Dating fossils and rock formations by scientific methods,

[Twilight Hue]

@shunyadragon

I just think that it should be mentioned that radiocarbon dating is used ONLY for organic materials, and only going back 55-60,000 years.

The vast majority of fossils are dated using other methods. Radiometrically dating the rocks of the layer in which they are found can be done with such techniques as potassium–argon dating and uranium–lead dating. Uranium-lead dating is used for the very oldest rocks, and fossils have been found using this technique dating more than 3.5 billion years old.

Exactly. I was going to mention that but you beat me to the punch that there are many varieties and methods to date objects both organic and inorganic.

I think with time and increased technology those methods will just get better and better. There's no doubt with what we have it's pretty accurate , although there will be margins of error , I do think it hits the ballpark fairly decently.

 

[Dimi95]

There is just as much evidence for Thor or Odin as there is for magical Jesus.

Support your claim , explain how

No, the problem is that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence.. The days of the week, the months of the year and AD and BC only show what people believe. It is not evidence for the things that they believe.

You do not determine what does my mind understand , nor do i what your does.
I question your understanding , you question mine.
It seems to me that what tries to show up in the surface is the arrogance of your intellect.
I use the same robost language that you use.
It is called reverse psychology.

Again , Faith is crucial in what Christians identify as belief.
I do not reject your objection.

One thing that we cannot be sure of is what parts of the New Testament are the teachings of Jesus or not. We know that there have been additions.

Ok , i accept this.
But this is evidence more that The Bible is truth.
I will explain how, but first i need to know In what sense to you object the additions?

And there probably were some of his teachings taken out. If you mean what is wrong in the New Testament well number one there is the failed concept of substitutionary atonement.

So you think that it is petty to bother about sin and what is right and wrong?

 

[Dimi95]

Where do atheists do that? The reject the mythical parts of the Bible. That is true, but the "historical" parts do not even begin until some time after Exodus. Don't trust me, ask a historian. Historians, rightfully, treat all mythological claims equally. They ignore them. So when it comes to the magical events of the Trojan war, those events are ignored. They do the same for the Bible.

But when you accept the evidence for the existence of many Helenic teachers, do you apply the same standards as to the existence of Jesus?

Do you argue them the same way that you argue Jesus?

I just try to understand how you value evidence so i can procede in the discussion

 

[Subduction Zone]

Support your claim , explain how

How would I support it? There is no historical evidence for Thor or Odin. There is no historical evidence for magical Jesus. Yes, there is historical evidence for Jesus the man, but that is about it.

You do not determine what does my mind understand , nor do i what your does.
I question your understanding , you question mine.
It seems to me that what tries to show up in the surface is the arrogance of your intellect.
I use the same robost language that you use.
It is called reverse psychology.

I was not trying to do that. We were discussing evidence. What you posted was not evidence.

Again , Faith is crucial in what Christians identify as belief.
I do not reject your objection.

I do not deny that either. But faith is not a pathway to the truth.

Ok , i accept this.
But this is evidence more that The Bible is truth.
I will explain how, but first i need to know In what sense to you object the additions?

No, there really is not. Many people make the mistake of conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

So you think that it is petty to bother about sin and what is right and wrong?

Not at all. That is a very important human endeavor. And religion can help with that. It can also hinder. I have seen both right and wrong done in the "Name of God".

 

[Dimi95]

Not at all. That is a very important human endeavor. And religion can help with that. It can also hinder. I have seen both right and wrong done in the "Name of God".

It makes me happy hear that.
I orient myself in that direction.
To understand what is right and wrong.

I do agree with you that people have done right and wrong in the name Of God.
But that does not prove anything.
What does right represent in relation?
Or maybe consensus leads to what is right?

So i can't understand why you object it like this.

Christianity is oriented in seeking 'truth' , since Jesus claims to be truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not reject that


No do I reject that.
But it seems to me that some interpretations are eluding to the fact that how science works , everything should work.

No

It does not go that way.
Science does not explain everything , nor it tries to.
It has the comfort in its own definition.

Bold is terrible. Science never claims to explain everything.

No,Atheism has to do with questioning how valid is historical evidence.
The fault is when they falsify that with Science.

There is a problem with bringing atheism in the discussion here. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with academic history and science. If anything you are injecting intellectual 'poison' here.

Science has nothing to do with faith.
You reject that , you reject science by definition.

Science by definition does not deal with faith, truth or religious beliefs.You made statements claiming science made claims of truth.

That is why is based on faith , not on evidence.

The definition of evidence.

I agree as i said , but i do not understand why you bring that argument up?
What does it explain?


It seems to me that you are not comfortable talking outside of the domain of Science , Why is that?

