Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_Franktalk]

by the way to know much about scriptures there are the well educated catholic priests, the little less educated muslim mullahs, and the totally uneducated Mormon priesthood holders - concerning scripture and/or theology.

I wish to know what is your measuring stick that you use to determine this ranking? You must feel there is some set of knowledge out there that is truth and everything else can be compared to it.

I think that at one time science and religion were pretty tight with each other. Then came the naturalistic period and we now see a major gap between the two. I think in time the two will merge again. Science just needs to catch up with truth. But the end of this age may come first. I sure don't know.

Nice to see you post.

[_Themis]

You must feel there is some set of knowledge out there that is truth and everything else can be compared to it.

Truth is in the proposition.

I think that at one time science and religion were pretty tight with each other.

I suppose. Many of the great thinkers of the past were very religious, although religion in many cases were not a help.

Then came the naturalistic period and we now see a major gap between the two.

Sure, and we see what from religion? I can easily see what science has brought to our understanding. I can see what it has done in medicine, Engineering, Physics, math, biology, geology, etc. How well is religion at predicting volcanic activity. Will religion or science be the first to heal the amputee?

I think in time the two will merge again.

Yes, but it will be religion that has to move to catch up with science.

Science just needs to catch up with truth.

Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.

[_Franktalk]

[
Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.

Truth is absolute and not relative. Science does not deal with truth. Many think it does. Science deals with observation and guesswork. The real foundations of reality science still does not have a clue.

[_Bret Ripley]

The timeline you use is based on worldly assumptions.

I am merely addressing the timeline used in LittleNipper's links. I do not begin with the assumption that the conquest is historical, and I don't need to manipulate the evidence to make it fit some pet hypothesis. To spell out what should be quite obvious: I don't much care what date is proposed for the conquest.

A more accurate timeline based on scriptural study can be found here.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

This article is an entertaining read, at any rate. I am oddly fascinated by pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and the like. I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing Setterfield (ludwigm has already hit the high spots), but I will offer a brief comment on your link.

In this article Setterfield is cherry-picking among sources, sometimes relying on sources from some 1600 years after the supposed events took place. He embraces expediency as a valid epistemic principle. For an example of his cherry-picking, he is happy to follow variant texts that appear in the Septuagint when they suit his purposes, but doesn't even mention the fact that the Septuagint contains a version of of I Kings 6:1 which reports a period of 430 years (instead of 480) between the exodus and commencement of construction of Solomon's temple. This is inconvenient to his hypothesis, and so does not even merit a mention.

But Setterfield has shown he is capable of much more egregious breaches of rationality when it comes to defending his pet theories. He has famously proposed changing the laws of physics for the sole purpose of rescuing his theories. Quixote ain't in it.

[_Themis]

[
Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.

Truth is absolute and not relative. Science does not deal with truth. Many think it does. Science deals with observation and guesswork. The real foundations of reality science still does not have a clue.

LOL You don't even understand what I said. Truth is in the proposition. Some truths can be subjective, while others objective. I love chocolate is a subjective truth for me. The Moon currently orbits the earth is an objective truth. As to science, your posts reveal you understand little of it.

[_ludwigm]

... Setterfield has shown he is capable of much more egregious breaches of rationality when it comes to defending his pet theories. He has famously proposed changing the laws of physics for the sole purpose of rescuing his theories. Quixote ain't in it.

That is I have thought of.

See my OLD comment at 2011.07.26 10:29:12(UTC+1)

I could copy it here - If I had the [img] feature...

There is a curve from 4082 BC (the most correct date of creation*) to 1960 AD (when the speed of light all of a sudden) became constant.
"the curve of light speed vs. time predicts a value at the time of the Flood - 2384 BC - of 1,621,908 km/sec"

And is this man a scientific authority?
This is a qualification for those, too, who manage him as such.


* in some sources there are the dayofweek, hour and minute values of that event.
Those sources are far more scientific. by the way none of them mark the timezone...

[_ludwigm]

by the way to know much about scriptures there are the well educated catholic priests, the little less educated muslim mullahs, and the totally uneducated Mormon priesthood holders - concerning scripture and/or theology.

I wish to know what is your measuring stick that you use to determine this ranking? You must feel there is some set of knowledge out there that is truth and everything else can be compared to it.

I think that at one time science and religion were pretty tight with each other. Then came the naturalistic period and we now see a major gap between the two. I think in time the two will merge again. Science just needs to catch up with truth. But the end of this age may come first. I sure don't know.

Nice to see you post.

I will open a new thread for this topic.
I hope it can remain in the limits of celestial.

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -07-15.gif[#/img]

[_Franktalk]

I will open a new thread for this topic.
I hope it can remain in the limits of celestial.

Looking forward to it.

[_Bret Ripley]

... Setterfield has shown he is capable of much more egregious breaches of rationality when it comes to defending his pet theories. He has famously proposed changing the laws of physics for the sole purpose of rescuing his theories. Quixote ain't in it.

That is I have thought of.

See my OLD comment at 2011.07.26 10:29:12(UTC+1)

Yes, I see I am walking in your footsteps, here.

There is a curve from 4082 BC (the most correct date of creation*) to 1960 AD (when the speed of light all of a sudden) became constant. "..the curve of light speed vs. time predicts a value at the time of the Flood - 2384 BC - of 1,621,908 km/sec"

And is this man a scientific authority?
This is a qualification for those, too, who manage him as such.

To be fair, Setterfield's "methodology" is rejected by other Young Earth Creationists. See, for example, http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283.

* in some sources there are the dayofweek, hour and minute values of that event.
Those sources are far more scientific. by the way none of them mark the timezone...

Surely any such calculation must be calibrated to coincide with timezone of the center of the known universe: Greenwich (cue Rule, Brittania!)

[Guest]

OOP! Don't know how I did that one!