Bible chronology

[mikeledo]

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the word of God and therefore must be accurate in historical matters as well as spiritual, I will take the evidence of these ancient texts over the speculations of archaelogists any day. Hardly a day goes by without an archaelogist publishing a book debunking the findings of his fellow archaeologists. I guess all of us have to choose whom we are willing to trust to give us truth. I have chosen the authors of the texts of the Bible. You have chosen modern archaeologists. Once upon a time the intellectual elite made fun of the Bible for inventing imaginary nations like the Hittite nation. The skeptics now know that the Hittites were a real people of the ancient world. The Bible is much more worthy of trust than the intellectual elite who have been proven wrong many, many times. The Prince of this world-the father of lies-is not only the guiding light for politicians; he has quite a friendly relationship with archaeologists too. You are free to believe their lies. I choose to believe the truth.

Rowland

Silly me for for putting faith in science and what is written in the stones over a book with unicorns in it.

[bandecoot]

Thanks for your interesting replies. The main reason I question the dating of human settlement in Australia is that, as everyone admits, there are no written records. Without aboriginal written corroboration of the radiometric dating all is guess work. All counting machines need to be calibrated with known values. I worked in a hematology lab many years ago. Every morning we had to do a microscopic hand count of red blood cells in a given sample and then run the sample through the Coulter Counter. We adjusted the machine so that it would give the same reading as the manually counted sample. We then could be reasonably certain that the machine was counting the red blood cells in all the samples correctly. One cannot even set ones kitchen clock without an outside source to calibrate it.

I agree, one needs a calibration source.

So, again, I have much more trust in the written record than I do in an uncalibrated radiometric reading. Carbon 14 dating is fairly reliable as we do have written records against which the machines can be calibrated. Scientists have discovered that carbon 14 dating gets less reliable the further back one tries to take it. Scientists have also discovered problems even with the carbon dating of recent stuff.

Names please, these are bare assertions without some from of proof.

For example, Egyptian mummies often give carbon 14 dates 700 years or so older than their wrappings. Scientists doubt that the mummies were rewrapped. It appears that something organic has contaminated the wrappings giving a false later date.

Which scientist? In which field? Whigh mummy? Your answer shows an abysmal lack of iunderstanding of C14 dates, contamination gives false younger dates not false older ones. But I gave you 2 US Geological service that gave calbration methods, did you not read them?

Depending on radiometric clocks without having an outside source for calibration is like depending on a ticking clock that one finds in a dark cave for the time of day. How can our cave explorer tell if the clock shows the correct time without being able to see the sun at least? Our cave explorer must simply make a leap of faith in the clock should he decide to use it. I don't have such faith in uncalibrated radiometric clocks that exist in the rocks and other stuff that scientists try to put an age to. Nor do I have much faith in the uncalibrated machinery that measure the radioactivity in the stuff that archaeologists dig up in Australia. Just because the calibration question is ignored this doesn't make it go away.

Rowland

I recommend you do a Google on the OKlo reaction for how Radio dates are calibrated and known by Physics and Chemistry.

Other than that Rowland you got nothing beyond bare assertions. Which if you have any evidence for please feel free to provide.

[Rowland]

I agree, one needs a calibration source.






Names please, these are bare assertions without some from of proof.




Which scientist? In which field? Whigh mummy? Your answer shows an abysmal lack of iunderstanding of C14 dates, contamination gives false younger dates not false older ones. But I gave you 2 US Geological service that gave calbration methods, did you not read them?




I recommend you do a Google on the OKlo reaction for how Radio dates are calibrated and known by Physics and Chemistry.

Other than that Rowland you got nothing beyond bare assertions. Which if you have any evidence for please feel free to provide.

When I used the word "later" I used it as opposed to earlier-meaning younger. Yes, I read the articles and they did not tell me what was used to check the accuracy of radiometric dating. All I got was a lot of indigestible scientific mumbo jumbo. My question remains: what do we have other than current radiation rates to calibrate radiometric clocks? Knowledge of present radioactive decay tells us very little of the influences on radioactive decay that existed 100,000 years ago. Human knowledge of the atom is hardly a humdred years old. Scientists don't even know enough about radioactive decay to figure out how to neutralize radioactive waste from nuclear energy plants. If scientists can't even figure out how to neutralize radioactive waste why should I trust the scientists when tell me about how accomplished they have become in using radioactive decay in dating rocks etc. Let the scientists do something useful with their supposed great knowledge like speeding up nuclear decay in radioactive waste so that it doesn't pose a threat for the next 10,000 years. If they don't know enough about how radioactive materials shed their radioactivity so as to manipulate this radioactivity then please don't tell me that they've got this whole thing figured out to the point that they can tell how old a rock is. Scientists know so much and yet millions of people still die of cancer every year. A tiny virus that causes AIDS has all the great scientists stumped even though viruses are one of the simpler things in the universe. We went to the moon based on the basic technology that the Chinese had invented centuries ago. The huge flames coming out the bottom of an American shuttle represents a scientific defeat, not victory. All that the scientists have succeeding in doing is making the old Chinese rocket bigger. Scientists don't have a clue as to how to directly manipulate gravity. We put people and things into space by the brute force of exploding chemicals. What brilliance. I'm overwhelmed by the progress of science. Scientists have failed to come up with a revolutionary new way of transferring energy to the wheels of cars for over a hundred years now. The movement of automobiles down our roads still depends on the rapid oxidation of organic fluids-explosions inside cylinders which moves pistons up and down; a process that was invented a hundred years ago. I stand in awe of the greatness of science. The greatest feat in the nuclear field accomplished by our brilliant scientists was the instantaneous killing of innocent civilians in Japan in two days in August 1945. Now you want me to trust the students of these scientists to tell me the truth about their dating procedures when their mentors couldn't even guess that there work was going to be used to kill thousands of children? Scientists are not any more immoral than the general public, but they are no better either. Just as they have proven themselves ready to participate in mass murder so I can expect that they would be quite willing to participate in a massive hoax to fool people into believing that they really can date rocks and stuff. Scientists use complex verbiage to disguise the fact that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Even you can't explain in plain English how they calibrate their equipment so you refer me to some websites.

