TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2007, 04:53 PM   #76
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
Doc, paleontologists have established for years that different layers of sediment contain different (vastly different) fossilized remains.
You know, we've been down this road before... I think the explanation was that God placed those things there to make Earth look older.

My interpretation: It's easy to think you've won the debate when the other side has no ways to create a counter-argument with their own means.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:55 PM   #77
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
Doc, paleontologists have established for years that different layers of sediment contain different (vastly different) fossilized remains. As the layers grow deeper and older, the fossilized remains grow more and more distant from those species we all know and love today. There are no cases of modern homo sapiens in the deeper layers, and no cases of our ancestors' remains in the shallow and younger layers. Please, just read some books (other than the Bible or anything written by IDers or creationists). If you're unwilling to accept science at face value, I can't help you.
Explain how fossils from supposedly different eras are found in the same strata. Explain polystrata fossils, like trees found upside down extending through 'millennia' of geological layers. A massive geological upheaval causing a sudden sorting of layers of sediment is just as plausible, scientifically, as Charles Lyell's theory. Do you know what the constitutional difference between pre-Cambrian limestone and the modern variety is? Absolutely nothing.

And leave the ad hominem at home, HK. At the risk of sounding arrogant, ignorance is not something I can be accused of.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:56 PM   #78
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
You know, we've been down this road before... I think the explanation was that God placed those things there to make Earth look older.
Sorry for the double post, but that wasn't my argument.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:57 PM   #79
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
As a side note, I find it ironic that what brings us all here is Indiana Jones, an archaeologist (scientist), yet many of us are about as anti-science as they come. And yes, I'm saying that if you do not believe in evolution or in the implications thereof that you are anti-science:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

-Theodosius Dobzhansky, renowned geneticist
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:58 PM   #80
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
And yes, I'm saying that if you do not believe in evolution or in the implications thereof that you are anti-science...
Then you're as ignorant as you accuse me of being.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:59 PM   #81
The Adventurer
IndyFan
 
The Adventurer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bucarest; Romania
Posts: 176
I believe in God but also I believe in evolution. What evolution can't explain is Homo Sapiens --- There were many other hominides species with great chances to evolve (ex homo neanderthalensis) in something better (and is not demonstrated the link between species, only supposition)...but only one succeded, and that only one species is the same with us. The only one visible difference of evolution is not somatic but rather intelectual and tehnologycal...

PS: I like to watch the discussion and stay out...I try...

Last edited by The Adventurer : 03-07-2007 at 05:04 PM.
The Adventurer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:59 PM   #82
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Savage
Explain how fossils from supposedly different eras are found in the same strata. Explain polystrata fossils, like trees found upside down extending through 'millennia' of geological layers. A massive geological upheaval causing a sudden sorting of layers of sediment is just as plausible, scientifically, as Charles Lyell's theory. Do you know what the constitutional difference between pre-Cambrian limestone and the modern variety is? Absolutely nothing.

And leave the ad hominem at home, HK. At the risk of sounding arrogant, ignorance is not something I can be accused of.

You have references on hand, I assume?
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 04:59 PM   #83
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
As a side note, I find it ironic that what brings us all here is Indiana Jones, an archaeologist (scientist), yet many of us are about as anti-science as they come.
http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=10327
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 05:12 PM   #84
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
What do scientists gain by convincing people to accept evolution? What do Christians gain by convincing people otherwise? The way I see it, only one group has an agenda motivating their position on this issue, and it certainly ain't scientists.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 05:19 PM   #85
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"There is no solid proof for God's non-existence"
Sorry... fallacy... one never tries to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of those making the claim for existence to PROVE the existence of any Flying Spaghetti Monster...

HovitosKing... take it from me, you're pissin up a rope....

"You have references on hand, I assume?"
Don't hold yer breath HK....
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 05:21 PM   #86
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
I am still waiting on those references, Doc. Are you busy gathering them or have you left me hanging?

CH, I agree on all of your above points.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 05:50 PM   #87
The Adventurer
IndyFan
 
The Adventurer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bucarest; Romania
Posts: 176
I don't see other civilisation on the open universe...but from all logical scientist statistics it is impossible to be the only one in universe...I believe in other species more or less intelligent than us in the univers...and all are guvernated by the same unknown powers of the univers...by God. (who is different understood by us)

You see...it is possible both for scientist or religious people to believe what they can't see.
The Adventurer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 06:29 PM   #88
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
There are some very interesting quasi-human species in between
You should see some of the peculiar folks I weigh in at the clinic. Ours is a diverse species. I've yet to see a convincing transitional fossil. Remember Homo floresiensis, the hobbit-like species? It appears to be what one might call a "child."
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
only one group has an agenda motivating their position on this issue, and it certainly ain't scientists.
Social scientists have often used evolution to promote Marxism, eugenics, extropia...
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 11:28 PM   #89
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moedred
Social scientists have often used evolution to promote Marxism, eugenics, extropia...

