"People believe what they want to believe" (Buddhism, Buddha, America)

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

I agree I will need proof as well before I believe just about anything. But one of your links of proof comes from athiest resource, which I doubt is an unbiased site. You can have information and have two groups of people study it, and they can come up with opposite interpretations of it. For every person that says that living near a power line causes cancer, you can find someone to say there is no proof that the power lines is what has caused it. Same exact information, totally different interpretations. Same thing with religion. So you have one person saying there is a god, then you have someone else saying there is no unwavering evidence that he does exist.

Honestly after thousands of years, how much remains could there be in that exact area. I wouldn't say too much. So even if that was the spot, I would be shocked to see an entire army sitting at the bottom. And if I did, I would be more skeptical then.

And with gravity, yes I see what you are saying. Well what about dating a person, artifact, plant, animal etc. Scientists say that they can place something millions of years ago, but really it is just a guess (an educated guess). No one was around millions of years ago to know exactly if this was the correct time frame or not. So science, even though people like to think it is, is not always correct. Humans are not perfect and we come up with all the tests and formulas which we consider to be the ultimate truth. So even science needs a little bit of faith and trusting that it is correct.

I don't have a lot of time to respond to this, but I will do so when I get a better chance. One thing I'd like to point out before I address the rest of your post in regards to dating:

Yes, one of the sites was an atheist website. I would like to mention that the site does bring up some very good points about certain verses in the Bible. Regardless of whether they are brought up by a Christian or whether they are brought up by an Atheist, I think they are questions that demand an answer. Regardless, I did not cite that particular website as proof that the Exodus did not occur, only that there are some objectionable things in the Bible. I'm not trying to use the same pitfall in trying to prove or disprove the Bible with the Bible. I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies via a website and I wouldn't expect to find them on a Christian website (that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense would it?). Overall, I think that even if I erased that link, heck, even if I deleted that entire paragraph that the link was in, that the lack of evidence presented from my post would still be enough to question the reality of that which was 'found' in the Red Sea, no?

[Huckleberry3911948]

its a discard and sort function. people believe in what works for them.
as we find better and better things to believe in does it work well for us.
am i less angry more effective more in harmony. more productive.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I don't have a lot of time to respond to this, but I will do so when I get a better chance. One thing I'd like to point out before I address the rest of your post in regards to dating:

Yes, one of the sites was an atheist website. I would like to mention that the site does bring up some very good points about certain verses in the Bible. Regardless of whether they are brought up by a Christian or whether they are brought up by an Atheist, I think they are questions that demand an answer. Regardless, I did not cite that particular website as proof that the Exodus did not occur, only that there are some objectionable things in the Bible. I'm not trying to use the same pitfall in trying to prove or disprove the Bible with the Bible. I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies via a website and I wouldn't expect to find them on a Christian website (that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense would it?). Overall, I think that even if I erased that link, heck, even if I deleted that entire paragraph that the link was in, that the lack of evidence presented from my post would still be enough to question the reality of that which was 'found' in the Red Sea, no?

Yes it wouldn't be too productive having anti Christian views on a Christian website. I know, yes your post would have survived without that entire paragraph, just thought I would point it out though.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

And with gravity, yes I see what you are saying. Well what about dating a person, artifact, plant, animal etc. Scientists say that they can place something millions of years ago, but really it is just a guess (an educated guess). No one was around millions of years ago to know exactly if this was the correct time frame or not. So science, even though people like to think it is, is not always correct. Humans are not perfect and we come up with all the tests and formulas which we consider to be the ultimate truth. So even science needs a little bit of faith and trusting that it is correct.

Ok... I have to make this kind of short and sweet. If you want to know more I'll be happy to give more, but it'll have to be later.

As far as dating is concerned (no, not relationships)...

I think one of the things that this country has done in general with its' education system is grossly misrepresent how science comes to its' conclusions and how things are tested. All too often, the only remnants of any sort of scientific experiment we have are from high school where we did experiments with predicted outcomes. There was a right and wrong answer and the answer was pre-known. You remember them, right? Pouring two chemicals into a beaker was supposed to create a certain reaction, adding a third created another, etc.. etc.. The whole thing was plotted out. It was an experiment to show what was already known. Why is that a bad thing? It's not. It just doesn't grasp the difference between scientific experiment and scientific discovery THROUGH experiment. When we pour our chemicals into a beaker we know, based on past discoveries and repeated experiments, that we are going to find a certain reaction.

