Karl:
You wrote: “You claim that the Amarna Letters were written in late bronze age? That’s based on Manetho.”
No, it’s based on objective facts such as the following. Several Amarna Letters concern the Great Syrian War, in which the Hittites destroyed the Hurrians in Syria. Prior to the Amarna Age, the Hurrians dominated Syria, but after the Amarna Age, the Hurrians were on the road to extinction.
Why do you t-h-i-n-k that Isaac was so excited about getting two Canaan-born Hurrian brides for his favorite son, firstborn twin son Esau, but then soon thereafter regretted arranging those marriages? It’s because Hurrian princelings dominated Canaan in Year 13 during the mid-14th century BCE (when those marriages occurred), but then dramatically receded in importance when the Hittites destroyed the Hurrians in the Great Syrian War in Year 14.
When you see Genesis 25: 23 use the archaic Late Bronze Age word RB to mean “the older” (referring to Esau as Jacob’s older twin brother), that’s vintage mid-2nd millennium BCE nomenclature.
All reputable historians agree that the Great Syrian War, featuring the Hittites’ great victory over the Hurrians, happened in the mid-14th century BCE. That has nothing to do with Manetho. We know that Akhenaten was pharaoh at that time, not because of Manetho, but because Akhenaten wrote several Amarna Letters that concern the Great Syrian War.
When you see “Tidal” as a bona fide Hittite kingly name at Genesis 14: 1, that is redolent of the Great Syrian War and the mid-14th century BCE.
When you see “Arioch” as a Hurrian name at Genesis 14: 1, that is redolent of the Great Syrian War and the mid-14th century BCE.
When you see “Bera” and “Birsha” and “Shemeber” and “Shinab” as Hurrian names at Genesis 14: 2 (mis-transliterated by KJV, of course), that is redolent of the Great Syrian War and the mid-14th century BCE.
When you see “Shinar” as a Hurrian geographical place name at Genesis 14: 1, that is Amarna Letter EA 35: 49 and as such is redolent of the Great Syrian War and the mid-14th century BCE.
When you see MLK ‘LM : mlk ‘lm as a kingly title at Genesis 14: 1, that is redolent of Ugarit (where mlk ‘lm is well-attested), and as such is also redolent of the Great Syrian War and the mid-14th century BCE.
When you see Abram saying at Genesis 14: 22-23 that “I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong, or anything that is yours….”, that is coming almost word for word from what Hittite King Suppiluliuma said to the king of Ugarit in the Ugarit treaty after the Great Syrian War: “[A]s far as what belongs to Ugarit…Suppiluliuma, the Great King, will not touch/take anything, be it straw or splinter.” That is vintage mid-14th century BCE nomenclature.
When you see Genesis 14: 9 refer to “four kings with five”, that recalls that the Great Syrian War in the mid-14th century BCE, which featured a winning coalition of 4 rulers destroying a rebellious anti-Hittite league of 5 parties: “four kings with five”.
All of these references to Hittites and Hurrians and Ugarit in chapter 14 of Genesis literally reek of the world of the mid-14th century BCE and the Amarna Letters.
Here’s one more item. The word “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15 is generally considered inexplicable, but it’s right there at Amarna Letter EA 189: R12 (written by Hurrian princeling Etakama, who is Biblical “Arioch”), where “Hobah” is H-Ubah, with H being the Hebrew word for “the”, and Ubah being Upe, being the mid-14th century BCE Hurrian word for the Damascus region.
Did I mention that the 5th rebellious party, which historically was Tunip, did not have a princeling ruler during the Great Syrian War? That’s why there’s no ruler listed for “Bela” at Genesis 14: 2.
The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in the historical context of Year 13 of Amarna in the mid-14th century BCE is truly breathtaking. I could care less what Manetho says about anything ! Just look at the Hittites and the Hurrians and Ugarit and Akhenaten and forget all about Manetho altogether: it’s all Year 13, all the way in every way. The Biblical “four kings with five” is the historical Great Syrian War of the mid-14th century BCE during late Amarna, when Akhenaten was Egypt’s embattled pharaoh.
