Religion: The Deuce

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:08 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:you are aware that part of the "historical record" of the bible, the part where you're talking about people writing down the days and what not...revolves around EVERYONE on the planet living to be 600+ years old? like, everyone. not just these couple of folks. er'rrbody lived to be like 1,000 years old. do you not see how you would FIRST have to prove that that is even REMOTELY possible before accepting the dating method involved?

Well; It may have been a different time.
The Chinese mythology of about the same time, has very long living characters. Maybe, we die very young.

Maybe, one year seemed like one hundred years. Time goes by slowly, some times.

No internet! The days would, just, drag one into the other.

But; No.

Art; Science and Religion.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:22 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
No one is suggesting that. The claim is not 'The Hebrews were terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the Egyptians'.

Rather, the claim is: 'Everyone is terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the evidence'.

Historical records are not evidence.


This question will do for the other posts too I guess, if history is not evidence then how can we confirm any scientific dating method actually gives dates? Without the check to history, how can we confirm it is giving a correct result? How can we calibrate without a historic check? Also, if the check is using a natural historic check (sediment, trees, carbon), can we assume the variance and range of error is less than that of the process of a person counting days (which I could argue is also natural and scientifically testable, because humans are "natural" :P )?

I asked before, and I'll ask again. I have no problem with dating methods or science that gives estimations or ranges. But I ask, if someone said "I can scientifically estimate the money in your bank account" and another said "I can count the money in your bank account", which one would you trust? Because we have 1 type of bank account I know of, and it's a "record" type, not an "estimated" type. Is that correct? Would you understand if I was skeptical on an external (say an estimation of my shopping trips based on fuel usage) verification of my bank account if someone argued it showed I had more or less money than I actually counted? Or would you consider such skepticism as "anti scientific"?

...okay, do you understand that this is a completely separate thing from dendrochronology? IE, dendrochronology is not 'the field of science by which we defy historical records'. Dendrochronology is only 'the field of science by which we date trees'. Whatever you do with that information is not the concern of dendrochronology! Dendrochronology is only concerned with getting that information!

So, with that being said, do you think perhaps saying 'Dendrochronology does not fit the scientific method' is a bit wrong-headed of you? Because your beef with dendrochronology doesn't seem to have anything to do with dendrochronology--rather, your beef has everything to do with what people do with the data dendrochronology produces.

If no one in the field use that data, then I am mistaken. However, do they use the data? AFAIK they do. If I think the data is off, is that not a concern? That such data would be used to "re-calibrate" existing histories? What happens when we use something that loops for calibration? Say a microphone set next to a speaker? While extreme, it shows how a signal or noise can be exaggerated, leaving the "data" or measuring device sadly useless. If Dendrochronology (or any other dating method) is used to calibrate known dates, then calibrated from those known dates, how are we not going to get a feedback problem?

No, I was specifically talking about counting 70 years. Something we can verify as you said "history is just anecdotal". Thus I thought something non-historic would suffice. If you wish to use 2000 years, then I'd ask the same. If we setup 2 scientific labs, asked one to "count the years and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates" and asked the other to "count the tree rings and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates/wait until the end and count up all the tree rings" which would be more accurate?

What are you talking about? We compare tree rings to scientific data. At no point do historical records enter this comparison loop.

If tree ring growth varies, how can you check that the 1820 rings of one set correlates with the 2345 rings of another and both correlate with the year 1 A.D (for example) if not by checking against a historical record? If by "a volcano", how do we know the volcano was 2000 years ago if not because it was historically recorded?

If a scientist counts a tree ring, why is this more valid than a historian counting an orbit of the earth around the sun? Or would it be reasonable for me to consider both, and follow the one I see to be more accurate?

morriswalters, if I asked the same questions about Darwin, would they be valid? Or is it important that his theories work? Likewise if I see that the bible works in my life, would I be worried about who Moses' second uncle was or the colour of his socks? I would be concerned about what Moses did write about though, as I can check that.

Why after keeping genealogical records showing the progression from Adam to Abraham, did they quit cold?

They did not. I'm not sure if your referring to something else, so sorry if I miss that. The lineages are recorded again in Matthew and Luke. General references made else where. There were probably more records, but from what I know, Jerusalem was burnt down. Many paper records were destroyed.

Drowsy Turtle, the bible uses the annual calendar of the Hebrews. As to dates, it also uses the reign of a kings length, or the age of a person (usually followed by their sons birth etc) for us to follow. So yes, while not the type of calender we use it is from what I can see continuous throughout. So, unlike the other nations history and scientific estimations, I have at most a year of error, from start to finish, do I not? I'm not sure I can add such accuracy to Egyptian, Babylonians or Assyrian records or to estimations made via scientific dating methods. Can I?

PS, if Dendrochronology gives no "dates", then why argue that it proves my bible wrong? The argument told to me was effectively 'you should not believe the bible because Dendrochronology proves it's statements are false".
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Indy
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Indy » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:39 pm UTC

Drowsy Turtle wrote:Which "known dates" are these? Dates have been applied retroactively to the bible, and are almost certainly incorrect. The bible itself (correct me if I'm wrong, it's a while since I read it) does not utilise any useful calendar. Dates are not mentioned; events are in loose chronological order, but with no real sense of precisely when they happened.


I know you guys are actually discussing the very earliest few chapters of Genesis but I just thought I'd point out that later on in the OT the Jewish calendar is used for dates within a year, and in the overlapping historical records of 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles, for example, years are given by reference to kings (e.g. "In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel..."), which was common practice in the ancient world. The Greeks named their years after whoever was reigning at the time, the 'eponymous archon'. FWIW.
Manuka in bloom may breed despair

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:27 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
No one is suggesting that. The claim is not 'The Hebrews were terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the Egyptians'.

Rather, the claim is: 'Everyone is terrible at dates; let's pay attention to the evidence'.

Historical records are not evidence.


This question will do for the other posts too I guess, if history is not evidence then how can we confirm any scientific dating method actually gives dates? Without the check to history, how can we confirm it is giving a correct result? How can we calibrate without a historic check? Also, if the check is using a natural historic check (sediment, trees, carbon), can we assume the variance and range of error is less than that of the process of a person counting days (which I could argue is also natural and scientifically testable, because humans are "natural" :P )?

I asked before, and I'll ask again. I have no problem with dating methods or science that gives estimations or ranges. But I ask, if someone said "I can scientifically estimate the money in your bank account" and another said "I can count the money in your bank account", which one would you trust? Because we have 1 type of bank account I know of, and it's a "record" type, not an "estimated" type. Is that correct? Would you understand if I was skeptical on an external (say an estimation of my shopping trips based on fuel usage) verification of my bank account if someone argued it showed I had more or less money than I actually counted? Or would you consider such skepticism as "anti scientific"?

...okay, do you understand that this is a completely separate thing from dendrochronology? IE, dendrochronology is not 'the field of science by which we defy historical records'. Dendrochronology is only 'the field of science by which we date trees'. Whatever you do with that information is not the concern of dendrochronology! Dendrochronology is only concerned with getting that information!

So, with that being said, do you think perhaps saying 'Dendrochronology does not fit the scientific method' is a bit wrong-headed of you? Because your beef with dendrochronology doesn't seem to have anything to do with dendrochronology--rather, your beef has everything to do with what people do with the data dendrochronology produces.

If no one in the field use that data, then I am mistaken. However, do they use the data? AFAIK they do. If I think the data is off, is that not a concern? That such data would be used to "re-calibrate" existing histories? What happens when we use something that loops for calibration? Say a microphone set next to a speaker? While extreme, it shows how a signal or noise can be exaggerated, leaving the "data" or measuring device sadly useless. If Dendrochronology (or any other dating method) is used to calibrate known dates, then calibrated from those known dates, how are we not going to get a feedback problem?

No, I was specifically talking about counting 70 years. Something we can verify as you said "history is just anecdotal". Thus I thought something non-historic would suffice. If you wish to use 2000 years, then I'd ask the same. If we setup 2 scientific labs, asked one to "count the years and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates" and asked the other to "count the tree rings and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates/wait until the end and count up all the tree rings" which would be more accurate?

What are you talking about? We compare tree rings to scientific data. At no point do historical records enter this comparison loop.

If tree ring growth varies, how can you check that the 1820 rings of one set correlates with the 2345 rings of another and both correlate with the year 1 A.D (for example) if not by checking against a historical record? If by "a volcano", how do we know the volcano was 2000 years ago if not because it was historically recorded?