Rowland

[bandecoot]

When I used the word "later" I used it as opposed to earlier-meaning younger. Yes, I read the articles and they did not tell me what was used to check the accuracy of radiometric dating. All I got was a lot of indigestible scientific mumbo jumbo. My question remains: what do we have other than current radiation rates to calibrate radiometric clocks?

Oh for the love of the cat NOOOOOO. If you bring up Setterfield and his Cdecay rates. I will simply ignore anything you ever write again.

I anticipated this, Google the Oklo reactor. I dont expect you to understand but the lurkers might.

Knowledge of present radioactive decay tells us very little of the influences on radioactive decay that existed 100,000 years ago. Human knowledge of the atom is hardly a humdred years old. Scientists don't even know enough about radioactive decay to figure out how to neutralize radioactive waste from nuclear energy plants. If scientists can't even figure out how to neutralize radioactive waste why should I trust the scientists when tell me about how accomplished they have become in using radioactive decay in dating rocks etc. Let the scientists do something useful with their supposed great knowledge like speeding up nuclear decay in radioactive waste so that it doesn't pose a threat for the next 10,000 years. If they don't know enough about how radioactive materials shed their radioactivity so as to manipulate this radioactivity then please don't tell me that they've got this whole thing figured out to the point that they can tell how old a rock is.

First point we can safely store waste, Its just expensive. Why would we wreck such a valuable resource as what is now called waste? We can probably reuse it at some point. You know back in the days before cars gasoline was just burned off because noone could work out what to do with it.

If you can't follow a website aimed at high school children, I am sorry that's not my fault. You then have no business comment on that which is blatantly obvious even to someone with my limited understanding of Physics.

Scientists know so much and yet millions of people still die of cancer every year. A tiny virus that causes AIDS has all the great scientists stumped even though viruses are one of the simpler things in the universe. We went to the moon based on the basic technology that the Chinese had invented centuries ago. The huge flames coming out the bottom of an American shuttle represents a scientific defeat, not victory. All that the scientists have succeeding in doing is making the old Chinese rocket bigger.

Nope again, we do know how to treat aids, but I'm not sure what that has to do with radio dating methods. The saturns were based on a German design, the liquid fuelled rocket. Now had you said the shuttle you might be right. That uses a solid fuel booster. The saturn mercury and Gemini rockets were all based on Werner Von Brauns V1 and V2 German vengance weapons. In fact he was brought out to the US from Peenemunde slave camp to Run their Space Program. Oh nasty when history bites you on the bottom is it not?

Scientists don't have a clue as to how to directly manipulate gravity. We put people and things into space by the brute force of exploding chemicals. What brilliance. I'm overwhelmed by the progress of science.

Then do better, if you have a theory that pulls Gravity in to the unified field theory please share it with us. We will give you as much money to make a working model of your craft any time you like. What does the fact that something that only exists in Startrek and is not a reality have to do with your chronology.

Scientists have failed to come up with a revolutionary new way of transferring energy to the wheels of cars for over a hundred years now. The movement of automobiles down our roads still depends on the rapid oxidation of organic fluids-explosions inside cylinders which moves pistons up and down; a process that was invented a hundred years ago. I stand in awe of the greatness of science.

Wrong again, there are at least 3 other ways it's possible to transfer energy that I know of. Its just a shame that you dont. Never mind. at least 2 of those ways came out of that shonky old fashioned Space program you are so derisive of.

BTW what does this have to do with bible chronology? What does your incredible lack knowledge of things 20 years old have to to with that?

The greatest feat in the nuclear field accomplished by our brilliant scientists was the instantaneous killing of innocent civilians in Japan in two days in August 1945. Now you want me to trust the students of these scientists to tell me the truth about their dating procedures when their mentors couldn't even guess that there work was going to be used to kill thousands of children? Scientists are not any more immoral than the general public, but they are no better either. Just as they have proven themselves ready to participate in mass murder so I can expect that they would be quite willing to participate in a massive hoax to fool people into believing that they really can date rocks and stuff. Scientists use complex verbiage to disguise the fact that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Even you can't explain in plain English how they calibrate their equipment so you refer me to some websites.

Rowland

That was plain english rowland. Dont blame me or anyone in the field if you are uneducated. That's not our fault.

But Ill try, dendochronology and standard deviations are used to calibrate C14 as are icecores and varves. The Oklo reactor is used to determine/calibrate rates of neucotide decay. Thats as nontechnical as I can get, the websites I recommended are very basic stuff. You dont get it? That's not my fault. I can't teach you to read or do math anymore than I can teach you to use paragraphs to separate concepts.

But I get your point, you don't trust science. Then please stop injecting yourself with vaccines or medications then. Be consistant with your predudices.

Now have you any evidence FOR your Chronology? Other than bare assertions?

