God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[metis]

Not at all. They are learned people. But do you understand why it takes six years of study? Because it's not just "measure what's there and extrapolate based on time/half-lives." There are QUITE a number of mitigating factors and assumptions.

That's complete nonsense. As an anthropologist, I've been using research data from these research scientists for almost 50 years, and I long ago investigated this issue of reliability.

What makes your assertions so ludicrous is the fact that, more often then not, one dating technique can cross check another. Where there are mitigating factors is mainly in terms of, not so much the dating technique, but what exactly is being tested.

 

[viole]

It's like dating a proto-human to two million years when we know carbon dating won't stretch back that far.

True. But how do we know that? By following the same principles that allow us to use other dating methods that go far beyond that?

Do you think the radioactive dating systems that allow us to measure the age of the earth as billions of years old are unreliable? If yes, then what makes you think that the carbon based methods that do not go beyond several thousands of years are?

Iow, Are you using physics only when you find it convenient for your beliefs?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Are you using physics only when you find it convenient for your beliefs?

Yes and its rather hypocritical.

When it supports the bible he is all in

 

[gnostic]

First it is this:

Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago. --History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism - Prof. W F. Albright

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1973/02/quotations-from-prof.-w-f.-albrights-writings

Then this:

Unsubstantiated rhetoric....

Denver wrote...."A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region".... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html

You do realise Albright was claiming that everything in the bible to be true - historically and archaeologically - including the stories of the Patriarchs, Moses and Joshua?

The word "true" as been verified, and yet Albright had provided no evidences to support the Genesis, Exodus and Joshua (book), to be true. If Albright has no evidences, then he can't have very well demonstrated that he has "substantial historicity".

There are things you should be aware of: history and archaeology might be closely related, but they are two distinctive fields.

1. History deal with written records. History can be short as inscriptions on the some coins or inscriptions on statues (or statuettes), on paintings, or on the walls of tombs, etc; these types of records (referring to inscriptions only) are also archaeological evidences. History is not just on those as surviving letters or books or scrolls or tablets. And the only way that you can "confirm" history of any event or any specific person, is finding independent historical records, to the one you are researching and investigating. Meaning that it required at least TWO sources, that are independent to each other, but the more independent sources there are, the better it is, to verify certain person exist or certain events happened, the way they have been described.
2. Archaeology deal with artifacts discovered. This could be small as minted coin, or as large as a city. You could verify if certain person exist if there are inscriptions on public buildings (like temples) or private buildings (eg palaces, villa, etc), tombs (pyramids) or coffins, minted coins, artistic portrays (paintings, statues), etc. If you can identify a person to physical objects or sites, then it required names inscribe somewhere.

History and archaeology can go hand-in-hand, together, but that sometimes it isn't possible. And sometimes, smaller, movable objects get lost or destroyed.

But in the matter of Moses, there are no evidences to support, and even Dever had even admitted that being the case, when he wrote "archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region..."

But this is where Dever also make a poor archaeologist.

Even though, he accept that archaeology cannot provide evidences for Moses' existence, as being a real historical person, Dever stated:

"A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose...

"A Moses-like figure may have existed...", and again, I will repeat what you have highlighted or emphasized with bold - "may have existed". Do you know what "may have existed" means to me?

It tell me, that Dever is not or has not in any way demonstrated that Moses was a real living person, who was responsible for what the Exodus (and other related books), say or did. This "may have existed", is not a confirmation or validation that Moses was a real person, or the events (eg. the 10 plagues, parting of the Red Sea (or sea of reeds), liberation from slavery and exodus out of Egypt, the Ten Commandments, and Joshua's invasion in Canaan) happened in "southern Transjordan" the way those scriptures say they did.

This "may have existed" is not a ringing endorsement that Moses was a real, living person of Exodus. This may have could also be "may not have". And this "may have existed" is nothing more than speculative statement, which is no different from personal opinion or personal belief. Dever haven't shown that any Moses-like figure existed, just that "may have".

You quoting what Dever from what said in that webpage, showed that Dever definitely did not agree with Albright's modern (biblical) archaeology from the other webpage that you had quoted.

Only a few handful can be archaeologically or historically verified from the bible, but none of them come from the 1st 10 or so books (referring from Genesis to 2 Samuel).

That Dever's book have berated archaeologists for rejecting the historicity of Moses, because there are no evidences, just showed that Dever is relying more on faith in the scriptures, more than archaeological evidences, which make him a pathetic archaeologist, who don't really deserve that title.