If a scientist counts a tree ring, why is this more valid than a historian counting an orbit of the earth around the sun? Or would it be reasonable for me to consider both, and follow the one I see to be more accurate?

morriswalters, if I asked the same questions about Darwin, would they be valid? Or is it important that his theories work? Likewise if I see that the bible works in my life, would I be worried about who Moses' second uncle was or the colour of his socks? I would be concerned about what Moses did write about though, as I can check that.

Why after keeping genealogical records showing the progression from Adam to Abraham, did they quit cold?

They did not. I'm not sure if your referring to something else, so sorry if I miss that. The lineages are recorded again in Matthew and Luke. General references made else where. There were probably more records, but from what I know, Jerusalem was burnt down. Many paper records were destroyed.

Drowsy Turtle, the bible uses the annual calendar of the Hebrews. As to dates, it also uses the reign of a kings length, or the age of a person (usually followed by their sons birth etc) for us to follow. So yes, while not the type of calender we use it is from what I can see continuous throughout. So, unlike the other nations history and scientific estimations, I have at most a year of error, from start to finish, do I not? I'm not sure I can add such accuracy to Egyptian, Babylonians or Assyrian records or to estimations made via scientific dating methods. Can I?

PS, if Dendrochronology gives no "dates", then why argue that it proves my bible wrong? The argument told to me was effectively 'you should not believe the bible because Dendrochronology proves it's statements are false".

how do you externally verify that whoever was writing genesis (which, you've still not answered every time anyone has asked: who wrote genesis and when did they write it?) was A: telling the truth and B: keeping time accurately over the thousands of years between "creation" and "things that we can externally verify to have happened" (which btw, don't start existing until something like 1500 bce)?

edit: because in your banking analogy, we're not talking about "an estimated bank ballance" and "a counted bank ballance" we're talking about a bank ballance that can be independantly verified through whatever means you want and a bank ballance that we should take as true because there's a book somewhere that says it's true
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:This question will do for the other posts too I guess, if history is not evidence then how can we confirm any scientific dating method actually gives dates? Without the check to history, how can we confirm it is giving a correct result? How can we calibrate without a historic check? Also, if the check is using a natural historic check (sediment, trees, carbon), can we assume the variance and range of error is less than that of the process of a person counting days (which I could argue is also natural and scientifically testable, because humans are "natural" :P )?
You might as well ask 'How can we calibrate the accuracy of a ruler without first comparing it to the accuracy of some random pieces of lint in my pocket?'.

I mean, okay--yeah, science doesn't calibrate itself to anything besides science. That is a totally true thing. But that isn't a mistake science is making--that's actually why science is the best ruler by which to measure science. Because science only pays attention to things that are relevant to science. And historical records are not relevant when it comes to scientifically calibrating large time-scales.
Technical Ben wrote:I asked before, and I'll ask again. I have no problem with dating methods or science that gives estimations or ranges. But I ask, if someone said "I can scientifically estimate the money in your bank account" and another said "I can count the money in your bank account", which one would you trust?
Saying 'I can scientifically estimate the money in your bank account' is extraordinarily silly, because there is no such thing as 'scientifically estimating' something for which there is a simple test to determine. Rather, counting the money in your bank account is the scientific solution; the 'estimate the money in your bank account' solution is what you are suggesting we replace it with: You are suggesting we look at historical records to calibrate science. But we don't need to, because we don't need the estimates historical records provide--instead of estimating the money in your bank account, science just counts it.

Science isn't about 'estimations', it's about getting as close to fact as possible. All historical records are anecdotes. All anecdotes are estimations.
Technical Ben wrote:No, I was specifically talking about counting 70 years. Something we can verify as you said "history is just anecdotal". Thus I thought something non-historic would suffice. If you wish to use 2000 years, then I'd ask the same. If we setup 2 scientific labs, asked one to "count the years and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates" and asked the other to "count the tree rings and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates/wait until the end and count up all the tree rings" which would be more accurate?
Well, first we'd need to establish a scientific lab that will last for 2000 years. At which point... wait, why are we counting tree rings anymore? We have a scientific lab that will last 2000 years! We no longer need to count tree rings; we've got a 2000 year old calibration tool!

Except here's the problem: Historical records aren't products of scientific labs. Scientific labs didn't really come into 'existence' save in modern times. Now, as our methods of measuring time, data, and science improve, the need for approximations like tree ring counting grows less and less--because we're actually keeping track of time very well! But no one had access to these tools 2000 years ago.
Technical Ben wrote:If a scientist counts a tree ring, why is this more valid than a historian counting an orbit of the earth around the sun? Or would it be reasonable for me to consider both, and follow the one I see to be more accurate?
Wrong question. The better question: Why do you think the historian is doing science?

History and science are not equivalent; science is not 'more valid', and the science counting the tree rings is not 'invalidating' the historian. These are two different fields with two different goals; your decision that one invalidates the other is wholly your decision.

If I want to know the age of the tree, I'll ask the scientist counting the tree rings; if I want to know when Caesar died, I'll ask the historian.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, if Dendrochronology gives no "dates", then why argue that it proves my bible wrong? The argument told to me was effectively 'you should not believe the bible because Dendrochronology proves it's statements are false".
Nothing proves your Bible wrong. No one is telling you not to believe the Bible. You are free to believe whatever you'd like.

What you've been told is that your particular interpretation of the Bible--one in which allows for a Biblical flood a few thousand years ago--defies science. And that is totally true, and if you disagree, oh well; that doesn't make your narrative any less 'defying-science'-ish.

You don't need to reconcile your beliefs with science. All that is asked of you is this: Do not call a spade a sword, do not call a tree a bear, and do not say what is science is not science.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:48 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:morriswalters, if I asked the same questions about Darwin, would they be valid? Or is it important that his theories work? Likewise if I see that the bible works in my life, would I be worried about who Moses' second uncle was or the colour of his socks? I would be concerned about what Moses did write about though, as I can check that.
Am not sure exactly what you mean so I'll answer what I consider you to mean. The short answer is yes. What Darwin wrote and thought are directly tied to our knowledge of him and how we think about his studies. We can place him where he said he was at the time he said he was. We can investigate the things he did and how he did them. Consider this. On the events in Genesis there is no direct written record, nor a supported history other than by what is written in the text. The creation story itself could never have been written by anyone concerned with them, they were a part of it, not spectators. How did they know? What language did Adam speak and what language did he write in if he could write at all? I could continue and trivialize the question, but that would miss the point. My area of disagreement with you is not in your belief of what really happened. It is with the idea that you can support a supernatural event with science. We will never know with the certainty of Newton's observations of falling applies as applied to gravity. The events were one offs, they happened then they were done. The events in Genesis aren't impossible, they are merely unknowable, you can either accept them or not. The further you travel from any event in time the less certain you can ever be of the veracity of the event as known to the people who lived through it. This will be just as true of us 5000 years from now as it is for those 5000 years before us.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Ubik » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:39 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
Yeah, I do agree that studying the sediments and tree rings and such things belongs to the group of "historical" sciences. A crucial difference is that the traces nature leaves are always immediate. If there is a sediment layer of volcanic ash, we can be sure there was volcanic ash in the air when the sediment formed. Written records have always at least one level of indirection, as there is a human who saw or heard something and then wrote it down. It's the difference between having a paper that says someone was killed and having the corpse.

It can be hard to interpret the records nature has left us, but by definition, they can't be wrong in themselves, only the interpretation can. When there's a written record, it can be flat out wrong with what it says (you probably agree that not all ancient texts are literal truths, even though not a single lie was in the texts) and it already is an interpretation of the state of things, as made by the writer. And not just the state of the things that definitely existed at the time of writing but also second-hand knowledge.

Sorry for not replying to the rest of the post regarding the other cultures' records and the hebrew records, but it's already late here, so I have to get back with those things later.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:This question will do for the other posts too I guess, if history is not evidence then how can we confirm any scientific dating method actually gives dates? Without the check to history, how can we confirm it is giving a correct result? How can we calibrate without a historic check? Also, if the check is using a natural historic check (sediment, trees, carbon), can we assume the variance and range of error is less than that of the process of a person counting days (which I could argue is also natural and scientifically testable, because humans are "natural" :P )?