[Arlan]

God used human writers to write the rest of the Bible. If God can create galaxies I'm sure that He is up to writing a few books using human hands and minds to do it. I'm not going to quote the Bible to show that God wrote it; that would be rather silly. But I am satisfied with the evidence for a divine author.

Rowland

"Evidence for a divine auther"

What you are saying now is different than what you said on the other post.
Now you say that it really wasn't god that wrote the bible but humans wrote the bible and god used human minds and human hands to write it. Correct?
If that is true and we know that "God is not a God of confusion" then how do you explain the over 40 contradiction that I have found just between Matthew and the other gospel writers like the following:

Mt 3:16 "Jesus saw the Spirit of God decending.
Jn 1:32 "John saw the Spirit of God decending.

Mt 4:18-20 a story how Peter was chosen as a disciple.
Lk 5:2-11 a completely different story how Peter was
chosen as a disciple.

Mt 5:32 Jesus said "Divorce, except on GROUNDS of
UNCHASTITY, is wrong.
Mk 10:11-12 Jesus said "diovorce ON ANY GROUNDS
is wrong.

Mt 8:5-12 centurion HIMSELF asked Jesus to heal.
Lk 7:2-10 centurion SENDS ELDERS to do the asking.

Mt 8:28-33 TWO demoniac healed in Gadarenes incident.
Mk 5:2-16, Lk 8:26-36 onlt ONE Gadarenes healed here.

Mt 20:29-34 Jesus heals TWO blind men by Jericho.
Mk 10:46-52 Jesus heals ONE blind man by Jericho.

Mt 21:2-6 Jesus instructs two disciple to bring him
TWO ANIMALS to ride into Jerusalem.
Mk 11:1-11 Jesus said to bring him ONE ANIMAL.
Lk 19:28-40 Jesus asked for ONE ANIMAL.
John 12:14 ONE YOUNG ASS.

Mt 21:7 Jesus rides TWO ANIMALS during his entry.
MK 11:7; Lk 19:35; Jn 12:14 all say ONE ANIMAL.

Mt 25:34 Heaven prepared before the Ascension Jesus.
Jn 14:2-3 " " after " " "

Mt 27:5 Judas HANGED HIMSELF.
Ac 1:18 " fell HEADLONG, BURST OPEN, AND
HIS BOWELS GUSHED OUT.

I have presented just 10 out of the 40 contridaction I have found in just this part of the NT.

Is this what you call "Evidence of a Divine Auther"?

Are you trying to tell us that God wrote all these different scriptures that contradicte each other so that he can confusses us. The bible does say to compare "scripture with scripture" but I didn't think God would not know exactly what happened at all this different times. Maybe you can explain why God had each of these people writing all these different stories??? I'm confussed??

Arlan

[Rowland]

Oh for the love of the cat NOOOOOO. If you bring up Setterfield and his Cdecay rates. I will simply ignore anything you ever write again.

I anticipated this, Google the Oklo reactor. I dont expect you to understand but the lurkers might.




First point we can safely store waste, Its just expensive. Why would we wreck such a valuable resource as what is now called waste? We can probably reuse it at some point. You know back in the days before cars gasoline was just burned off because noone could work out what to do with it.

If you can't follow a website aimed at high school children, I am sorry that's not my fault. You then have no business comment on that which is blatantly obvious even to someone with my limited understanding of Physics.





Nope again, we do know how to treat aids, but I'm not sure what that has to do with radio dating methods. The saturns were based on a German design, the liquid fuelled rocket. Now had you said the shuttle you might be right. That uses a solid fuel booster. The saturn mercury and Gemini rockets were all based on Werner Von Brauns V1 and V2 German vengance weapons. In fact he was brought out to the US from Peenemunde slave camp to Run their Space Program. Oh nasty when history bites you on the bottom is it not?



Then do better, if you have a theory that pulls Gravity in to the unified field theory please share it with us. We will give you as much money to make a working model of your craft any time you like. What does the fact that something that only exists in Startrek and is not a reality have to do with your chronology.



Wrong again, there are at least 3 other ways it's possible to transfer energy that I know of. Its just a shame that you dont. Never mind. at least 2 of those ways came out of that shonky old fashioned Space program you are so derisive of.

BTW what does this have to do with bible chronology? What does your incredible lack knowledge of things 20 years old have to to with that?






That was plain english rowland. Dont blame me or anyone in the field if you are uneducated. That's not our fault.

But Ill try, dendochronology and standard deviations are used to calibrate C14 as are icecores and varves. The Oklo reactor is used to determine/calibrate rates of neucotide decay. Thats as nontechnical as I can get, the websites I recommended are very basic stuff. You dont get it? That's not my fault. I can't teach you to read or do math anymore than I can teach you to use paragraphs to separate concepts.

But I get your point, you don't trust science. Then please stop injecting yourself with vaccines or medications then. Be consistant with your predudices.

Now have you any evidence FOR your Chronology? Other than bare assertions?

Dendrochronology can only calibrate C 14 back to about 4000 years ago. I've never heard of a tree being 60,000 years old. I accept the accuracy of C 14 dating back to about 6000 BP. Ice cores aren't much use because how do you know how old the ice cores are? Counting layers of ice is problematic as we have no way of knowing how many layers could have been laid down in one year. We have the same problem with varves. Counting layers of silt in a lake without some way of telling how many layers were layed down within a year gives us a very poor calibration tool. There are just too many unproven assumptions with ice core dating and dating with varves. Again, one cannot calibrate one method of dating with other methods that also require calibration. Nothing can beat human societies counting the times the earth has gone around the sun since this or that event and writing the results down for posterity. Even dendrochronolgy is not as accurate.