And No, the “vale of Siddim” is not a fictional valley of cultivated fields that fictionally lies at the bottom of the southern half of the Dead Sea. Not. Nor is “Chedorlaomer” a king of far-off, irrelevant Elam. Not. Nor is “sea the salt” at Genesis 14: 3 the Dead Sea. No way. “Tidal” and the Hittites have nothing to do with the Dead Sea or Elam.
Karl, if you knew the history of the Late Bronze Age, you would see that the “four kings with five” in chapter 14 of Genesis is a dead ringer for the Great Syrian War in the mid-14th century BCE.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Melchizedek
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Jim:
I was somewhat curious how you would answer my last post, and you answer was predictable.
I don’t need to read further, for your very arguments to try to distance yourself from Manetho are based on Manetho.
See for example the following site:
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... nreliable/
There are other sites as well.
Karl W. Randolph.
I was somewhat curious how you would answer my last post, and you answer was predictable.
How many of those “objective facts” are based on Manetho?Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “You claim that the Amarna Letters were written in late bronze age? That’s based on Manetho.”
No, it’s based on objective facts such as the following.
How do you define “reputable historians”? Right now, university history departments are dominated by followers of Manetho. Hence their assigning powerful city states with kings and armies to late bronze age uninhabited ruins to try to keep the fiction of late bronze age Amarna letters alive. Iron age divided kingdom Amarna letters need no such mental gymnastics.Jim Stinehart wrote:…All reputable historians
That date is based on Manetho.Jim Stinehart wrote: agree that the Great Syrian War, featuring the Hittites’ great victory over the Hurrians, happened in the mid-14th century BCE.
I don’t need to read further, for your very arguments to try to distance yourself from Manetho are based on Manetho.
See for example the following site:
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... nreliable/
There are other sites as well.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Karl:
The Amarna Letters prominently feature Hittite King Suppiluliuma, the most famous and powerful Hittite king of all time.
Giving zero weight to anything that Manetho ever said, to what historical time period do you date mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma, and on what objective basis?
I myself see the Patriarchal Age as being the time period of Hittite King Suppiluliuma, whose apt Patriarchal nickname at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is “Tidal”. That’s late Amarna. That’s independent of anything Manetho ever said.
You wrote in any earlier post: “There are historical and archaeological evidences that the Amarna Letters were written during the Biblical divided kingdoms period.” Does that mean that you date Hittite King Suppiluliuma to the Biblical divided kingdoms period? Weren’t the Hittites as a powerful people effectively extinct by that late date?
I don’t know if you pay any attention to absolute dating using astronomy. Concerning Suppiluliuma, note this: “As is well known, the dating of Suppiluliuma’s death is based on the solar phenomenon that occurred during Mursili II’s campaign in north-eastern Anatolia as described in KUB 14.4; see de Martino(1998).” http://www.academia.edu/2039296/One-yea ... n_Campaign
Please set forth any objective evidence you may think you have for dating mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma to any historical time period other than the mid-14th century BCE in the Late Bronze Age. And by all means, in your analysis give zero weight to Manetho.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
The Amarna Letters prominently feature Hittite King Suppiluliuma, the most famous and powerful Hittite king of all time.
Giving zero weight to anything that Manetho ever said, to what historical time period do you date mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma, and on what objective basis?
I myself see the Patriarchal Age as being the time period of Hittite King Suppiluliuma, whose apt Patriarchal nickname at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is “Tidal”. That’s late Amarna. That’s independent of anything Manetho ever said.
You wrote in any earlier post: “There are historical and archaeological evidences that the Amarna Letters were written during the Biblical divided kingdoms period.” Does that mean that you date Hittite King Suppiluliuma to the Biblical divided kingdoms period? Weren’t the Hittites as a powerful people effectively extinct by that late date?
I don’t know if you pay any attention to absolute dating using astronomy. Concerning Suppiluliuma, note this: “As is well known, the dating of Suppiluliuma’s death is based on the solar phenomenon that occurred during Mursili II’s campaign in north-eastern Anatolia as described in KUB 14.4; see de Martino(1998).” http://www.academia.edu/2039296/One-yea ... n_Campaign
Please set forth any objective evidence you may think you have for dating mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma to any historical time period other than the mid-14th century BCE in the Late Bronze Age. And by all means, in your analysis give zero weight to Manetho.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Yes.Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
The Amarna Letters prominently feature Hittite King Suppiluliuma, the most famous and powerful Hittite king of all time.