The problem is we have no way to know if the person counting was actually doing it accurately either. Especially for events that happened long before their time or events that they were not witness to. The number of "known dates" we have in the historical record for ancient times are pretty thin, and most of the time, those known dates are based on some sort of independent calibration. For example, the Peloponnesian War can be pretty accurately in time not because somebody wrote a very detailed history about it, but because in that history, Thucydides happened to mention several solar and lunar eclipses that occurred during the war, and--because we have mathematical tools at our disposal that are significant enough to do this calculation--we can determine the exact sequence of years that these eclipses could have happened, and therefore pinpoint the date of the war using those data. We don't use Thucydides' calendar as an absolute benchmark; we use it as a relative one, and calibrate that calendar based on some phenomenological standard. We can also corroborate both pieces of evidence, with, say, carbon dating of artifacts from that period of time. This is important, so I'm going to reiterate: We don't have known dates for most of the historical record. The known dates that we do have are often derived from methods like dendrochronology, carbon dating, eclipses, etc. and correlating them with the historical record as best we can. We don't make an a priori assumption that the historical record is true; we don't make an a priori assumption that any particular scientific method is true. We cross-check multiple independent methods and look for the best fit.

No, I was specifically talking about counting 70 years. Something we can verify as you said "history is just anecdotal". Thus I thought something non-historic would suffice. If you wish to use 2000 years, then I'd ask the same. If we setup 2 scientific labs, asked one to "count the years and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates" and asked the other to "count the tree rings and write them down as data, pass to the next graduates/wait until the end and count up all the tree rings" which would be more accurate?


The tree rings would be more accurate. You say that the error for an individual person is 1 year. So, for a span of 2000 years, there are 29 different reporters, assuming a 70 year lifespan for each and each has an error of +/-1 year. The total propagated error is therefore, at best +/-29 years. If your claim is that tree rings give an error of +/-4 years, then counting the rings is more precise by a factor of seven.

If tree ring growth varies, how can you check that the 1820 rings of one set correlates with the 2345 rings of another and both correlate with the year 1 A.D (for example) if not by checking against a historical record? If by "a volcano", how do we know the volcano was 2000 years ago if not because it was historically recorded?


We don't know that the volcano was 2000 years ago. We know from history that there was a volcanic eruption, and event X was the next year, Y was five years later, and Z was ten years later still. We then use scientific dating methods to say "The volcanic eruption happened 2000 years ago", and therefore, events X, Y and Z must have dates of 1999, 1994 and 1984 years ago, respectively. You have the entire process backwards.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Ubik wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
Yeah, I do agree that studying the sediments and tree rings and such things belongs to the group of "historical" sciences. A crucial difference is that the traces nature leaves are always immediate. If there is a sediment layer of volcanic ash, we can be sure there was volcanic ash in the air when the sediment formed. Written records have always at least one level of indirection, as there is a human who saw or heard something and then wrote it down. It's the difference between having a paper that says someone was killed and having the corpse.

It can be hard to interpret the records nature has left us, but by definition, they can't be wrong in themselves, only the interpretation can. When there's a written record, it can be flat out wrong with what it says (you probably agree that not all ancient texts are literal truths, even though not a single lie was in the texts) and it already is an interpretation of the state of things, as made by the writer. And not just the state of the things that definitely existed at the time of writing but also second-hand knowledge.

Sorry for not replying to the rest of the post regarding the other cultures' records and the Hebrew records, but it's already late here, so I have to get back with those things later.

That's somewhat helpful, but to me somewhat naive. While I agree that "nature" cannot lie, I don't know if I'd give the data from it more accuracy than the data from a person. At all points we have people collecting the data. So we have to at some point trust people to do so. Or at the very least look for ourselves. I cannot see the actual trees and core samples (within reason) to verify the details of dating done with them. So I have to trust people. Likewise as mentioned above by those posting, I cannot check what happened 4000 years ago myself, I have to trust the people involved. Why are people willing to accept our interpretation of scientific data can be wrong, but the collection of it is outside of question? Likewise, why can it not be considered that something like the bible could be a collection of observation (thus valid data), even if our interpretation is wrong (although, by "wrong", I mean it in the same way as towards science, as "less correct than it could be")?

So, the question has always been, why should I trust those in science telling me I should not trust those who wrote the bible? I can check those in science, and build trust (or loose it) depending on what they do. They are still human, so not all of them "qualify". However, thankfully some do. Likewise, I don't trust all history or all books claiming to be "holy". Thankfully, some records and claims have gained my trust. In the case of both science and history, religion or advice, it's those that prove to work and be verified I trust in.
Last edited by Technical Ben on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
Ubik wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Thanks Ubik. But how are those not all also historical checks? If it's a historical check, why is it more scientific for tree rings, lake sediments, carbon decay, then checking a persons ability to record dates?

What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
Yeah, I do agree that studying the sediments and tree rings and such things belongs to the group of "historical" sciences. A crucial difference is that the traces nature leaves are always immediate. If there is a sediment layer of volcanic ash, we can be sure there was volcanic ash in the air when the sediment formed. Written records have always at least one level of indirection, as there is a human who saw or heard something and then wrote it down. It's the difference between having a paper that says someone was killed and having the corpse.

It can be hard to interpret the records nature has left us, but by definition, they can't be wrong in themselves, only the interpretation can. When there's a written record, it can be flat out wrong with what it says (you probably agree that not all ancient texts are literal truths, even though not a single lie was in the texts) and it already is an interpretation of the state of things, as made by the writer. And not just the state of the things that definitely existed at the time of writing but also second-hand knowledge.

Sorry for not replying to the rest of the post regarding the other cultures' records and the Hebrew records, but it's already late here, so I have to get back with those things later.

That's somewhat helpful, but to me somewhat naive. While I agree that "nature" cannot lie, I don't know if I'd give the data from it more accuracy than the data from a person. At all points we have people collecting the data. So we have to at some point trust people to do so. Or at the very least look for ourselves. I cannot see the actual trees and core samples (within reason) to verify the details of dating done with them. So I have to trust people. Likewise as mentioned above by those posting, I cannot check what happened 4000 years ago myself, I have to trust the people involved.

So, the question has always been, why should I trust those in science telling me I should not trust those who wrote the bible? I can check those in science, and build trust (or loose it) depending on what they do. They are still human, so not all of them "qualify". However, thankfully some do. Likewise, I don't trust all history or all books claiming to be "holy". Thankfully, some records and claims have gained my trust. In the case of both, it's those that prove to work and be verified.

how do you check those that wrote genesis again? how to you verify that they're telling the truth? when was genesis written and who wrote it?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:16 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:That's somewhat helpful, but to me somewhat naive. While I agree that "nature" cannot lie, I don't know if I'd give the data from it more accuracy than the data from a person. At all points we have people collecting the data. So we have to at some point trust people to do so. Or at the very least look for ourselves.
Right, but you understand the difference between 'I trust my teacher, who trusts their teacher, who trusts a scientist, who trusts another scientist, who trusts the scientists who counts tree rings' versus 'I trust my priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest, who trusts another priest...' -- so on, ad nauseum, until we are talking about a chain of trust so long and deep that it literally generational. As in, you are now trusting people who have been dead for two thousand years.

Science doesn't trust anybody who's been dead for two thousand years. It doesn't ask you to. But religion does. Hell, that's practically the definition of religion: "Trust people who have been dead so long that it's actually really hard to prove that they're even real".
Technical Ben wrote:I cannot see the actual trees and core samples (within reason) to verify the details of dating done with them. So I have to trust people.
Trust people who are alive today.

Trusting in books is not trusting people. Particularly when those books are written by people who are long dead! Trusting in books is only trusting in books. And you cannot escape this simple truth: You would rather trust someone who died thousands of years ago than someone who is alive today.

How am I supposed to take this beyond you having an obsession of trusting ancient history over modern thought? If you cannot see how someone alive today deserves your trust far more than someone who's been dead for 4000 years, then it is really hard for me to buy what you're saying when you say you 'trust people'. Because it doesn't sound like you trust people at all--it sounds like you trust ideologies.
Technical Ben wrote:So, the question has always been, why should I trust those in science telling me I should not trust those who wrote the bible?
Because I can show you the science. But you can't show me the person who wrote the Bible.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

DSenette, the same way you would check how the claim of a trip to the moon is true. Does it fit what you know to be within the limits of reality or science?

Take for example the claim that Eve was from Adams "rib". Sounds mythical right? Well, how is it presented? As a myth, or a matter of fact observation? Does science say it's an impossibility? Does science say that such a process would take skill and manipulation of genetics or biology?

If someone describes how they flew to the moon, shows me a video and presents recorded information (me being born after the fact, and having no physical way to observe the actual moon landings), I trust them on the evidence they present and how it fits know possibilities. I trust that to fake it would take more effort and be less likely that actually going to the moon.

Likewise, I'd find it more surreal and obtuse to fake all of the Hebrew history and the accounts in it. I'd find it less likely that they would record an actual flood account (similar to other nations in the area, for example the Babylonians) if it did not actually happen. I find it unlikely that they would record the actual lineage and ages and dates (although via Hebrew dating of kings and ancestors as supposed to calendar dates), if these were purely fictional. It would be like claiming the Egyptians made up their astronomical observations.