The people who wrote the Bible were quite aware of how to make calendars based on astonomical events such as the equinoxes. They knew how to count years and days by observing the apparent motion of the stars and sun and the actual movements of the moon. They wrote their observations down in a record that we now call the Bible. I repeat, I have more trust in the direct observations of ancient people than I do in the guesswork made by current human beings. Dendrocronology is only as good as the oldest tree. Ice cores and varves themselves need an outside source to calibrate their layers. Do ten layers of ice or silt represent one year? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? That ten layers represents 10 years is an unverified assumption.

Testing the rate of radioactive decay in an atomic reactor is not the same as calibrating the rate of decay over millions of years. That radioactive decay is a stable constant of nature is an unverified assumption. I can't remember his name off hand, but a scientist recently published a book showing that the speed of light may not be as constant as has been assumed.

I brought up all the stuff about the failures of science to show that science is not so trustworthy and advanced that I should need its evidence to prove the chronology of the Bible. I see that you really don't understand the limits of science. By the way, neither you nor your children nor your children's children will ever see the so called hydrogen car. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; its only a medium for storing energy and a poor one at that as it is not easy to store or transport. It is a gas so it takes up a lot more room than a comparable amount of energy stored in the form of gasoline-way more. Other types of cars still need fossil fuel to run. I think-I'm not sure-the first automobile, which was a French invention, ran on natural or similar type gas. To have a successful all electric car, scientists have to come up with a battery that is much, much more efficient than the best battery we have today. The automobile is doomed unless science can break its 100 year failure to come up with a whole new technology not based on exploding fuels.

Rowland

[bandecoot]

Dendrochronology can only calibrate C 14 back to about 4000 years ago. I've never heard of a tree being 60,000 years old. I accept the accuracy of C 14 dating back to about 6000 BP. Ice cores aren't much use because how do you know how old the ice cores are? Counting layers of ice is problematic as we have no way of knowing how many layers could have been laid down in one year. We have the same problem with varves. Counting layers of silt in a lake without some way of telling how many layers were layed down within a year gives us a very poor calibration tool. There are just too many unproven assumptions with ice core dating and dating with varves. Again, one cannot calibrate one method of dating with other methods that also require calibration. Nothing can beat human societies counting the times the earth has gone around the sun since this or that event and writing the results down for posterity. Even dendrochronolgy is not as accurate.

And you know that they counted it accurately ....how? You were of course there? A varve is a specific kind of dating method from lake that get silt a known numbers of times a year. An Ice core is determined by the compresibilty of snow. You do know the Hebrew calendar is lunar and does not accurately measure a full rotation of the sun. Not by a long shot. Ask the muslims they are still using it. One tree ring per year. thats a given. Trees dont have to live past 6000 years, the wood just has to be preserved.

You have faith that a book that even in the original translation varies from version to version ?

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/list.cfm

Its footnoted so the terms are explained. That was written by a Hebrew scholar BTW.

The people who wrote the Bible were quite aware of how to make calendars based on astonomical events such as the equinoxes. They knew how to count years and days by observing the apparent motion of the stars and sun and the actual movements of the moon. They wrote their observations down in a record that we now call the Bible. I repeat, I have more trust in the direct observations of ancient people than I do in the guesswork made by current human beings. Dendrocronology is only as good as the oldest tree. Ice cores and varves themselves need an outside source to calibrate their layers. Do ten layers of ice or silt represent one year? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? That ten layers represents 10 years is an unverified assumption.

Dendochronology is as good as the oldest sample of wood found. Not a tree.
Its as verified a fact as can be established for observation, which is all thats needed. Ice cores and varves same thing. I am still waiting for how you know the hebrews got it right in the first place. I cant recall reading in the bible a calender system, perhaps you might let me know where that is in the Torah. Otherwise you are making things up as you go along.

Testing the rate of radioactive decay in an atomic reactor is not the same as calibrating the rate of decay over millions of years. That radioactive decay is a stable constant of nature is an unverified assumption. I can't remember his name off hand, but a scientist recently published a book showing that the speed of light may not be as constant as has been assumed.

You did not even look at Oklo did you? You silly boy, Oklo is a natural reactor.

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/cent...LO/index.shtml

http://world-nuclear.org/info/printa...inf78print.htm

It IS millions of years old. Try reading the links this time.

As for barry setterfield he is as much a scientist as my cats are. If the book that you are mentioning is not his then I do know the one of which you speak, its a possible slowdown of light in some instances.

I think this is the abstract of the paper, but im not sure. Feel free to show me if I am wrong...(anyone who knows what they are talking about)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en


Mind you rowland if you had trouble with the USGS pages you will fry a synapse looking at real physics.

I brought up all the stuff about the failures of science to show that science is not so trustworthy and advanced that I should need its evidence to prove the chronology of the Bible. I see that you really don't understand the limits of science.

I think I know them better than someone who uses the term scientific mumbo Jumbo for a high school lever webpage written in plain english. But you have helped me out no end. As a bad example of how to argue science at the least.

By the way, neither you nor your children nor your children's children will ever see the so called hydrogen car. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; its only a medium for storing energy and a poor one at that as it is not easy to store or transport. It is a gas so it takes up a lot more room than a comparable amount of energy stored in the form of gasoline-way more. Other types of cars still need fossil fuel to run.