I am comfortable with science, because that is the subject of the thread, In terms of the objective academic disciplines of history and archaeology I am very comfortable.

As far as the subjective belief of religion I am comfortable as long as we keep them separate, and do not mess around with subjective beliefs such as atheism and your misinformation concerning science.

I think that you have misunderstood what i am trying to argue.

Than be clear. You have made a lot misinformation statements concerning science and academic history. This creates a high fog index.

But that belief identifies evidence only in the domain of Science.

NO

I refuse to belive in evidence defined only by Science.

Look up the definition of evidence and what is an experiment and not come up with your own definitions, This high school English.
Science is not the only way evidence applies. Science does not define evidence.

What do you see false there?


I don't argue your objection , but i am satisfied with the definition i use.

Look up the definition of experiment and avoid personal definitions that fail to communicate.

Ok , does consciousness make Reality real?
How deep can we go in defining consciousness?

Changing the subject, but nonetheless I had a long comprehensive thread here describing the vast evidence of the relationship of the brain and consciousness common to all higher animals including humans.

You have failed to deal effectively with the issues of the thread concerning dating methods and bad misinformation ocncerning science.

Yes , sure i follow it myself.
I do not reffer only to the example that we talked about in previous topic , there are other studies also.


I find it usefull to contemplate the highest good on continual basis.
I'm trying to keep myself in that direction.
It's religious definition , fundementally.


2 Timothy 3:16-17


How is my argument objecting that?


I agree



Define how objective is more reliable then subjective.

By definition objectively verifiable evidence is consistent, and as in science universal consensus,

Subjective by definition is 'of the mind only' and as with religions very low consensus with many diverse conflicting religions

Do you think that emotions are useless in arguments?

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It makes me happy hear that.
I orient myself in that direction.
To understand what is right and wrong.

I do agree with you that people have done right and wrong in the name Of God.
But that does not prove anything.
What does right represent in relation?
Or maybe consensus leads to what is right?

So i can't understand why you object it like this.

Christianity is oriented in seeking 'truth' , since Jesus claims to be truth.

Some Christians are searching for the truth. But clearly not all. I have no problem with most Christians. It is Christians with a minority viewpoint that I hold in disdain at times.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Support your claim , explain how

I think you may have misunderstood him. I believe the point he was making is that just as there is no real evidence for Thor or Odin, there is no real evidence for Jesus (btw, I do not share that view). What evidence is there for Thor? Myths and legends. What evidence is there of Jesus? The gospels are ALSO myths and legends that the authors collected decades after Jesus' death.

Personally, I do think Jesus existed, and that is the consensus of most scholars. I studied under Dr. Robert Eisenman, a world renowned expert on the DDS and author of "James the brother of Jesus." Basically his line of reasoning goes like this: we have ample evidence of the existence of James, and James devoted his life to his brother Jesus, thus we can be confident that this brother existed.

But we cannot base what we know about Jesus on the gospels just as we can't assume the existence of Thor simply from Nordic myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you may have misunderstood him. I believe the point he was making is that just as there is no real evidence for Thor or Odin, there is no real evidence for Jesus (btw, I do not share that view). What evidence is there for Thor? Myths and legends. What evidence is there of Jesus? The gospels are ALSO myths and legends that the authors collected decades after Jesus' death.

No, I did not deny the existence of Jesus. I only have problems with mythical Jesus. As you pointed out the Gospels are far too often mythical. They may have some of his teachings, but at least one of his most famous teachings was shown to be a later addition.

Personally, I do think Jesus existed, and that is the consensus of most scholars. I studied under Dr. Robert Eisenman, a world renowned expert on the DDS and author of "James the brother of Jesus." Basically his line of reasoning goes like this: we have ample evidence of the existence of James, and James devoted his life to his brother Jesus, thus we can be confident that this brother existed.

But we cannot base what we know about Jesus on the gospels just as we can't assume the existence of Thor simply from Nordic myths.

And I too agree that the man probably existed. He probably did have a good sized following. And he probably was crucified.

 

[Dimi95]

Bold is terrible. Science never claims to explain everything.

Finally , we agree

There is a problem with bringing atheism in the discussion here. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with academic history and science. If anything you are injecting intellectual 'poison' here.

Let's put atheism aside.
I am always for consensus when it is reasoned.

Science by definition does not deal with faith, truth or religious beliefs.You made statements claiming science made claims of truth.

This is not the first time that you interprete what i claim.
Please avoid to use that further.

I accept that Science does not deal with truth.

The definition of evidence.

The definition of faith:
"Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

I am comfortable with science, because that is the subject of the thread, In terms of the objective academic disciplines of history and archaeology I am very comfortable.

Then it is more clear to me that you don't understand my critic.
I don't reject how Science operates.