Archaeologists have to rely on the evidences available to them, not on wishful thinking. And Dever is making wishful statements and claims in his books that he cannot verify to being "true".

I'm just wondering how many more phony, or at the very least incompetent, archaeologists you are going to quote?

 

[Parsimony]

But much of the evidence is self-supporting/circular.

Examples?

If we wish to question the dates of Lincoln's presidency, we have documents and historians abounding. If we wish to create a new methodology of dating Earth rocks, we are in serious trouble unless our methods turn out dates that conform to what is considered kosher.

Dating rocks is based on verified scientific principles. Decay rates are not known to significantly vary under any reasonable physical circumstances. A nuclear fission chain reaction could speed it up, but it would also destroy the rock containing the isotopes (and natural enrichment of fissile isotopes is almost always too low for that). Isochron plots and mixing plots tell whether or not a rock has lost or gained isotopes. Also, checking different dating methods against each other increases their trustworthiness if they match, since they it is extremely unlikely that two independent decay processes would coincidentally yield the same age if they were not trustworthy.

It's like dating a proto-human to two million years when we know carbon dating won't stretch back that far. We look at the rocks nearby where the skeletal remains are found and then date those to two million years. These are relatively unverifiable, untestifiable findings (without a time machine) and then we present white papers where scientists agree the skeletal remains are two million years old because they are found near similar rocks near skeletons also dated to two million years.

Other dating methods would be used for that, such as potassium-argon or uranium-lead. Whether the dates are accurate for the skeleton depends on what you mean by "near" the rocks. The skeleton would obviously have to be in the same layer as the dated rocks to be valid.

I'm trying to keep myself calm and you, but some of what you call science is partly science and partly pseudoscience!

Good, being calm is the best way to debate. I have yet to see you demonstrate radiometric dating to be pseudoscience, though.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yawn

First it is this:



Then this:



You do realise Albright was claiming that everything in the bible to be true - historically and archaeologically - including the stories of the Patriarchs, Moses and Joshua?

The word "true" as been verified, and yet Albright had provided no evidences to support the Genesis, Exodus and Joshua (book), to be true. If Albright has no evidences, then he can't have very well demonstrated that he has "substantial historicity".

There are things you should be aware of: history and archaeology might be closely related, but they are two distinctive fields.

1. History deal with written records. History can be short as inscriptions on the some coins or inscriptions on statues (or statuettes), on paintings, or on the walls of tombs, etc; these types of records (referring to inscriptions only) are also archaeological evidences. History is not just on those as surviving letters or books or scrolls or tablets. And the only way that you can "confirm" history of any event or any specific person, is finding independent historical records, to the one you are researching and investigating. Meaning that it required at least TWO sources, that are independent to each other, but the more independent sources there are, the better it is, to verify certain person exist or certain events happened, the way they have been described.
2. Archaeology deal with artifacts discovered. This could be small as minted coin, or as large as a city. You could verify if certain person exist if there are inscriptions on public buildings (like temples) or private buildings (eg palaces, villa, etc), tombs (pyramids) or coffins, minted coins, artistic portrays (paintings, statues), etc. If you can identify a person to physical objects or sites, then it required names inscribe somewhere.

History and archaeology can go hand-in-hand, together, but that sometimes it isn't possible. And sometimes, smaller, movable objects get lost or destroyed.

But in the matter of Moses, there are no evidences to support, and even Dever had even admitted that being the case, when he wrote "archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region..."

But this is where Dever also make a poor archaeologist.

Even though, he accept that archaeology cannot provide evidences for Moses' existence, as being a real historical person, Dever stated:


"A Moses-like figure may have existed...", and again, I will repeat what you have highlighted or emphasized with bold - "may have existed". Do you know what "may have existed" means to me?

It tell me, that Dever is not or has not in any way demonstrated that Moses was a real living person, who was responsible for what the Exodus (and other related books), say or did. This "may have existed", is not a confirmation or validation that Moses was a real person, or the events (eg. the 10 plagues, parting of the Red Sea (or sea of reeds), liberation from slavery and exodus out of Egypt, the Ten Commandments, and Joshua's invasion in Canaan) happened in "southern Transjordan" the way those scriptures say they did.

This "may have existed" is not a ringing endorsement that Moses was a real, living person of Exodus. This may have could also be "may not have". And this "may have existed" is nothing more than speculative statement, which is no different from personal opinion or personal belief. Dever haven't shown that any Moses-like figure existed, just that "may have".