It's helpful that we can confirm the Egyptian astronomical observations, as the observation is repeatable or can be calculated. They fit so well, it's considered that they were experts in such a field of study. I am not certain, but I would guess there would be observations that may not come around for a while for us to verify. Say like comets etc. Or likened to the observation of a supernova by the Chinese historians. We might later get confirmation of these. But currently we are confident they are all accurate, because of the consistency of their data/reports/records. Would you agree?

Likewise, while not all the information is currently confirmed with the records in the bible, do I see that they are consistent and accurate? I would say those I can verify are extremely well done. If the Egyptians put so much effort into observing astronomy, I'd say the Hebrews put the same effort into recording the dates and actions of their past. While the Egyptians worshiped and thus recorded the stars (amongst other things), the Hebrews worshiped a single God, and recorded everything about that, mainly their lineage.

I could expect them to make mistakes on the causes. This we can agree to disagree on. While a Hebrew would say such an observation was from God, science would say it was a natural event. But I'd not expect the actual events and timescales to be mistaken. They put too much effort into getting those bits right. Just as the Egyptians put too much effort into the stars movements to "imagine" a second moon or a west facing north star. To claim that the bible record is inaccurate and made up to me, would be like me claiming the timescales in Dendrochronology are inaccurate and made up. (Although I'd not claim they were made up, they would to me look inaccurate.)

As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (as I don't have one. But as regards those teaching religion, I don't trust them any more than I reasonably should). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in. Some of it is from a time when paper was not used, so it would be spoken history. Peoples who had no written language actually develop spoken methods of distributing information, right? So to me, a spoken word is as valuable as a written word and as valuable as a natural observation. But only if I can verify it and confirm it, that I agree with.

Science finds 2000 year old dead people all the time. It "trusts" them. It's just a different type of observation in that case, one of bones instead of one of "thoughts" and writings (as by definition any writing is a thought). So we can find out things about those people, even if it's just writings. How is most of science spread today, if not via writings?

You can show me "Science", yes. But that is the ideology and the practice. I can show you "scripture", which is, yes, it's goals and practice. If those things work, then I trust it, right? If they do not, I agree, I would turn it down. Just as we turn down the "science" (theory) that does not work for the one that does.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:37 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (any more than reasonable). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in.
Okay. If this is true, we should be able to treat them--a scientific model and the Bible--as equivalent. So let's do that: Let's test your claim that the Bible's claims are scientifically testable:

The Bible claims that Moses parted the sea.

Prove it with science.
Technical Ben wrote: Some of it is from a time when paper was not used, so it would be spoken history. Peoples who had no written language actually develop spoken methods of distributing information, right? So to me, a spoken word is as valuable as a written word and as valuable as a natural observation. But only if I can verify it and confirm it, that I agree with.
So spoken and written words are, to you, the equivalent of observation--but only if you yourself can first verify them as observation.

Which leaves me confused: Why are you insisting that written and spoken words can be treated like observable facts when you yourself say you do not treat them like observable facts until you have verified them as observable facts?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, science finds 2000 year old dead people all the time. It "trusts" them.
No, it doesn't. It trusts their corpses. IE, it trusts basic chemistry.

It is a much different thing to trust the rate at which something decomposes versus the written works of a dude who's been dead over two thousand years. If you don't get that, I don't know what to say--beyond simply stating, again, you don't seem to put a lot of trust in people who are alive today. Rather, you seem to prefer to trust that people who have been dead for over two thousand years got it right the first time.

And that just isn't very scientific.
Technical Ben wrote:So we can find out things about those people, even if it's just writings. How is most of science spread today, if not via writings?
By doing and learning the science yourself!

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (any more than reasonable). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in.
Okay. If this is true, we should be able to treat them--a scientific model and the Bible--as equivalent. So let's do that: Let's test your claim that the Bible's claims are scientifically testable:

The Bible claims that Moses parted the sea.

Prove it with science.

I've been lurking in this thread from time to time and I really want to stay out of it but I do have to point out:
Even modern scholars don't all agree on translations of the bible. One interpretation is that it was "mossy" sea and not "red" sea implying they crossed at a river delta, the Pharoh's army with their heavy armor and chariots could have easily gotten stuck in the muddy soil. Most people forget that the bible is a book that had been revised every few decades by the Vatican who decided which books to include and which to exclude depending on how popular the content with be with the society they were distributing it to. You can claim it is reliable for moral lessons which is an opinion but it is not an accurate history book.

Assuming the Bible is all god's word in it's original meaning is a really bad way to go about things.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:36 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Likewise, I'd find it more surreal and obtuse to fake all of the Hebrew history and the accounts in it. I'd find it less likely that they would record an actual flood account (similar to other nations in the area, for example the Babylonians) if it did not actually happen. I find it unlikely that they would record the actual lineage and ages and dates (although via Hebrew dating of kings and ancestors as supposed to calendar dates), if these were purely fictional. It would be like claiming the Egyptians made up their astronomical observations.

How would you know. Again it comes back to the same thing, says who. You keep saying Hebrew Scholars. What ones, who? The traditional attribution is Moses, okay show any evidence that he existed. A grave site, writings in his hand, the tablets? The question becomes did Moses write the Torah as it was revealed to him, and if he did how do we know. It always comes back to the same thing. The Bible is the authority for the attribution. Can you see that this goes round and round? I have no idea if Moses existed, and frankly don't care. But I do dislike it when science is tortured for Religion. There is no science you can do and no science that supports what you want it to support.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:DSenette, the same way you would check how the claim of a trip to the moon is true. Does it fit what you know to be within the limits of reality or science?
so your statement is, that you would believe, as true, any written document that COULD maybe fit with scientific possibility? ignoring probability, or any actual evidence in support or against the claim?

man i've got some books for you to read! how do you feel about the "gospel of captain nemo"? the psalms of Ahab?

Technical Ben wrote:Take for example the claim that Eve was from Adams "rib". Sounds mythical right? Well, how is it presented? As a myth, or a matter of fact observation? Does science say it's an impossibility? Does science say that such a process would take skill and manipulation of genetics or biology?
science, like all of real science, DOES NOT support the claiim that you could take a genetic sample from an adult human being and grow another fully formed adult human being from it immediately. in ABSOLUTE "wild assumptions about the actual path of future technology" territory, you COULD say that science COULD support the idea of cloning a human being from ribs. HOWEVER, any reasonable method of doing so would require a human woman to actually donate an egg, carry the child to term etc.. etc... so, yeah, science says the story of adam and eve is bullshit.

Technical Ben wrote:If someone describes how they flew to the moon, shows me a video and presents recorded information (me being born after the fact, and having no physical way to observe the actual moon landings), I trust them on the evidence they present and how it fits know possibilities. I trust that to fake it would take more effort and be less likely that actually going to the moon.
so you're equating writing a story that's not 100% true with the difficulty it would take to trick the entire population of the earth into believing that we went to the moon? do you not see how one of those is massively easier than the other?

Technical Ben wrote:Likewise, I'd find it more surreal and obtuse to fake all of the Hebrew history and the accounts in it. I'd find it less likely that they would record an actual flood account (similar to other nations in the area, for example the Babylonians) if it did not actually happen. I find it unlikely that they would record the actual lineage and ages and dates (although via Hebrew dating of kings and ancestors as supposed to calendar dates), if these were purely fictional. It would be like claiming the Egyptians made up their astronomical observations.
no one is claiming that they straight up made up the lineages....we're claiming that they GOT IT ASTRONOMICALLY WRONG. though, in some places, SHIT IS STRAIGHT UP MADE UP...like the idea that people lived to be 1,000 years old at any point during our existence.

so, how do you feel about gilgamesh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth ? you know...something that was supposed to happen about the same time? i mean, these are completely different people than the hebrews. was noah gilgamesh? which would make him babalonian, not a hebrew. or were there two floods that wiped out the entire world? how about the part where the epic of gilgamesh was written BEFORE the book of genesis? did whoever wrote genesis (another question you haven't answered) read the epic of gilgamesh?

again, why is it so hard to imagine that there was a local flood, and some goatherds MISINTERPRETED the event into a global flood? that's a much easier pill to swallow.

Technical Ben wrote:It's helpful that we can confirm the Egyptian astronomical observations, as the observation is repeatable or can be calculated. They fit so well, it's considered that they were experts in such a field of study. I am not certain, but I would guess there would be observations that may not come around for a while for us to verify. Say like comets etc. Or likened to the observation of a supernova by the Chinese historians. We might later get confirmation of these. But currently we are confident they are all accurate, because of the consistency of their data/reports/records. Would you agree?
of course we don't agree on when they made those observations. was it before their fully formed society was completely wiped out by a flood? or was it immediatedly after the flood when their population was completely restored and their culture and knowledge was put exactly back in place as if there was never a flood?

