|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 11/18/2004 : 19:16:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
Okay, so if we took an extremely conservative view of the chronology (going for Ultra-Low and keeping the Guti Period at 40 years) we could arrive at a date of 2200 BC for the beginning of the reign of Sargon. This would be about 100-150 after the Flood. This does indeed cut it close, but I would like to do some research myself. Another town in the state has a copy of Ancient Mesopotamia, I'll see if I can get it through an interlibrary loan. Otherwise, it'll probably be very hard or impossible to get out-of-state loans due to the fact that I live in Alaska.
Well, that's the trick isn't it? The reality, though, is that there are serious problems with the Ultra-low chronology, including the authors' rather baseless assumptions about how quickly pottery does or does not change over time.
They also look for anstronomical anchors based on what amounts to literary descriptions of astronomical events that happened near the death of an un-named king. They assume that this un-named king must be the second (and most famous) king of the Ur III dynasty, but this is very much based on conjecture.
There are other more techinical issues that I need not go into. The point is that not all interpretations of data should be treated as equal. And in that vain, I will say that Hallo's shorter Guti chronology seems to be the right one. But as for the fall of Babylon, the debate still seems to be High, Middle or Low, as Ultra-low is just to flimsy.
And lastly, do have a look at Oppenheim's Ancient Mesopotamia if you can, but it's probably not going to aid you too much in this specific quest. Unfortunately, in order to really tackle this problem on your own you're going to need a) access to a major university library; b) reading knowledge of German; c) knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian; and d) knowlege of how/where important information is published.
This isn't to say that you can't investigate. Rather, I'm suggesting that at some point, you're going to have to reply on the expertise of others. As much as I hate it, when I want to follow the latest in biology or physics or medicine I have to trust the various experts in those fields (and countless others!) and hope that their checks and balances are working so I get the latest and best information.
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2004 : 23:17:57 [Permalink]
|
Well, I have a question for you Hippy...
What evidence, other than the biblical story, is there for the flood? Surely there would be massive and widescale geological evidence for a flood that covered the entire world? A flood of that magnitude would leave behind unmistakable evidence.
I think your looking at the issue from the wrong angle. If you want to know how most people here would start to look at a claim like the flood, it would start out with something like, "Ok, what evidence do you have to support the claim that the entire surface of the world was covered in water less than 6000 years ago?"
It seems to me as if your trying to find some historical account that fits with what you already believe to be true. That approach denies the critical examination required by skeptics. It also is a basically dishonest act. It's never ok to take one bit of data that fits your theory, ignore the rest, and claim that you are right. (not that I'm saying that's what your doing, but it seems like your heading that way to me)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2004 : 10:56:27 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Of course. I don't think that any large portion of archeologists pick and choose C-14 dates on a regular basis, I'm just reminding everyone to keep that option open.
And I'm just reminding you, in return, to keep open the option that any picking and choosing may be greatly exagerrated by creationist authors.quote:
I do have a question about that web page you provided. About a third of the way down the page we come to table 1 which gives a list of C-14 dates for an Egyptian graveyard ranging from 4950 BP (before present) to 4505 BP. It then goes on to say that this indicates that the graveyard was used between about 3800 and 3090 BC. Wouldn't 4950 BP be about 3000 BC, and 4505 BP about 2500 BC?
Look at what the text, and the table itself, says:Twelve radiocarbon dates were obtained (Table 1)... Using Bayesian methods to combine dates calibrated with the OxCal program (Bayes, 1763; Iverson, 1984; see Bronk-Ramsey, 1995), Savage concluded that there were four radiocarbon-based use phases in Cemetery N7000 (Table 2), indicating that the cemetery was most likely in use between about 3800 and 3090 BC. I emphazied the one word, because the 4505 - 4950 range listed in the table itself is in a column marked "uncalibrated" with a footnote saying, "Libby half life (5568 years)." Most references on C14 dating one can find list the C14 half life as being 5730 years, however.