As far as the subjective belief of religion I am comfortable as long as we keep them separate, and do not mess around with subjective beliefs such as atheism and your misinformation concerning science.

I do not have problem with that.
I never claimed that i understand science any different from how you understand it.


I don't argue the methods that you use , i argue the accuracy of the methods.

Than be clear. You have made a lot misinformation statements concerning science and academic history. This creates a high fog index.

Again , you interpete claims in my name.

Look up the definition of evidence and what is an experiment and not come up with your own definitions, This high school English.
Science is not the only way evidence applies. Science does not define evidence.

What of : My belief is based on faith , do you not understand?
You want me to refute what i say by definition?

Look up the definition of experiment and avoid personal definitions that fail to communicate.

I won't take your advice , i am sorry.
I have a reason for that.
It has to do with how you interpete the Bible.
It says to me that you don't value evidence with the same standard.
I don't see consensus here.

Changing the subject, but nonetheless I had a long comprehensive thread here describing the vast evidence of the relationship of the brain and consciousness common to all higher animals including humans.

We will speak about it , i just could't help myself answering the challange.
I have notes on my laptop , as i said you will get your answers when i go back home and re-study everything.I am still in my homeland

But i don't mind discussing it.

I don't mind if i am wrong , but as i said that does not answer one of the most important questions for us as individuals.
It does not explain Human Genesis.

You have failed to deal effectively with the issues of the thread concerning dating methods and bad misinformation ocncerning science.

Where does dating methods leads to?
Tell me that
I tried to open 'Truth' with you in the way that you decide , but you avoid that.Why?

By definition objectively verifiable evidence is consistent, and as in science universal consensus,

Subjective by definition is 'of the mind only' and as with religions very low consensus with many diverse conflicting religions

The mind is the consceous product of evolution , and you reject that? Why ?
You reject that the mind is capable of defining by definition.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, I did not deny the existence of Jesus. I only have problems with mythical Jesus. As you pointed out the Gospels are far too often mythical. They may have some of his teachings, but at least one of his most famous teachings was shown to be a later addition.

And I too agree that the man probably existed. He probably did have a good sized following. And he probably was crucified.

Sounds like we are totally on the same page.

 

[Dimi95]

No, I did not deny the existence of Jesus. I only have problems with mythical Jesus. As you pointed out the Gospels are far too often mythical. They may have some of his teachings, but at least one of his most famous teachings was shown to be a later addition.

That openes another domain of questions that can't be releated only to Science
You say that is magic.You identify it like such
In the same way Joseph understood how babies come into existence.

And I too agree that the man probably existed. He probably did have a good sized following. And he probably was crucified.

So my question is , why do you identify that as magic , when most probably in that time the people considered it just like you ? It was not normal for them , what they witnessed according to Scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That openes another domain of questions that can't be releated only to Science
You say that is magic.You identify it like such
In the same way Joseph understood how babies come into existence.

And that part of the Gospel is probably false. If you studied the Gospels at all you would know that the two Nativity myths contradict each other quite heavily.

So my question is , why do you identify that as magic , when most probably in that time the people considered it just like you ? It was not normal for them , what they witnessed according to Scripture.

You have to be careful in your claims. The Bible is not based upon eyewitness testimony. It is oral tradition that eventually got written down. The closest you have are some of the epistles in the Bible.

 

[Dimi95]

And that part of the Gospel is probably false. If you studied the Gospels at all you would know that the two Nativity myths contradict each other quite heavily.

Where does the Bible say that it needs to be interpreted as literal?
It does not lead to such rule in any way.

You have to be careful in your claims. The Bible is not based upon eyewitness testimony. It is oral tradition that eventually got written down. The closest you have are some of the epistles in the Bible.

We know for certain that people used to belive that Jesus was crucified and ressurected from the dead.They were persecuted for that.There is evidence in history for that,in the Roman Senate , more precisly

Tradition is what preserved that belief.
You probably don't know that from the 200'000 letters of the Church Fathers we can easily make the Bible.
We don't need the Greek and the Latin Manuscripts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That openes another domain of questions that can't be releated only to Science
You say that is magic.You identify it like such
In the same way Joseph understood how babies come into existence.


So my question is , why do you identify that as magic , when most probably in that time the people considered it just like you ? It was not normal for them , what they witnessed according to Scripture.

Now I haven't followed the entire discussion, so maybe magic was mentioned earlier. But there was no mention of magic in the post that you quoted. Magic is essentially the idea that you can alter reality without direct intervention, such as with mere words, thoughts, or the use of symbols. It really has nothing to do with myth or legends. So fill me in. What am I missing here?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where does the Bible say that it needs to be interpreted as literal?
It does not lead to such rule in any way.

