Re: Masada - Did it Really Happen?...

[Monk (in hiding)]

Rock is WRONG!

[Monk (in hiding)]

Theory of Human Evolution, white mans racism.



The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex by Charles Darwin

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[3]

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300?msg=welcome_stranger

So rock, are you a racist?

[Rockhopper]

I have asked you so many times for evidence or proof that what you say is true. So far ---NOTHING!!! Religious sites are not proof! Sites from others who are pushing their hypotheses are not proof either! Surely you can see that!

Here's how it is done: when a site claims something controversial then check on the author(s); what are their qualifications, experience, what have they published in true scientific journals open to scrutiny.

If they have none of these things then take what they say with a big grain of salt. Investigate their claims thoroughly and seriously and use ordinary commonsense. Anyone can put up a website and claim that the Moon is made of white chocolate but commonsense tells us that it isn't.

So lay off the personal attacks mate, they're un-becoming and serve no useful purpose. Ad hominems are pointless.

There is no point in taking this any further as it gains nothing to the debate.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Racist theory about Human Origins by a White Wealthy European blue blood.

[Agartha]

Racist theory about Human Origins by a White Wealthy European blue blood.

Oh VM come!! Nearly all 19th century figures could be considered racist and sexist to our standards!

BUT, let me tell you onto a secret that is not so secret:  Darwin came for an abolitionist family. His family provided finance and helped Willberforce succeed in passing the Slavery Abolition Act.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Racist theory about Human Origins by a White Wealthy European blue blood.

Oh VM come!! Nearly all 19th century figures could be considered racist and sexist to our standards!

BUT, let me tell you onto a secret that is not so secret:  Darwin came for an abolitionist family. His family provided finance and helped Willberforce succeed in passing the Slavery Abolition Act.

Just white mans tales, tales in which you believe to be true.

White mans story of human evolution is FAKE!

A Brief Aboriginal History

http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/history/history/

from time immemorial, we believe as Aboriginal people, Australia has been here from the first sunrise, our people have been here along with the continent, with the first sunrise. We know our land was given to us by Baiami, we have a sacred duty to protect that land, we have a sacred duty to protect all the animals that we have an affiliation with through our totem system …
Jenny Munro, Wiradjuri nation

[Stirky]

There is no point in taking this any further as it gains nothing to the debate.

Tim.

Hear hear!!!

[Monk (in hiding)]

Great, NO more white mans atheists tales.

[Agartha]

Yep... no point in taking this further......

[Monk (in hiding)]

Lock the thread then.

[Lenzabi]

Okay also, for clarification:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]

and for the term Theory

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive),[1] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards".[2] A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[3]

As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[4]

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[5] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').[6] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7]

and here: Definitions from scientific organizations

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

   The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[16]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

   A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[15]

Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.
Philosophical views


Basically what laymen think is a theory is more likely a hypothesis or random series of thoughts that have NOT been proven or tested out.

[Rockhopper]

Yep Len. That's why I use the different terms in explaining scientific terminology.

I use 'Hypothesis' for generally un-tested or un-proven hypotheses and 'Theory' for those that have been tested as far as possible.

For example Plate Tectonics as a 'Theory'. We know that the continents are moving (we can and do measure the movements) and we have mapped the continental shelves and can see the subduction zones along them. So it's an accepted Theory. What we don't know for sure is what powers those movements, the 'Hypothesis' is that it is powered by convection currents in the mantle but that has not yet been proved, so it remains a Hypothesis.

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Now as for the original issue, there are Roman Records of their military that discussed the siege at Masada, they have the earthen ramp to this day still, the Romans were good at warring and record keeping. And they did defeat the rebellious Hebrews. anything else is likely some legend made to make martyrs into bigger than life heroes

The siege of Masada was among the final accords of the Great Jewish Revolt, occurring from 73 to 74 CE on a large hilltop in current-day Israel. According to Josephus the long siege by the troops of the Roman Empire led to the mass suicide of the Sicarii rebels and resident Jewish families of the Masada fortress. The siege was chronicled by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish rebel leader captured by the Romans, in whose service he became a historian. Masada has become a controversial event in Jewish history, with some regarding it as a place of reverence, commemorating fallen ancestors and their heroic struggle against oppression, and others regarding it as a warning against extremism and the refusal to compromise.

So, Heroes, or extremists? seems any age can have them.

Either way. it is a tale with a mixed legacy

The siege of Masada is often revered in modern Israel as "a symbol of Jewish heroism".[19] According to Klara Palotai, "Masada became a symbol for a heroic 'last stand' for the State of Israel and played a major role for Israel in forging national identity".[20] To Israel, it symbolized the courage of the warriors of Masada, the strength they showed when they were able to hold of Masada for almost three years, and their choice of death over slavery in their struggle against an aggressive empire. Masada had become "the performance space of national heritage", the site of military ceremonies.[20] Palotai states how Masada "developed a special 'love affair' with archeology" because the site had drawn people from all around the world to help locate the remnants of the fortress and the battle that occurred there.[20]

Others, however, see it as a case of Jewish radicals refusing to compromise, resorting instead to suicide and the murder of their families, both prohibited by Rabbinic Judaism. Researchers are questioning the findings of Yigael Yadin, the Israeli archaeologist who first excavated Masada. Masada was once a place of celebration for Israelis, but now "Israelis [have] become less comfortable with glorifying mass suicide and identifying with religious fanatics",[21] Other archaeologists have reviewed Yadin's findings and have found some discrepancies. During Yadin's excavations, he found three bodies that he claimed were Jewish Zealots. Anthropologist Joe Zias and forensic expert Azriel Gorski claim that the bodies were actually three Romans taken hostage by the Jewish Zealots. If this is true, "Israel might have mistakenly bestowed the honour [of recognition as Jewish heroes and a state burial] on three Romans".[21] There is also some discussion of Masada's defenders, and whether they were "the heroic hard core of the great Jewish revolt against Rome, or a gang of killers who became victims of a last Roman mopping-up operation".[22]

[Rockhopper]

Yes Len. The Romans did keep extensive records as any empire must do. There is  Roman records of them taking Masada but according to their records it was taken with very little fighting. Apparently the Jews there commited suicide rather that take a last stand.

Josephus was captured near there and was taken back to Rome where he was Romified and then returned to cronicle the things that were going on in Judaea. A kind of reporter/correspondent for Rome.

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Yes Len. The Romans did keep extensive records as any empire must do. There is  Roman records of them taking Masada but according to their records it was taken with very little fighting. Apparently the Jews there commited suicide rather that take a last stand.

Josephus was captured near there and was taken back to Rome where he was Romified and then returned to cronicle the things that were going on in Judaea. A kind of reporter/correspondent for Rome.

Tim.

And he seems to have reported they drew lots for who killed whom leaving a last man standing to kill himself

Maybe Josephus could not kill himself?

It is interesting that the "heroes of Masada" are seen less as heroes and more nutters today by those who once worshipped them as heroes for standing up to Roman oppression. Where else have wee heard uncompromising, fanatical, and zealous all together? Because we have been fed such over the last 13yrs

[Rockhopper]

Another option is that Josephus got the story 2nd hand or even he was just guessing, we'll never really know.

Tim.

[Sponsored content]