In short, without knowing exactly what Bayesian methods were used, how the dates were calibrated, the reason for the different half-life value, and what the OxCal program does, it's impossible to state with any certainty that there is a discrepancy at all. The process is obviously not as simple as subtracting the uncalibrated C14 ages from the current year. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2004 : 16:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
If I was certain that the creation account was dead wrong I would probably give up my faith.
Cuneiformist:
Okay, let's go with Low chronology for the time being.
quote:
I'm suggesting that at some point, you're going to have to reply on the expertise of others.
Yes, since we can't know everything, we must eventually rely on the experts, but which ones? There's Creationist experts who disagree with secular experts. So yes, I will eventually rely on an expert, but I'm going to question more than most other people do.
Another question: what date is assigned to the rise of the Persian empire? Specifically, when they capture Babylon and return the Jews to Jerusalem. I ask because Old Testament chronology is pretty well established up to about that point, so most dates in the OT are made using that point as a reference. I think that my Bible commentary gives the date at approximately 530 BC.
Also, what external sources cross-reference the Sargonic Dynasty? I found the Sumerian King list at this site:
http://www.jameswbell.com/a002kinglist.html
Is this the origin for the Sargonic Dynasty? Obviously both of us would call the first dates a mythological fantasy, but how do secular archeologists determine where fantasy ends and fact begins?
It occurs to me that the Bible itself should be considered even by the secular to be an archeological witness equal to any other single witness. That is, if there is a disagreement between the Bible and one other text about a certain event, the Bible should not automatically be considered wrong, more texts should be considered. I'll search for other texts that mention Bible events and see if I find corresponding dates.
Here's a little something that you might find of interest. There is a reference in the Bible to Akkad (spelled Accad) in Genesis 10:10.
Dude:
quote:
It seems to me as if your trying to find some historical account that fits with what you already believe to be true.
Yes, I am doing that.
quote:
It's never ok to take one bit of data that fits your theory, ignore the rest, and claim that you are right.
I am not doing that. I fully agree that I am not being skeptical towards my faith, what I am doing is examining it to see if it can be disproven. And if I find that it can't be disproven, I will not claim that to be evidence of proof. The reason why I am not skeptical towards my faith is because my family has had certain experiences which give me reason to have faith, and not be a complete skeptic. Not everyone else has had such experiences, and I do not expect someone to have faith on the basis of someone else's experience. I will deal with the issue of the Flood after this current issue is concluded.
Dave:
You mentioned the Bayesian method and OxCal programs. Are there other methods that are valid but could give a different date? For instance, at this site I found several different methods.
http://www.archeodroit.net/anthro/Texts/14Clabs.html
One of the sites listed had a quick-calibrator that didn't use the Bayesian method. I put in a date listed from the Doc Savage site and recieved a date not much further from the one previously listed. But still, if there are two different valid methods, how do you choose which one to use? I would assume that some Creationist couldn't just write up a calibration program that suited his purposes, but what makes the current programs valid?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 11/28/2004 18:13:14 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2004 : 18:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
Okay, let's go with Low chronology for the time being.
Fair enough.
quote:
quote:
I'm suggesting that at some point, you're going to have to reply on the expertise of others.
Yes, since we can't know everything, we must eventually rely on the experts, but which ones? There's Creationist experts who disagree with secular experts. So yes, I will eventually rely on an expert, but I'm going to question more than most other people do.
True, though I would disagree with the notion that a Creationist scholar is an "expert" on the history of the ancient Near East.
quote:
Another question: what date is assigned to the rise of the Persian empire? Specifically, when they capture Babylon and return the Jews to Jerusalem. I ask because Old Testament chronology is pretty well established up to about that point, so most dates in the OT are made using that point as a reference. I think that my Bible commentary gives the date at approximately 530 BC.