If you understand that the birth narratives of Jesus are myths, you are ten steps ahead. The contradictions between the stories are only significant if a person believes the stories to be historical.

We know for certain that people used to belive that Jesus was crucified and ressurected from the dead.They were persecuted for that.There is evidence in history for that,in the Roman Senate , more precisly

Tradition is what preserved that belief.
You probably don't know that from the 200'000 letters of the Church Fathers we can easily make the Bible.
We don't need the Greek and the Latin Manuscripts.

There are actually plenty of public records to support the fact that certain Roman emperors really persecuted Christians. I don't think anyone really disagrees with you here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does the Bible say that it needs to be interpreted as literal?
It does not lead to such rule in any way.

Your comment about Joseph indicated that that is what you were doing.

We know for certain that people used to belive that Jesus was crucified and ressurected from the dead.They were persecuted for that.There is evidence in history for that,in the Roman Senate , more precisly

It is true that many believed that. And yes, at times there was some persecution of Christians. Please note "some". And I agreed that he was probably crucified. The thieves that were in some of the crucifixion accounts, probably not. Crucifixion was a punishment for state crimes. But as to the resurrection, many Republicans believe today that Trump won. About forty years ago many people believed that Elvis did not die. And that is in the age of modern communications when we can know facts very easily.

Tradition is what preserved that belief.
You probably don't know that from the 200'000 letters of the Church Fathers we can easily make the Bible.
We don't need the Greek and the Latin Manuscripts.

Maybe, but I doubt it. You cannot count just the hits. You would have to look to see how many errors were in those letters too. It is even worse if you are counting near quotes because then you would have to see how many far off quotes that there were. If I let you keep only the hits and ignore the misses than you probably could do it. But if you had no clue as to what the Bible said you could end up with a very different book if you used just letters.

 

[Dimi95]

Your comment about Joseph indicated that that is what you were doing.

I don't think that you are interested in how i explain the different accounts of Scripture so i will leave that.

The difference between him and you is that you have the tools to explain that.Am i wrong?

It is true that many believed that. And yes, at times there was some persecution of Christians. Please note "some". And I agreed that he was probably crucified. The thieves that were in some of the crucifixion accounts, probably not. Crucifixion was a punishment for state crimes. But as to the resurrection, many Republicans believe today that Trump won. About forty years ago many people believed that Elvis did not die. And that is in the age of modern communications when we can know facts very easily.

I just find it hard to understand how your point relates with the analogy that you try to explain to me.
It does not have any simularity in what you try to explain.

Many people belive also that Tupac is still alive.
But you don't have 500 people in the same time who belive that Tupac is still alive.
I know that is evidence from Scripture , but still the concept od evidence is not the same.

Maybe, but I doubt it. You cannot count just the hits. You would have to look to see how many errors were in those letters too. It is even worse if you are counting near quotes because then you would have to see how many far off quotes that there were. If I let you keep only the hits and ignore the misses than you probably could do it. But if you had no clue as to what the Bible said you could end up with a very different book if you used just letters.

I accept your critic , and i understand why you question it like that.

What really amazes me is how that Book is still perserved today , and not in the trash.

And i can reason with your questioning.
But i can't reason with your understanding.
We have the choice to belive in what we belive.

Nevertheless , i am sorry for offending your intellect in some sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many people belive also that Tupac is still alive.

Fascinating. I did not know that. I know that some people think Elvis is not dead and report seeing him.

But you don't have 500 people in the same time who belive that Tupac is still alive.

But here is the rub -- you don't know that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time. You have a STORY about it that is not reliable.

I know that is evidence from Scripture , but still the concept od evidence is not the same.

Generally speaking, religious texts are just not reliable sources for history. Historians prefer authors who were there at the event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that you are interested in how i explain the different accounts of Scripture so i will leave that.

The difference between him and you is that you have the tools to explain that.Am i wrong?


I just find it hard to understand how your point relates with the analogy that you try to explain to me.
It does not have any simularity in what you try to explain.

Many people belive also that Tupac is still alive.
But you don't have 500 people in the same time who belive that Tupac is still alive.
I know that is evidence from Scripture , but still the concept od evidence is not the same.


I accept your critic , and i understand why you question it like that.

What really amazes me is how that Book is still perserved today , and not in the trash.

And i can reason with your questioning.
But i can't reason with your understanding.
We have the choice to belive in what we belive.

Nevertheless , i am sorry for offending your intellect in some sense.

Oh no, we have disagreements but they are bridgeable. I can see that you want to believe and the Bible is not without merit. I just don't like what I see as abuse of words such as "evidence". The best way I can phrase it is to say "Evidence is not necessarily what would convince me, but what would convince other rational thinkers. If it only convinces me then I do not think that it should count as evidence.