Evolution

[HisSelf]

I don't discount minorities at all. In fact I empower minorities over and above the xenophobic stodge's that populate the Conservative Party of Canada.

Well at least at last we know what killed Bill.

Edited March 22, 2008 by HisSelf

[gc1765]

Most of what is quoted as science is nothing more than a best guess. Carbon dating for instance is nothing more than someone's idea that carbon isotopes can be estimated. Yet it has its opposition that says that carbon dating accuracy is off by 10s of thousands of years.

Maybe it's not very accurate, but isn't it much more accurate than something that was written in a book by an unknown person at an unknown time?

DNA falls into that same category in that they have repeated some tests and can identify similar samples, but they have mapped so little of it that they have no idea where it comes from and what it actually all says. For the most part those experiments in many cases are only repeatable with a margin of error, and it is that error that leaves doubt as to the origins.

Fair enough, but what does the bible or other holy books say about DNA?

[charter.rights]

Maybe it's not very accurate, but isn't it much more accurate than something that was written in a book by an unknown person at an unknown time?

Fair enough, but what does the bible or other holy books say about DNA?

You mean like history books? Yep I agree with you there. History is tainted with the personal prejudices of historians.

DNA you ask? Go read the Book of Numbers. At least in some regard it traces genealogy through hundreds of generations just like DNA is attmpeting to do today. That would be a good start. Perhaps they used some kind of genetic code to classify these people?

However, belief and faith are much more than reading a book. If all religious people got was out of a book then we'ld be arguing about Scientology exclusively. Belief based on thousands of years of anecdotal evidence goes beyond that simplistic analogy.

One guy picks up a car to rescue a victim trapped under it. Is that a miracle, or are all humans capable of that kind of strength? Sure there might be some best guess from a medical / biological viewpoint but they are trying to explain it after the fact. And wouldn't that give one faith that humans are much more capable than we believe under certain circumstances? So where would that strength come from, in view of the fact that we are generally limited to lifting our own body weight without extraneous conditioning and training? Find the connection between religious belief and science and I bet that you'll realize just how little we know about what life really is all about.

So another quandry....

Our bodies are made of the same atoms, molecules and compounds as the air around us, the earth below us and the clothes we put on our nakedness. How is ith that we consider ourselves separate from it when in reality we are all in the same electron soup together and at that level there is no separation between us, the guy next to us and the bus we are riding on. The only thing that keeps us separate and believing that we are secret thinkers, is our belief in separation and individuality. In reality that is a lie - a myth - and yet we stake our very lives on that myth every day.....

[gc1765]

You mean like history books? Yep I agree with you there. History is tainted with the personal prejudices of historians.

I was referring more to holy books...but I suppose there is history in those books.

DNA you ask? Go read the Book of Numbers. At least in some regard it traces genealogy through hundreds of generations just like DNA is attmpeting to do today. That would be a good start. Perhaps they used some kind of genetic code to classify these people?

I doubt there is anything in there about DNA or the genetic code. As for genealogy, that's easy to trace without the help of religion. I know I came from my parents, and my parents came from my grandparents etc...

Belief based on thousands of years of anecdotal evidence goes beyond that simplistic analogy.

I haven't lived for thousands of years, so how could I have thousands of years of anecdotal evidence? Unless you are referring to what is written in holy books, in which case how can that be trusted? I don't know who wrote that books, what is there to say that it's true?

[charter.rights]

I was referring more to holy books...but I suppose there is history in those books.

I doubt there is anything in there about DNA or the genetic code. As for genealogy, that's easy to trace without the help of religion. I know I came from my parents, and my parents came from my grandparents etc...

I haven't lived for thousands of years, so how could I have thousands of years of anecdotal evidence? Unless you are referring to what is written in holy books, in which case how can that be trusted? I don't know who wrote that books, what is there to say that it's true?

The Book of Numbers carries hundreds (if not thousands ) of generations through family lines and was carried forward thousands of years without the use of books, as oral history....in much the same way you might know about your own family lines.

The presence of anecdotal evidence can be carried forward by teaching of the events occurring under specific circumstances. In fact much of Navajo astrology was taught the same way and modern scientist have looked to the Navajo knowledge to help explain unexplained stellar phenomena. The point here is that sometimes the lines between religion and science are blurred. Either one may hold the explanation (we are looking for) and both may not fully explain anything.

