|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 11/17/2004 : 05:56:22 [Permalink]
|
| God Bless Talk Origins, then smite me for suggesting it. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 06:43:08 [Permalink]
|
The Tower of Babble appears to be a myth to try to explain why there is such a diversity of languages. We now know that there is nothing unusual about different areas having differen't languages. Language is a living process and evolves (there is that word again). Linguist can trace the movement of people by the language that they use. Most of the european languages come from an earlier indo-european language. The site below is a fairly good at explaining the evolution of the common languages spoken in europe today:
http://www.armenianhighland.com/homeland/chronicle120.html
The point is that divine intervention is not necessary for the differences in language. It would be a miracle if only one language was spoken on earth. We can see that language continues to evolve even today. New words are added to the dictionary every year and words that were commonly used in the past are no longer used. Just look at the KJV of the bible and compare it to some of the new translation of the bible to see the changes in language that have occured over the past several hundred years.
PS. I am begging you NOT to say that this is an example of "micro language evolution". 
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 13:08:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
As for ice rings, I saw on one of the Hovind videos (don't throw stones at me yet!) that a plane had landed on a glacier and when people came back to look for it it was buried in ice, with several hundreds or thousands of ice rings.
Ice gets a bit amorphous under pressure of a heavy object. If you live near a lake that has been frozen over, if you put a rock on the ice, in a few weeks it will have sunken partly through the ice.
Here's an experiment you can do yourself:
freeze some water into a bar. tie a thread around the middle of the bar and attach a weight to the thread. Then prop up the bar horizontally in the freezer so that the weight hangs in the air. Make sure that the weight hangs high enough so when/if the thread slowly sinks through the bar, it will go all the way through.
Leave the experiment on it's own for a week or two, and see what happens. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 14:28:48 [Permalink]
|
Hello all,
How many radiocarbon dates which form the basis of our current chronology were made in the early days? How many of them have been rechecked since technological improvements? And the possibility still remains that an archeologist could just pick the date that most suits his theory. This is why I would like to see a catalog of dates for the Middle East and other ancient cultures, such as the one you provided about California. There was a 6,000 year spread of dates for Jarmo, how often is this the case?
I tried getting into the New York Academy of Science Archives, they require a $95 membership. I couldn't even find an archive for Science magazine. I am aware that many creationists use corrupt practices such as quoting out of context, but I can't find the context, so all I have is the quote.
As to tree ring dating, I think that tree exist that have apparent age. As to varve dating, why are varves considered to be annual deposits anyway? My creationist literature says that sometimes fish are found in varves, so they might at times be annual, but not neccessarily always. As to ice ring dating, how do we know that the climate remained snowless in the past? And why are ice rings considered annual?
Cuneiformist: Why is the writing dated thus? Radiocarbon, ancient chronologies...
Dude: Do you know how many radiocarbon samples were taken, and if they're all in agreement with each other?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 15:09:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude: Do you know how many radiocarbon samples were taken, and if they're all in agreement with each other?
No. The conversation was a casual one, I didn't really ask them for a detailed explanation.... You don't want to be the recipient of an informal lecture by grad students who are not working in the same field as you! You'll be lost in the details and lingo pretty fast.
They seemed confident of the age of the site, however. I should note also that there was no evidence of a flood ever having covered the site they were working on. This was relevent to the conversation I was having with them because the Zuni (as I may have mentioned) have a flood myth of their own.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 20:07:05 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
How many radiocarbon dates which form the basis of our current chronology were made in the early days? How many of them have been rechecked since technological improvements? And the possibility still remains that an archeologist could just pick the date that most suits his theory. This is why I would like to see a catalog of dates for the Middle East and other ancient cultures, such as the one you provided about California. There was a 6,000 year spread of dates for Jarmo, how often is this the case?
Good questions, all. Let me start by quickly getting one out of the way, entirely:quote:
And the possibility still remains that an archeologist could just pick the date that most suits his theory.
The possibility still remains that creationist writers can just pick and choose the evidence they'd like to present for creation and against evolution (and other sciences).
Charges of possible fraud work both ways, equally well. In a lot of ways, science is like law. (In an important way, it isn't: science isn't decided by a vote.) I've recently learned that in a criminal court, it's not enough to say that a particular piece of evidence could have been falsified. To get it thrown out (or at least cast serious doubt upon it), one has to have actual evidence of actual falsification. Otherwise (obviously) the cops would have no evidence of any crime, ever, since it all might have been fabricated.
So, before suggesting the possibility that archeologists have selected dates, you should know that they have. And on the other edge of the sword, it's possible that the quote you've got that they have done so was ripped from its proper context by people seeking to do nothing but denigrate radiocarbon dating.
Aren't you logging on from a library? Make the librarians earn their pay by asking them for help with getting those articles.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave the other points for now. But take a look at this Web page. That's just a proposal for work to be done. Look at how much time the author(s) spent explaining the current state of Egyptian chronologies (C-14 and otherwise), including detailed discussion of the problems (small and large) with them, before saying "we want to make this better."
