Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 03-03-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I think spelling truth with a capital T when discussing what is essentially an academic issue is pretentious.

I do it because I equate Truth with God in the sense of it being the ultimate ideal or goal. If you disagree, I'd be delighted to discuss it in another thread.

You presented no arguments supporting my supposed defeat, only your self-righteousness declaration.

The fact that he's been the director of a major dig in Israel is very prestigious to begin with. They don't let just anybody dig up valuable historical sites, especially in Israel. And in spite of what you've heard, he has published extensively, a lot concerning this dig. The only negative is that the university isn't accredited, but that only speaks against the university.

I don't spend a lot of time using qualifiers. And just because I present some issues in a challenging manner, doesn't mean I'm not open to criticism of me or what I post. And I think differently. An idea stands on its own, not the strength of the personality associated with it. The Truth is the Truth whether it comes from the mouth of babes, or the devil himself.

You obviously haven't read the rebuttal links he put up, and he must not have read them either until just now. They're embarrassing, dismissing science out-of-hand.

Where's the credible scientific rebuttal. It may be coming, but until then the evidence in his favor is substantial. the Mazar case isn't relevant here at all. You're say she made a mistake (ONE mistake which wasn't that far off), therefore Collins must be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you throw out the Biblical chronology, what's left of Sodom? If you find a city among many that was destroyed by fire, what makes that the historical Sodom?

The chronology is determined archaeologically, dated by pottery shards and other data from all over the region--which is covered in the article and commonly known to those interested in the subject. That's why Bolen's dismissal of it is so unbelievable, declaring it wrong because it disagrees with the Bible, and an absurd interpretation of it at that.

As for the last question, read the article.

As I said you are just making yourself look like a fool.

You say you are making a secular argument that Dr Steve has found Sodom, yet you capitalize Truth because you are a religious nut. You can't have it both ways.

Dr Steve is not involved in a dig in Israel. That's a symptom of how idiotic your arguments are.

Dr Steve also got his PhD from an unaccredited university, probably by mail order.

You haven't posted anything that I noticed other than saying that you think the site (in Jordan) is Sodom, even though you think it is in Israel.

As Toto has pointed out, Dr Steve has only published in one highly dubious journal that has no academic standing.

Sheshbazzar · 03-03-2013, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

The only negative is that the university isn't accredited, but that only speaks against the university.

It says something loud and clear about the intelligence and the motives of the individual that forgoes the pursuing of an accredited degree.

Would you trust a 'Doctor' to perform heart surgery on you, whose 'Degree' came from a mail-order diploma mill?

Why entrust your mind to the opinions of a stranger with a possibly $75 dubious and unaccredited 'PhD'?

Anyone without an agenda, and that is really pursuing higher education is going to do the work that is required to earn a Degree that will stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

Toto · 03-03-2013, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

...

The fact that he's been the director of a major dig in Israel is very prestigious to begin with. They don't let just anybody dig up valuable historical sites, especially in Israel. And in spite of what you've heard, he has published extensively, a lot concerning this dig. The only negative is that the university isn't accredited, but that only speaks against the university.

As noted, he is in Jordan, not in Israel. And did you notice the link I gave to the Atlantic article on the dubious standards for archaeology on the West Bank? Archaeology in the so called holy land is often driven by Christian evangelical tourism dollars, and Jordan has been trying to cash in on some of that for a while.

...

Quote:

You obviously haven't read the rebuttal links he put up, and he must not have read them either until just now. They're embarrassing, dismissing science out-of-hand.

Where's the credible scientific rebuttal. It may be coming, but until then the evidence in his favor is substantial. the Mazar case isn't relevant here at all. You're say she made a mistake (ONE mistake which wasn't that far off), therefore Collins must be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you throw out the Biblical chronology, what's left of Sodom? If you find a city among many that was destroyed by fire, what makes that the historical Sodom?

The chronology is determined archaeologically, dated by pottery shards and other data from all over the region--which is covered in the article and commonly known to those interested in the subject. That's why Bolen's dismissal of it is so unbelievable, declaring it wrong because it disagrees with the Bible, and an absurd interpretation of it at that.

As for the last question, read the article.

There seems to be some confusion here. Collins has archaeological evidence of an area destroyed by fire. No problem. But - what ties it to Sodom? Anything? Collins in the BAR articles claims that this preserves the historical memory of a great destruction. Is this claim even falsifiable?

IF Collins had located an area destroyed by fire that exactly matched the chronological and geographic identity of the city of Sodom described in Genesis, you might have a claim that some historical memory has been preserved in the Bible. But he doesn't have that.

I re-read the article, and I still don't see an answer to my last question - why this site should be identified with Sodom.