As a behavioral scientist, I can attest to the fact that many "social scientists" have historically been anything but scientists. Don't lump those guys in with the rest of us.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2007, 11:33 PM   #90
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moedred
You should see some of the peculiar folks I weigh in at the clinic. Ours is a diverse species. I've yet to see a convincing transitional fossil. Remember Homo floresiensis, the hobbit-like species? It appears to be what one might call a "child."

I'm not getting into this for many reasons, but maybe the almighty wikipedia can shed some light on it for you (in an extremely rudimentary and oversimplified sort of way):

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

Misconceptions

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

The 'Missing Link'

A popular term to designate transitional forms with is "the missing link". The term is especially used in the regular media, but inaccurate and confusing. This is partly because it implies that there was a single link missing to complete the picture, which now has been discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil (more commonly known as "Lucy") is seen as a key transitional fossil.

The discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), etc. are also vital to the study of links.

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

Out of curiosity, how do any of you non-evolutionists explain away those last few chaps?
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 02:03 AM   #91
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered.
I read this before, and noticed a tinge of regret that so few "links" have been found. 100-million-year-old dinosaur bones, we got plenty, but where are the 4-million-year-old Hominins? I'm sure you think I don't wanna see any... I do. I'm a gap creationist.

The slight differences between species in the Homo genus can be chalked up to natural selection, not evoluiton. Humans are capable of vast change depending on where they live. Insular drarfism, for example. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals interbred... but according to Gould the others were too busy turning into one another?
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 08:10 AM   #92
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,988
I think this topic is starting to fray a bit, migrating away from the original intent of the topic, that being Jesus' bones. See, all the rest of this (evoloution, science, ad hominim attacks etc) is irrelevent if just a few simple truths can be determined.

HoKi touched on it in this post:
Quote:
What do scientists gain by convincing people to accept evolution? What do Christians gain by convincing people otherwise?

I think the argument to the validity of the bones/tomb in question should be reasoned from his stance above. But don't stray, or the answer won't find you.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 09:35 AM   #93
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"Jesus' bones"
You can't find the bones of someone who never existed
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 10:38 AM   #94
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
You can't find the bones of someone who never existed
The beating of the proverbial dead horse, tovarisch...you can't suitably dismiss his historicity.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 10:42 AM   #95
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
Already done, handily.

That your only response is the net equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALA" only supports that.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 10:45 AM   #96
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
Already done, handily.
Not by a long shot. To finish out the Josephus thought, Josephus would logically have felt the need to more specifically address the identity of Jesus in his second mention if he hadn't established it in the first. Ergo, the "Christian revisionism" claim holds precious little water.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 10:48 AM   #97
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
and that's why this thread is the equivalent of pissing up a rope.

Or a ping pong game...

Doc S is presented with facts
Doc S says "no it's not"
Doc S is presented with more facts
Doc S says again, "no it's not"

But the atheists are the ones who are close-minded....

The hat sale yesterday was sucky....

Today, I'll be at the James Randi Educational Foundation.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 11:34 AM   #98
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
Doc S is presented with facts
Doc S says "no it's not"
Doc S is presented with more facts
Doc S says again, "no it's not"
You're starting to remind me of Fezzini. And what you presented weren't facts, they were opinions. Find me someone who sat next to Flavius Josephus as he wrote Antiquities and I'll take that as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
But the atheists are the ones who are close-minded....
"All generalizations are untrue, including this one." (2 points if you can identify the quote) I never said they were close-minded...I said they were misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
The hat sale yesterday was sucky....
Sorry to hear that. What were you looking for? Do you have an Akubra?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
Today, I'll be at the James Randi Educational Foundation.
I like Randi...especially since he busted Peter Popoff.

Bottom line, even atheists and agnostics are criticizing Cameron's mockumentary as unscientific. Just more pandering for a jolt of popularity by means of an ill-considered contraversy.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 11:47 AM   #99
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"Find me someone who sat next to Flavius Josephus as he wrote Antiquities and I'll take that as fact."

You were the one who wanted to use his writing as support. The fact is, it's not in support of your assertion, because it only appears to support your assertion because it's been doctored to appear that way.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2007, 12:14 PM   #100
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
You were the one who wanted to use his writing as support. The fact is, it's not in support of your assertion, because it only appears to support your assertion because it's been doctored to appear that way.
You're asserting that it's been doctored. That has never been conclusively (or even remotely) proven. As things lay, it is in the document, so it is admissable.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.