
talks of the final Genus. That specific "kind". This "kind" is what can
mate, or evolve to meet natures demands. I'll explain in more detail below.
Besides, man is assuming he has split the Kingdom, Phylum, Class Family
Order up correctly in the first place.
In addition, the Kingdom may have been quite different in the preadamic
world judging from ancient text. For instance, there may not be such a thing
as a carnivor in the preadamic world. Personally, i believe the saber tooth
cat was nothing more then a house cat to the preadamic man and the dino was
nothing more then a funny lizzard. That is if all these texts that speak of
giants and a rather long life span are true. Many cultures had stories of
giants and long life spans as well as a different atmosphere on the earth.
>
>> From ancient texts this would be "each after their own kind".
>
> OK, this leads to an alternative classification system. It is
> proposed by many Christians that the animals we see are grouped
> into [semi-]immutable "kinds" (Hebrew "min") following their
> creation.
proposed by many Christians ?
I have been pigon-holed on this NG since my first post. I do not base my
opinion on science or religion. Although i will consider each of them for
information to base my opinion. I have a rather vile opinion of both. I base
my opinion on what makes the most sense, and what ancient man has handed
down to us that we already know. The same information that so many in the
science fields want to discredit because they know this information is a
direct confrontation to their very foundations. Evolution in paticular. And
the more i read these NG's, i may take it upon myself to write a book
comparing what is in ancient texts to science and evolution so the public
can see the differences.
ok, lets see what you got below with that out of the way.
Thanks for your effort and POV. And an interesting conversation for sure.
But I must rebut this with an overall concept rather then address this
paragraph by paragraph; or point by point.
IMO, you have completely distorted the meaning of the word "Kind" in
Genesis by rationalization what you want it to mean with food laws and other
descriptions in the bible. Food laws are not quite the same as creation, nor
is it a direct comparison, is it?? And even modern words depend on the
context for their accuracy. Aramaic and Ancient Hebrew are just as strict as
Latin by using specific words for specific meanings that have no comparable
words in English. So context as well as an accurate definition is everything
when understanding the real meaning of books such as the bible. Further, you
seem to have done no research into the exact meaning of the words and assume
the English translation means exactly as it reads. I'll explain.
You have to understand their slang and culture to understand how the words
are used. Further, you also need an understand of the word's specific
meaning in each language. An incorrect word usage is why: -- when Jesus
asked Peter 3xs if peter loved him,-- everyone thinks Jesus asked the same
question three times. This is not the case. Because the English word "love"
relates to several words in the original language. But when we read the
English version, it seems as if Jesus is asking the same question three
times when in actuality Jesus is asking three different questions. (and the
bible is riddled with these kinds of misunderstandings because of the
differences between English and other ancient languages)
The majority of words in the Hebrew language can be boiled down to a
three-consonant root word that contains the essence of the word's meaning.
To get an accurate meaning and interpretation of the Bible you have to
understand the relation between root words, their culture, and their
definition.
If you want to look at how the word "kind" was being used in Genesis, then
compare it to what else was being created along with an accurate definition
of the word. IOW you do not go searching for the word used in another
context such as food laws.
First let's see what else was being created and compare:
Gen 1:11 and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is]
in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his
kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Now, as you can see the word "kind" is being used to specifically describe a
"tree" with whose seed [is] in itself.
This is not describing anything other then trees with seeds inside the fruit
as being a "kind".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, Lets look at the individual words:
Genos, (kind) the word in Greek.
The *root* word means to:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
4) to be made, finished of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
The individual definition of the word means:
1) kindred
a) offspring
b) family
c) stock, tribe, nation
1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people
d) the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort
We can assume based on the context of use, the root word, and the word
definition, that what is being described with the Greek word "genos"(the
English word "kind") is offspring that becomes, or arises into existence
from the same kindred or family. The greek word also suggest creation
(receive being), and miracles.
This is also based on the comparison above that trees with seeds are of the
same "family" of trees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Now the Hebrew word miyn (kind)
The *root* word means:
"from an unused root meaning to portion out"
definition:
1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now we can compare both Hebrew and Greek to English:
We can assume based on the context of use, the root words definitions, the
actual words definitions, that what is being described is offspring that
becomes, or arises into existence (portion out) from the same kindred or
family. (usually of animals).The greek word also suggest creation (receive
being), and miracles.
This is also based on the comparison above that trees with seeds are of the
same "family" of trees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now to conclude. I really could care less how religious freaks, and science
k00ks want to manipulate the use of the word "kind" regarding evolution.
Both of them have become utterly laughable to the general public with their
push and pull fight. Truth should be paramount. The actual meanings of the
words in the context of how the author uses the words are clear. The "kind"
can produce it's own "kind" So I know what the word "kind" means. If they
can successfully reproduce, they are of the same kind. If they produce
offspring that cannot reproduce they are not of the same kind. If they
cannot produce offspring at all they are not of the same kind.
And so far I have seen nothing, zero, nadda, that proves any type of
evolution outside the of the "kind" or outside of "each after their own
kind".
What happens when bacteria develops a resistance to drugs? You get a
stronger bacteria evolving the necessary traits to survive. Period. Is it
still a bacteria? Yes. When a stronger variety of plant evolves from natural
selection and mutation, it is still a plant? Yes.
And this ridiculous argument that creationists want to see a cat give birth
to a rat is just that. But to prove evolution there should be something
lying around that shows the grading you mention above. But there is none. I
have seen a few examples that could suggest an intermediate species. But it
could also suggest birth defects or another type of mutation within the same
species that eventually died out.
it really is that simple.
Adman.
dictionary ref:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?ss=kind&searchtype=whole