I know the Hydrogen car is a joke, has been for 35 years. Your info is so out of date its stopped being even remotely funny

I think-I'm not sure-the first automobile, which was a French invention, ran on natural or similar type gas. To have a successful all electric car, scientists have to come up with a battery that is much, much more efficient than the best battery we have today. The automobile is doomed unless science can break its 100 year failure to come up with a whole new technology not based on exploding fuels.

Rowland

The first car was German not french it did run on Gas however. You may be thinking of Lenoir who had a 2 stroke gas engine but never used it for a vehicle.

As for the battery powered car, shall I tell the guy testing one that he is wasting his time? Or all those guys making better fuel cells to stop because rowland says so? Shall I tell Toyota to stop with the concept of making Hybrids because you dont think its worth it. I think the world will do fine with out your expertise in the sciences.

The car is not science Rowland, thats engineering. Whole other matter. The Gasoline powered car is doomed anyway. Its just a matter of time.



Now lets see some evidence FOR your Chronology, as opposed to just complaining that you dont understand mine.

[shunyadragon]

Dendrochronology can only calibrate C 14 back to about 4000 years ago. I've never heard of a tree being 60,000 years old. I accept the accuracy of C 14 dating back to about 6000 BP. Ice cores aren't much use because how do you know how old the ice cores are? Counting layers of ice is problematic as we have no way of knowing how many layers could have been laid down in one year. We have the same problem with varves. Counting layers of silt in a lake without some way of telling how many layers were layed down within a year gives us a very poor calibration tool. There are just too many unproven assumptions with ice core dating and dating with varves. Again, one cannot calibrate one method of dating with other methods that also require calibration. Nothing can beat human societies counting the times the earth has gone around the sun since this or that event and writing the results down for posterity. Even dendrochronolgy is not as accurate.

This not a good educated understanding of dendrochronology. Dendrochronology has been used to match series of trees in recent geologic deposites when matching climatic impact on ring growth matches a series of trees of overlaping ages. This carries dendochronology to an older point than C14 dating.

The people who wrote the Bible were quite aware of how to make calendars based on astonomical events such as the equinoxes. They knew how to count years and days by observing the apparent motion of the stars and sun and the actual movements of the moon. They wrote their observations down in a record that we now call the Bible. I repeat, I have more trust in the direct observations of ancient people than I do in the guesswork made by current human beings. Dendrocronology is only as good as the oldest tree. Ice cores and varves themselves need an outside source to calibrate their layers. Do ten layers of ice or silt represent one year? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? That ten layers represents 10 years is an unverified assumption.

Again, this is not a good educated understanding of varving. The nature of varving is very well known, as well as the chemical and sediment changes in seasonal changes. Yes there are examples of layers of cycles longer than one year that reflect climatic cycles, but these are well documented too.

There are at least several current varved lake deposits more than ten thousand years old that their frequency of varving can be compared to what is laid down each year today. The most famous of these is in Japan. One varve equals the seasonal cycle of one year.

Testing the rate of radioactive decay in an atomic reactor is not the same as calibrating the rate of decay over millions of years. That radioactive decay is a stable constant of nature is an unverified assumption. I can't remember his name off hand, but a scientist recently published a book showing that the speed of light may not be as constant as has been assumed.

This basically false.

I brought up all the stuff about the failures of science to show that science is not so trustworthy and advanced that I should need its evidence to prove the chronology of the Bible. I see that you really don't understand the limits of science. By the way, neither you nor your children nor your children's children will ever see the so called hydrogen car. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; its only a medium for storing energy and a poor one at that as it is not easy to store or transport. It is a gas so it takes up a lot more room than a comparable amount of energy stored in the form of gasoline-way more. Other types of cars still need fossil fuel to run. I think-I'm not sure-the first automobile, which was a French invention, ran on natural or similar type gas. To have a successful all electric car, scientists have to come up with a battery that is much, much more efficient than the best battery we have today. The automobile is doomed unless science can break its 100 year failure to come up with a whole new technology not based on exploding fuels.

Rowland

I suggest a stronger educational background before you get in any deeper.

[Arlan]

[QUOTE=Rowland]Dendrochronology can only calibrate C 14 back to about 4000 years ago. I've never heard of a tree being 60,000 years old. I accept the accuracy of C 14 dating back to about 6000 BP. Ice cores aren't much use because how do you know how old the ice cores are? Counting layers of ice is problematic as we have no way of knowing how many layers could have been laid down in one year. We have the same problem with varves. Counting layers of silt in a lake without some way of telling how many layers were layed down within a year gives us a very poor calibration tool. There are just too many unproven assumptions with ice core dating and dating with varves.
I have more trust in the direct observations of ancient people than I do in the guesswork made by current human beings.

"" Dendrocronology is only as good as the oldest tree. Ice cores and varves themselves need an outside source to calibrate their layers. Do ten layers of ice or silt represent one year? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? That ten layers represents 10 years is an unverified assumption.""

I don't know what grade level Rowland finished in grade school but from all his filubustering, he has indicated to me that it might not have been very high.
FYI Europian Oak Tree rings have been combined to build a tree chronology of dead trees back to about 9,000 years. Using these very old tree rings thy have been able to cross check carbon Ratio dating. It is all explained in this great website:
www.hemet.klever.net/~nazsaints/essays/RadiometricDating.htm

There are over 40 different radiometric dating in use today. Can all these different techniques be wrong.