"...in which case how can that be trusted?"

How can science be trusted given that mistaken conclusions are often presented as fact? However, the more evidence we reveal, whether it is religious belief, or science the more plausible it becomes. That is a simple test for any layman. For the Priest or the Professor, it may not be enough. But in the end what does it matter so long as each is true to his own belief? Of course the real danger comes by believing either absolutely without examining the evidence ourself.

Therefore I would suggest to you that faith (in either science or religious postulation) is all in the "works". Faith without works is dead.

Edited March 23, 2008 by charter.rights

[DogOnPorch]

Most of what is quoted as science is nothing more than a best guess. Carbon dating for instance is nothing more than someone's idea that carbon isotopes can be estimated. Yet it has its opposition that says that carbon dating accuracy is off by 10s of thousands of years. DNA falls into that same category in that they have repeated some tests and can identify similar samples, but they have mapped so little of it that they have no idea where it comes from and what it actually all says. For the most part those experiments in many cases are only repeatable with a margin of error, and it is that error that leaves doubt as to the origins.

Radio-carbon dating is merely one form of isotopic dating...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

It's also plenty accurate for the job it does...

Radiometric Dating

Method of dating rock by assessing the amount of radioactive decay of naturally occurring isotopes. The dating of rocks may be based on the gradual decay of uranium into lead. The ratio of the amounts of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’ isotopes in a sample gives a measure of the time it has been decaying, that is, of its age. Different elements and isotopes are used depending on the isotopes present and the age of the rocks to be dated. Once-living matter can often be dated by radiocarbon dating, employing the half-life of the isotope carbon-14, which is naturally present in organic tissue.

Radiometric methods have been applied to the decay of long-lived isotopes, such as potassium-40, rubidium-87, thorium-232, and uranium-238, which are found in rocks. These isotopes decay very slowly and this has enabled rocks as old as 3,800 million years to be dated accurately. Carbon dating can be used for material between 1,000 and 100,000 years old. Potassium dating is used for material more than 100,000 years old, rubidium for rocks more than 10 million years old, and uranium and thorium dating is suitable for rocks older than 20 million years.

Science isn't religion...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Science is not belief, but the will to find out.

---Anon

[WIP]

The Book of Numbers carries hundreds (if not thousands ) of generations through family lines and was carried forward thousands of years without the use of books, as oral history....in much the same way you might know about your own family lines.

The presence of anecdotal evidence can be carried forward by teaching of the events occurring under specific circumstances. In fact much of Navajo astrology was taught the same way and modern scientist have looked to the Navajo knowledge to help explain unexplained stellar phenomena. The point here is that sometimes the lines between religion and science are blurred. Either one may hold the explanation (we are looking for) and both may not fully explain anything.

I wouldn't mind seeing the link to that story! Astrology in general, was only useful for encouraging the keeping of records about the stars, planets and rare celestial events such as comets and meteors, so that a real science of the heavens "astronomy", had data to work with to discover real information about the stars and planets. A similar claim could be made that alchemy paved the way for the science of chemistry because some real knowledge came along from the work of alchemists who were trying to turn lead into gold.

The failing of astrology and alchemy is that, like religion, they started with a base of claimed knowledge that didn't actually exist! All they had were a list of presuppositions that filled in the knowledge gap. The lines between science and religion became unblurred when their built-in expectations were cast off and replaced with knowledge based on the accumulation of facts.

"...in which case how can that be trusted?"

How can science be trusted given that mistaken conclusions are often presented as fact? However, the more evidence we reveal, whether it is religious belief, or science the more plausible it becomes. That is a simple test for any layman. For the Priest or the Professor, it may not be enough. But in the end what does it matter so long as each is true to his own belief? Of course the real danger comes by believing either absolutely without examining the evidence ourself.

Science has a system called "peer review" to allow others to challenge new hypotheses. New hypotheses can challenge existing theories if they have a better model to explain observations. Since this thread is on evolution, it's worth noting that there are biologists such as David Sloan Wilson and Lyn Margulis, who want to propose alternative methods for evolutionary change that they want to add to the present modern synthesis. If the advocates of intelligent design were actually doing real scientific research, they could present it for peer review also if they had a scientific case to make!