This is just one example of how badly scientists want to be correct about dates. These folks certainly don't show a ho-hum "we'll use a date if it fits, but throw out dates we don't like" attitude. They give a damn. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 00:36:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
As to ice ring dating, how do we know that the climate remained snowless in the past? And why are ice rings considered annual?
Going back to Talk.Origins : Ice Core Dating :
quote:
The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are extremely time consuming.
These and other ice core dating techniques are explained further in the article. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 08:07:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist: You said: Through king lists and C-14 dating, we can definitely say that the Akkadian king Sargon ruled in the middle of the third millennium,
Where can I find a site or book or whatever that addresses the issue of this king list and the accompanying C-14 data?
Hi, Hippy. Here's how we can place Sargon in the mid third millennium:
From the fall of Babylon back, we have a solidly-established chain of kings stretching back about 518 years. These lists can be confirmed externally through synchronisms with written contracts, letters, and archaeological data and are secure to more or less a year or two. Unfortunately, most of this is spelled out in D. O. Edzard's Die <<Zweite Zwischenzeit>> Babyloniens, which is a) in German, and b) published in 1957 and now out of print.
Anyhow, going back about 518 years takes you to the start of the so-called Third Ur Dynasty (or Ur III period; the name is largely a modern convention). Before the Ur III empire was have a small break in our chain. It is unclear how long this break is, but it probably spanned a length of anywhere from 40-80 years. (You can see W. W. Hallo's (English) entry in the Reallexicon der Assyriologie vol. 3, s.v. "Gutium" (the RlA is a sort of encyclopedia of Mesopotamia; it's multi-volume (they're only up to 'O' now!) and very expensive, so usually you only find it in big university libraries, or on the shelves of a tenured professor's private library). After this gap comes the fairly well-established Sargonic (or Akkad) dynasty. The total length of this dynasty stretches back about 86 years from its end to the start of the second king's (Rimush) reign. The reign of the first king, Sargon, is not clear, but it seems that he rules for ca. 56 years.
Adding this together, we get 518+40+86+56= ca. 700 years.
The key, then, is dating the fall of Babylon. Once you do that, everything back to the start of Sargon falls more or less into place. Doing that, though, is hard. Traditionally, scholars have opted between one of three dates based on astronimcal observations, archaeological finds, etc.: 1531 (the Low Chronology), 1595 (Middle), or 1651 (High). The arguments are laid out in P. Åström, ed. High, Middle, or Low . . . (Gotherburg, 1989).
More recently, some scholars have argued for an even lower date for Babylon's fall-- an Ultra-low chronology, if you will. They set it at 1499, but their evidence is not entirely convincing and few scholars have accepted this date. (See H. Gasche, et. al., Dating the Fall of Babylon . . . (Chicago, 1998).)
Out of convenience, most scholars use the Middle chronology, with Babylon falling in 1595, and Sargon's rule starting in (1595+700) ca. 2295 or so. If you extend the so-called Guti Period to 80 years, that puts Sargon in the early 2300's.
So to answer your question (sort of), Hippy, thats ow we place Sargon in the middle of the third millennium. A final-- and more accessible-- place to look is John Brinkman's appendix to A. Loe Oppenheim's classic Ancient Mesopotamia, which you can get at any bookstore or library. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/18/2004 08:15:39 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 09:40:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
[Cuneiformist: Why is the writing dated thus? Radiocarbon, ancient chronologies...
Hey, Hippy. Good question. I'm presently looking at Robert Englund's Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns (Berlin, 1994). In the introduction, p. 11, footnote 4, he writes:quote:
The absolute chronology of the first use and development of proto-cuneiform may be roughly set at 3200-3100 B.C. for the earliest phase Uruk IVa, and 3100-3000 B.C. for the following phase Uruk III (to these archaeological levels see H. Nissen, "Datierung der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk," in M. Green and H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk . . ."
Thus, the hard data are, unfortunately, going to be in German. Also, both the book I'm looking at and the one referenced in the quote (part of the series Archaischen Texte aus Uruk, or ATU) are the kind of book that only a big university library (with an archaeology/Near Eastern Studies program) will have, so it's hard for a layperson to see it. Perhaps interlibrary loan?
I'd get it and have a look at it myself right now, but it's checked out at present and thus not on the shelf. I have a good idea who has it checked out: me. But it's probably at home or something, so I'm going to have to find it later and see what it says.
In any case, I'm sure that the dating is based on the radiocarbon dating of wood beams or something found in a room with tablets in it or some such. But I'll see what I can find and report back to you. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/18/2004 10:10:53 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 11:51:04 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf,
Could you edit your post on page one when you get a chance so I don't have to scroll to read it? Thanks.
It is the same as on the BABB except you add " " around the address, after {[url=} , and before {]}.{url="address"}name{/url}quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
link name
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/18/2004 12:21:06 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 12:17:19 [Permalink]
|
Hippy4C,
Perhaps this site might increase your understanding:
Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
It could hopefully allay any concerns you might have over "those atheist scientists' biases".