Now for the reliability of Ice cores as dating calender. Father nature [God] has given us a very natural system to date the reliability of one ice layer = one year. Father nature has been kind enough to deposit small amounts of volcanic ash on these glaciers during eruptions. We have records of most of these eruptions and if lets say that there was a big eruptions in 200BC and another in 800AD, a difference of 1,000 years, then everytime we find ash of each of these eruptions in the Ice Cores there is exactly 1,000 layers between them. This happenes each and every time. So, Rowland, when you make such statements," we don't know is one layer or 10 layers equals one year", you just really don't know much about Ice Cores.
I really don't think you want to know about how accurate Science really is, but if you do then I'm listing a few websites for your education:

Nova warning in time Glaciers 160,000 BP years
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/

Deciphering Past Climate/Antarctic Ice Cores 220,000BP
www.agu.org/scii_soc/vostok.html

Ice Cores that tell the Past ~ 200,000BP
www.GIOSP2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/moreinfo/ice_cores_past.html

Ice Cores ~ 200,000 + BP
www.glaciology.gly.ku.dk/ngrip/iskemer_eng.htm

Trends in Chemistry of Ice Cores ~ 400,000 + BP
www.hwr.arizona.edu/alpine/igcl/icecores.html

Chinese Ice Cores Provide Climate Records of 4 Ice ages
200,000 BP
www.osu.edu/units/research/archives/icecores.htm

Rowland, if you want more websites I have about ten more I can list for you if you will read them. Not one of these studies show any indication of a worldwide Genesus flood in over 200,000 years.

Without a worldwide Genesus Flood there can be NO Noah and the Ark, NO genealogies, NO Adam/Eve, NO original SIN and no need for a savior.

You have a great day Arlan

[Rowland]

General reply to Arlan, Dragon and Coot.

I am not a scientist. You are criticizing me for not being a trained scientist, something I never claimed to be. Your sarcastic references to my level of education simply tells me that you are unable to debate on a mature level. I made a mistake trying to argue science with you, not because of my lack of scientific knowledge, but because by arguing science with you I am accepting your assumption that their is no true knowledge outside of modern science. The Bible does not need scientific confirmation to prove that it contains true knowledge of the universe, the universe both in its physical dimensions and in its spiritual dimensions.

Scientific understanding changes daily. The latest guess as to how old the earth is-4 1/2 billion years-is only one of many comparatively recent guesses. According to the article on when humans first landed on the shores of Australia, scientists are waiting for still further changes to the current opinion of when mankind made first landfall-now, 60,000 years ago. From my reading of the scientific literature homo sapiens first walked the earth anywhere from about 2 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago. This wide span doesn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of scientificly based chronology. (I fully admit to the problem of differing biblical interpretations regarding biblical chronology, but this problem is mine and not one you need to concern yourself with. I'm sure that I have the correct interpretation.) When you scientists have decided that you now have the final answer regarding the chronology of human history let me know. When all of you scientists have come to a consensus regarding the chronology of human life on this planet, have come up with dates that you believe are absolutely correct then you have just arrived at where I am at now. I'm way ahead of you. You're still looking for truth whereas I've already found it. Not surprising in view of the fact that I have the Bible and you have only weak, puny science. When the knowledge of science has faded away due to war, plague and economic collapse the Bible will still be here. (And, by the way, I believe that the Bible teaches that all human beings are destined to live happily with God for all eternity-no exceptions. My belief in the Bible does not make me more special in God's eyes than those who reject it. I believe that we, you and I, are brothers and are in this together in spite of our differences.)

Rowland

[bandecoot]

General reply to Arlan, Dragon and Coot.

I am not a scientist. You are criticizing me for not being a trained scientist, something I never claimed to be. Your sarcastic references to my level of education simply tells me that you are unable to debate on a mature level. I made a mistake trying to argue science with you, not because of my lack of scientific knowledge, but because by arguing science with you I am accepting your assumption that their is no true knowledge outside of modern science. The Bible does not need scientific confirmation to prove that it contains true knowledge of the universe, the universe both in its physical dimensions and in its spiritual dimensions.

Scientific understanding changes daily. The latest guess as to how old the earth is-4 1/2 billion years-is only one of many comparatively recent guesses. According to the article on when humans first landed on the shores of Australia, scientists are waiting for still further changes to the current opinion of when mankind made first landfall-now, 60,000 years ago. From my reading of the scientific literature homo sapiens first walked the earth anywhere from about 2 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago. This wide span doesn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of scientificly based chronology. (I fully admit to the problem of differing biblical interpretations regarding biblical chronology, but this problem is mine and not one you need to concern yourself with. I'm sure that I have the correct interpretation.) When you scientists have decided that you now have the final answer regarding the chronology of human history let me know. When all of you scientists have come to a consensus regarding the chronology of human life on this planet, have come up with dates that you believe are absolutely correct then you have just arrived at where I am at now. I'm way ahead of you. You're still looking for truth whereas I've already found it. Not surprising in view of the fact that I have the Bible and you have only weak, puny science. When the knowledge of science has faded away due to war, plague and economic collapse the Bible will still be here. (And, by the way, I believe that the Bible teaches that all human beings are destined to live happily with God for all eternity-no exceptions. My belief in the Bible does not make me more special in God's eyes than those who reject it. I believe that we, you and I, are brothers and are in this together in spite of our differences.)

Rowland

Well kids I guess he told us!

Not much can be added to that. Not much needs to be added really.

[Arlan]

[QUOTE=Rowland]General reply to Arlan, Dragon and Coot.

"The Bible does not need scientific confirmation to prove that it contains true knowledge of the universe,"

Your General reply does not let you off the hook with me. You and I are talking the same language, the bible. You have not answered my question on all the different contradiction I presented to you a few post ago. I'm not talking about science but contradiction in your bible that you say is the word of God, excuse me you changes that to, God controled the human hand to write the bible. If this is so, then please explain to us all these contradictions by a god who knows everything but for some unknown reason can't get his stories right. If you don't have a logical reply at least be a man and stand you and say you have no answer. Arlan b.

[mikeledo]

General reply to Arlan, Dragon and Coot.

I am not a scientist. You are criticizing me for not being a trained scientist, something I never claimed to be. Your sarcastic references to my level of education simply tells me that you are unable to debate on a mature level. I made a mistake trying to argue science with you, not because of my lack of scientific knowledge, but because by arguing science with you I am accepting your assumption that their is no true knowledge outside of modern science. The Bible does not need scientific confirmation to prove that it contains true knowledge of the universe, the universe both in its physical dimensions and in its spiritual dimensions.

Scientific understanding changes daily. The latest guess as to how old the earth is-4 1/2 billion years-is only one of many comparatively recent guesses. According to the article on when humans first landed on the shores of Australia, scientists are waiting for still further changes to the current opinion of when mankind made first landfall-now, 60,000 years ago. From my reading of the scientific literature homo sapiens first walked the earth anywhere from about 2 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago. This wide span doesn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of scientificly based chronology. (I fully admit to the problem of differing biblical interpretations regarding biblical chronology, but this problem is mine and not one you need to concern yourself with. I'm sure that I have the correct interpretation.) When you scientists have decided that you now have the final answer regarding the chronology of human history let me know. When all of you scientists have come to a consensus regarding the chronology of human life on this planet, have come up with dates that you believe are absolutely correct then you have just arrived at where I am at now. I'm way ahead of you. You're still looking for truth whereas I've already found it. Not surprising in view of the fact that I have the Bible and you have only weak, puny science. When the knowledge of science has faded away due to war, plague and economic collapse the Bible will still be here. (And, by the way, I believe that the Bible teaches that all human beings are destined to live happily with God for all eternity-no exceptions. My belief in the Bible does not make me more special in God's eyes than those who reject it. I believe that we, you and I, are brothers and are in this together in spite of our differences.)

Rowland

The Bible is no different than any other cosmic myth. It requires scientific back-up as does any ancient myth to be believed. The many chronology problems (I haven't seen two believers in this forum agree on one yet) attest to the fact there is something amiss in the text. Much of the text appears to be based on Babylonian myth using Canaanite deities. YHWH is clearly a moon god, Samson a representative of the Sun.

Yet at the same time, it read like a history book with naming people and conquests which have little or no supernatural elements.

Could you please quote and example where science changes "daily" on the age of the earth. It was 4-5 billion years when I was a kid 50 years ago. I haven't seen any change in my life time. Perhaps you are a bit older and wiser.

When "man" has appeared is a debate. DNA sequencing places "man" as appearing 200,000 years ago in Africa as our "best guess." Others claim man had to have been around longer than that, ie. 2 million years. Clearly something which resembled man was here that long. At no time does science claim man and the earth is less than 10,000 year old and there was a world wide flood past the 19th century.

As long as there are foolish people there will be foolish beliefs. Perhaps that is why the Bible and religion has lasted, not because of "truth."

Mike

[Rowland]

The Bible is no different than any other cosmic myth. It requires scientific back-up as does any ancient myth to be believed. The many chronology problems (I haven't seen two believers in this forum agree on one yet) attest to the fact there is something amiss in the text. Much of the text appears to be based on Babylonian myth using Canaanite deities. YHWH is clearly a moon god, Samson a representative of the Sun.

Yet at the same time, it read like a history book with naming people and conquests which have little or no supernatural elements.

Could you please quote and example where science changes "daily" on the age of the earth. It was 4-5 billion years when I was a kid 50 years ago. I haven't seen any change in my life time. Perhaps you are a bit older and wiser.

When "man" has appeared is a debate. DNA sequencing places "man" as appearing 200,000 years ago in Africa as our "best guess." Others claim man had to have been around longer than that, ie. 2 million years. Clearly something which resembled man was here that long. At no time does science claim man and the earth is less than 10,000 year old and there was a world wide flood past the 19th century.

As long as there are foolish people there will be foolish beliefs. Perhaps that is why the Bible and religion has lasted, not because of "truth."

Mike

Thanks for your reply, Mike. I am as vehemently against myth posing as fact as you are, maybe even more so. Just as science has opposing theories so true religion has opposing religions that mimic the truth. Roman pagan religions had all sorts of beliefs that mimicked Christianity such as their stories on a man/god being born of a liason between a human female and a god. I do have my standards and ways of filtering out the bad stuff, but science is not a standard or filter I immediately reach for.

Reason and science are not the same thing. Human reason has been around a lot longer than human science. Historians agree that ancient Egypt did not have science, but Egyptians did have the use of reason and did invent some technology-enought to build their amazing pyramids. Although I don't use science to evaluate by beliefs, I do use my reason. Many Christians do separate faith from reason and therefore are ready to believe just about anything. One of the unreasonable things that these Christians are willing to believe is the standard biblical chronology believed in by othodox Jews and followers of Bishop Ussher. This chronology has creation occuring around 4000 BC, which leaves only about 700 years for the spread of the human race over the earth, its destruction by the Flood, and the remergence of human civilization over wide areas of the earth. This is not reasonable. My chronology of the Bible that is based on how the Bible itself interprets itself is reasonable even though not in agreement with science as understood today. In the correct biblical chronology, the Flood occurs 6000 years after creation and 2000 years before the emergence of the great civilizations. This is reasonable within the biblical worldview.