Technical Ben wrote:Likewise, while not all the information is currently confirmed with the records in the bible, do I see that they are consistent and accurate? I would say those I can verify are extremely well done. If the Egyptians put so much effort into observing astronomy, I'd say the Hebrews put the same effort into recording the dates and actions of their past. While the Egyptians worshiped and thus recorded the stars (amongst other things), the Hebrews worshiped a single God, and recorded everything about that, mainly their lineage.
again, when were these lineages written down, and by who?

Technical Ben wrote:I could expect them to make mistakes on the causes. This we can agree to disagree on. While a Hebrew would say such an observation was from God, science would say it was a natural event. But I'd not expect the actual events and timescales to be mistaken. They put too much effort into getting those bits right. Just as the Egyptians put too much effort into the stars movements to "imagine" a second moon or a west facing north star. To claim that the bible record is inaccurate and made up to me, would be like me claiming the timescales in Dendrochronology are inaccurate and made up. (Although I'd not claim they were made up, they would to me look inaccurate.)
there is no "timescale" in dendrochronology....there is a time scale to reality and existence...events that happen in the stream of time and reality leave evidence. dendrochronology is NOTHING MORE than reading that evidence. the tree doesn't create the timescale.

Technical Ben wrote:As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (as I don't have one. But as regards those teaching religion, I don't trust them any more than I reasonably should). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in. Some of it is from a time when paper was not used, so it would be spoken history. Peoples who had no written language actually develop spoken methods of distributing information, right? So to me, a spoken word is as valuable as a written word and as valuable as a natural observation. But only if I can verify it and confirm it, that I agree with.
seriously? third, fourth, 17th hand oral accounts are valuable as a written word AND as valuable as natural observation? to be blunt....do you understand the concepts you're actually talking about?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:25 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Drowsy Turtle, the bible uses the annual calendar of the Hebrews. As to dates, it also uses the reign of a kings length, or the age of a person (usually followed by their sons birth etc) for us to follow. So yes, while not the type of calender we use it is from what I can see continuous throughout. So, unlike the other nations history and scientific estimations, I have at most a year of error, from start to finish, do I not?


You have the relative timing of events, not the actual date. Besides which, archaeologists estimate the emergence of the Israelite tribe at 600-800 BC, which doesn't give enough time for the thousands of years that supposedly passed. I do wonder if this might be solved by swapping the thousand-year life spans for something, you know, physically possible?

Technical Ben wrote:I'm not sure I can add such accuracy to Egyptian, Babylonians or Assyrian records or to estimations made via scientific dating methods. Can I?


Er, yes actually. All of the above kept better records. As I mention above, the best estimates for events of the Israelites tend to be "give or take a hundred years", and things like being enslaved by the Egyptians demonstrably never happened.

Can you see why relying on a relative dating system based on war-like, nomadic people living to be hundreds of years old, might not be particularly reliable?

Technical Ben wrote:PS, if Dendrochronology gives no "dates", then why argue that it proves my bible wrong? The argument told to me was effectively 'you should not believe the bible because Dendrochronology proves it's statements are false".


Dendrochronology is used to tell the age of trees - you could only date human activity if it significantly affected the tree in question.
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Ubik » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

Drowsy Turtle: Tree rings are useful, because they tell the C14 concentration in the air when the ring was formed. The C14 curve formed from yearly samples is used to calibrate the measurements when radiocardon dating objects, and the calibration is essential for the method to give good answers.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

What Religion is this?
Tree Religion?

Do you have enough people?

I know about trees.
There are things about trees that no human knows. I know that much.
You?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Ubik » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:32 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:What is the error range in someones counting of days and years? Or of recorded dates in history? For example, how far off were the Egyptians in their dates? How far off were the Greeks? The Assyrians or Babylonians? Are those dates proven off by carbon dating and tree ring dating?

Why is it being suggested to me that the Hebrew historians were worse at recording dates than the others?
At this point I think I should say that I trust the Bible roughly as much as I trust other similar texts from the same period(s). The Bible is a collection of several writings which all could be said to make claims about things, like that a world-wide flood has happened or that some people fought some other people in a war. It doesn't have to be a binary true or false decision to trust it - I'm completely fine with using Bible as a source when researching history. The level of trust is related to the extraordinariness of the claims made and their consistency with other sources - including the "natural data" and our current understanding of the world, not just other writings. Global flood, being inconsistent with the world, is not credible claim. That a war has happened is a lot more credible claim.

The ancient records are usually dated relatively, so dating methods don't create inconsistencies all that easily, but instead anchor the findings to absolute dates. Radiocarbon dating can be used to see if the age of the records matches with the claims made by the text and the bigger picture. Texts written down by contemporaries should obviously be more trustworthy than texts written down much later.

A recurring theme in the discussion has been how to separate the credible claims from incredible claims in texts that contain lots of religious context like, well, Bible or list of pharaohs who officially were pretty much living gods. The claims that can be verified, like astrological records, are pretty easy to trust, and can be used to put rest of stuff into context, bit like with radiocarbon dating. At this moment I'm finding it hard to go much further than that, considering our conception on what's "extraordinary" seems to be very different. A further point could be that if we don't first consider texts at all, and as we have no natural evidence (like bodies) that show signs of extreme ages, it can be said human lifespans have not been much longer and thus such claims and most likely their immediate context in texts are highly suspect. Given what you've written in this thread so far, you probably don't agree with this reasoning. Anyway, I probably should give more thought to things we could agree on, though I'm finding it hard.
Technical Ben wrote:That's somewhat helpful, but to me somewhat naive. While I agree that "nature" cannot lie, I don't know if I'd give the data from it more accuracy than the data from a person. At all points we have people collecting the data. So we have to at some point trust people to do so.

Likewise, why can it not be considered that something like the bible could be a collection of observation (thus valid data), even if our interpretation is wrong (although, by "wrong", I mean it in the same way as towards science, as "less correct than it could be")?
I agree that there is a component of trust in all cases where I'm not actually doing research by myself. It's probably obvious that I don't consider it naive. Nothing can be trusted completely, but I'm willing to put a lot more on stake for a system that is bigger but still more consistent than for a claims in a writing that have no other sources to base them on.

It has been brought up by others already, but one big thing is that for the first parts of the Bible, there isn't all that much reason to think that the records were made as the things happened instead of being passed on by oral tradition. If the things were recorded immediately as they happened, the oldest found records of hebrew texts would be as old as the genealogies imply and in no case there would be a relatively sudden appearance of more complete texts when putting the stuff on a timeline. As far as I know, this is not the case, so it makes more sense that old oral tradition has been collected into texts that have in turn been used to form the books in Bible.

As I've written this post, I feel like repeating/summarizing that consistency is one of the most important things. Also, internal consistency of a text is only the first step and isn't a deciding factory when deciding whether or not to consider it factual.

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

Ubik wrote:Drowsy Turtle: Tree rings are useful, because they tell the C14 concentration in the air when the ring was formed. The C14 curve formed from yearly samples is used to calibrate the measurements when radiocardon dating objects, and the calibration is essential for the method to give good answers.


True, I don't see how it's related to events in the bible though - there's nothing to carbon date.
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

Drowsy Turtle wrote:
Ubik wrote:Drowsy Turtle: Tree rings are useful, because they tell the C14 concentration in the air when the ring was formed. The C14 curve formed from yearly samples is used to calibrate the measurements when radiocardon dating objects, and the calibration is essential for the method to give good answers.


True, I don't see how it's related to events in the bible though - there's nothing to carbon date.

well, i think dendrochronology with regards to events in the bible are used a lot like every other dating method...as a piece of the puzzle.

like, if you find a building, and it's got some wood in it that you can accurately age via the rings in the wood, and you can also date the building itself, you can date the age of the piece of wood in the building when it was cut down, and then cross reference that with the age of the building. so, if the building was built in 2350 bce, and the tree that was used in the building was 200 years old before it was cut down, you could reasonably assume that the tree was planted in 2550, and was TOTALLY alive when the world was supposed to be covered in salt water for a year.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:01 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:like, if you find a building, and it's got some wood in it that you can accurately age via the rings in the wood, and you can also date the building itself, you can date the age of the piece of wood in the building when it was cut down, and then cross reference that with the age of the building. so, if the building was built in 2350 bce, and the tree that was used in the building was 200 years old before it was cut down, you could reasonably assume that the tree was planted in 2550, and was TOTALLY alive when the world was supposed to be covered in salt water for a year.