From the Atlantic article

Quote:

... Cultural strata in Israel and Palestine lack the lavish treasures and mystique associated with the power centers of the ancient world, such as Egypt or Mesopotamia. The goods commonly unearthed in the region -- coins, provincial tools, and bits of pottery "don't have much intrinsic value," Greenberg said, "But they have the value of being from the Holy Land."

...

As he spoke, Greenberg set down his empty mug. "Somebody could find this coffee cup and say the Prime Minister of Israel was here." He listed off proofs: "He drinks coffee. We're in Israel. Maybe he is known to come to this cafe."

ThePainefulTruth · 03-04-2013, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

The only negative is that the university isn't accredited, but that only speaks against the university.

It says something loud and clear about the intelligence and the motives of the individual that forgoes the pursuing of an accredited degree.

Would you trust a 'Doctor' to perform heart surgery on you, whose 'Degree' came from a mail-order diploma mill?

Why entrust your mind to the opinions of a stranger with a possibly $75 dubious and unaccredited 'PhD'?

Anyone without an agenda, and that is really pursuing higher education is going to do the work that is required to earn a Degree that will stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

I stated it was a negative, what do you want blood? Comparing presenting information to heart surgery? More Reductio ad absurdum, and its first cousin, the straw man argument.

semiopen · 03-04-2013, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It says something loud and clear about the intelligence and the motives of the individual that forgoes the pursuing of an accredited degree.

Would you trust a 'Doctor' to perform heart surgery on you, whose 'Degree' came from a mail-order diploma mill?

Why entrust your mind to the opinions of a stranger with a possibly $75 dubious and unaccredited 'PhD'?

Anyone without an agenda, and that is really pursuing higher education is going to do the work that is required to earn a Degree that will stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

I stated it was a negative, what do you want blood? Comparing presenting information to heart surgery? More Reductio ad absurdum, and its first cousin, the straw man argument.

You stated that the university not being accredited was a negative.

You did not acknowledge that Dr. Steve's degrees are not exactly kosher.

Quote:

Painfel - The fact that he's been the director of a major dig in Israel is very prestigious to begin with. They don't let just anybody dig up valuable historical sites, especially in Israel. And in spite of what you've heard, he has published extensively, a lot concerning this dig. The only negative is that the university isn't accredited, but that only speaks against the university.

Your only negative conclusion is totally false.

Apparently you feel that you can spout any kind of bullshit without being questioned about it.

skepticalbip · 03-04-2013, 10:20 AM

This whole line of argument is chasing a red herring. Even if this idiot were a qualified archeologist (I see no signs that he is) the question of the OP remains. Does the article show any indication that the scientific method was used in reaching its “conclusions”? I see nothing but assertions, certainly not a hypothesis that was tested. It applies the exact same illogic used by Zecharia Sitchin to claim that ancient aliens manipulated a pre-human’s DNA to create humans to be used as slave labor in mining gold. And Sitchin certainly has more publications (many of them quite scholarly on his translations of Sumarian cuneiform) and qualifications than the two “scientists” being appealed to for their expertise.

Sheshbazzar · 03-04-2013, 06:26 PM

There is also the matter of whether the claim being made is verified, the evidence is persuasive, and the findings are being accepted and endorsed by other professional archaeologists.

Even a list of genuine accredited degrees is no guarantee that one who makes such a grandiose claim is correct, or that the claim will hold up to further examination and peer review. Even certified 'experts' are sometimes found to be in error.
However, one critical component of real professional expertise is to be educated enough to know enough to hold ones cards close when approaching a major find. Understanding that a premature extravagant claim that does not hold up can leave a permanent stain upon ones professional standards and credibility that can dog their career for the rest of their lives.
A professional Archaeologist with a legitimate real degree will generally proceed with considerable caution, at every point cross checking their findings with other experts and peers in their field. And will only commit themselves to making major declarative announcements when the evidence is virtually unshakable.

A fly by night armature who has not invested those hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the years, and thousands of hours of study and work that is required to receive their Professional degree from a respected accredited College, has very little to lose in making extravagant claims, and can almost always find another set of religious suckers who are stupid enough to bankroll them to produce the wondrous claims that are needed to feed their confirmation bias for yet another season.

skepticalbip · 03-05-2013, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There is also the matter of whether the claim being made is verified, the evidence is persuasive, and the findings are being accepted and endorsed by other professional archaeologists.
.......................

I seriously doubt that any established archaeologist will even comment on this (in public) much less review the “findings”. Just as no established physicist would bother taking the time to look into some crank claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine. The claims of both demonstrate that whoever is making them either know nothing about science or are running a scam. No professional I know would want their name associated with either. Wasting their time refuting the claims would link their name to this nonsense. You don't see estabalished zoologists chasing every "bigfoot sighting" to debunk the claims made in those reports either.

