Archaeology at Nazareth

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:04 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:Leona, would you bet your life that a C14 date is accurate?

More accurate than anything in your bible.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:36 pm

[quote="Genesis Veracity"]Leona, would you bet your life that a C14 date is accurate?[/quote]

Sure, why not? C-14 is a lot closer to accurate than any dating that your side has come up with. Anybody who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old leaves a lot to be desired in the intelligence department.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:41 pm

[quote="Genesis Veracity"]What supposed scientific facts are you talking about, Leona, which Bible believers ostensibly must invalidate?[/quote]

So far just about everything presented in this entire forum, has been put down as either; one persons' opinion, not an accurate method, or some other reason because it doesn't validate your biblical beliefs.

At least 90% of what you post is not worth the effort of a reply.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:41 pm

Leona, of course, they could never agree on what would be the correct date result, because their results vary so much and often, so my question was actually hypothetical.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:53 pm

Since the introduction of AMS the 14C results are even more impressive actually.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:57 pm

oh - and while discussing dating techniques we shouldn't forget:

Archaeo magnetism
Dendro chronology (also used to check 14C)
Varves
Cation ratios
Amino Acid Recemization
Termoluminescence
Uranium Series
Obsidian Hydration
Electron Spin Resonance
Potassium Argon
Geomagnetic Reversals
Fission Tracks

All told a pretty good battery of techniques to cover the last 5,000,000 years.....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:58 pm

More impressive than dates of hundreds of years for day-old tissues, I hope.

And when a date comes back from what looks to be a good sample going in, but it comes back "too far off," then what excuse do they come up with for why what had been a good sample is "actually" now a bad sample?

Very hokey.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:00 pm

Oas, your problem is that all those methods are predicated upon unknowable presuppositions, therefore, the results are only as good as those unknowable presuppositions, get it?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:06 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:More impressive than dates of hundreds of years for day-old tissues, I hope.

And when a date comes back from what looks to be a good sample going in, but it comes back "too far off," then what excuse do they come up with for why what had been a good sample is "actually" now a bad sample?

Very hokey.

I'm so glad you mention that GV - here's how creationists bullshit their followers:

A friend of mine was trying to disprove Darwin by discrediting archaeological dating techniques. He cited a story he had read (no I don't know where, but if you are really interested I'll ask him on Monday).

He said that "they" had used Pottassium Argon dating on a live snail and it had returned a date of several thousand years old. Therefore you can't believe archaeologists.

Sounds conclusive to the uneducated. Except:

- Potassium Argon dating is used to date volcanic rock
- It's known effective date range is 5,000,000 to 1,000,000 years BP
- To perform this on a living animal they would have had to grind the poor little bugger up. Nice....

And that, my friends, is how creationists pervert science to mislead the ignorant.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:07 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:Oas, your problem is that all those methods are predicated upon unknowable presuppositions, therefore, the results are only as good as those unknowable presuppositions, get it?

Really - pick one and give me your unknowable presuppositions.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:10 pm

And that, my friends, is how creationists pervert science to mislead the ignorant.

Well, lying is against one of their precious commandments, isn't it? I guess they'd burn in Hell......if there was a Hell.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:49 pm

Minimalist wrote: BTW, I saw another treatise the other day which suggested that the alleged reference of P. Cornelius Tacitus to Christ and Christians and even Nero's so-called persecution was also a later insertion. I need to go find that again. Very interesting stuff, if somewhat O/T.

Well, no point in worrying about this thread going Off Topic anymore so here's the essay on Tacitus.

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/Christia ... cnero.html

The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.

It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to -- arson or Christianity? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.

But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly many opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:47 am

Hey min, to read about the historical accuracy of the Gospels, check-out article #5 at www.GenesisVeracity.com.

Donna · Post by **Donna** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:43 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:Hey min, to read about the historical accuracy of the Gospels, check-out article #5 at www.GenesisVeracity.com.

I don't know if Min. read your articles but I did. Are you kidding? Those articles have as much validity as me saying "Pigs can fly."

Donna

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:45 pm

Donna, can you actually be specific, or is that too much for you?