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"
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.