The first step in the peer review process is the review a paper that has been presented to a scientific journal goes through to see if it merits publishing. This article wasn’t presented to such a journal that I can see. The magazine it was published in is one that is more concerned with circulation of the magazine than with quality of the “science”. I doubt a magazine that specializes in publishing "scientific research" into the "UFO phenomenum" is very concerned about the validity of the science in its articles either.

semiopen · 03-05-2013, 06:38 AM

Paineful has endured a painful pounding.

This has been mostly because he has been unable to defend the attacks on Dr Steve and his University.

It turns out

Leen_Ritmeyer has been working with Dr Steve on the excavation.

Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer Digging up Sodom

I haven't watched the whole thing (about an hour), but this guy is at least credible.

Previously Ritmeyer was a voice of reason on the implication of Eilat Mazar's wall.

First Temple period wall found in Jerusalem

Quote:

UPDATE: “Everything speaks for itself” … is the remark made repeatedly by Eilat Mazar in this video on the Arutz 7 website.
However, all it speaks to me of is … that she dug deeper in previously excavated areas and did not discover anything major that wasn’t known before.

You don't often hear archeologists say

Quote:

I'm working on a piece of shit project, for some crazy bible thumpers

and we don't hear it about his project either.

Anyway, Ritmeyer is a more formidable opponent than Dr Steve. Just got tired of seeing Paineful mercilessly bitch slapped because he doesn't know how to counter-attack.

dockeen · 03-05-2013, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There is also the matter of whether the claim being made is verified, the evidence is persuasive, and the findings are being accepted and endorsed by other professional archaeologists.

Even a list of genuine accredited degrees is no guarantee that one who makes such a grandiose claim is correct, or that the claim will hold up to further examination and peer review. Even certified 'experts' are sometimes found to be in error.
However, one critical component of real professional expertise is to be educated enough to know enough to hold ones cards close when approaching a major find. Understanding that a premature extravagant claim that does not hold up can leave a permanent stain upon ones professional standards and credibility that can dog their career for the rest of their lives.
A professional Archaeologist with a legitimate real degree will generally proceed with considerable caution, at every point cross checking their findings with other experts and peers in their field. And will only commit themselves to making major declarative announcements when the evidence is virtually unshakable.

A fly by night armature who has not invested those hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the years, and thousands of hours of study and work that is required to receive their Professional degree from a respected accredited College, has very little to lose in making extravagant claims, and can almost always find another set of religious suckers who are stupid enough to bankroll them to produce the wondrous claims that are needed to feed their confirmation bias for yet another season.

It is interesting to realize that within academia, not only is having one's
findings be front page news in the popular press before they have gone
through the process of peer review NOT a feather in one's cap, it is in
fact a negative, as it reveals a sort of sloppiness in one's process that
more often than not leads to ---- bovine scatology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2013, 10:20 AM	#116
skepticalbip Contributor Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Searching for reality on the long and winding road Posts: 12,976	This whole line of argument is chasing a red herring. Even if this idiot were a qualified archeologist (I see no signs that he is) the question of the OP remains. Does the article show any indication that the scientific method was used in reaching its “conclusions”? I see nothing but assertions, certainly not a hypothesis that was tested. It applies the exact same illogic used by Zecharia Sitchin to claim that ancient aliens manipulated a pre-human’s DNA to create humans to be used as slave labor in mining gold. And Sitchin certainly has more publications (many of them quite scholarly on his translations of Sumarian cuneiform) and qualifications than the two “scientists” being appealed to for their expertise.

03-04-2013, 06:26 PM	#117
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There is also the matter of whether the claim being made is verified, the evidence is persuasive, and the findings are being accepted and endorsed by other professional archaeologists. Even a list of genuine accredited degrees is no guarantee that one who makes such a grandiose claim is correct, or that the claim will hold up to further examination and peer review. Even certified 'experts' are sometimes found to be in error. However, one critical component of real professional expertise is to be educated enough to know enough to hold ones cards close when approaching a major find. Understanding that a premature extravagant claim that does not hold up can leave a permanent stain upon ones professional standards and credibility that can dog their career for the rest of their lives. A professional Archaeologist with a legitimate real degree will generally proceed with considerable caution, at every point cross checking their findings with other experts and peers in their field. And will only commit themselves to making major declarative announcements when the evidence is virtually unshakable. A fly by night armature who has not invested those hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the years, and thousands of hours of study and work that is required to receive their Professional degree from a respected accredited College, has very little to lose in making extravagant claims, and can almost always find another set of religious suckers who are stupid enough to bankroll them to produce the wondrous claims that are needed to feed their confirmation bias for yet another season.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.