You wrote in any earlier post: “There are historical and archaeological evidences that the Amarna Letters were written during the Biblical divided kingdoms period.” Does that mean that you date Hittite King Suppiluliuma to the Biblical divided kingdoms period?
Nope.Jim Stinehart wrote: Weren’t the Hittites as a powerful people effectively extinct by that late date?
Look at this reference, the only evidence for Suppiluliuma being late bronze age is the cross-reference to the Amarna letters, and the only evidence that the Amarna letters are late bronze age is Manetho. But seeing as the Amarna letters historically and archaeologically fit the iron age divided kingdom era, that puts Suppiluliuma in the iron age, roughly 800 BC.Jim Stinehart wrote:I don’t know if you pay any attention to absolute dating using astronomy. Concerning Suppiluliuma, note this: “As is well known, the dating of Suppiluliuma’s death is based on the solar phenomenon that occurred during Mursili II’s campaign in north-eastern Anatolia as described in KUB 14.4; see de Martino(1998).” http://www.academia.edu/2039296/One-yea ... n_Campaign
Of course by putting the Amarna letters in the divided kingdom period puts zero weight to Manetho, for the only evidence that the Amarna letters are late bronze age is Manetho.Jim Stinehart wrote:Please set forth any objective evidence you may think you have for dating mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma to any historical time period other than the mid-14th century BCE in the Late Bronze Age. And by all means, in your analysis give zero weight to Manetho.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
As a lawyer, you should recognize that when only one witness contradicts all the forensic evidence, that the contradiction discounts that one witness.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Karl:
You wrote: “[T]hat puts [Hittite King] Suppiluliuma in the iron age, roughly 800 BC.”
Karl, as to the scientific dating of the Hittites (having nothing to do with Manetho or the Amarna Letters), please consider this 2006 scholarly article by Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, “Dating the Hittites with Statistics: Ten Pottery Assemblages from Bogazköy- Hattu$a”, here: http://www.academia.edu/662254/Dating_t ... oy-Hattusa
Schoop dates Hittite pottery to the 18th - 13th centuries BCE. Note in particular his comments about radiocarbon dating of these Hittite artifacts, which is highly accurate and absolutely rules out your 800 BCE proposed dating:
“A similar situation concerns our Complex C16. This assemblage was contained in the walls and the coverings of the huge grain silo on the Northwest Slope of Büyükkale, the destruction of which is radiocarbon-dated into the 16th century. Again, this is only a terminus ante quem, but it shows that we have to accommodate the pottery to the same time span as the typologically much older material of Complex B17 – most probably into the early 16th century BC. Complex D15a consists of pottery from top-floor deposits of two quadrangular buildings in the valley west to Sarkale, built here apparently on virgin soil. They are radiocarbon-dated around 1500 BC. …Radiocarbon dates taken from charred food remains found together with the pottery fragments date the assemblage to the end of the 15th century. After an interval that saw heavy erosional activity acting upon the older settlement remains, a dense cluster of habitation structures was built in the Sarkale valley. A series of radiocarbon dates indicates a duration of this settlement phase for most of the 14th century.”
Radiocarbon dating places the Hittites in a time period that includes the 14th century BCE, and that absolutely excludes the 800 BCE time period. Biblical “Tidal” at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is a vintage Hittite kingly name, which I myself view as being an apt, though highly pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma (who did everything that “Tidal” is described as doing at Genesis 14: 1-10). That all fits with the Patriarchal Age being the mid-14th century BCE, in late Amarna.
Karl, radiocarbon dating of Hittite artifacts is scientifically accurate and strongly supports the conventional chronological dating that I use in my analysis of the Patriarchal narratives. Radiocarbon dating and the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives go hand in hand -- but if and only if the time period of the Patriarchal Age is late Amarna in the mid-14th century BCE, not 800 BCE.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “[T]hat puts [Hittite King] Suppiluliuma in the iron age, roughly 800 BC.”