It's a really roundabout way of demonstrating that there wasn't a worldwide flood. I would find it much easier to show that the Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs and indeed the Mesopotamians all survived the time period where the flood should have happened ;)

Plus... You know, geology and palaeontology. Terrestrial Cenozoic deposits tend to be glacial; Coastal and Pelagic sediments aren't interrupted in any way at the 6000 BP mark.

Not to mention the number of distinct species compared to the size of the ark (which is actually given to Noah by God).
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:43 pm UTC

Drowsy Turtle wrote:
DSenette wrote:like, if you find a building, and it's got some wood in it that you can accurately age via the rings in the wood, and you can also date the building itself, you can date the age of the piece of wood in the building when it was cut down, and then cross reference that with the age of the building. so, if the building was built in 2350 bce, and the tree that was used in the building was 200 years old before it was cut down, you could reasonably assume that the tree was planted in 2550, and was TOTALLY alive when the world was supposed to be covered in salt water for a year.


It's a really roundabout way of demonstrating that there wasn't a worldwide flood. I would find it much easier to show that the Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs and indeed the Mesopotamians all survived the time period where the flood should have happened ;)

Plus... You know, geology and palaeontology. Terrestrial Cenozoic deposits tend to be glacial; Coastal and Pelagic sediments aren't interrupted in any way at the 6000 BP mark.

Not to mention the number of distinct species compared to the size of the ark (which is actually given to Noah by God).

absolutely, but if you go back over the last 20 pages or so of this thread you MIGHT find someone around here that doesn't believe that those societies were dated correctly. someone here, who is suggesting that a good way to corroborate the story of the flood in the bible is to use the flood myths of OTHER societies, that, well, couldn't have existed to write about a flood in any other way than saying "hey guys, remember that time ALL OF US got drowned by a flood?" while still arguing that the dating methods used to date these cultures are wrong in such a collossal manner that we are to believe that these societies only came into existence AFTER the flood in 2370.

so, yeah, you might see some slightly round about methods thrown around in here because if someone is going to deny the absolute basics, it's time to get fun and creative about it
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

Fair point. I guess this rules out genetics as well then?
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:48 pm UTC

Drowsy Turtle wrote:Fair point. I guess this rules out genetics as well then?

oh he had a fun time with genetics too...something about some sheep in new zealand or something.

"man, look at this! we can totally cultivate a breeding pair of an almost extinct animal into a less almost extinct population without experiencing genetic drift or any other issues that are typically shown to happen when you take such a low number of breedable animals and create another population out of them, THEREFORE every other single piece of genetic evidence that is COMPLETELY observable in EVERY species on the planet is COMPLETELY wrong"
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:28 am UTC

O.K. One book. One book only?
Fine. There is fun in there.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

The Sermon on the mount is fun.

The sermon on the plain is fine. It comes with four woes.
Each one must be followed by a modern observations.


Blessed are the meek, they shall inherit the Earth.
The rest of us will escape to the stars.

Blessed are the Peace Makers, they shall be called the children of God.
They may also make the US terrorists list.

Now; You do one.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Trasvi » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:47 am UTC

@TB:
I'm curious why you think that the things written in the bible are absolute known facts, simply because they were written by a human at some stage.
I mean, the newspaper I read was written by a human just three days ago, and today they published a correction on their website apologising for getting something wrong. And I still don't trust it completely, and think that other stories in the newspaper are probably also slightly incorrect.
World War 2 is still in living memory for the elder people of our population, yet there are still a lot of things that we don't know, or get misreported. The TV series Band of Brothers was filmed by interviewing people who were actually there, yet in the 3rd episode they reported (reported, not dramatised) that one of the members of the company had died shortly after being wounded, when in fact he was still alive at the time of filming....

Witness testimony in courts is actually one of the least reliable and least trusted testimonies, unless you have many many people saying the same thing. People get things wrong, it was dark, it wasn't the right angle, they imagined the attacker scarier than he really was, they're making the whole thing up to get back at their ex-boyfriend... Its the same thing with historical records. A single account is unreliable and can't be trusted. Multiple accounts which say approximately the same thing can be corroborated together to get a better picture. The bible, we have only one account.

Have you ever heard of the game of chinese whispers? You sit in a circle and one person starts with a message, which they tell whisper to the person on their left, and so on until the message gets back to the original person. And this message of about two sentences never arrives back the same. People mishear, exaggerate some parts of the sentence and not others, drop or add words, or simply completely change the message just for fun. And this is with ~30 people in under 10 minutes; we don't even get into the complexities of changing languages and translations. Yet you think that entire books can be passed down orally over four thousand years without a single thing being misinterpreted?

I mean, the bible gives a lot of dates for how old people are: it says, "noah was 600 years old on the day the flood came" (or something to that effect). Was it literally his 600th birthday? Or was he 600 and 83 days? For every 'XX begat YY in his ZZth year', was that literally on his ZZth birthday? It could be ZZ +360, and over the 200 generations we're talking about, that means we could be 200 years out on any given date. So how are the dates in the Bible infallible known facts?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:57 am UTC

The bible is, just, a book. Let's make fun of it.

Do it kindly. Use a pinch of truth when you can find one.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
GenericAnimeBoy
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:33 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby GenericAnimeBoy » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:00 am UTC

addams wrote:O.K. One book. One book only?
Fine. There is fun in there.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

The Sermon on the mount is fun.


Blessed are the cheesemakers. :lol:
(It's a clip from Monty Python's Life of Brian, in case you can't view Youtube videos)
In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby addams » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:20 am UTC

GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
addams wrote:O.K. One book. One book only?
Fine. There is fun in there.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

The Sermon on the mount is fun.


Blessed are the cheesemakers. :lol:
(It's a clip from Monty Python's Life of Brian, in case you can't view Youtube videos)

Yes. That is making fun of the sermon.
Just for fun take on of the blessings an add an observations.
Those guys are funny. Every Sperm is beautiful is one of the best ever. They organized a great deal of talent for that one.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Technical Ben » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:44 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (any more than reasonable). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in.
Okay. If this is true, we should be able to treat them--a scientific model and the Bible--as equivalent. So let's do that: Let's test your claim that the Bible's claims are scientifically testable:

The Bible claims that Moses parted the sea.

Prove it with science.
Spoiler:
Technical Ben wrote: Some of it is from a time when paper was not used, so it would be spoken history. Peoples who had no written language actually develop spoken methods of distributing information, right? So to me, a spoken word is as valuable as a written word and as valuable as a natural observation. But only if I can verify it and confirm it, that I agree with.
So spoken and written words are, to you, the equivalent of observation--but only if you yourself can first verify them as observation.

Which leaves me confused: Why are you insisting that written and spoken words can be treated like observable facts when you yourself say you do not treat them like observable facts until you have verified them as observable facts?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, science finds 2000 year old dead people all the time. It "trusts" them.
No, it doesn't. It trusts their corpses. IE, it trusts basic chemistry.

It is a much different thing to trust the rate at which something decomposes versus the written works of a dude who's been dead over two thousand years. If you don't get that, I don't know what to say--beyond simply stating, again, you don't seem to put a lot of trust in people who are alive today. Rather, you seem to prefer to trust that people who have been dead for over two thousand years got it right the first time.

And that just isn't very scientific.
Technical Ben wrote:So we can find out things about those people, even if it's just writings. How is most of science spread today, if not via writings?
By doing and learning the science yourself!

I'll concentrate on just that one thing above for a moment. I realize it's more helpful to concentrate on the things we agree with. So I hope to find things that science and the bible agree with.

Would you agree, if Moses gave a scientifically verifiable method of parting a sea, we could believe he did it at one point (us being able to replicate/confirm it)? Except here Moses (or the one writing the account in the bible) did not say they did the parting, but that God did. So, I could try and see if the bible gives any consideration to the mechanism of work or the ability of work and actions that God takes. Does it say anything on the subject?

Can I ask, is this statement scientifically valid? Psalm 36:9 "...In your light shall we see light."- World English Bible. Or "...By light from you we can see light." -New World Translation. If God is a first cause or creator of the universe, is it scientifically proven that "light" is from this source? Where does all light come from?

Would you agree all light comes from a singular source? If we calculate back to the "big bang", what would we find? What is light made of if not energy and packets of information? What is the source of all that energy and those packets? Have we got new energy and new information in this universe since it's early formation? Or is the current light we see today the result of those early moments?