Radiocarbon dating is only one of many isotopes used to date the things around us. All of the isotope measurements agree with each other as well as with tree ring and ice core dating techniques.
The evidence for the age of the Universe and for the Earth and solar system is only questioned by those that do not take the time to educate themselves about the science involved.
BTW, this site looks like it would be an excellent addition to the Skeptic Friend's links if it isn't already there. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/18/2004 12:22:00 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 14:08:07 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
The evidence for the age of the Universe and for the Earth and solar system is only questioned by those that do not take the time to educate themselves about the science involved.
This is inaccurate in a couple of ways.
First, many people who don't question these things also have not taken the time to educate themselves about the science involved. Ignorance can lead to either belief or non-belief in any proposition. It would be more accurate to say that those evidences are only questioned by those with some sort of need to question them, and such needs include religious and/or anti-scientific attitudes.
But that's still not accurate (only more so), since scientists themselves question the evidence. It's the only way to get closer to the real answer. If there were no need to question the evidence, then there'd be no scientific requirement for repeatability of results.
Specifically to this thread, if questioning the evidence wasn't routine within science, we wouldn't know that plants near active volcanos will have older C14 dates than plants living elsewhere, or that ancient charcoal is often contaminated by actual coal, leading also to "old" dates. We wouldn't have calibration data regarding the fluctuations of C14 creation in the atmosphere over the ages. We wouldn't bother comparing C14 dates to dendrochronology or ice core dates at all.
The nature of science and skepticism demand that there is nothing which is not questioned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 18:29:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
Charges of possible fraud work both ways, equally well.
Of course. I don't think that any large portion of archeologists pick and choose C-14 dates on a regular basis, I'm just reminding everyone to keep that option open. I do have a question about that web page you provided. About a third of the way down the page we come to table 1 which gives a list of C-14 dates for an Egyptian graveyard ranging from 4950 BP (before present) to 4505 BP. It then goes on to say that this indicates that the graveyard was used between about 3800 and 3090 BC. Wouldn't 4950 BP be about 3000 BC, and 4505 BP about 2500 BC?
Starman:
It seems that the creationist response to ice cores involves something about drastic climatic change after the Flood. That being the case, I'd like to leave the issue of ice cores till the second thread in this series, when we'll be discussing the Flood (unless you guys convince me that I'm wrong before then).
Cuneiformist:
Okay, so if we took an extremely conservative view of the chronology (going for Ultra-Low and keeping the Guti Period at 40 years) we could arrive at a date of 2200 BC for the beginning of the reign of Sargon. This would be about 100-150 after the Flood. This does indeed cut it close, but I would like to do some research myself. Another town in the state has a copy of Ancient Mesopotamia, I'll see if I can get it through an interlibrary loan. Otherwise, it'll probably be very hard or impossible to get out-of-state loans due to the fact that I live in Alaska.
beskeptigal:
quote:
The evidence for the age of the Universe and for the Earth and solar system is only questioned by those that do not take the time to educate themselves about the science involved.
That's what I'm doing right now, educating myself about the science involved; and it's what I've been doing for the past year and a half. I'm not hasty.
Also, to all those who wonder "Why is a literal Creation so important" and who say "the Bible still has merit even if it isn't taken literally", here's my response: every instance that I have seen in the Bible where the subject of the Creation is mentioned it has been portrayed literally. It always says "the Lord who made heaven and earth" and "He who created the earth in six days". It never talks about the Creation as a metaphor. Hence, if there is no literal Creation, when the Bible always portrays it as such, than how can we have any faith that there is a literal heaven? If the Creation is a metaphor, than for all we know heaven is too. And as Paul the apostle says,
quote:
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 11/18/2004 18:34:14 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 19:00:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Also, to all those who wonder "Why is a literal Creation so important" and who say "the Bible still has merit even if it isn't taken literally", here's my response: every instance that I have seen in the Bible where the subject of the Creation is mentioned it has been portrayed literally. It always says "the Lord who made heaven and earth" and "He who created the earth in six days". It never talks about the Creation as a metaphor. Hence, if there is no literal Creation, when the Bible always portrays it as such, than how can we have any faith that there is a literal heaven? If the Creation is a metaphor, than for all we know heaven is too.
Hmmm. Yes, but I guess what people are really asking then is, "If in your search you come to the conclusion that the bible is dead wrong about the way it describes creation, would you personally conclude that the rest of it is wrong as well? Would you abandon your faith all together in light of this new evidence, or would you simply modify it to incorporate your new knowledge?"
Personally, I found that faith didn't suit me very well and I really had no use for it. However, many people are able to sustain their belief system even while incorporating new science. The maxim is this: "If science disproves some part of the bible, that part is only metaphor. Whatever sections are unknowable by science (i.e. heaven and the afterlife), those are factual promises that are going to be kept."
Not the best of compromises, but some people are able to make it work for them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/18/2004 19:07:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