Karl, as to the scientific dating of the Hittites (having nothing to do with Manetho or the Amarna Letters), please consider this 2006 scholarly article by Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, “Dating the Hittites with Statistics: Ten Pottery Assemblages from Bogazköy- Hattu$a”, here: http://www.academia.edu/662254/Dating_t ... oy-Hattusa
Schoop dates Hittite pottery to the 18th - 13th centuries BCE. Note in particular his comments about radiocarbon dating of these Hittite artifacts, which is highly accurate and absolutely rules out your 800 BCE proposed dating:
“A similar situation concerns our Complex C16. This assemblage was contained in the walls and the coverings of the huge grain silo on the Northwest Slope of Büyükkale, the destruction of which is radiocarbon-dated into the 16th century. Again, this is only a terminus ante quem, but it shows that we have to accommodate the pottery to the same time span as the typologically much older material of Complex B17 – most probably into the early 16th century BC. Complex D15a consists of pottery from top-floor deposits of two quadrangular buildings in the valley west to Sarkale, built here apparently on virgin soil. They are radiocarbon-dated around 1500 BC. …Radiocarbon dates taken from charred food remains found together with the pottery fragments date the assemblage to the end of the 15th century. After an interval that saw heavy erosional activity acting upon the older settlement remains, a dense cluster of habitation structures was built in the Sarkale valley. A series of radiocarbon dates indicates a duration of this settlement phase for most of the 14th century.”
Radiocarbon dating places the Hittites in a time period that includes the 14th century BCE, and that absolutely excludes the 800 BCE time period. Biblical “Tidal” at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is a vintage Hittite kingly name, which I myself view as being an apt, though highly pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma (who did everything that “Tidal” is described as doing at Genesis 14: 1-10). That all fits with the Patriarchal Age being the mid-14th century BCE, in late Amarna.
Karl, radiocarbon dating of Hittite artifacts is scientifically accurate and strongly supports the conventional chronological dating that I use in my analysis of the Patriarchal narratives. Radiocarbon dating and the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives go hand in hand -- but if and only if the time period of the Patriarchal Age is late Amarna in the mid-14th century BCE, not 800 BCE.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Sorry, C14 dating isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. See also https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... ent-egypt/Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “[T]hat puts [Hittite King] Suppiluliuma in the iron age, roughly 800 BC.”
…Note in particular his comments about radiocarbon dating of these Hittite artifacts, which is highly accurate and absolutely rules out your 800 BCE proposed dating:
Over the years I’ve seen radiometric dates that are all over the map. They’re not scientific, because they deal with things that can’t be observed and science is limited to what can be observed. So the researchers can massage the dates to give you figures that they expect you to want.
By the way, Suppiluliuma had dealings with Akhnaton as well as Shalmaneser III. According to your dates, he would have had to have lived some 500 years to deal with both. But because Assyrian dating is more accurate than Egyptian dating, that would put Suppiluliuma during the divided kingdom era, roughly 800 BC. See also http://www.specialtyinterests.net/el_am ... mians.html and yet a different set of dates http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploa ... pter_4.pdf This latter site also lists a whole series of other problems with Manetho inspired dating.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Karl:
You wrote: “Over the years I’ve seen radiometric dates that are all over the map. They’re not scientific, because they deal with things that can’t be observed and science is limited to what can be observed. So the researchers can massage the dates to give you figures that they expect you to want.”
Karl, you are asking us to believe that radiocarbon dating is over 600 years off in dating artifacts from the time of Hittite King Suppiluliuma, allegedly erring by finding dates in the mid-14th century BCE when, according to you, the proper dating is about 800 BCE. Karl, that simply is not credible.
The Patriarchal narratives in many cases have pinpoint historical accuracy. But only if the historical time period is late Amarna, and only if the Amarna Age is the mid-14th century BCE.
Your claim that radiocarbon dating can be off by over 600 years is special pleading writ large, and is a non-starter. My historical analysis of the Patriarchal narratives, by contrast, stays with the conventional chronology of the ancient Near East, which in one form or another is espoused by virtually all leading historians of the ancient world.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “Over the years I’ve seen radiometric dates that are all over the map. They’re not scientific, because they deal with things that can’t be observed and science is limited to what can be observed. So the researchers can massage the dates to give you figures that they expect you to want.”