On the other hand, there is no peer review process for refining and correcting religious claims. Religions present their books and their prophets as "revelations", already in possession of the truth, and the only peer review arrives when enough members walk out the door and the church is faced with the decision of making compromises so that they can try to re-interpret their dogma in light of new information. But since any changes weaken their claims of possessing the truth, they are more likely to dig in their heels and refuse to compromise their "revealed truth."

"...in which case how can that be trusted?"

Therefore I would suggest to you that faith (in either science or religious postulation) is all in the "works". Faith without works is dead.

There is no "faith in science;" scientific theories are either accurate explanations for test results or they are not and have to be altered or replaced. The reason religious belief requires faith is because it's been deemed essential to maintain the belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Today, most of the people who will be attending church will not be all that concerned, one way or another, whether they have good reasons to belong to their chosen house of worship. Most will be their for the community and social needs, including issues of family tradition. Most will probably not give much thought to the doctrines they've grown up with and how relevant they are in this day and age.

[charter.rights]

I wouldn't mind seeing the link to that story! Astrology in general, was only useful for encouraging the keeping of records about the stars, planets and rare celestial events such as comets and meteors, so that a real science of the heavens "astronomy", had data to work with to discover real information about the stars and planets. A similar claim could be made that alchemy paved the way for the science of chemistry because some real knowledge came along from the work of alchemists who were trying to turn lead into gold.

The failing of astrology and alchemy is that, like religion, they started with a base of claimed knowledge that didn't actually exist! All they had were a list of presuppositions that filled in the knowledge gap. The lines between science and religion became unblurred when their built-in expectations were cast off and replaced with knowledge based on the accumulation of facts.

Science has a system called "peer review" to allow others to challenge new hypotheses. New hypotheses can challenge existing theories if they have a better model to explain observations. Since this thread is on evolution, it's worth noting that there are biologists such as David Sloan Wilson and Lyn Margulis, who want to propose alternative methods for evolutionary change that they want to add to the present modern synthesis. If the advocates of intelligent design were actually doing real scientific research, they could present it for peer review also if they had a scientific case to make!

On the other hand, there is no peer review process for refining and correcting religious claims. Religions present their books and their prophets as "revelations", already in possession of the truth, and the only peer review arrives when enough members walk out the door and the church is faced with the decision of making compromises so that they can try to re-interpret their dogma in light of new information. But since any changes weaken their claims of possessing the truth, they are more likely to dig in their heels and refuse to compromise their "revealed truth."

There is no "faith in science;" scientific theories are either accurate explanations for test results or they are not and have to be altered or replaced. The reason religious belief requires faith is because it's been deemed essential to maintain the belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Today, most of the people who will be attending church will not be all that concerned, one way or another, whether they have good reasons to belong to their chosen house of worship. Most will be their for the community and social needs, including issues of family tradition. Most will probably not give much thought to the doctrines they've grown up with and how relevant they are in this day and age.

The Book of Numbers is in the Bible.

Navajo astrology is more than just an accounting. It is used by today's physicists to explain elements of the universe that they had come up against a wall with. The Navajo Elders have such a scientific knowledge of the universe that they are teaching these physicists about how the universe works. However, as many physicist that have consulted with the Navajo Elders, there are just as many who "don't believe them".

The same is the case when a medical scientist from Australia discovered the presence of helicobacter pylori (H.pylori) bacteria present in the stomach and intestines and proved that not only could bacteria live in the gut, but that bacteria was responsible for ulcers, cancers and other intestinal diseases. He was ridiculed by the scientific community because no one would believe him or the science that he presented, despite having infected himself and cure his ulcers using a concoction of strong antibiotics. Today nearly 20 years after his discovery, his cure is being used more and more in mainstream. However, there still remain a number of doctors (and pharmaceutical company scientists losing profits on antacid remedies) who refuse to accept the evidence.

Then we have Professor Stephen Hawking who postulated a theory on time and space that carried the entire scientific community down a path for over 10 years. Science and research were built on his theories and knowledge in this area. Scientist after scientist had faith in him and his theories do a degree that they committed billions of research dollars to form new theories. His ideas were accepted as gospel until one day a single scientist (from the US I believe) stood up and said it couldn't be true. He had discovered one flaw in Hawking's theory that ended up unraveling his entire theory and setting the scientific community back about 10 years.

The point is that science requires as much faith as does religion and without the pure faith that some scientific postulation could be true we would not have been able to discover many other things around us to be true.

As for peer review, the Bible as well as other religious phenomena is also peer reviewed. Miracles are never accepted at face value but are scrutinized by clergy and their bishops. Sainthood, where by the Church recognizes the miraculous lives of people is approved by a long peer review process in the church. So your argument about only science being peer reviewed is neither correct or important since it is just as likely that the peers could be wrong depending on where they put their faith.

However, at a more individual level neither one requires peer review. We accept religious beliefs, or scientific belief, or historical belief on the basis of faith in order to formulate our own prejudices about many things. Even the point of proving something through mathematical calculation requires faith, since the number 0 is not real in the natural world and its presentation into mathematical formula was created to solve a barrier that physicists and mathematicians had reached using real numbers. The whole science of numbers is built on a number of myths and theories that certain functions and derivatives can be formulated in their artificial world to explain our real world.

Both science and religion are faith based constructs. Only the former refuses to accept their dependence on some things they have never seen or touched in order to explain the universe. And here it seems that many have put so much faith into science that they refuse to see its Achilles Heel.

Edited March 23, 2008 by charter.rights

[cybercoma]

Both science and religion are faith based constructs.

This is easily the most ignorant statement ever made on these fora. Comments like this only serve to show how little the commentator knows about science. Edited March 23, 2008 by cybercoma

[charter.rights]

This is easily the most ignorant statement ever made on these fora. Comments like this only serve to show how little the commentator knows about science.

Actually, you above quote is the most ignorant statement ever made on these forums. Comments like yours only serve to show how little you really know about the discussion at hand.

Perhaps if you were to just take a back seat you might learn something, instead of injecting your prejudices in the middle of your oblivion.

[DogOnPorch]

WIP: Science has a system called "peer review" to allow others to challenge new hypotheses. New hypotheses can challenge existing theories if they have a better model to explain observations. Since this thread is on evolution, it's worth noting that there are biologists such as David Sloan Wilson and Lyn Margulis, who want to propose alternative methods for evolutionary change that they want to add to the present modern synthesis. If the advocates of intelligent design were actually doing real scientific research, they could present it for peer review also if they had a scientific case to make!

100% agreement.

WIP: There is no "faith in science;" scientific theories are either accurate explanations for test results or they are not and have to be altered or replaced. The reason religious belief requires faith is because it's been deemed essential to maintain the belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Also, 100% agreement.

charter-rights: Then we have Professor Stephen Hawking who postulated a theory on time and space that carried the entire scientific community down a path for over 10 years. Science and research were built on his theories and knowledge in this area. Scientist after scientist had faith in him and his theories do a degree that they committed billions of research dollars to form new theories. His ideas were accepted as gospel until one day a single scientist (from the US I believe) stood up and said it couldn't be true. He had discovered one flaw in Hawking's theory that ended up unraveling his entire theory and setting the scientific community back about 10 years.

Hawking would have made a hypothesis...not a theory. Which is exactly what he would be supposed to do. However, care to provide a link to this apparent massive mistake in Hawking's thinking?

-----------------------------------------------

Gravitational-wave detectors will soon bring us obsevational maps of black holes colliding...

---Kip Thorne

[gc1765]

The Book of Numbers carries hundreds (if not thousands ) of generations through family lines and was carried forward thousands of years without the use of books, as oral history....in much the same way you might know about your own family lines.

How do you know that the oral history is accurate, or that what is written in the bible accurately reflects the oral history? I'm sure a lot of other religions have oral history which is also written down in holy books. They can't all be true, can they?

[charter.rights]

100% agreement.

Also, 100% agreement.

Hawking would have made a hypothesis...not a theory. Which is exactly what he would be supposed to do. However, care to provide a link to this apparent massive mistake in Hawking's thinking?

-----------------------------------------------

Gravitational-wave detectors will soon bring us obsevational maps of black holes colliding...

---Kip Thorne

Hawking believes a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing. You are too engaged in semantics to notice...Why not try a little research before you wade into this discussion again?

"The hypothesis, the theory, is what Stephen calls a 'theory of everything.'"

World: Physicist Hawking Concedes Error In Famous Black Hole Theory

Simple research you could have done yourself....

However, the belief error wasn't with Hawking who was following his estimated hunch. It was with the other scientists that faithfully followed his theories without question. There was a lot of other science built on those theories that fell apart once his error was exposed.

[charter.rights]

How do you know that the oral history is accurate, or that what is written in the bible accurately reflects the oral history? I'm sure a lot of other religions have oral history which is also written down in holy books. They can't all be true, can they?

Oral history is much more accurate than books. Oral history by its very nature is carried by many people repeating the same stories over and over again. Where the information is consistent in the stories told by many, there is a greater chance of its accuracy than if a single author writes it down. In the latter case the prejudices of the writer become ingrained in the text. If a mistake is make in the research and compilation it may go unnoticed or unchallenged and become gospel. On the other hand if the information provide in an oral history isn't collaborated it can be discounted without losing the whole story. Even the story teller can be discounted without losing the main thrust of the story because it is carried by many more people and not lost within the inaccuracies of one person.

You must remember that before paper trails were created the mnemonic system was pretty much the only recording system available to the average ancients. Sure there was some writing at the elite levels but these systems were not available to those who could neither read nor write. Their memory then became the main means of saving information. Passing on the stories to their children and anyone who would listen were the only ways to make sure that important events and relationships were recorded.

On the other hand we are so heavily dependent on artificial means of information recording that our memory system are pretty much atrophied. Sure we can remember a few things, but not with the detail that someone who might have relied upon would have been able.

This is one of the main reasons why the Supreme Court has validated Native oral history to be as valuable (and sometimes more valuable) than the written history. Being able to draw from many sources to collaborate a view, and recognizing that British written history was often written from a single viewpoint, makes it accurate. Can we be absolute about what actually happened with precise detail? No. But then again we know that history is often written by the victors and between the US, Canada and Great Britain there are huge differences of opinion about who actually won the American Revolution, the War of 1812 and even the Vietnam war for that matter....and there have been thousands of books written on the subject.

[WIP]

Oral history is much more accurate than books. Oral history by its very nature is carried by many people repeating the same stories over and over again. Where the information is consistent in the stories told by many, there is a greater chance of its accuracy than if a single author writes it down. In the latter case the prejudices of the writer become ingrained in the text. If a mistake is make in the research and compilation it may go unnoticed or unchallenged and become gospel. On the other hand if the information provide in an oral history isn't collaborated it can be discounted without losing the whole story. Even the story teller can be discounted without losing the main thrust of the story because it is carried by many more people and not lost within the inaccuracies of one person.

I'm a little skeptical that collaboratiion on the story would necessarily make it a more accurate history. The majority might have an interest in propagating a version of the story that puts them in a better light. The following politically correct position paper written by the Arizona Archaeological Council mentions another problem with oral histories: they blend history, religion and mythology together in a narrative:

Sensitive Issues in the Use of Oral Traditions

Oral traditions are intimately connected with Native American religious beliefs and knowledge, much of which is esoteric in nature. For this reason, it is essential for archaeologists to collaborate with tribal cultural advisors regarding the use of oral traditions in archaeological research. These advisors are needed to determine what aspects of oral traditions are appropriate for use in scholarly research, to help interpret the results of research, and to guide decisions about publication.

http://www.saa.org/publications/SAAbulleti.../SAA14.html#top

(* I can't seem to get the post link feature on this board to work for me.)

To put it in perspective, the flood myths in the Middle East that led to stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark, are also believed to have been based on oral histories of a great flood that flooded the land back in prehistoric times. But aside from vast areas being drowned by flood-waters, how much of the legends can be regarded as history?

You must remember that before paper trails were created the mnemonic system was pretty much the only recording system available to the average ancients. Sure there was some writing at the elite levels but these systems were not available to those who could neither read nor write. Their memory then became the main means of saving information. Passing on the stories to their children and anyone who would listen were the only ways to make sure that important events and relationships were recorded.

On the other hand we are so heavily dependent on artificial means of information recording that our memory system are pretty much atrophied. Sure we can remember a few things, but not with the detail that someone who might have relied upon would have been able.

This is one of the main reasons why the Supreme Court has validated Native oral history to be as valuable (and sometimes more valuable) than the written history. Being able to draw from many sources to collaborate a view, and recognizing that British written history was often written from a single viewpoint, makes it accurate. Can we be absolute about what actually happened with precise detail? No. But then again we know that history is often written by the victors and between the US, Canada and Great Britain there are huge differences of opinion about who actually won the American Revolution, the War of 1812 and even the Vietnam war for that matter....and there have been thousands of books written on the subject.

I'm a little cynical about the reasons why the Supreme Court is validating oral history. In these politically correct times when archaeologists trying to examine "Kenewick Man" had to fight a local tribe for more than 10 years, even though a preliminary examination of the skull revealed that it was totally unrelated to the tribes that occupy the Pacific Northwest, I would say that it's another sign that science is being diluted to accomodate beliefs. Inicidently, the Umatila tribe near where Kennewick Man was discovered, claimed ownership because their oral history maintains that they have lived there since the dawn of time! So how much is their oral history worth? But in these strange times, the court case over the remains had to entertain this mythical belief as a legitimate legal position.

It is on the same par as tribes who try to shut down all development because the spirits of their ancestors will be disturbed by construction. This primitive belief did more to delay construction of the Red Hill Expressway where I live, in Hamilton, then all of the environmental groups put together. I fear that a move towards legitimizing oral histories as serious historical narratives is a move toward incorporating myth as history, and providing undeserved legitimacy to superstitious beliefs.

[cybercoma]

Actually, you above quote is the most ignorant statement ever made on these forums. Comments like yours only serve to show how little you really know about the discussion at hand.

Perhaps if you were to just take a back seat you might learn something, instead of injecting your prejudices in the middle of your oblivion.

I'm really looking forward to being enlightened by someone who describes science as faith.

[gc1765]

Oral history is much more accurate than books. Oral history by its very nature is carried by many people repeating the same stories over and over again. Where the information is consistent in the stories told by many, there is a greater chance of its accuracy than if a single author writes it down. In the latter case the prejudices of the writer become ingrained in the text. If a mistake is make in the research and compilation it may go unnoticed or unchallenged and become gospel. On the other hand if the information provide in an oral history isn't collaborated it can be discounted without losing the whole story. Even the story teller can be discounted without losing the main thrust of the story because it is carried by many more people and not lost within the inaccuracies of one person.

The Greeks believed in many Gods, and these stories were told over and over again by many people.

Some Natives think we were created by a Raven.

Other religions have oral history as well.

All have thousands of years of oral history, told by thousands of people, so they are equal in that respect. Yet they can't all be true, can they?

Not to mention that at some point, the oral history behind religion was written down in the Bible. If I want to learn about Christianity, my primary source would be the bible, which is written. Even if the oral stories are true, and were passed down with integrity, how do we know that the person who wrote that information down in the bible did so accurately?

[DogOnPorch]

Hawking believes a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing. You are too engaged in semantics to notice...Why not try a little research before you wade into this discussion again?

"The hypothesis, the theory, is what Stephen calls a 'theory of everything.'"

World: Physicist Hawking Concedes Error In Famous Black Hole Theory

Simple research you could have done yourself....

However, the belief error wasn't with Hawking who was following his estimated hunch. It was with the other scientists that faithfully followed his theories without question. There was a lot of other science built on those theories that fell apart once his error was exposed.

Oldddddddddd news. Kip Thorne's bet (I quoted Kip a few posts back) with Hawking hardly constitutes a multi-million dollar failure. The two work closely to each other. Both are well known and respected scientists working towards the same goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet

-----------------------------

Your door is ajar...your window, a carrot.

[charter.rights]

I'm a little skeptical that collaboratiion on the story would necessarily make it a more accurate history. The majority might have an interest in propagating a version of the story that puts them in a better light. The following politically correct position paper written by the Arizona Archaeological Council mentions another problem with oral histories: they blend history, religion and mythology together in a narrative:

Sensitive Issues in the Use of Oral Traditions

Oral traditions are intimately connected with Native American religious beliefs and knowledge, much of which is esoteric in nature. For this reason, it is essential for archaeologists to collaborate with tribal cultural advisors regarding the use of oral traditions in archaeological research. These advisors are needed to determine what aspects of oral traditions are appropriate for use in scholarly research, to help interpret the results of research, and to guide decisions about publication.

http://www.saa.org/publications/SAAbulleti.../SAA14.html#top

(* I can't seem to get the post link feature on this board to work for me.)

To put it in perspective, the flood myths in the Middle East that led to stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark, are also believed to have been based on oral histories of a great flood that flooded the land back in prehistoric times. But aside from vast areas being drowned by flood-waters, how much of the legends can be regarded as history?

