ericmurphy

Roger, this statement is so peculiar that I think it needs explanation. What are you saying that "no one debates"? The existence of these ante-diluvians? That they were not like us? That they lived for vast lengths of time?

It's true that if they did exist, and had such absurd lifespans, it would be a safe bet that they were not like us. But every single other assertion or assumption here is absolutely a matter of debate. Would it be, in your opinion, a "waste of time" to debate whether these ante-diluvians existed, because everyone agrees that they did? Would it be a waste of time to debate whether they lived for vast lengths of time, because everyone agrees on that, too?

Did you read the OP?

Calilasseia

Er, no one here as far as I can see is saying that the texts should be discarded summarily. What we are saying is that when those texts make unusual claims about past events, claims that initially strike us as being possibly or probably at variance with existing knowledge, then those claims should be subject to independent corroboration.

Again, these individuals are not making claims that are particularly at variance with what we know about human nature and the behaviour of humans when they take part in political systems. Indeed, this kind of behaviour - intrigue, skulduggery, treachery etc - are examples of human mendacity that make us all the more wary when alighting upon a document that makes particularly spectacular claims. Although one might also from the standpoint of rigour seek additional corroboration of the description of the political intrigues above (not least because of the possibility of partisanship on the part of the authors if they had a vested interest in a particular outcome) one does not have to engage in large-scale suspension of disbelief to conclude that Roman politicians, just like our modern day ones, are capable of getting up to no good. The evidence of the human capacity to misbehave is available to each and every one of us in large doses by dint of simple observation.

However, once one is presented with a text that makes startling claims of fantastic events worthy of Hollywood's best special effects people, is the historian not entitled to ask some very basic questions about the veracity of this? Surely the historian is derelict in his duty if he does not do so? And, the more remarkable and fantastic the events claims to have occurred, surely the more cautious one should be in determining the veracity of the document, and the more determined to seek the independent corroboration that such claims require, particularly if those claims involve manifest violations of established scientific fact?

See above.

Calilasseia

Double Post.

Actually we have pretty good reasons for regarding the laws of physics as having remained unchanged since at least the first Planck Second after the Big Bang. Namely that if those laws had not been invariant, we would not be here arguing on the Internet, because variations in the values of certain physical constants, or the number of dimensions allowed, has an impact upon such matters as whether atoms exist. Physicists have actually asked themselves the question "what would the universe be like if the laws of physics were different" and have performed the requisite analyses. Some of the resulting universes are starkly different from our own. Therefore, while it may have been possible to consider that a 19th century scientist regarded the invariance of the laws of physics as an a priori assumption (though one that even then that scientist could claim was backed up by observation), the modern physicist regards the laws of physics in this universe as invariant because the behaviour of a universe in which the laws of physics are different has been determined by the appropriate analyses, and therefore we are on considerably more solid ground with respect to the invariance of the laws of physics.

Oh, take note of how far back that invariance is now considered to apply by physicists. That invariance of the laws of physics is considered to have held since the first Planck Second - that's the moment when the universe was just 5.33 x 10^-44 seconds old. Which was around 13.4 billion years ago according to the latest analysed data from sources such as the cosmic microwave background (which has now been analysed in detail - and indeed mapped - by several space-borne telescopes). Therefore the invariance of the laws of physics in this universe is not regarded as being in doubt by the world's physicists for very good reason - they've run the numbers on this universe and a range of alternate ones that would have existed if those laws had been different from those observed here.In fact, invariance of the laws of physics, and some fairly spectacular consequences of violations thereof, are among the reasons why one of Dave's favourite collection of creationists, the RATE group, are pulling fairy stories out of their back passages over "accelerated nuclear decay" - their assumptions can be demonstrated by fairly elementary calculation to lead to manifestly unphysical conditions on Earth.

Now Roger, in the light of this, you might like to explain to the rest of the good folks here why, for example, detailed calculations upon the thermodynamic consequences of a global flood resulting in Earth temperatures oscillating between the sub-Antarctic chill seen on Pluto and the searing heat normally associated with the inside of a Bessemer furnace, which would most certainly have made the existence of you or I impossible had they occurred on a global scale, do not render all questions about the validity of the proclamations in Genesis that such a flood happened null and void. You might like to explain in addition why Dave's reliance upon RATE and accelerated nuclear decay in a formal debate (which if it had ever occurred in accordance with RATE's own figures, would have resulted in the Earth being - are you ready for this Roger? - heated to 10¹⁸⁰⁶ Kelvins), in support of his contention that the global flood specified in Genesis was a real event, is anything other than absurdity of the highest order.

We await your deliberations eagerly.

Mike PSS

And Mr. Pearse triggers a WMD response called Calilasseia. :devil1:

And thus the first building block of Methuselah refutation is set in stone.

Next on the agenda, C14 Calibration Curves for establishing consiliant dates?

How about all those autopsies on ancient Mummies establishing ancient diseases?

Anyone for dental/bone analysis of Holocine hominids for age analysis?

Or is this discussion still a friendly post-modernist debate society topic that accepts ALL sides of the story as equally vapid errrr... I mean valid.

deadman_932

*jumps up and down, waving hand*

Sauron

I just thought it might be useful to present afdave and Roger with a point-blank example of the flaw in their reasoning, with regards to the value of ancient texts.

Herodotus is an ancient historian. He has been referred to as the "father of ancient history", or even "the father of history". Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say about the value of his contribution:

Herodotus was a great traveler with an eye for detail, a good geographer, a man with an indefatigable interest in the customs and past history of his fellowmen, and a man of the widest tolerance, with no bias for the Greeks and against the barbarians. He was neither naive nor easily credulous. It is this which makes the first half of his work not only so readable but of such historical importance.

Yet Herodotus occasionally went off the rails with a clearly bogus claim:

So afdave / Roger: here we have an ancient text (At this point, I assume you'll genuflect or something).

1. How do you process this claim of flying serpents?
2. If you accept it, why?
3. If you reject it, upon what basis do you reject this claim, but accept the claim of 1,000 year lifespans in Genesis?

deadman_932

Hah...dave's already claimed that the dog-sized ants in herodotus could well have been real :| I kid you not

Sauron

Oh, I expect Davey will ignore it. It's a truism that creationists are olympic champions at ignoring inconvenient facts.

Roger's response will be the more interesting one. Given his pontifications about the value of texts to establishing history, I'm curious to see his list of criteria for excluding obvious nonsense.

My guess is that he'll also take a pass. If so, then -- as one who has constantly harped on need to understand these texts -- the damage to Roger's credibility will be worse than to afdave's (who has none).

Coragyps

I bet they could have been! Chihuahuas! That's it! Teeny-tiny little fuckin' Chihuahuas!

halfarock

It is quite possible that ancients didn't have a clear understanding of a year. More likely they kept time by counting moon cycles. Considering that there is about 13 moon cycles per year; if you divide 1000 by 13 you get 76.9. 700/13=53.8 200/13=15.4

Looking at it this way, all of those really old people in the bible and elsewhere are reasonably aged.