Karl, you are asking us to believe that radiocarbon dating is over 600 years off in dating artifacts from the time of Hittite King Suppiluliuma, allegedly erring by finding dates in the mid-14th century BCE when, according to you, the proper dating is about 800 BCE. Karl, that simply is not credible.
The Patriarchal narratives in many cases have pinpoint historical accuracy. But only if the historical time period is late Amarna, and only if the Amarna Age is the mid-14th century BCE.
Your claim that radiocarbon dating can be off by over 600 years is special pleading writ large, and is a non-starter. My historical analysis of the Patriarchal narratives, by contrast, stays with the conventional chronology of the ancient Near East, which in one form or another is espoused by virtually all leading historians of the ancient world.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Jim:
Your response shows that you are a lawyer, not a scientist. My response is based on science, which reflects my background.
Archaeology and the recorded histories of other countries mention Suppiluliuma during the divided kingdom era. They also mention other events connecting the Amarna letters to the divided kingdom era. If it weren’t for Manetho and Manetho inspired historians, there’d be no problem with recognizing that the Amarna letters are from the divided kingdom era.
Wasn’t that the approach espoused by Blackstone, which modern lawyers now largely ignore?
I’ll close with a joke:
Q: What’s the difference between a scientist and a lawyer?
A: The scientist doesn’t consider himself to be a lawyer.
Karl W. Randolph.
Your response shows that you are a lawyer, not a scientist. My response is based on science, which reflects my background.
Hey, this error is but small potatoes compared to other errors made by radiometric dating. Or more accurately, errors made by those who make “radiometric dates”. The reason that such errors can be made is because radiometric dating is not science. Science is limited to what is observable, and radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that can not be observed, therefore not science.Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “Over the years I’ve seen radiometric dates that are all over the map. They’re not scientific, because they deal with things that can’t be observed and science is limited to what can be observed. So the researchers can massage the dates to give you figures that they expect you to want.”
Karl, you are asking us to believe that radiocarbon dating is over 600 years off in dating artifacts from the time of Hittite King Suppiluliuma, allegedly erring by finding dates in the mid-14th century BCE when, according to you, the proper dating is about 800 BCE. Karl, that simply is not credible.
Archaeology and the recorded histories of other countries mention Suppiluliuma during the divided kingdom era. They also mention other events connecting the Amarna letters to the divided kingdom era. If it weren’t for Manetho and Manetho inspired historians, there’d be no problem with recognizing that the Amarna letters are from the divided kingdom era.
Very true, if and only if you take all the data included in the Patriarchal Narratives, including the dates. Whether you believe the Patriarchal Narratives or not, as written they give pinpoint historical data.Jim Stinehart wrote:The Patriarchal narratives in many cases have pinpoint historical accuracy.
With this claim you are a laughing stock. You would have to date the Amarna letters 600 years earlier to make them contemporaneous to the Patriarchal Narratives. Your logical inconsistencies are so great that only a lawyer could make them.Jim Stinehart wrote:But only if the historical time period is late Amarna, and only if the Amarna Age is the mid-14th century BCE.
Well, you close with an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy which is unconvincing because the authority contradicts the data. One of the central tenants of scientific method is that the data trumps authority, it doesn’t matter who is the authority. Having been trained as a scientist, I take the scientific approach to the question, and follow data rather than authorities.Jim Stinehart wrote:Your claim that radiocarbon dating can be off by over 600 years is special pleading writ large, and is a non-starter. My historical analysis of the Patriarchal narratives, by contrast, stays with the conventional chronology of the ancient Near East, which in one form or another is espoused by virtually all leading historians of the ancient world.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Wasn’t that the approach espoused by Blackstone, which modern lawyers now largely ignore?
I’ll close with a joke:
Q: What’s the difference between a scientist and a lawyer?
A: The scientist doesn’t consider himself to be a lawyer.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Karl:
You wrote: “[R]adiometric dating is not science. Science is limited to what is observable, and radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that can not be observed, therefore not science. … Having been trained as a scientist, I take the scientific approach to the question….”