I'm a little cynical about the reasons why the Supreme Court is validating oral history. In these politically correct times when archaeologists trying to examine "Kenewick Man" had to fight a local tribe for more than 10 years, even though a preliminary examination of the skull revealed that it was totally unrelated to the tribes that occupy the Pacific Northwest, I would say that it's another sign that science is being diluted to accomodate beliefs. Inicidently, the Umatila tribe near where Kennewick Man was discovered, claimed ownership because their oral history maintains that they have lived there since the dawn of time! So how much is their oral history worth? But in these strange times, the court case over the remains had to entertain this mythical belief as a legitimate legal position.

It is on the same par as tribes who try to shut down all development because the spirits of their ancestors will be disturbed by construction. This primitive belief did more to delay construction of the Red Hill Expressway where I live, in Hamilton, then all of the environmental groups put together. I fear that a move towards legitimizing oral histories as serious historical narratives is a move toward incorporating myth as history, and providing undeserved legitimacy to superstitious beliefs.

Those flood "myths" (as you call them) appear over and over again in Native oral history. When collaboration appears in two seemingly unconnected accounts one has to wonder if it is more accurate than we want to believe.

And while scientists have attempted to explain Native occupation of the Americas in many ways, the facts remain that the archeology have established that native peoples were in the Americas long before the ice bridges of the Bering Strait occurred (or for that matter the Beringer land bridge occurred), and in fact about 10-20,000 years before Europe was first populated. Theories abound about how people came to populate the Americas. The problem lies in that Europeans can't accept that fact that their admission to this land was not based on terrus nullus and that their claims were mostly fraudulent. In fact in a more recent article in the LA Times suggests that Peru's civilization sprung up at about the same time as they did in Egypt, Indus and China, which suggest that the concept of civilization was not imported by "out of Africa" migrants but that the Incan empire evolved on its own accord.

Oral history alone is not all that. But when it is corroborated with addition information it has more value than written history for the reasons stated previously. And while scholars attempt to justify their prejudice by citing reference, it is often nothing more than compounding the prejudice. Oral history on the other hand also comes from other sources and the SCoC has ruled that when the line of these oral histories can be identified and corroborated with other validated oral history (under a number of "tests' set out by the SCoC), it MUST be taken with the same weight minimally as written history, and when the written history contains a bias, oral history is to be given more weight.

In the case of Regina vs. Marshall the SCoC gave MiqMaq oral history more weight in determining the articles of an agreement. They suggested that all agreements are oral first and written second, and since the British took it upon themselves to write the agreement in full, knowing that the MiqMaq could not read or write, their version could not be taken as absolute proof of the agreement. Instead the Court took the MiqMaq version of certain promises that were never fulfilled.

In essence all history is oral BEFORE it is written down and we must therefore be wary of the prejudice and bias of the writers. By committing their knowledge to paper they lessen its validity. More accurately the real and true story is the one that is told over and over again by various witnesses and this is the primary reason why affidavit holds less weight than eye witnesses in court.

[charter.rights]

The Greeks believed in many Gods, and these stories were told over and over again by many people.

Some Natives think we were created by a Raven.

Other religions have oral history as well.

All have thousands of years of oral history, told by thousands of people, so they are equal in that respect. Yet they can't all be true, can they?

Not to mention that at some point, the oral history behind religion was written down in the Bible. If I want to learn about Christianity, my primary source would be the bible, which is written. Even if the oral stories are true, and were passed down with integrity, how do we know that the person who wrote that information down in the bible did so accurately?

We in fact know that the over the ages since the first Bible was written many aspects have been removed, altered, and reworded. King James did so much damage to the original Bible text that it cannot be counted on to entirely represent Judea-Christian beliefs.

However, between the numerous Books speaking on Christ's life and times there are commonalities and while editors could have easily edited the text to weed out non-consistent, they appear to have left the descriptions of common experiences. That leaves us with the problem that hear, an oral history that was written down has been prejudiced by its interpretors. That certifies my point about the lower accuracy of written texts.

So that is where we start - looking for commonalities in the oral accounts. Then we verify those commonalities perhaps with other versions and accounts and perhaps through experimentation, where possible. That gives us the best case. However, if our confirmation cannot be found in collaborating witness then we must resort to validated texts. This means not falling into the opinion of opinion kinds of accounts but going to as close as possible to the source documents and trying to root out the prejudice and bias contained within.

At the end of the day a witness is better than a later recalled letter or report, and corroborating witnesses make a report or book on the subject, redundant.