So, why did I touch on that? Because.... people don't always seem to understand how things are discovered in regards to dating methods. A lot of things in science are found by complete accident and only until later are they found to have practical examples. The microwave is a good example.

Anyway, what happens with dating methods is not just a scientist saying "I found a bone, here's old I think it is, let's try a thousand different methods until I come up with the result I'm looking for." It's quite the opposite. Usually, it requires the employment of other methods that are well known as accurate because of other cross-referencing. Science doesn't just depend on ONE single method of dating. In order for something to be accurate it must be calibrated. So how do scientists calibrate something to test the accuracy of say the date of a bone? Well, they have to compare their findings with a myriad of other tests. For a bone found in a certain strata we might say "Ok, this bone was found in a strata where we have dendrochronological records of about 40,000 years ago. We also have ice core samples that show an accurate depiction of that. Now, let's see what carbon dating has to say." So... they run the test and let's say the carbon dating comes back up with a result of 40,000 years. Well, that's fine and dandy. Do we stop there? HECK NO! Now, it gets intriguing. Now, we must run the test again. What if we find the same results? We run it again. Ok, so now we have three good tests. Now, I'd say it's time that we can confidently publish our article to the rest of the scientific community and give them a shot at it. Will they find something disputable with the procedures? With the method itself? Will they say the test was done incorrectly? That's certainly a possibility and so the scientific community is EAGER to disprove one another, but they are also willing to accept that someone might be right but only after concrete evidence and testing surmounts the presupposition. We can't KNOW for certain that something is set up in such a way; however we can base our decisions on what we know based on multiple methods of testing and evaluation.

A perfect example of this was the refutation Einstein gave of quantum mechanics. Einstein refused to admit or believe that a particle from the same atom on one side of the room would be affected by it's 'brother' on the other side of the room istantaneously (a mind boggling concept). Einstein absolutely refused to believe it and published several papers against it. This was one of the greatest mathematicians/physicists the world had ever known. Guess what? Einstein was dead wrong and the rest of the scientific community proved it. Science is about not taking what one guy has to say as inerrant proof. It's about trial and error and constant correction. Could the proof that refuted Einstein one day be refuted itself? Sure! For now, though, all evidence (backed by significant testing) has shown that what we know about quantum mechanics, dating methods, and other scientific methods is accurate. Can we prove 100% that something is 40,000 years old? No, just as we can't prove that gravity exists. HOWEVER, looking at all the evidence we can make a pretty wise educated guess that things are a certain way backed by sufficient amounts of evidence.

Ok... I think that was short and sweet

Edit:

Here are some interesting articles in regards to dating.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates
Radiometric Dating (interesting as this one is written by a Christian for a Christian)

[HsvMike]

Damn, you are a lot smarter than I am, really. I am not discounting dating, I was just making an example that as much testing goes into it, since no one was around at the begining, no one really knows for sure. Very interesting reading, I definitely learned something. I am a Christian and I do believe that the world could be over millions of years old, I have no problem with it. But just like anything I want hard proof, and well something like that, there isn't any. A lot of educated guesses and theories, but nothing concrete.

And just like Einstein who was and would still be today one of the smartest men ever was totally wrong, who is to say the methods we use today and experiments will not be totally discredited and wrong those years from now. All I am saying even science takes a little faith.

Really, I trust science a lot but just because a new finding comes out and a bunch of really smart people say it's true, doesn't mean that it is law. While I would be interested to see if they do really test that area to see if it is really the spot or not, no matter how many people say yes or no, it will always be up for debate. No one knows what it looked like thousands of years ago, and what happened to it since then. It is all speculation.

I am sure you are going to love this. So I can see that science is like religion. You just have to want to believe, and have some faith that what everyone is saying is the truth.