Karl, certainly you are aware that virtually all scientists view radiometric dating as being a reliable scientific method. The main opposition to the scientific validity of radiometric dating has come from young earth creation science theorists, as can be seen here: http://www.oldearth.org/radiometricdating.htm
“Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
The topic of radiometric dating has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method. …
General Articles
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger Wiens
RATE Index - A separate index of articles addressing the claims of the RATE project
Do radioisotope methods yield trustworthy relative ages for the earth’s rocks?, by Mike Hore
Are Dating Techniques Accurate?, by Greg Neyman
Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale, by Andrew MacRae
Isochron Dating, by Chris Stassen
An Essay on Radiometric Dating – by Jonathan Woolf
Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism, by J.G. Meert
Geochronology - Radiometric Dating Reappraised
Potassium and Argon Dating
Ar39 - Ar40 Dating- How serious are errors in Ar Dating and how good are their monitoring standards
Shotgun Attack - Woodmorappe's efforts to attack Ar-Ar dating
Blind Leading the Blind - Austin, Snelling and Swenson Misinterpret Dalrymple's K-Ar Dating of Historical Volcanics
Mount Saint Helens Dacite Dating - YEC Steve Austin's poor scientific methods exposed
Radiocarbon Dating
Carbon-14 Dating - Young earth creation science misunderstanding of carbon dating. From 1979
Radiocarbon Dating, by Mark Aardsma
Radiohalos
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted - by Thomas Baillieul
Radiohalos – Can young-earth scientists prove a young earth using radiometric methods? Don’t even try!
Young Earth Tricks of the Trade
Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating - Woodmorappe tricks young earth followers with misinformation
Distortions of the Lu-Hf Method - Woodmorappe pulls out of context to support his claims
Chopping a Title Hides the Truth - One method used to deceive people
Grand Canyon Dating Project - Slight-of-hand does not prove a young earth
Important Statements on Radiometric Dating in Woodmorappe's References that He Doesn't Want You to See
Bad Young Earth Science
Woodmorappe's Shell Game: Refuted with Literature from his Creationist Allies - Even their own work contradicts itself
Bill of Goods - Woodmorappe's arguments make no sense
Exposing the Bad Science of John Woodmorappe, by Dr. Kevin Henke
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/radiometricdati ... sIlS2.dpuf”
* * *
Karl, your views have no scientific or historical merit, as they are specifically rejected on the merits by most all leading scientists and historians. You say that I am allegedly a “laughing stock” for positing the Amarna Age as being the mid-14th century BCE, but I don’t know of a single leading mainstream historian who posits a different historical time period than that for the Amarna Age. Karl, one of us is making himself a “laughing stock” on this thread.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “[R]adiometric dating is not science. Science is limited to what is observable, and radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that can not be observed, therefore not science. … Having been trained as a scientist, I take the scientific approach to the question….”
Karl, certainly you are aware that virtually all scientists view radiometric dating as being a reliable scientific method. The main opposition to the scientific validity of radiometric dating has come from young earth creation science theorists, as can be seen here: http://www.oldearth.org/radiometricdating.htm
“Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
The topic of radiometric dating has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method. …
General Articles
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger Wiens
RATE Index - A separate index of articles addressing the claims of the RATE project
Do radioisotope methods yield trustworthy relative ages for the earth’s rocks?, by Mike Hore
Are Dating Techniques Accurate?, by Greg Neyman
Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale, by Andrew MacRae
Isochron Dating, by Chris Stassen
An Essay on Radiometric Dating – by Jonathan Woolf
Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism, by J.G. Meert
Geochronology - Radiometric Dating Reappraised
Potassium and Argon Dating
Ar39 - Ar40 Dating- How serious are errors in Ar Dating and how good are their monitoring standards
Shotgun Attack - Woodmorappe's efforts to attack Ar-Ar dating
Blind Leading the Blind - Austin, Snelling and Swenson Misinterpret Dalrymple's K-Ar Dating of Historical Volcanics
Mount Saint Helens Dacite Dating - YEC Steve Austin's poor scientific methods exposed
Radiocarbon Dating
Carbon-14 Dating - Young earth creation science misunderstanding of carbon dating. From 1979
Radiocarbon Dating, by Mark Aardsma
Radiohalos
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted - by Thomas Baillieul
Radiohalos – Can young-earth scientists prove a young earth using radiometric methods? Don’t even try!