Another unreasonable belief held by Christians of the majority of denominations is the belief that, although God is love, He will commit some, if not most, of humanity to an eternity of torment. This is not reasonable. But most Christians not only reject some aspects of modern science, which I do too, but they also reject reason. Now the God that I worship does destroy people's lives in floods and fire (Noah's Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha etc.), but this God promises to resurrect all of these people into a new life of happiness. Actually, being killed instantly by a rushing wall of mud and water or by a sudden burst of flame is no worse than slowy dying in a convalescent hospital. My point is, it is not unreasonable to believe that the God who caused Noah's Flood is a God of love when you consider that this was not the final end of them, that God has something very good in store for them. I am not claiming that I don't have any negative feelings about God going around killing people, but, unlike the doctrine of hell, experiencing death in this life is not something so dreadful that a God of love could not do such a thing as bring it about. It puts a strain on my reason, but doesn't break it.

Many of the supposed contradictions as found in the Bible are not contradictions at all. Again, unlike many Christian commentators, I believe that the Bible is often very difficult to understand. It takes a lot of work to figure the Bible out-not unlike scientific discovery. I also believe that God has made the Bible confusing on purpose. Jesus himself said that he spoke in parables so that only those he chooses to understand would understand his words. God wrote the Bible-through the agency of human beings- purposely to confound and confuse those who approach it in the state of unbelief. St. Augustine prayed that he would not so much want to understand in order to believe, but to believe in order to understand-or something like this. Additionally, the Bible interprets the reader as much as the reader interprets the Bible. Those who see a god in the Bible who would torture people for all eternity for any reason are in effect showing what kind of a person they are. A person who mocks the Bible as a mass of myth and superstition is revealing himself or herself as a mocker and hater of God-at least in many cases.

The question then arises, "Why would anyone want to hate God?" There are a lot of reasons for human beings to hate God. 1. Humans hate to be told what they can or cannot do. We humans hate to have people in authority over us. This goes ditto for God. 2. God is everything. We humans are nothing. We hate it when an, older or especially a younger, sister or brother is smarter than we are, has a better job, has a prettier wife, has more stuff than we do. This gap between ourselves and other people is miniscule compared to the gap between ourselves and God. 3. God is always watching us. We hate to have our privacy invaded. God gives us no privacy. 4. God causes us great pain and suffering. We didn't ask to be born. God does a lot of stuff to us that He never gets permission from us to do. 5. God asks us to do difficult things like love and forgive other people, especially unlikeable people. 6. God doesn't need anything from us and we need everything from him. We hate to be indebted to people. We prefer that other people be indebted to us. And we hate to depend on other people's mercy and charity toward us. We hate asking other people for favors. Even though Christianity brags about how salvation is of grace, most Christians don't have a clue as to what grace is and if they did they wouldn't like it.

So, there you have the reasons I think you have for rejecting the chronology of the Bible. You don't want the Bible to be true because you have good reasons for hating God-the author of the Bible.

Rowland

[Rowland]

[QUOTE=Arlan]

General reply to Arlan, Dragon and Coot.

"The Bible does not need scientific confirmation to prove that it contains true knowledge of the universe,"

Your General reply does not let you off the hook with me. You and I are talking the same language, the bible. You have not answered my question on all the different contradiction I presented to you a few post ago. I'm not talking about science but contradiction in your bible that you say is the word of God, excuse me you changes that to, God controled the human hand to write the bible. If this is so, then please explain to us all these contradictions by a god who knows everything but for some unknown reason can't get his stories right. If you don't have a logical reply at least be a man and stand you and say you have no answer. Arlan b.

Arlan, see my reply to Mike's post. I too have trouble with apparent contradictions in the Bible. But most contradictions have been shown to be the result of misunderstanding the biblical text, which I admit is often very complicated. I also think that you are misusing the word, "contradiction". Two different stories of the same event can be different without being contradictory. If one story of your life talks about your brother and doesn't even mention that you have sisters, this story does not contradict another story of your life that emphasizes your sisters' roles in your life. The stories are not contradictory even though one wonders why the first story didn't mention your sisters. Now if the first story flat out declares that you had no sisters then the two stories would be contradictory.

The infant narratives of Mathew and Luke are confusing to me also. I don't really know why Matthew has the flight into Egypt narrative while Luke writes as though it never happened. If Luke had written that Jesus had never travelled to Egypt, then the infancy narratives would be contradictory. As they stand, they are not contradictory but Luke seems to have missed an important part of the story, at least in my view. And the explanation for why the holy family settled in Nazareth seems to be very different in Matthew than it is in Luke. Without more detail from both, I cannot tell if their stories are contradictory or not. If I were a police investigator I would need more detail before coming to a conclusion that their stories contradicted one another. The lists of ancestores appears to contradict one another but this is because of our lack of understanding Jewish culture regarding the assignment of ancestors to people. It gete pretty complicated. And this same problem accounts to some extent for why Bible scholars have had such difficulty understanding biblical chronology. Remember, the Bible is about people who lived thousands of years ago and written by people who lived several thousand years ago. God, in authoring the Bible, did not eliminate the cultural biases of the human authors. They sometimes tell the truth in ways that make it difficult for us moderns to see the truth in what they have written. We can't read the Bible the same way we read a recently published book.

Rowland