[Tricky D]

The thing is that a belief has nothing to do with reality.
One is free to believe that the world is flat, or hollow.
To extreme believers their belief is the blueprint of how reality should be and they don't care how reality actually is; they are utopists.
While a pragmatist lets his theory (philosophy) be influenced by reality (to him reality is); they are realists.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

Damn, you are a lot smarter than I am, really. I am not discounting dating, I was just making an example that as much testing goes into it, since no one was around at the begining, no one really knows for sure. Very interesting reading, I definitely learned something. I am a Christian and I do believe that the world could be over millions of years old, I have no problem with it. But just like anything I want hard proof, and well something like that, there isn't any. A lot of educated guesses and theories, but nothing concrete.

And just like Einstein who was and would still be today one of the smartest men ever was totally wrong, who is to say the methods we use today and experiments will not be totally discredited and wrong those years from now. All I am saying even science takes a little faith.

Really, I trust science a lot but just because a new finding comes out and a bunch of really smart people say it's true, doesn't mean that it is law. While I would be interested to see if they do really test that area to see if it is really the spot or not, no matter how many people say yes or no, it will always be up for debate. No one knows what it looked like thousands of years ago, and what happened to it since then. It is all speculation.

I am sure you are going to love this. So I can see that science is like religion. You just have to want to believe, and have some faith that what everyone is saying is the truth.

Although I certainly see your point in regards to having to have faith in science I am not sure I entirely agree. Although it is most certainly true that there are things that can be disproven we have not met that challenge full on to say "All of science is wrong". So, suffice it to say, I can only trust what it is that I know as that which has been tested for and documented with the rest of the scientific communities' approval. Scientists aren't easy on one another. They really aren't. That's why I trust it a lot more than anything else. Although I don't adhere to it as a religion, it certainly provides more logical and explainable answers than resorting to 'other methods'. Am I skeptical of some findings? Yes. However, there are others that are easier to accept. One flawed scientific finding under a body of science doesn't negate the whole of the subject and that's why science is important.

I would like to clarify one other thing as I didn't have time to go back and edit it. Dendrochronology can only go back around 11,000 years. That was my mistake, and in my haste to write that last response I lost sight of that. That's ok though... there are numerous other methods that all validate respective dating methods within the same time period.

One last note... what you said about the Red Sea findings is true. Regardless, there will be people who deny it no matter what the outcome. Heck, there's people who deny the Holocaust! However, if it is truly a good find and truly real than the rest of the scientific community will support it regardless of whatever religion or other bodies of influence have to say about it. That much I can tell you and assure you and that's why I have a lot more faith in science than I do in most other things. Is it COMPLETE faith in science? I'd be an idiot to say so. Just as you and I should do our research in regards to wild claims, so should we about what science tells us. Thankfully, science is skeptical enough of itself to eliminate most of the hard work. We should always be questioning things and not just taking someone's word for it. Heck, where would quantum mechanics be if Einstein wasn't questioned?!

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Ok... All I asked for was a link as I hadn't ever heard of that particular myth before. So, now, let's see what we have here... It seems this is going to be, as an acquaintance of mine points out, like shooting cattle with an attack helicopter.

First of all, I'm going to address the claim found in the original link post by HSVMike. Mike, I understand that you just found a link purporting to obtain the information. That's fine, but here is why we must be skeptical of such things.

Let me start briefly, based on a little bit of research that I've done. First of all, in the 'arkcrossing' website they mention the name of the archaeologist who made these discoveries. His name is Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt

At first glance, I didn't think much of the poor chap's name but then I thought I had remembered hearing his name on a controversial discovery once before. A quick Google search and I came up with the discovery that Ron Wyatt was indeed also the same guy who had claimed to find the Holy Grail, the remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and a few other choice Biblical places. Here's a quick link to a book about the guy and some of his claims. ark of the covenant, ron wyatt

Now, if I didn't know any better, the guy sounds like a real life Indiana Jones. To be quite honest, the guy is on more Christian 'hit-lists' than he is 'scientific' for his widely falsified claims such as finding the Ark of the Covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, locating Noah's Ark, and many others.

This was a fascinating article Wyatt Archaeological Museum I found about a visit to Ron Wyatt's 'museum'. It's pretty amusing as any person (Young Earth Creationist or 'Atheistic Evolutionist') may even come to a common ground in disputing this guy as he claims to have a piece of Noah's Ark in his museum. Of course, he forgot about the man-made metals that make up a part of it.