You quoting what Dever from what said in that webpage, showed that Dever definitely did not agree with Albright's modern (biblical) archaeology from the other webpage that you had quoted.

Only a few handful can be archaeologically or historically verified from the bible, but none of them come from the 1st 10 or so books (referring from Genesis to 2 Samuel).

That Dever's book have berated archaeologists for rejecting the historicity of Moses, because there are no evidences, just showed that Dever is relying more on faith in the scriptures, more than archaeological evidences, which make him a pathetic archaeologist, who don't really deserve that title.

Archaeologists have to rely on the evidences available to them, not on wishful thinking. And Dever is making wishful statements and claims in his books that he cannot verify to being "true".

I'm just wondering how many more phony, or at the very least incompetent, archaeologists you are going to quote?

I do not know what your point is...I quoted Prof. Albright as an example of a scholar who put forward an opinion that Moses was a real entity and Denver is an example of a scholar who put forward the opinion that Moses may have been a real entity but he found no evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....

 

[gnostic]

I do not know what your point is...I quoted Prof. Albright as an example of a scholar who put forward an opinion that Moses was a real entity and Denver is an example of a scholar who put forward the opinion that Moses may have been a real entity but he found no evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....

If they both don't have evidences, then archaeologically, they are both only expressing their very speculative opinions. At least Dever understand that there are no evidences to support Moses, the exodus and the invasion of Canaan.

Opinions without evidences showed that neither of them have verified that Moses was a real person.

Archaeologists should rely on evidences, and neither Albright nor Dever should be call one. At best, they can be called biblical scholars, but they are incompetent as archaeologists and historians.

 

[outhouse]

...I quoted Prof. Albright

Whom you were quoted right back showing his work is now considered worthless.

Denver is an example of a scholar who put forward the opinion that Moses may have been a real entit

How honest is that?

He in NO WAY stated that,

he stated he leaves the possibility of a moses like character the oral traditions may have used. HE in NO WAY states moses may have been real.

He states there was no exodus or a possibility, so he has never stated moses may have been real.


What do we call people that state things they know are not true?

 

[gnostic]

That's complete nonsense. As an anthropologist, I've been using research data from these research scientists for almost 50 years, and I long ago investigated this issue of reliability.

What makes your assertions so ludicrous is the fact that, more often then not, one dating technique can cross check another. Where there are mitigating factors is mainly in terms of, not so much the dating technique, but what exactly is being tested.

BilliardsBall have neither the qualification, nor the experiences in this area (radiometric dating and nuclear physics).

I am quite sure he is basing his posts on some non-scientific, apologetic creationist webpages.

Everybody understand the limitations and the capabilities of each radiometric method, but creationists often focused on just one method.

And no matter how many times you tell him that you're an anthropologist, who have done research and have experiences in anthropology and archaeology, it would fall on deaf ears for most creationists.

Their own experiences in science are often very selective, and choose to argue with others in areas they have no experiences.

This is why I can't take creationists seriously...I really hate armchair apologists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If they both don't have evidences, then archaeologically, they are both only expressing their very speculative opinions. At least Dever understand that there are no evidences to support Moses, the exodus and the invasion of Canaan.

Opinions without evidences showed that neither of them have verified that Moses was a real person.

Archaeologists should rely on evidences, and neither Albright nor Dever should be call one. At best, they can be called biblical scholars, but they are incompetent as archaeologists and historians.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence that Moses did not exist.....absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whom you were quoted right back showing his work is now considered worthless.

How honest is that?

He in NO WAY stated that,

he stated he leaves the possibility of a moses like character the oral traditions may have used. HE in NO WAY states moses may have been real.

He states there was no exodus or a possibility, so he has never stated moses may have been real.


What do we call people that state things they know are not true?

Bottom line is that Denver stated that Moses may have existed...fact...got over it...

 

[gnostic]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Absence of evidences doesn't mean you have to accept something of dubious origin to being "true".

If scientists don't rely on science, then all you have are highly suspect speculation and biased blind faith.

Absence of evidences don't qualify anything to being true.

You have just confirm to me that are nothing more than apologist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absence of evidences doesn't mean you have to accept something of dubious origin to being "true".

If scientists don't rely on science, then all you have are highly suspect speculation and biased blind faith.

Absence of evidences don't qualify anything to being true.

You have just confirm to me that are nothing more than apologist.

Not an apologist...just stating the facts...there are some that claim there is evidence of Moses, others say there is no evidence....they are the facts...

 

[gnostic]

Bottom line is that Denver stated that Moses may have existed...fact...got over it...