[gc1765]

At the end of the day a witness is better than a later recalled letter or report, and corroborating witnesses make a report or book on the subject, redundant.

Does that mean that the oral history of the Natives in the Pacific North-west which says that we were created from a Raven is accurate? And if so, doesn't that conflict with Christianity?

[WIP]

Those flood "myths" (as you call them) appear over and over again in Native oral history. When collaboration appears in two seemingly unconnected accounts one has to wonder if it is more accurate than we want to believe.

Floods are very common severe weather events. Right now there are devastating floods happening in Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Illinois and possibly other states as well. A flood myth from a native oral history here would not have any connection to whichever deluge inspired the Sumerian and Near East flood myths.

And while scientists have attempted to explain Native occupation of the Americas in many ways, the facts remain that the archeology have established that native peoples were in the Americas long before the ice bridges of the Bering Strait occurred (or for that matter the Beringer land bridge occurred), and in fact about 10-20,000 years before Europe was first populated. Theories abound about how people came to populate the Americas.

You're making a straw man argument since most archaeologists don't even claim that there had to be a complete land bridge for a Beringian migration into the New World. Some propose that all of the migrations were trans-oceanic. There is not a complete consensus on the route, nor the number of migrations. All we know for certain is that they came from Asia. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tut...s/theories.html

The problem lies in that Europeans can't accept that fact that their admission to this land was not based on terrus nullus and that their claims were mostly fraudulent.

They never claimed that the land was empty! They just didn't recognize any rights of the natives since they were non-white and unchristian.

In fact in a more recent article in the LA Times suggests that Peru's civilization sprung up at about the same time as they did in Egypt, Indus and China, which suggest that the concept of civilization was not imported by "out of Africa" migrants but that the Incan empire evolved on its own accord.

The LA Times story refers to an archaeological discovery of a 5,500 year old plaza discovered in Peru. How do you see this as disproving the Out of Africa theory that a wave of modern Cro-Magnons moved out of Africa 50,000 years ago and migrated into Europe and Asia, displacing the more primitive hominids. I don't see the connection!

[charter.rights]

Floods are very common severe weather events. Right now there are devastating floods happening in Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Illinois and possibly other states as well. A flood myth from a native oral history here would not have any connection to whichever deluge inspired the Sumerian and Near East flood myths.

You're making a straw man argument since most archaeologists don't even claim that there had to be a complete land bridge for a Beringian migration into the New World. Some propose that all of the migrations were trans-oceanic. There is not a complete consensus on the route, nor the number of migrations. All we know for certain is that they came from Asia. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tut...s/theories.html

They never claimed that the land was empty! They just didn't recognize any rights of the natives since they were non-white and unchristian.

The LA Times story refers to an archaeological discovery of a 5,500 year old plaza discovered in Peru. How do you see this as disproving the Out of Africa theory that a wave of modern Cro-Magnons moved out of Africa 50,000 years ago and migrated into Europe and Asia, displacing the more primitive hominids. I don't see the connection!

You've missed the points I made. Completely!

The floods mentioned in the stories were not regional floods with little creeks and rivers overflowing their banks. These were no land in sight floods with turtles swimming in the water being the only refuge kind of stories.

The point about the Bering Strait and the Beringer land Bridges has nothing to do with the bridges themselves. It is that the archeology suggests that human occupation of the Americas preceded the possible migrations by 40,000 years! They aren't plausible "theories" because the archeology - especially in South and Central America suggests that migration was from the south to the north.

The point about Peru settlement has nothing to do with dismissing "out of Africa" theories. It is a suggestion that simultaneous evolution was occurring in 2 remotely located centres and by remote inhabitants. It is significant in that it shows that there was no reliance on out of Africa "migrations" to populate the Americas and that civilizations could occur not through inheritance or contact but through independent simultaneous evolution. It also presents the evidence that migration from Asia did not provide the means to populate all of the Americas since the concept of "civilization" did not reach Asia for some 1200 years later.

There has been an assertion from historians and anthropologists that evolution was an linear event. There are too many doubtful data to support this and the idea that simultaneous evolution IS plausible.

[AngusThermopyle]

the idea that simultaneous evolution IS plausible.

You must be a big fan of Von Daniken.

[charter.rights]

You must be a big fan of Von Daniken.

Have you taken up trolling as a past-time or are you going to contribute to the discussion?