Regardless, the shadow of doubt over Ron Wyatt, the archaeologist, should not be proof and proof enough alone that the man did not indeed find the remnatns of the pharaoh's army. It should make us just a little skeptical though. Although it is true that a blind squirrel finds a nut on occassion, my antennae are now raised as there is a smell in the air that smells a bit like that of when a septic tank bursts open.

"The Discovery"

I suppose we should first start with the alleged discovery that Mr. Wyatt made in the Red Sea. He claimed to have found chariot wheels encrusted with coral and human bones alongside them.

Now, I'm not an archeologist by trade, but I do find it amusing that there were human bones found at the bottom of the Red Sea and we can automatically assume that they are from the Pharaoh's army. To my knowledge, none of the bones had ever been dated, and my curiosity is piqued as to how long a bone like that would stay intact in the salty conditions of the Red Sea. After all, I remember watching that footage of the Titanic and I don't ever remember seeing bones lying about. Something tells me that over the course of a few thousand years those bones might not be as conveniently found as I'm suspecting. Again, though, I could be entirely wrong about that as that is not really my forte.

So, onwards to the next great big discovery. This is what the claim to fame is really all about. Let's talk about the chariot wheels. In fact, let's look at a picture of the one that is most highly touted as being none other than a chariot wheel.



Well, there we have it folks. That does look like a wheel. In fact, if we have a good enough imagination, we could assume that it very well could be a chariot wheel. Of course, it does also resemble a picture of a brass steamwheel from just about any ship or that of any wheel really. Don't believe me? Take a look. Here's one that looks quite familiar.



So.... this raises some other doubts in my mind. What does the examination of the wheel have to say?

The Examination

Well, as I should point out, the 'wheels' were never surfaced to be examined. All we have are a few grainy snapshots of coral encrusted around something that resembles a wheel. For all we know, it could be a brass handwheel from a steamship that coral grew around. It could also be absolutely nothing and the coral could have just grown into a wheel-like pattern. I do find that a bit unlikely though. So, all we have are the examinations of a few photos that are seemingly grainy. It never fails to amaze me in that almost every photo Dr. Wyatt has they always seem to come out a bit under-exposed, over-exposed, or blurry. He really needed to get a better camera!

On top of that, the bones retrieved, to my knowledge, have never been dated or examined either. That doesn't really bother me though. Even if they found a human bone that dated back to the time of Moses' Exodus it doesn't mean that that automatically proves it to be true. Some guy could have fallen off of a boat, drowned, and his bones left at the bottom of the sea. I'm just saying... one bone doesn't do a whole lot if we're trying to prove that 600,000 people fled across the Red Sea followed by the Egyptian Pharaoh's Army...

What About the Biblical Proof?

Well, what does the Bible have to say? I was actually surprised to have read this and realize I had forgotten this key part. Apparently, and even most Biblical Apologeticists will tell you this, it is largely not assumed that Moses crossed the Red Sea at all! In fact, the translation that I am familiar with is from the word 'yam suph'. The word 'yam' means sea and the word 'suph' means reeds. It's rather widely accepted that the Bible was talking about "The Sea of Reeds" not "The Red Sea". So, it seems, that Mr. Wyatt sort of forgot about that during his research.

Well, that's ok, let's assume the translation of the translation was screwed up. Let's say that Mr. Wyatt was correct and it was indeed the Red Sea. The Bible does bring up some other obvious contradictions. Most of these are pointed out in this site Red Sea or Sea of Reeds? | Atheist Resource - Topic (broken link) There's a whole slew of biblical contradictions that go into the Exodus itself. I'll let the reader review them at their own leisure.

Evidence of an Exodus?

Finally, during a bit of my reseach I'd like to point out that I found an interesting explanation about the lack of evidence for a mass exodus of around 600,000 people wandering the desert. The thing I'd specifically like to mention is that about 2 million Jews allegedly spent 38 years at Kadesh-barnea. Kadesh-barnea - Walking in Their Sandals - location profile

Something that doesn't make sense and I wish I'd have thought of this but I didn't....

Two million people 'camping' in a town is a lot more than just your average 'pitch a tent' get together. Two million people is A LOT of people. We're talking a population close to that of Chicago (which has 3 million if I'm not mistaken)!!! I think there'd be a lot more evidence for it. One of those evidences would be the amount of fecal matter we'd be finding.