My sources put the fall of the Neo-Babylonian empire to 539. I haven't checked how they get that number, but I've no doubt that it's more or less correct. Indeed, I'd wager that it might be possible to date it to a specific day!
quote:
Also, what external sources cross-reference the Sargonic Dynasty? It occurs to me that the Bible itself should be considered even by the secular to be an archeological witness equal to any other single witness. That is, if there is a disagreement between the Bible and one other text about a certain event, the Bible should not automatically be considered wrong, more texts should be considered. I'll search for other texts that mention Bible events and see if I find corresponding dates.
I'm not sure what you mean by "external sources" here. We have lots of independant documents which reference Sargon, or the Sargonic period, from literary manuscripts to royal inscriptions to economic documents.
This is different from the Bible, which is a literary/historical document written long after many of the events it describes happened. For that reason, scholars are hesistant to favor, say, the events of Exodus as decribed in the Bible over a contermporary Egyptian document. But certainly there is extra-Biblical evidence that describes Biblical events. They just happen to be from the first millennium, and not from the ones we're interested in for this discussion.
quote:
Here's a little something that you might find of interest. There is a reference in the Bible to Akkad (spelled Accad) in Genesis 10:10.
Indeed-- the Biblical "shinar" is probably a corruption of Sumer, and the three cities listed-- Akkad, Babylon, and Uruk, were some of the most famous in southern Mesopotamia. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2004 : 22:27:15 [Permalink]
|
Here's a site which is right on the money for your questions, Hippy. The project won't be completed until next year sometime, and so bits of the web site are still under construction, but it's a database of near-East C14 ages. For example, follow the link, then click on ".site" near the top. Click the drop-down which says "no region," and pick "15 Upper Mesopotamia (54)," and then click the "search" button. On the 8th line down, you'll see "215" on the left, and on the right a little red "40." Click the "40" to show 40 C14 dates taken in Cayönü, by various people at various times and in various contexts.
Two of the columns are of particular interest, as they demonstrate the uncertainties known to be involved with dating and calibration: CalBC68 and CalBC95. If I'm reading all this stuff correctly, the first column shows the calibrated C14 age range for which there is a 68% certainty. In other words, if it says "4660 +- 80," the dating methods says that there's only a 68% chance that the actual age is between 4740 and 4580. The next column, CalBC95, is the 95% confidence range, and for the same line, it's much larger: "4820 - 4500." So, that charcoal (ID 700) can only confidently be dated to sometime within a 320-year span of time, and there's a 1-in-20 chance that it's outside that range.quote:
You mentioned the Bayesian method and OxCal programs. Are there other methods that are valid but could give a different date? For instance, at this site I found several different methods.
http://www.archeodroit.net/anthro/Texts/14Clabs.html
One of the sites listed had a quick-calibrator that didn't use the Bayesian method. I put in a date listed from the Doc Savage site and recieved a date not much further from the one previously listed. But still, if there are two different valid methods, how do you choose which one to use?
I would assume (and I'm no expert in this, but am learning some stuff thanks to you) that the decision to use one calibration program over another would be based on how the sample was collected, what it's made of, how old one might guess it is, and/or numerous other factors I haven't thought of. Again, this isn't simple stuff.quote:
I would assume that some Creationist couldn't just write up a calibration program that suited his purposes...
Oh, I'm sure a suitably-skilled creationist could create a calibration database which would demonstrate that there aren't any C14 ages over 6,008 years, but it would probably be shown - by suitably skilled (and probably Christian) C14 experts - to be based upon fraudulent data quite quickly.quote:
...but what makes the current programs valid?
I would assume it's because they don't generate ages outside the error range of either the other programs, other dating methods, or other contemporary samples.
I mean, these programs (and their databases) are being used because we know, through other data we've got, that the ratio of C14 to C12 has varied in the atmosphere throughout time. If the ratio had been constant, then we could just take the raw age based on the amount of C14 left in a sample, and subtract it from today's date.
Actually, here is a good description of C14 calibration.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2004 : 02:08:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not doing that. I fully agree that I am not being skeptical towards my faith, what I am doing is examining it to see if it can be disproven. And if I find that it can't be disproven, I will not claim that to be evidence of proof.
Again, this is not logical. What your doing is the equivilent of a crime investigator starting off by saying that "I know Joe did this crime, now I'll just look at the evidence and prove it."
Instead, it should be, "I will examine this evidence and attempt to determine who did this crime."
If you start with the former mindset, odds are you will "prove" that Joe did the crime.
So, in essence, unless you are going to apply some logic and critical thinking standards to your investigation, why bother? If you are comfortable with your faith, and you don't see the problems.... just go with it. On the other hand, if you are seeing the inconsitencies and problems (especially with YEC), then you are doing yourself a disservice by not applying the tools (logic/critical thinking) available to the problem at hand.
And about that flood.... do you say you have some evidence? Please, share.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2004 : 04:07:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I am not doing that. I fully agree that I am not being skeptical towards my faith, what I am doing is examining it to see if it can be disproven. And if I find that it can't be disproven, I will not claim that to be evidence of proof.
Again, this is not logical. What your doing is the equivilent of a crime investigator starting off by saying that "I know Joe did this crime, now I'll just look at the evidence and prove it."
Instead, it should be, "I will examine this evidence and attempt to determine who did this crime."
If you start with the former mindset, odds are you will "prove" that Joe did the crime.
I don't agree here Dude.
Hippy has a hypothesis (that his faith is true) and tries to disprove it. (Not prove it as you wrote.)
(I'm guessing that its not the falsify-ability that he investigates.)
He does not claim that a failure means that his hypothesis is proven.
As long as the attempt to disprove is honest, (we are of course all biased towards our pet hypotheses) this seems reasonable to me.
"I think Joe did this crime, but lets look at the evidence and see if I can prove that it was impossible for him to be the culprit."
Maybe not the best way for the crime investigator in charge of a case to act, but a reasonable approach when it comes to your own hypotheses.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2004 : 05:18:49 [Permalink]
|
| You are missing the point starman, Faith implies lack of evidence so attempting to prove faith is an oxymoron. Really all we can do is say, My faith requires faith or I will make a determination based on data. really the only two options. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2004 : 06:03:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
You are missing the point starman,
I have not followed this thread the last two weeks.
My post was based on the Dudes reply to the quote he included.quote:
Faith implies lack of evidence so attempting to prove faith is an oxymoron. Really all we can do is say, My faith requires faith or I will make a determination based on data. really the only two options.
But the issue in my post, was not about Hippy proving his faith.
It was about him trying to disprove what he believe on faith.
Btw,
The act of trying to prove ones faith is not an oxymoron.
If you find that the facts support what you believed on faith then its not faith anymore.
[Edit for spellllling] |
| Edited by - Starman on 12/01/2004 06:09:22 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2004 : 09:16:13 [Permalink]
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6661424/
Evidence of 9,000 year old fermented beverages in China. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2004 : 09:20:59 [Permalink]
|
On the other note: I think we are just beating each other with bags of semantics :)
Really what I was trying to say is that you cannot prove something which requires faith in a lack of evidence, because just trying to do so shows your lack of faith, Catch-22 like. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2004 : 11:08:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6661424/
Evidence of 9,000 year old fermented beverages in China.
That proves the importance of beer to society... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2004 : 11:30:10 [Permalink]
|
| Clearly more information is needed, maybe this just signified the beginning of the end... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2004 : 12:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
That proves the importance of beer to society...
Actually, Siberia, there's been a long debate about the role of beer in the shift of humans from hunter-gatherers to sedentary dwellers in the ancient Near East. Unfortunately, I don't have the references in front of me, but it's something to think about. In any case, regardless of its impact on the human settlement patterns in Mesopotamia, it had a large role nonetheless-- beer's a fun, safe and easy way to get calories! (Unfortunately, the whole calorie thing is still in effect today...  ) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
