Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 27-1-2014 at 02:02
Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
Drifting to another point--people who wish to commit fraud (as I believe the James-Jesus'-brother inscripted item to be) have a chance to champion their artifact on thin evidence if it has been removed from the site.

this all hypothesis by various authors for monetary gain IMO

ps= if radio carbon dating is in adequate scientists use argon - argon dating process for dating finds

Argon dating is for rocks, not artifacts. ;)

If you argon-dated a monument inscription, you would get the date when the method theorizes the rock was formed, not the date of the monument.
John Barnes

[*] posted on 27-1-2014 at 00:28
Drifting to another point--people who wish to commit fraud (as I believe the James-Jesus'-brother inscripted item to be) have a chance to champion their artifact on thin evidence if it has been removed from the site.

this all hypothesis by various authors for monetary gain IMO

ps= if radio carbon dating is in adequate scientists use argon - argon dating process for dating finds
scholar

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 23:33
Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
I don't think the British museum would hold Antediluvian fakes everything on show would have a researched date with them, everything is not a Piltdown skull.


I don't mean to insult the British Museum.

My remark was thread drift. The best situation to get multiple indications of an accurate date is on location. The thinnest evidence is when an artifact has been moved. An artifact may be genuine, with thin evidence, and (in some cases) the artifact's date may really be mostly supposition.

Drifting to another point--people who wish to commit fraud (as I believe the James-Jesus'-brother inscripted item to be) have a chance to champion their artifact on thin evidence if it has been removed from the site.
John Barnes

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 19:20
I don't think the British museum would hold Antediluvian fakes everything on show would have a researched date with them, everything is not a Piltdown skull.
scholar

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 15:18
The artifact in question was examined after it was removed from its native location, so any clues from the surrounding materials in the dig have been lost.

This kind of find does not have the supporting evidence that finds in their location have. If someone wishes to fake something, it is easier to do so if the "find" is discovered among items in a forgotten box or trunk or desk.
John Barnes

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 13:14
Scholar is correct about dating organic material but any shard of pottery is taken in the context they have been unearthed in if say a organic remain is found in a layer of volcanic dust this could show that it was deposited when the volcano was active or if found with surrounding contemporary remains, a reasonable date can be deducted. and as Scholar says, they give or take within a century usually.
scholar

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 01:24
Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
Quote:
Originally posted by waffler
How do they know it's 3700 years old . Is it dated . waggyfinger


Google , radio carbon dating Waffler, this is how they calculate the age of organic material, obviously it doe not give out dates like half past 3 on a Wednesday 3700, but it gives a date that is accepted by the powers that be with a give or take margin,
this is how early hominid remains are dated eg = olduvai gorge remains or sterkfontein remains waveysmiley

Radio carbon dating is irrelevant to this artifact, which is clay (not an organic material).

Actually, Waffler, the approximate age of written records such as the clay inscription involves piecing together various clues. The best kind of evidence is when a document can be dated according to its content (e.g. someone writes about an event, of which the date is known). When such a thing can be determined, then the style of the written symbols in the document can be attached to that time, and the words and language can be attached to that time. When other documents that show similar style of writing and similar words and language are found, there is some reason to believe that the document is in the same general era as the known document.

Non-document artifacts can also be dated. When someone thinks of an improvement to an item, and the improvement is widely copied in the area, then the presence or absence of the improvement at a location indicates whether the place is earlier or later. For example, very early oil lamps were just a bowl of oil with a wick hanging over the side. But, as the oil burned down, its circular motion in the bowl sometimes pulled the wick into the oil, where it would be extinguished. Someone figured out that a pinch at one spot in the bowl before it dried would better hold the wick in place. If an inscription is found with the older type of lamp, it may be thought to have been left earlier, rather than later.

Assuming the artifact in this article is genuine, I expect it to be dated accurately within a century or so.

That would mean yes, it predates the time Moses wrote about Noah in Genesis. But, all of Genesis speaks of events that happened before Moses' time, so either he worked from existing documents, or the LORD gave him information of what happened before he was born. If he worked from earlier documents with accurate information, they could well have originated before the Babylonian accounts.

Does the existence of the Babylonian cuneiform artifacts mean that Genesis came later? No--the very old cuneiform texts survived because they were pressed marks made into clay, which then hardened--very durable. Hebrew, written on scrolls, did not survive so many centuries as well. For the biblical record to last so very long, it has had to be copied, again and again. Rabbis counted the very letters of the documents, to be sure the new copy was identical to the old one.
John Barnes

[*] posted on 26-1-2014 at 00:36
Quote:
Originally posted by waffler
How do they know it's 3700 years old . Is it dated . waggyfinger


Google , radio carbon dating Waffler, this is how they calculate the age of organic material, obviously it doe not give out dates like half past 3 on a Wednesday 3700, but it gives a date that is accepted by the powers that be with a give or take margin,
this is how early hominid remains are dated eg = olduvai gorge remains or sterkfontein remains waveysmiley
waffler

[*] posted on 25-1-2014 at 22:21
How do they know it's 3700 years old . Is it dated . waggyfinger
scholar

[*] posted on 25-1-2014 at 17:35
The idea that the Biblical account draws on the Babylonian writings is unnecessarily convoluted.

When you read an account of an event in a newspaper, and then in a weekly news magazine, it doesn't mean that the newspaper made up the story, and then the news magazine rewrote the story based on the newspaper and the imagination of the writer. The similarities in the stories, if the reporters have done their work, will be because they are reporting on the same event. In the case of the Biblical narrative, the events, names, and details are preserved accurately because Yahweh who caused the great flood also arranged for Moses to get the accurate information.

That said, it is stupid for modern artists to imagine the boat to be of the same type of construction as a modern fishing boat.
John Barnes

[*] posted on 25-1-2014 at 12:45
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/24/babylonian-tablet-noah-ark-constructed-british-museum
waveysmileywaveysmiley