If I read a fictional story, I can tell it's fiction when it does not fit "reality" and "observation" or even "logic" and "calculation". When I find that scriptures fit scientific observation, this shows me that those writing them wrote something they observed as reality. I can confirm the observations, for example that all light comes from a single source. The name we give the source is down to our own personal preference or beliefs is it not? Why argue over the names we use, if we are referring to the same things? Our argument is not over the observation or facts, but is our difference over what type of reaction we have to learning these things?

It is a much different thing to trust the rate at which something decomposes versus the written works of a dude who's been dead over two thousand years. If you don't get that, I don't know what to say--beyond simply stating, again, you don't seem to put a lot of trust in people who are alive today. Rather, you seem to prefer to trust that people who have been dead for over two thousand years got it right the first time.

Both things have "signal" and "noise", right? One has a high signal, the other a high noise. I find decomposed things have higher noise ratios, would you agree? Thus a human counting decay samples/rates today is as accurate as the same person doing it yesterday. With the difference in the amount of existing data they have to reference. Both, if for example, may only have 5 years of data. Thus doing the test in the year 1 A.D., 1000 A.D. or 2012 A.D., will give the same result (it's science, it gives the same result :D), unless the more recent study has more data. It still does not make the old data "invalid" though does it?

PS, DSenette, I could come up with a few methods for near instant (does it even suggest instant in the bible?) methods for human cloning given enough technology. If we can move atoms, we could theoretically build anything at the speed we can move the atoms. Right? How is that not scientifically viable? Let alone the number of ways to do it biologically.

Trasvi, thanks for your post. I agree with you on the points you make for things to question. The assumption is though, that the bible was never corrected from the "myths" that existed around it. Like I've said, science still has not rejected all those myths yet. It's doing a good job in the majority, but still has work to do. I think people don't give the bible the credit it deserves in how it rejected the myths and stuck to observations. I only say that as personally, from what I've seen and read, the bible (or Hebrews) were extremely strict in this regard. If they had a method of remembering genealogy before writing was used, would it have been hap hazard or very well done?

PPS (sorry for another long post, just found this, it's relevant). This is an example of why I believe the bible is more accurate than other records (as to dates and dating). While the bible suggests some people lived for hundreds of years, other records suggest it was thousands! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
This means the Hebrews (in comparison to this one example at least) were less erroneous (assuming normal human lifespans) than other nations. Would you agree?
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:47 am UTC

Technical Ben wrote:I only say that as personally, from what I've seen and read, the bible (or Hebrews) were extremely strict in this regard. If they had a method of remembering genealogy before writing was used, would it have been hap hazard or very well done?
If it was all that accurate why did they stop. An unbroken lineage would be a very powerful validation of the events. Yet they quit. You have to wonder why. Had they done it then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It seems they would have recorded the location of the Ark, or Eden , or the ruins of Babel. They were good until they weren't.

Indy
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Indy » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:10 am UTC

morriswalters wrote: It seems they would have recorded the location of the Ark, or Eden , or the ruins of Babel.


They did. Gen 2:10-14, 8:4, 11:2.
Ancient historians are always bemoaning the information their sources left out. We can't expect the ancients to have known what we'd be interested in thousands of years later, or how things that were an obvious part of everyday life to them are unheard of among us today.
Manuka in bloom may breed despair

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:54 am UTC

Indy wrote:
morriswalters wrote: It seems they would have recorded the location of the Ark, or Eden , or the ruins of Babel.


They did. Gen 2:10-14, 8:4, 11:2.
Ancient historians are always bemoaning the information their sources left out. We can't expect the ancients to have known what we'd be interested in thousands of years later, or how things that were an obvious part of everyday life to them are unheard of among us today.


The obvious retort is that those sites were important enough to put in the Old Testament. And apparently none of them left physical traces. Discontinuities are problematic. If that's too much than name the Pharaoh who released the Hebrews. If it was Ramesses I or II nobody seems to be able to supply any evidence and I have never heard of a mention of Moses in any but the Biblical texts. And again why didn't they have a Genealogy to the time of Jesus. Why did it quit being important?

Indy
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Indy » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:52 am UTC

Such record-keepers described those sites in the language of the day, in relation to rivers that may have changed course, plains that may no longer exist etc. They didn't put down the GPS coordinates. That can make it hard for archaeologists to decide exactly what sites their sources were referring to.

If that's too much than name the Pharaoh who released the Hebrews.

I don't know which Pharaoh released the Hebrews. I understand there are a couple of theories but I haven't acquainted myself with the scholarship so I'm not qualified to comment.

And again why didn't they have a Genealogy to the time of Jesus. Why did it quit being important?

That it stopped being important is not a necessary inference from an incomplete genealogy.
Manuka in bloom may breed despair

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:08 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:I'll concentrate on just that one thing above for a moment. I realize it's more helpful to concentrate on the things we agree with. So I hope to find things that science and the bible agree with.

Would you agree, if Moses gave a scientifically verifiable method of parting a sea, we could believe he did it at one point (us being able to replicate/confirm it)? Except here Moses (or the one writing the account in the bible) did not say they did the parting, but that God did. So, I could try and see if the bible gives any consideration to the mechanism of work or the ability of work and actions that God takes. Does it say anything on the subject?
No, I wouldn't agree. Because even if you demonstrate that Moses could part the sea, that doesn't demonstrate that Moses did part the sea. It doesn't even demonstrate that Moses exists.
Technical Ben wrote:Can I ask, is this statement scientifically valid? Psalm 36:9 "...In your light shall we see light."- World English Bible. Or "...By light from you we can see light." -New World Translation. If God is a first cause or creator of the universe, is it scientifically proven that "light" is from this source? Where does all light come from?

Would you agree all light comes from a singular source? If we calculate back to the "big bang", what would we find? What is light made of if not energy and packets of information? What is the source of all that energy and those packets? Have we got new energy and new information in this universe since it's early formation? Or is the current light we see today the result of those early moments?
I am neither an astronomer nor a Biblical scholar. So my answer is "I have no idea".
Technical Ben wrote:If I read a fictional story, I can tell it's fiction when it does not fit "reality" and "observation" or even "logic" and "calculation". When I find that scriptures fit scientific observation, this shows me that those writing them wrote something they observed as reality. I can confirm the observations, for example that all light comes from a single source. The name we give the source is down to our own personal preference or beliefs is it not? Why argue over the names we use, if we are referring to the same things? Our argument is not over the observation or facts, but is our difference over what type of reaction we have to learning these things?
Here's the thing: The Bible doesn't tell you how to build a laser. Science does.

I don't mind it if you prefer the Bible to science--but don't tell me that the Bible can build a laser. It can't. That's science's job.

Science will always be the field of 'building lasers'. Religion will always be the field of 'not building lasers'. It's as simple as that.
Technical Ben wrote:Both things have "signal" and "noise", right? One has a high signal, the other a high noise. I find decomposed things have higher noise ratios, would you agree?
No.
Technical Ben wrote: Thus a human counting decay samples/rates today is as accurate as the same person doing it yesterday. With the difference in the amount of existing data they have to reference. Both, if for example, may only have 5 years of data. Thus doing the test in the year 1 A.D., 1000 A.D. or 2012 A.D., will give the same result (it's science, it gives the same result :D), unless the more recent study has more data. It still does not make the old data "invalid" though does it?
I have no idea what you're saying.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby DSenette » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:As you posted while I was typing, I'll quickly reply TGH. I don't "trust my priest" (any more than reasonable). I trust the bible (completely). It's written, data, verifiable, checkable. Just as the data by science we also put trust in.
Okay. If this is true, we should be able to treat them--a scientific model and the Bible--as equivalent. So let's do that: Let's test your claim that the Bible's claims are scientifically testable:

The Bible claims that Moses parted the sea.

Prove it with science.
Spoiler:
Technical Ben wrote: Some of it is from a time when paper was not used, so it would be spoken history. Peoples who had no written language actually develop spoken methods of distributing information, right? So to me, a spoken word is as valuable as a written word and as valuable as a natural observation. But only if I can verify it and confirm it, that I agree with.
So spoken and written words are, to you, the equivalent of observation--but only if you yourself can first verify them as observation.

Which leaves me confused: Why are you insisting that written and spoken words can be treated like observable facts when you yourself say you do not treat them like observable facts until you have verified them as observable facts?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, science finds 2000 year old dead people all the time. It "trusts" them.
No, it doesn't. It trusts their corpses. IE, it trusts basic chemistry.

It is a much different thing to trust the rate at which something decomposes versus the written works of a dude who's been dead over two thousand years. If you don't get that, I don't know what to say--beyond simply stating, again, you don't seem to put a lot of trust in people who are alive today. Rather, you seem to prefer to trust that people who have been dead for over two thousand years got it right the first time.