No, Ben. You are twisting his statement.

He clearly stated that there are no archaeological evidences to support the existence of Moses, therefore Moses...nor the exodus for that matter...is not fact.

Facts required EVIDENCES, and Dever clearly stated there none.

And the used of the words "may have" doesn't mean it is true; "may have" mean uncertainty, because "may not have" is also a possibility.

What make you think "may have" means TRUE?

I would suggest that you go back to learn school, and relearn English.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, Ben. You are twisting his statement.

He clearly stated that there are no archaeological evidences to support the existence of Moses, therefore Moses...nor the exodus for that matter...is not fact.

Facts required EVIDENCES, and Dever clearly stated there none.

And the used of the words "may have" doesn't mean it is true; "may have" mean uncertainty, because "may not have" is also a possibility.

What make you think "may have" means TRUE?

I would suggest that you go back to learn school, and relearn English.

Albright said there was evidence, it was Denver who said there was no evidence...they are the facts.....do you not understand logical statements?

 

[gnostic]

Not an apologist...just stating the facts...there are some that claim there is evidence of Moses, others say there is no evidence....they are the facts...

What are these "evidences" about Moses?

You quoted both Albright and Dever, and neither of them presented any fact, let alone some evidences.

You don't even understand what FACT is, or how it is related to evidences.

You have based your imaginary, non existent words used by Dever, that someone similar to Moses, "may have existed". May have is similar to the might have, which mean that there are two possibilities -

1. may have and
2. may not have.

They are expressions of only possibities, not certainty.

This "may have" that you are so keen on, are certainly not evidences, they are just speculative possibilities that - may or may not - be true.

If that's really your rationale, then you are hopeless in knowing what is fact and what isn't.

And you are wrong, you are an apologist. Please provide real sources (to actual archaeological evidences) that Moses is a real, and some extract of one's opinion (like that of Dever's).

 

[gnostic]

Albright said there was evidence, it was Denver who said there was no evidence...they are the facts.....do you not understand logical statements?

Logical statements are not facts, unless you can provide VERIFIABLE or testable evidences to support those statements.

Albright never had any, because other archaeologists have shown that there were no exodus of Israelites out of Egypt and no invasion of Canaan by the Israelites. And Dever provided none, because he already know that there are none.

Dever admitted there are no evidences, and his statement about the possibility of there being someone like Moses (Moses-like), is merely his own personal speculation, and speculation is not fact.

Facts = verifiable evidences
Speculations =/= facts (...unless you can provide evidences that anyone can verify)​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What are these "evidences" about Moses?

You quoted both Albright and Dever, and neither of them presented any fact, let alone some evidences.

You don't even understand what FACT is, or how it is related to evidences.

You have based your imaginary, non existent words used by Dever, that someone similar to Moses, "may have existed". May have is similar to the might have, which mean that there are two possibilities -

1. may have and
2. may not have.

They are expressions of only possibities, not certainty.

This "may have" that you are so keen on, are certainly not evidences, they are just speculative possibilities that - may or may not - be true.

If that's really your rationale, then you are hopeless in knowing what is fact and what isn't.

And you are wrong, you are an apologist. Please provide real sources (to actual archaeological evidences) that Moses is a real, and some extract of one's opinion (like that of Dever's).

My position is that there is no evidence that Moses was not a real entity........prove me wrong or accept the fact that Moses may have existed...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Logical statements are not facts, unless you can provide VERIFIABLE or testable evidences to support those statements.

Albright never had any, because other archaeologists have shown that there were no exodus of Israelites out of Egypt and no invasion of Canaan by the Israelites. And Dever provided none, because he already know that there are none.

Dever admitted there are no evidences, and his statement about the possibility of there being someone like Moses (Moses-like), is merely his own personal speculation, and speculation is not fact.

Facts = verifiable evidences
Speculations =/= facts (...unless you can provide evidences that anyone can verify)​

It is you who are speculating....unless you can provide evidence that Moses never existed, your belief to that effect is pure speculation....

 

[outhouse]

My position is that there is no evidence that Moses was not a real entity........

Yes and look at how hard you keep refusing the evidence presented.


The fact the exodus is called a myth is strong evidence the biblical character never existed.

The fact you posted a guy who rode a horse to school and all of his work now overturned is evidence he was wrong.

The fact you posted William Dever who stated Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites peacefully, is strong evidence the biblical moses is mythology.

No credible scholar fights Israelites forming slowly after 1200 BC from displaces Canaanites.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

Modern scholars therefore see Israel arising peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan