Freethought & Rationalism Archive

shirley knott · 07-01-2007, 12:28 PM

Perhaps it's time to remind dave about that little word he recently learned, 'consilience'? He claimed it for Biblical history, yet it certanly appears that great gaping holes are fairly easy to find. His story is not consilient.
How odd...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Calilasseia · 07-01-2007, 01:44 PM

What you have to bear in mind at this juncture SK, is that thre is a fundamental difference between scientific and theological approaches to burning questions.

Part One consists of:

Science: here are the observed facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

Theology: here is the conclusion. What facts can we find that fit it?

Part two consists of:

Science: here is a hypothesis. What would make this hypothesis wrong? Can we find observations that do precisely this?

Theology: here is a hypothesis. What would make this hypothesis right? Can we find semantic constructions that do precisely this?

Dave is simply (mis)applying the processes of theology to science. That explains much of his output - including the assorted pronouncements on pyramids, Ancient Egypt etc.

Unfortunately, unbroken continuity of human existence and development of human civilisation takes place in Egypt right the way through the middle of his flood timetable. Because he's simply not looking for reasons to invalidate that timetable, he adopts the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast Of Traal¹ approach - "it's not a part of my investigations, therefore I can't see it".

Using a jigsaw analogy, Dave finds pieces, if they can be made to fit, he uses them, if they can't, he discards them. While a real scientist asks "do these pieces belong together in the first place?" before even proceeding, and keeps asking "is there any reason to discard certain pieces?" along the way. If a reason arises, that piece is then set aside (along with any connected pieces that are demonstrated as a corollary of the initial rejection to be also rejected) and looks for new pieces to occupy the space. If those pieces set aside prove later on to possess utility value in a different part of the puzzle, then they're re-selected, but again they'll always be subject to removal if a reason for that removal arises.

¹See Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy for more on this.

Pappy Jack · 07-01-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

That kind of seems strange to me too.
I mean, here's Noah and family, happily repopulating the earth .....

The first kings of Egypt are beholden to uncle Ham, and I guess Babylon is uncle Shem.....

Now what does Noah see before he dies? Why, Egypt and Babylon are polytheist......

So what does Noah do?.....Noah decides to do NOTHING. He's not even mentioned. He's not even understood. Didn't Noah go through that whole Tower incident too? What did THAT feel like I wonder.

So here's a guy; probably the most revered human in existence ....(a)nd history sees fit to ignore him totally. AND ignore the teachings of God by converting to polytheism.

So god then carries on to enslave then free his "chosen" people in Egypt a couple centuries later through Moses. Then form Israel. Then kill a lot of people during it's formation. Then, having a slight change of heart after 1500 years come to earth himself and preach Peace and Love and expect to be killed with the assistance of those self-same chosen people he freed oh so many years ago.

And on.... and on..... and on....

Until Smyth comes on the scene in the 19th century and explains all this to everyone.

R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-i-i-i-i-i-i-g-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-h-t-t-t-t-t!!!!

Well summarised, Mike. You've emphasized nicely how absurd all this biblical literalism is.

Pappy Jack · 07-01-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

And Smyth arbitarily chose, what, 11-13 sources to average? At RDF I pointed you towards a French contemporary of Smyth's who reckoned there were around 140 (I think) different esitimates for the Flood with a range of something like 3500 years. What makes Smyth's limited choice so special and how can averaging the dates be meaningful in any sense of the word?

Whoops, my bad here and rather late in picking it up, I'm afraid. The French contemporary of Smyth's was Edouard Lartet, he was referring to estimates for the date of creation, not the Flud, and the range was just over 3100 years. Sorry.

07-01-2007, 02:49 PM

Yes, it is hilarious. To take just one of the most glaring points, if all these highly literate Middle Eastern societies were quickly founded and built up by the same family in the space of a few centuries why is it that only one tiny tribe in Judea makes any mention of Yahweh?
You'd think the rest of the Levant would be kinda impressed with the dude at the time.
"Hey Grandpa. Where did all that mud come from?"
"Fukken Yahweh, lad. Keep it quiet, will ya. He's a stroppy bugger."

Egypt? Well when Akhnaten tried to introduce monotheism it didn't go down at all well. Maybe the Egyptians were pissed that they'd had to start all over again and had decided not to worship the one true god just to teach him a lesson.

Davey boy (me ol' temple full of mummified cats), I'd just love to hear your views on the development of post-Flud religions in the Middle East.