And that just isn't very scientific.
Technical Ben wrote:So we can find out things about those people, even if it's just writings. How is most of science spread today, if not via writings?
By doing and learning the science yourself!

I'll concentrate on just that one thing above for a moment. I realize it's more helpful to concentrate on the things we agree with. So I hope to find things that science and the bible agree with.

Would you agree, if Moses gave a scientifically verifiable method of parting a sea, we could believe he did it at one point (us being able to replicate/confirm it)? Except here Moses (or the one writing the account in the bible) did not say they did the parting, but that God did. So, I could try and see if the bible gives any consideration to the mechanism of work or the ability of work and actions that God takes. Does it say anything on the subject?

Can I ask, is this statement scientifically valid? Psalm 36:9 "...In your light shall we see light."- World English Bible. Or "...By light from you we can see light." -New World Translation. If God is a first cause or creator of the universe, is it scientifically proven that "light" is from this source? Where does all light come from?

Would you agree all light comes from a singular source? If we calculate back to the "big bang", what would we find? What is light made of if not energy and packets of information? What is the source of all that energy and those packets? Have we got new energy and new information in this universe since it's early formation? Or is the current light we see today the result of those early moments?

If I read a fictional story, I can tell it's fiction when it does not fit "reality" and "observation" or even "logic" and "calculation". When I find that scriptures fit scientific observation, this shows me that those writing them wrote something they observed as reality. I can confirm the observations, for example that all light comes from a single source. The name we give the source is down to our own personal preference or beliefs is it not? Why argue over the names we use, if we are referring to the same things? Our argument is not over the observation or facts, but is our difference over what type of reaction we have to learning these things?

It is a much different thing to trust the rate at which something decomposes versus the written works of a dude who's been dead over two thousand years. If you don't get that, I don't know what to say--beyond simply stating, again, you don't seem to put a lot of trust in people who are alive today. Rather, you seem to prefer to trust that people who have been dead for over two thousand years got it right the first time.

Both things have "signal" and "noise", right? One has a high signal, the other a high noise. I find decomposed things have higher noise ratios, would you agree? Thus a human counting decay samples/rates today is as accurate as the same person doing it yesterday. With the difference in the amount of existing data they have to reference. Both, if for example, may only have 5 years of data. Thus doing the test in the year 1 A.D., 1000 A.D. or 2012 A.D., will give the same result (it's science, it gives the same result :D), unless the more recent study has more data. It still does not make the old data "invalid" though does it?

PS, DSenette, I could come up with a few methods for near instant (does it even suggest instant in the bible?) methods for human cloning given enough technology. If we can move atoms, we could theoretically build anything at the speed we can move the atoms. Right? How is that not scientifically viable? Let alone the number of ways to do it biologically.

Trasvi, thanks for your post. I agree with you on the points you make for things to question. The assumption is though, that the bible was never corrected from the "myths" that existed around it. Like I've said, science still has not rejected all those myths yet. It's doing a good job in the majority, but still has work to do. I think people don't give the bible the credit it deserves in how it rejected the myths and stuck to observations. I only say that as personally, from what I've seen and read, the bible (or Hebrews) were extremely strict in this regard. If they had a method of remembering genealogy before writing was used, would it have been hap hazard or very well done?

PPS (sorry for another long post, just found this, it's relevant). This is an example of why I believe the bible is more accurate than other records (as to dates and dating). While the bible suggests some people lived for hundreds of years, other records suggest it was thousands! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
This means the Hebrews (in comparison to this one example at least) were less erroneous (assuming normal human lifespans) than other nations. Would you agree?



i love the questions you choose to ignore. thoughts on the epic of gilgamesh please?

so, the big bang is god? since got is the source of all light and the big bang (in your description) has to be the source of all light since it's the source of all of everything (which, as a statement, is extremely obtuse)? sure, whatever, we can roll with that if you like. but what does that have to do with a man parting the red sea or a global flood?

no, science does not say that you could create a human being by just rearanging atoms. BESIDES that, you're suggesting that god built a lab to make eve as a FULLY FORMED ADULT out of adam in the garden? that is patently stupid, why not just resort to magic? and it's not about being "near instant" as in how fast eve came into being, it's about the fact that eve came into being an ADULT that adam could immediately marry and have children with. which is not how human gestation works.

why do you not trust the sumarian king's list as to the life span of humans? why is their list immediately MORE erroneous than the hebrews?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Drowsy Turtle
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:39 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby Drowsy Turtle » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Would you agree, if Moses gave a scientifically verifiable method of parting a sea, we could believe he did it at one point (us being able to replicate/confirm it)?


Ignoring for a second that there is no scientific explanation given - no. The Ancient Greeks considered the atom, but never developed nuclear fission.

Technical Ben wrote:Except here Moses (or the one writing the account in the bible) did not say they did the parting, but that God did. So, I could try and see if the bible gives any consideration to the mechanism of work or the ability of work and actions that God takes. Does it say anything on the subject?


I'll save you some time - the bible doesn't deal in science. I believe in certain translations, it says "god reached down and with his hands parted the sea before them" - that's the level of myth and mysticism we're dealing with.

Technical Ben wrote:Can I ask, is this statement scientifically valid? Psalm 36:9 "...In your light shall we see light."- World English Bible. Or "...By light from you we can see light." -New World Translation. If God is a first cause or creator of the universe, is it scientifically proven that "light" is from this source? Where does all light come from?


This is a meaningless question, derived from a circular argument. Your confirmation for the existence of god, start with "if god was a first cause or creator of the universe" - "If cats were made of chocolate, people would eat them because they're made of chocolate. Therefore, all cats must be made of chocolate, or people wouldn't be eating them".

It's a non-point.

Technical Ben wrote:Would you agree all light comes from a singular source?


The same source, you mean? No, I wouldn't. There are at least 5 light sources in my room.

Technical Ben wrote:If we calculate back to the "big bang", what would we find? What is light made of if not energy and packets of information?


"Made of" implies a disparity where none exists. Light is electromagnetic waves. The only constituent parts are magnetic fields, electric fields and space-time.

Technical Ben wrote:What is the source of all that energy and those packets? Have we got new energy and new information in this universe since it's early formation? Or is the current light we see today the result of those early moments?


The universe can generally be considered a closed system. There are some quantum effects which might supply "new" energy, such as vacuum energy, but they can largely be ignored.

Technical Ben wrote:When I find that scriptures fit scientific observation, this shows me that those writing them wrote something they observed as reality. I can confirm the observations, for example that all light comes from a single source.


That's a powerful confirmation bias you've got there. You've had to twist the meaning of the scripture to the point where it no longer makes sense in its original context, before it makes any sense scientifically (and it still doesn't make scientific sense really).

You know, the bible also says that the Earth is completely stationary and cannot be moved? (psalms 93:1)

Technical Ben wrote:The name we give the source is down to our own personal preference or beliefs is it not? Why argue over the names we use, if we are referring to the same things? Our argument is not over the observation or facts, but is our difference over what type of reaction we have to learning these things?


The difference is the invocation of a supreme deity who judges and condemns us - something not supported by the evidence, but which theists tend to claim is an inevitable consequence of a process that is largely considered in scientific circles not to be required. The Big Bang is the part that we're fairly sure happened; the man in the sky part we have no need for.
Any offensive material posted is a consequence of societal pressure, the New World Order, the Mayans and David Bellamy. No responsibility will be taken for offense caused.
So suck it.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Religion: The Deuce

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

Indy wrote:Such record-keepers described those sites in the language of the day, in relation to rivers that may have changed course, plains that may no longer exist etc. They didn't put down the GPS coordinates. That can make it hard for archaeologists to decide exactly what sites their sources were referring to.

If that's too much than name the Pharaoh who released the Hebrews.

I don't know which Pharaoh released the Hebrews. I understand there are a couple of theories but I haven't acquainted myself with the scholarship so I'm not qualified to comment.

And again why didn't they have a Genealogy to the time of Jesus. Why did it quit being important?

That it stopped being important is not a necessary inference from an incomplete genealogy.

No it's not. It is however, important, if you intend to use the Bible as a source. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that the steps that move you from then to now are incomplete and have discontinuities. That being the case, than as an outsider looking in, it is insufficient for me. I can't point to a path from Moses to today. And that is the important link. All historical data is like that. And it gets worse the further back you go. But you can't take the mechanisms from science and make them explain something that they are not designed to explain. Technical Ben would like to say that there is to large and error bar when dating civilizations, but when it comes to Biblical dating you and he are in no better shape. The Hebrews did not do it better. There are no secondary sources that span the time of the Bible. Evidently Moses was given the story by God who wrote it on the tablets. But the tablets were destroyed and Moses can't be shown to exist. Help me with that.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests