The Bible's Buried Secrets

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
Perhaps but 'moderators' should be more objective and disciplined. Additionally, were the rolls reversed you would be calling for my banning.

But it is fun so settle in that seat.

Believe it or not stahrwe, I am one of the few that has suggested to Chris that you NOT be banned. I just do not consider you a threat… to me you are the equivalent of the village idiot… sometimes entertaining and sometimes annoying… but in my own way I am fond of having you around… as disruptive as you can be you do make things here more interesting… in my opinion.

Besides (Something I know Chris has told you) even as a moderator I am under no obligation to be silent where my opinion is concerned. However my objectivity and discipline are vastly superior to yours (All the moderators here actually) and our morality as well. Considering your willful attachment to a inferior, barbaric, Bronze Age system it seems only logical that that would be the case. In short considering your lack of morality (something that has been in the spotlight in this very thread) I do not accept your critique of mine.

Stahrwe, you ask moral questions and act like you are in a position to judge our responses… when it is in fact YOU who needs schooling in morality.

Later

[stahrwe]

If research doesn't provide results within acceptable parameters redesign protocols and start over.

Those people who give grants must be pretty darn good when they pick the results they want the scientists to find. By golly their lucky guesses landed us computers, satellites, and around the world travel. But of course the areas where science overlaps with your beliefs, science is wrong by a millionfold! Watching how you believe your own deceptions, I'm convinced you believe this lie as well.

You are making a typical error nonscientists make; i.e. confusing science with technology. My Scientific Method was intended to depict research while your examples are related to technological innovation, two very different things.

Here's a challenge: show me what "protocols" could be changed with respect to carbon dating to show the age of things to be exponentially younger or older than they were before.

Carbon dating, is structured to be flexible. I have included a few key points from Wikipedia below. There are so many variables which affect the amount of carbon 14 present that the calibration process can be used to confirm any date one wants. Date isn't what you expected? Just speculate that there was more or less solar radiation at the time the sample was alive.

I love the terms invoked:
Wiggle matching, &
The Dr. Suess effect.

Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.
Wiggle matching uses the non-linear relationship between the 14C age and calendar age to match the shape of a series of closely sequentially spaced 14C dates with the 14C calibration curve.

The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere.[13] In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.
Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbo ... alibration

[stahrwe]

The Bible says the Israelites leave Egypt in a mass migration, 600,000 men and their families, and then wander in the desert for 40 years. But even assuming the Bible is exaggerating, in a hundred years of searching, archaeologists have not yet found evidence of migration that can be linked to the Exodus.

WILLIAM DEVER: No excavated site gives us any information about the route of the wandering through the wilderness. And Exodus is simply not attested anywhere.

NOVA SHOW, TBBS, page 7.

What do I make of the bolded section? Does it mean that evidence of migration is present but the researchers are unwilling to make a connection to the Exodus? Or does it mean there is no evidence period of a migration? That option seem very unlikely given the wording. What kind of evidence would the Exodus have left? We know the Jews were not stationary and did not build any dwellings. The Bible says they ate manna which fell from the sky, so there was no agriculture or animal rearing for food taking place.

The final sentence of the above quote should read, "And the Exodus is simply not attested anywhere so far, outside of the Biblical account."

[Vishnu]

Just like visitations from aliens have simply not been attested anywhere so far, outside of abductee accounts.

[stahrwe]

The Nova SHOW discusses Hazor. It implies that the Israelites did not destroy it. Yigael Yadin is probably the foremost expert on Hazor.

Yigael Yadin's expeditions to Hazor, from 1955 to 1958 and again in 1968, uncovered Middle and Late Bronze Age (2000-1200 B.C.) temples, palaces, and fortifications of the city. Shortly before his death in 1984, he hoped to return to excavate the principal Canaanite palace on the acropolis. His goal was to find a royal archive of cuneiform tablets that might include a record of events in Canaan immediately preceding the Israelites' arrival. Led by Amnon Ben-Tor, a new expedition (the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin) sponsored by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in conjunction with Madrid's Complutense University and the Israel Exploration Society, took up the challenge in 1990. Like Yadin before him, Ben-Tor hopes to find an archive within the Canaanite palace complex. Eight years of excavation there have uncovered a raised outer courtyard surrounded by massive retaining walls, and a large chamber reached from the courtyard through a monumental entrance with two decorative pillars. Although the palace's full dimensions are still unknown, its eastern facade is at least 130 feet long, its thick walls preserved in places to a height of more than eight feet. Other finds include five cuneiform tablets; cylinder seals; ivory objects; bronze swords, armor, and figurines; and the largest basalt statue of a Canaanite god ever found at a biblical site in Israel.