Young Earth Tricks of the Trade
Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating - Woodmorappe tricks young earth followers with misinformation
Distortions of the Lu-Hf Method - Woodmorappe pulls out of context to support his claims
Chopping a Title Hides the Truth - One method used to deceive people
Grand Canyon Dating Project - Slight-of-hand does not prove a young earth
Important Statements on Radiometric Dating in Woodmorappe's References that He Doesn't Want You to See
Bad Young Earth Science
Woodmorappe's Shell Game: Refuted with Literature from his Creationist Allies - Even their own work contradicts itself
Bill of Goods - Woodmorappe's arguments make no sense
Exposing the Bad Science of John Woodmorappe, by Dr. Kevin Henke
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/radiometricdati ... sIlS2.dpuf”
* * *
Karl, your views have no scientific or historical merit, as they are specifically rejected on the merits by most all leading scientists and historians. You say that I am allegedly a “laughing stock” for positing the Amarna Age as being the mid-14th century BCE, but I don’t know of a single leading mainstream historian who posits a different historical time period than that for the Amarna Age. Karl, one of us is making himself a “laughing stock” on this thread.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Don’t do the bandwagon logical fallacy on me, which is also another appeal to authority logical fallacy—they’re not convincing.Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:
You wrote: “[R]adiometric dating is not science. Science is limited to what is observable, and radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that can not be observed, therefore not science. … Having been trained as a scientist, I take the scientific approach to the question….”
Karl, certainly you are aware that virtually all scientists view radiometric dating as being a reliable scientific method.
Within science, one person who is correct counts for more than all other people in the world, if they’re wrong.
Ah, the guilt by association logical fallacy.Jim Stinehart wrote: The main opposition to the scientific validity of radiometric dating has come from young earth creation science theorists,:…
This claim is a repeat of the logical fallacies above.Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl, your views have no scientific or historical merit, as they are specifically rejected on the merits by most all leading scientists and historians.
Is this not the taking out of context and misquoting logical fallacies, then making a straw man argument?Jim Stinehart wrote: You say that I am allegedly a “laughing stock” for positing the Amarna Age as being the mid-14th century BCE,
You need to turn away from the “leading mainstream” after which you can find plenty of archaeologists and historians who posit different dates for the Amarna letters, and give good historical and archaeological evidences to back up their claims.Jim Stinehart wrote: but I don’t know of a single leading mainstream historian who posits a different historical time period than that for the Amarna Age.
Since you like appealing to authority so much, have you heard of Dr. George Gaylord Simpson? Dr. William S. Beck? If you need to Google those names, one thing to make it easer̦—they were both professors at Harvard.Jim Stinehart wrote: Karl, one of us is making himself a “laughing stock” on this thread.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Well, in 1965 they collaborated on a textbook on biology, reprinted a few time the next few years, it can be ordered at: http://www.amazon.com/Life-George-Gaylo ... to+biology In that textbook they gave a description of scientific method, as follows: 1) observe, if something can’t be observed, it’s by definition not scientific, 2) repeat the observation, if the observation can’t be repeated, it’s by definition not scientific, 3) look for patterns in numerous observations, which they called “making a hypothesis”, 4) test the hypothesis, devising experiments, but the only valid tests use exclusively a repeat of steps #1 and #2 above, 5) a hypothesis that passes step #4, it can be called a theory, otherwise it needs to be revised until it passes, or is rejected, 6) continue testing, as new data can disprove even what was thought to be sure theories. Found on pages 14–16.
I looked at several other science textbooks in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. and not one contradicted this description, though none were as complete as this one.
Do you disagree with this description? Do you claim that Dr.s Simpson and Beck, and the other science textbook writers, didn’t know what they were writing about?
Can you make a logical deduction as to areas of study that science cannot investigate? And by extension, how and why “radiometric dating” cannot be scientific? Do you even know what are the presuppositions and methodology behind “radiometric dating”?
Can you think logically? Or does your use of logical fallacies above show that you can’t?
Karl W. Randolph.