For 38 years, for 2 million people to be camping and crapping, we would have a cesspool of human feces that weighed more than the Empire State Building. That's just something to think about. We have found no evidence of that whatsoever.

What does all this mean?

Although it doesn't mean that the Exodus never, ever happened that was not the point of this. The point was that as I expected there seemed to be an awful lot of mystery in the air as to what was actually found. Any time someone says they found something but never dug it up for examination I become skeptical. To further on that, when someone says they found something, didn't dig it up, and only have a grainy photo to show for it than I become really skeptical. To go even further, the complete lack of evidence otherwise is astounding.

It seems to me that we once again have a case of people believing what they want to believe. Someone finds what is presumably a handwheel covered in coral and all of a sudden it becomes evidence of the Exodus?! Come on people! Let's take a step back into reality!!

I'd also like to add once again that it's not just Ron Wyatt, the archaeologist, that makes my 'fraud RADAR' go wild but the same slip-shod 'evidence' that seems to pervade Biblical archaeology. The implication of Ron Wyatt being a slip-shod archaeologist doesn't make the claim true but when his own son admits that the wheels were planted there Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Exodus Revealed: Searching for the Red Sea Crossing (read the review) then I do become skeptical.

All in all, I can admire people for wanting this to be true, but as with any claim of such historic signifigance I would imagine we should be skeptical of the findings. Doing a little Google research hasn't really instilled my confidence in what Mr. Wyatt found. All in all, I'm not convinced in any way whatsoever that anything more than a planted handwheel was found.

I'd love to have seen an examination of said wheel but Mr. Wyatt just kind of forgot to bring it to the surface didn't he? How convenient!

If you require more evidence I would suggest you consider typing in the name of Dr. Lennart Moller, who is a research scientist from Sweden, he headed an expedition that retraced the footsteps of Ron Whatt. Ron Wyatt passed away a few years ago, yet his claims have been researched in much greater detail by Dr. Moller. There is now a new video commentarie that is to be coming out about this site in 2008. Titled, "Search For The Red Sea Crossing" It's stated to be very detailed with twenty first century scientific applications being applied.
Also, if this is the real site, then just days of this site we should see the real Mount Sinai. There were at least 12 marking sites that would have to be in place for that mountain, and some of them man made in order for that site to be the Biblical site. I am happy to report all that evidence was found and matches the Biblical account. Mr.Troop, the truth is out there.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Tesaje

Um, yes. Proof has to be from multiple sources. Has to be repeatable and logical.

Proof is not just making a claim with nothing to back it up. That is generally called a lie.

no, what you are asking for is "selective proof" as in = what you already agree with and want to hear, otherwise you deem it invalid

really those people who are throwing out links to articles and sites they consider "valid" to "prove" something to someone (i.e. that they are right and the other person is wrong) is no different than people scrambling to quote scripture to prove a point. just thought I'd point out that similarity in behavior and approach.

i would rather hear from someone their own thoughts in their own words, otherwise the implication is....well that a person doesn't have their own thoughts and can't think for themselves!

which is why i never link to sites, nor do i ever read any links to other sites on this forum

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by DimSumRaja

no, what you are asking for is "selective proof" as in = what you already agree with and want to hear, otherwise you deem it invalid

really those people who are throwing out links to articles and sites they consider "valid" to "prove" something to someone (i.e. that they are right and the other person is wrong) is no different than people scrambling to quote scripture to prove a point. just thought I'd point out that similarity in behavior and approach.

i would rather hear from someone their own thoughts in their own words, otherwise the implication is....well that a person doesn't have their own thoughts and can't think for themselves!

which is why i never link to sites, nor do i ever read any links to other sites on this forum

Religious scripture can only be considered evidence if what's in it is proven 100% fact. No scripture has been proven. Science has evidence to back up its claims. Quoting fairy tales and attempting to pass them off as valid is laughable. Stating that the Red Sea thing happened just because there are chariot wheels in there is ridiculous. That's not direct evidence. That's filling in the blanks. It's just like when Christians say the Grand Canyon was caused by the global flood. All they're trying to do is piece together two things that fills in the blanks for the holes in their beliefs. Fact: A canyon needs water to form. The process requires erosion. The thing is, you can't just say the flood was the cause for this just because it fills in the blanks. You need evidence to make such claims. In addition, there is no evidence of a global flood every occurring.