The biblical account of the conquest of Hazor reads, "And Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor and smote its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. And he put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire" (Joshua 11:10-11). In a later verse (10:13), the narrative notes the uniqueness of these events: "None of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor only; that Joshua burned." The destruction, Yadin wrote in Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible* (1975), "is doubtless to be ascribed to the Israelite tribes, as related in the Book of Joshua." http://www.archaeology.org/9805/abstracts/hazor.html

*found a hard cover copy in very good condition online for $1.26. On its way to my library.

[Interbane]

There are so many variables which affect the amount of carbon 14 present that the calibration process can be used to confirm any date one wants. Date isn't what you expected? Just speculate that there was more or less solar radiation at the time the sample was alive.

Any date, really?!? So prove it. Take my challenge. Show me how much solar radiation there would have to be at some point in the past for the answer to be exponentially wrong. Show me how they calculate what the solar radiation was at certain points in the past, and why their numbers are wrong.

All your focus is upon the fact that there is a margin for error. The "margin for error", in your mind, is infinite! In reality, it's not infinite. You're just rationalizing away the findings so you can preserve your beliefs.

You are making a typical error nonscientists make; i.e. confusing science with technology. My Scientific Method was intended to depict research while your examples are related to technological innovation, two very different things.

You've accused me of making these types of mistakes before, and you haven't been right yet. Do you believe yourself every time you claim someone makes a mistake? Do you not realize it may be yourself who is misunderstanding? Impossible, right?

The 'applied sciences' which develop technologies rely upon the findings of the 'pure sciences' to make progress. Sometimes a single discovery can keep technologies going for a century.

The burden of proof is on you to show how the 'applied sciences' have gotten so much correct, while the 'pure sciences' have utterly failed. You'll find it's impossible to do, since the two branches of science are so intimately interwoven. But I welcome you to try.

You also have to show how the benefits of giving grants for false research is better overall than funding true research. What is keeping the cycle going? How can these 'grantors' know what conclusions are false, so they can press that direction of research upon the people they provide grants to? Wouldn't they first have to know what's true?

There are a thousand different points that can be made against your ridiculous assertions. You'll have to rationalize each and every one away, making your beliefs into more of a tangled skein than they already are.

The only way to truly help you is for you to go to college and learn a great deal about how science works. You place a rationalization everywhere possible. Which turns out to be nothing more than gaps in your understanding. It would help you to study for a few years and realize science is formulated to be the best possible method at arriving at the truth and eliminating human subjective influence. All your "reasons why not" would be exposed as misrepresentations of science, or misunderstandings. Which they are, you're allowed to trust me when I tell you this.

I can't see what thought it would take to maintain the delusion that there is some massive worldwide scientific conspiracy that is determined to give false answers, meanwhile giving true answers everywhere else. That someone educated in the scientific method such as myself is blind to, but someone uneducated like yourself can see it clearly. It's extreme intellectual arrogance.

[stahrwe]

Just like visitations from aliens have simply not been attested anywhere so far, outside of abductee accounts.

I know this seems like a clever quip to you but you reinforce my point. Were you to have said the alien abductions are not attested to anywhere you would be incorrect. They are attested to, at a minimum, by those who claim to have been abducted. At that point the objective observer must evaluate the evidence to try to determine if the claim is true. If the only attestation is the claim by the victim then certain things can be inquired about:

What is the standing of the claimant?
Is the claimant otherwise a sober minded person?
Is the claimant given to wild claims and actions?
Is the claimant a productive member of society?
What is the profession of the claimant?
What is the emotional temperment of the claimant?

From evaluation of the person we can evaluate some circumstances:
Was the person unaccounted for during the claimed abduction?
Were their others in the area who made the same or similar claims?
If so, are the stories similar but not identical?
Were there any reports of unusual objects sighted in the area by or to law enforcement at the time?

With respect to claims made by the Bible, see the next posting about Yigael Yadin.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
If the only attestation is the claim by the victim then certain things can be inquired about:

What is the standing of the claimant?
Is the claimant otherwise a sober minded person?
Is the claimant given to wild claims and actions?
Is the claimant a productive member of society?
What is the profession of the claimant?
What is the emotional temperment of the claimant?

From evaluation of the person we can evaluate some circumstances:
Was the person unaccounted for during the claimed abduction?
Were their others in the area who made the same or similar claims?
If so, are the stories similar but not identical?
Were there any reports of unusual objects sighted in the area by or to law enforcement at the time?

So, what do you do if all of the witnesses are dead, there is no record of their existence, no confirming external evidence, no mention of abductions in the surviving government documents, no sightings, the surviving records are anonymous and their stories wild and impossible?

Can’t you see that the criteria you mention above is exactly what we have been asking you for all along?

And that the bible fails in every one of those questions.

Lets put your 10 questions to the test…

1 What is the standing of the claimant?
2 Is the claimant otherwise a sober minded person?
3 Is the claimant given to wild claims and actions?
4 Is the claimant a productive member of society?
5 What is the profession of the claimant?
6 What is the emotional temperament of the claimant?

Well the first 6 questions are simple… the biblical passages are anonymous so none of these questions can be answered about the claimants if we do not even know who they were. In addition the main character of these stories is absent from history in the time he was supposed to have lived.

The next 4 questions will be slightly altered to fit with the subject…

7 Was the person accounted for during the claimed events?

No, there are no accounts of the events at all outside of the claimant’s and the main person mentioned cannot be confirmed to have existed in the timeframe of the story at all.

8 Were their others in the area who made the same or similar claims?

No, the claimant’s are the only records… there were others in the area who should have mentioned these events but their records remain silent.

9 If so, are the stories similar but not identical?

There are several stories all written well after the alleged events from anonymous sources and when examined closely they appear to be copied from one another, sometimes word for word. Additionally from the dating we see that the earlier versions are more basic with the later versions of the story being more detailed… this suggests embellishment.

10 Were there any reports of the events in question in that area by the authorities at the time?

No, not one… also many of the events were of a nature that should have been seen and or heard of far and wide yet there is no records of said events. Finally the stories have obvious flaws in them that make their reliability questionable. (Like the fact that Nazareth did not exist in the first century)

Later

[Vishnu]

With respect to claims made by the Bible, see the next posting about Yigael Yadin.

But your post to which I was replying specifically concerned the Exodus, not the broader subject of "claims made by the Bible", so the post regarding Yadin is a change of scope, as that deals with the Joshuan conquest, not the Exodus.

Btw, getting back to the Exodus, for any of those interested, here is an email from one of my friends Devan Evans, who has posted here before as voiceofreason, which contains two responses from the Biblical Archeology Society when he asked them what archeological evidence there is for the Exodus.

[stahrwe]

There are so many variables which affect the amount of carbon 14 present that the calibration process can be used to confirm any date one wants. Date isn't what you expected? Just speculate that there was more or less solar radiation at the time the sample was alive.

Any date, really?!? So prove it. Take my challenge. Show me how much solar radiation there would have to be at some point in the past for the answer to be exponentially wrong. Show me how they calculate what the solar radiation was at certain points in the past, and why their numbers are wrong.

that's the point, there is really no way to benchmark a solar flare so one is not bound by the data, it can be adjusted just like the Hubble Not Constant.

All your focus is upon the fact that there is a margin for error. The "margin for error", in your mind, is infinite! In reality, it's not infinite. You're just rationalizing away the findings so you can preserve your beliefs.

I never said it was infinite. Stop making things up.
This is really a trivial discussion anyway. Carbon dating, if it actually worked is only valid for about 70,000 years. There is some evidence that cosmic radiation has, at times been significantly different from its present numbers.

You are making a typical error nonscientists make; i.e. confusing science with technology. My Scientific Method was intended to depict research while your examples are related to technological innovation, two very different things.

You've accused me of making these types of mistakes before, and you haven't been right yet. Do you believe yourself every time you claim someone makes a mistake? Do you not realize it may be yourself who is misunderstanding? Impossible, right?

The 'applied sciences' which develop technologies rely upon the findings of the 'pure sciences' to make progress. Sometimes a single discovery can keep technologies going for a century.

The burden of proof is on you to show how the 'applied sciences' have gotten so much correct, while the 'pure sciences' have utterly failed. You'll find it's impossible to do, since the two branches of science are so intimately interwoven. But I welcome you to try.

Another nice try for a diversion. Your examples to counter my Scientific Method were "By golly their lucky guesses landed us computers, satellites, and around the world travel."

Now, none of these examples involve pure science, and the science which is involved is totally unrelated to issues of origins or evolution. But, to show you how it would work. Let's assume that world travel is based on an inexpensive power source which is plentiful but controlled by a limited number of people. Let's say that an event creates alarm about the availability of the source of energy so the government initiates a program to move transportation away from the source. After 40 years, given a pure scientific method one would expect to see little dependence on the former energy source. Technological innovation based on scientific inquiry would lead to the use of new power sources. What we in fact see is that the technological innovation over the past 40 years has lead to pitiful improvements in effieciency of fuel utlization but little decrease in the dependence on the energy source. Why? Because government, who controls the money, is influenced by industries, especially the one which sells the energy source, so projects it support get the funds. This is not a perfect explanation given my SM but your claim was not a perfect fit for the discussion either.

One more example. Where has most of the research money for alternatives gone? Wind and solar right? What a joke. That is betting on a failure. First, doubtful one will ever have a wind powered car. As for major power generation, Wind and Solar will result in the creation of doubling the power generation capability for an existing demand. Reason, one cannot rely on wind, and solar energy has to be stored for the dark hours. Result, still need a fuel driven generating facility of some kind so our energy costs would double.

You also have to show how the benefits of giving grants for false research is better overall than funding true research. What is keeping the cycle going? How can these 'grantors' know what conclusions are false, so they can press that direction of research upon the people they provide grants to? Wouldn't they first have to know what's true?

The beauty is that it isn't as obvious as I described. Universities will not hire creationists for life sciences or astrophysics positions. The product of the university is a bureaucrat who won't fund creation scientists (not the research just the person) so the university won't hire them. As for the research, it's like bowling with rails, if your resarch goes outside the rail, you have jumped into another lane are are out.

The only way to truly help you is for you to go to college and learn a great deal about how science works. You place a rationalization everywhere possible. Which turns out to be nothing more than gaps in your understanding. It would help you to study for a few years and realize science is formulated to be the best possible method at arriving at the truth and eliminating human subjective influence. All your "reasons why not" would be exposed as misrepresentations of science, or misunderstandings. Which they are, you're allowed to trust me when I tell you this.

Beautiful Interbane. In order to fix my thinking I have to be indoctrinated by the system I am describing.

Elimination of subjective?

What happened to objective science:

Bernard Kettlewell

The Ethanol fiasco

The elimination of DDT

Alar

Bankruptcy of Dow Corning

Eugenics

Thalidamide

East Anglia

Alfred Kinsey according to Judith Reisman, Kinsey’s research was fraught with very bad scientific method and possibly fraud. Nonetheless, Kinsey’s study still remains one of the primary sources for current sexuality discussions.

Dr. William Summerlin

Charles Dawson

Ranjit Chandra

Igor and Grichka Bogdanovhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

Eric Poehlman

[Arthur Eddington was so convinced of the theory of general relativity that he altered his data to support it. Eddington set out to put Einstein to the test by carefully measuring how light was bent during a solar eclipse. Eddington threw out 16 photographic plates that didn’t support Einstein’s theory. he then published his research without those 16 plates and showed how Einstein’s theory accurately predicted the resulting data. It was this experiment that helped launch the public acceptability of relativity. Strangely enough, the hoax still has legs. You can still find the experiment listed in current textbooks as "proof" of Einstein’s theory.

I bet many of the BT readers still buy into the Eddington hoax

These are only a few examples of scientific fraud. If you want more just let me know. Some of the above was taken from the below urls.


neatorama.com/2006/09/19/10scientific-f ... the-world/
cracked.com/article_16696_the-6-ballsie ... l-for.html

I can't see what thought it would take to maintain the delusion that there is some massive worldwide scientific conspiracy that is determined to give false answers, meanwhile giving true answers everywhere else. That someone educated in the scientific method such as myself is blind to, but someone uneducated like yourself can see it clearly. It's extreme intellectual arrogance.

I love this. Read the list of frauds above. One of the things producers love to tell is how a now famous movie almost didn't get made. When I hear that I wonder how many we have missed because they didn't. Same above. I just scratched the surface of what is out there about scientific fraud and, even if I posted everyone we know about, how many have we bought into?