Calilasseia · 07-01-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

"Hey Grandpa. Where did all that mud come from?"
"Fukken Yahweh, lad. Keep it quiet, will ya. He's a stroppy bugger."

I've just imagined this conversation taking place between an urchin in short pants, and a crusty old duffer in a threadbare tweed jacket reminiscent of Compo Symmonite from Last of the Summer Wine, with both participants uttering their words in thick Yorkshire accents, akin to accents that would have been de rigeur for a Hovis bread advert.

All we need now is for Joel Veitch to animate this with some kittens in flat caps on rathergood.com ...

07-01-2007, 10:06 PM

Surely they should be Abyssinians in Egyptian headdresses? We are in teh Egypt thread and all.

Anywayz, I reckon I'll celebrate page 25 (coming soon to a thread near you!) by compiling a list of all the questions Dave hasn't answered yet. Just to help him out, like. Wouldn't want him to forget them and have us all thinking of boc-boc dgurk and stuff. I'm sure he really does want to answer them.

07-02-2007, 01:00 AM

Ladies, gentlemen, and those of you who are yet to make up your minds,
I have thought of something.

Really.

This thought (which is mine) is this: the Great Pyramid aint Davey's biggest problem. Hey, quiet in teh peanut gallery, please. Let me explain.

Y'see, here he is madly (and I use the term advisedly) inventing calculations to give himself oodles of Egyptians 600 years after Teh Flud. We are now up to an effective annual growth rate of 3.12% (including fractional Egyptians!), which is a significant increase in fecundity compared to the previous model. Praise the Lord and pass the Viagra.

However, we have been so caught up in arguing about pyramids that we have forgotten another important date. The Dispersion.

Think about it. The Great Pyramid is, well, big. Needed lotsa workforce to construct. The Tower of Babel on the other hand was tall enough to reach all the way to heaven, or at least would have been if completed.

What this mean is that constructing the Tower of Babel would have required a much larger workforce ( and supporting population and ecosystem ) than building the pyramid.
Now admittedly the Tower was never completed but to even start it and get a significant portion of it built ( before Yahweh spat the dummy about the prospect of having his private party gatecrashed ) would be a massive undertaking. I mean think of the size of the necessary foundations just for a start.

According to Dave the Dispersion was in 2528 BC. The Flud was in 2743 BC.
This gives a maximum of 215 years for population growth. Taking Dave's New Improved Randy Rooters Figures we have a purported population of 5,463 people at 210 years.

So, the question here is: is 5 to 6 thousand people enough to commence and at least partially complete a structure which would have been large enough to make the Great Pyramid look tiddly?

Over to you, Dave.

Pappy Jack · 07-02-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

......the Great Pyramid aint Davey's biggest problem.......constructing the Tower of Babel would have required a much larger workforce......According to Dave the Dispersion was in 2528 BC. The Flud was in 2743 BC.......Taking Dave's New Improved Randy Rooters Figures we have a purported population of 5,463 people at 210 years......is 5 to 6 thousand people enough to commence and at least partially complete a structure which would have been large enough to make the Great Pyramid look tiddly?

A hit, a very palpable hit! Point well made, mung. I for one am so focussed on the fact that Babbel is a figment of the biblical imagination - while the GP is quite ostentatiously there - that I had paid no attention at all to the figures that AFD's population 'models' suggest for the Babbel-builders. Perhaps a new post-Flud miracle-powered mega-breeding theory is required for those crucial two centuries, after which things can calm down to a more 'reasonable' model.

PS Glad I wasn't a post-Flud fecund female as I'd've been popping out triplets every other year just to keep my end of the model up......

Pappy Jack · 07-02-2007, 02:10 AM

PPS It's also weird that there are precisely zero - count them, zero - remains of Babbel. Plenty of Predynastic Egyptian detritus, from potsherds to tombs, but of the foundations of the world's most humungous construction - nothing, nada, rien, zippo. Ah, well, that's erosion for you.

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

07-01-2007, 12:28 PM	#551
shirley knott Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 416	Perhaps it's time to remind dave about that little word he recently learned, 'consilience'? He claimed it for Biblical history, yet it certanly appears that great gaping holes are fairly easy to find. His story is *not* consilient. How odd... hugs, Shirley Knott

07-01-2007, 01:44 PM	#552
Calilasseia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Liverpool, UK Posts: 1,072	What you have to bear in mind at this juncture SK, is that thre is a fundamental difference between scientific and theological approaches to burning questions. Part One consists of: Science: here are the observed facts. What conclusions can we draw from them? Theology: here is the conclusion. What facts can we find that fit it? Part two consists of: Science: here is a hypothesis. What would make this hypothesis wrong? Can we find observations that do precisely this? Theology: here is a hypothesis. What would make this hypothesis right? Can we find semantic constructions that do precisely this? Dave is simply (mis)applying the processes of theology to science. That explains much of his output - including the assorted pronouncements on pyramids, Ancient Egypt etc. Unfortunately, unbroken continuity of human existence and development of human civilisation takes place in Egypt right the way through the middle of his flood timetable. Because he's simply not looking for reasons to invalidate that timetable, he adopts the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast Of Traal¹ approach - "it's not a part of my investigations, therefore I can't see it". Using a jigsaw analogy, Dave finds pieces, if they can be made to fit, he uses them, if they can't, he discards them. While a real scientist asks "do these pieces belong together in the first place?" before even proceeding, and keeps asking "is there any reason to discard certain pieces?" along the way. If a reason arises, that piece is then set aside (along with any connected pieces that are demonstrated as a corollary of the initial rejection to be also rejected) and looks for new pieces to occupy the space. If those pieces set aside prove later on to possess utility value in a different part of the puzzle, then they're re-selected, but again they'll always be subject to removal if a reason for that removal arises. ¹See Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy for more on this.

07-01-2007, 02:49 PM	#555
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Yes, it is hilarious. To take just one of the most glaring points, if all these highly literate Middle Eastern societies were quickly founded and built up by the same family in the space of a few centuries why is it that only one tiny tribe in Judea makes any mention of Yahweh? You'd think the rest of the Levant would be kinda impressed with the dude at the time. "Hey Grandpa. Where did all that mud come from?" "Fukken Yahweh, lad. Keep it quiet, will ya. He's a stroppy bugger." Egypt? Well when Akhnaten tried to introduce monotheism it didn't go down at all well. Maybe the Egyptians were pissed that they'd had to start all over again and had decided not to worship the one true god just to teach him a lesson. Davey boy (me ol' temple full of mummified cats), I'd just love to hear your views on the development of post-Flud religions in the Middle East.

07-01-2007, 10:06 PM	#557
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Surely they should be Abyssinians in Egyptian headdresses? We are in teh Egypt thread and all. Anywayz, I reckon I'll celebrate page 25 (coming soon to a thread near you!) by compiling a list of all the questions Dave hasn't answered yet. Just to help him out, like. Wouldn't want him to forget them and have us all thinking of boc-boc dgurk and stuff. I'm sure he really does want to answer them.

07-02-2007, 01:00 AM	#558
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Ladies, gentlemen, and those of you who are yet to make up your minds, I have thought of something. Really. This thought (which is mine) is this: the Great Pyramid aint Davey's biggest problem. Hey, quiet in teh peanut gallery, please. Let me explain. Y'see, here he is madly (and I use the term advisedly) inventing calculations to give himself oodles of Egyptians 600 years after Teh Flud. We are now up to an effective annual growth rate of 3.12% (including fractional Egyptians!), which is a significant increase in fecundity compared to the previous model. Praise the Lord and pass the Viagra. However, we have been so caught up in arguing about pyramids that we have forgotten another important date. The Dispersion. Think about it. The Great Pyramid is, well, big. Needed lotsa workforce to construct. The Tower of Babel on the other hand *was tall enough to reach all the way to heaven*, or at least would have been if completed. What this mean is that constructing the Tower of Babel would have required a much larger workforce ( and supporting population and ecosystem ) than building the pyramid. Now admittedly the Tower was never completed but to even start it and get a significant portion of it built ( before Yahweh spat the dummy about the prospect of having his private party gatecrashed ) would be a massive undertaking. I mean think of the size of the necessary foundations just for a start. According to Dave the Dispersion was in 2528 BC. The Flud was in 2743 BC. This gives a maximum of 215 years for population growth. Taking Dave's New Improved Randy Rooters Figures we have a purported population of 5,463 people at 210 years. So, the question here is: is 5 to 6 thousand people enough to commence and at least partially complete a structure which would have been large enough to make the Great Pyramid look tiddly? Over to you, Dave.

07-02-2007, 02:10 AM	#560
Pappy Jack Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: French Pyrenees Posts: 649	PPS It's also weird that there are precisely zero - count them, zero - remains of Babbel. Plenty of Predynastic Egyptian detritus, from potsherds to tombs, but of the foundations of the world's most humungous construction - nothing, nada, rien, zippo. Ah, well, that's erosion for you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.