TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-08-2006, 03:15 PM   #51
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"Adam and Eve were made without genetic defect"

I'd like to see that proved
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 03:29 PM   #52
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Its not something that can be proven.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image

Looks like god, is like god, sinless and eternal. If God is perfect, the people he makes would be perfect, at first. Thats where free will comes in, and mucks everything up for us.

Not that I can prove any of that... but it stands to reason if you are a Christian.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 03:31 PM   #53
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
Hummm... reason, without proof.....

very telling
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 03:36 PM   #54
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Faith requires less proof, however. Proof only solidifies.

Reason in conjunction with faith however, is very strong to the faithful. So the comment really doesn't apply to you.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 04:05 PM   #55
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
I don't see the existance of reason without proof

Without fact, reason is built upon sand
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 06:20 PM   #56
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Without God, life's foundation is sand.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 06:28 PM   #57
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
Error... undefined string.... "God"=No Such Quality/quantity.... Process ends

Recommend: define term.

Try Again
Y/N?

,-)
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 06:42 PM   #58
San Holo
IndyFan
 
San Holo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,027
For the athiests out there- here's a question- How does it make you feel to know that everyone you love, as well as yourself, is going to die-and be dead forever and ever..?think about that for a minute. No more thoughts,cries or laughs ever again.
San Holo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 06:52 PM   #59
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"How does it make you feel to know that everyone you love, as well as yourself, is going to die-and be dead forever and ever..."

Who Dies?

A nephew once asked me when he was quite young
Who dies? I said, Everyone dies.
No use denying it one day you're done
Oh, everyone dies
Princes and paupers there's no one immune
And no one who'll escape their demise
So you'd better make use of each day that you're given
Oh everyone dies

Now people have pondered this time and again
Who dies? Everyone dies.
We suspect that we're more than mere mortal remains
Oh everyone dies
Wise men and prophets they've all had their say
On the nature of our afterlives
But in case there's no beer there we'll have one more round
Oh everyone dies.

Your time may be short or your time may be long
Who dies? Everyone dies
But it's going to happen as sure as you're born
Oh everyone dies
Friends and relations and all we hold dear
Will one day pass to the other side
So we'd better embrace them as long as they're here
Oh everyone dies

(This 'sings' much better than it reads.... It's actually a kinda up-beat "call and response" song.... I sing "Who Dies?" and the audience answers back "Everyone dies!")

,-)
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 08:57 PM   #60
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,962
I find this idea of literally taking the bible into account a little obnoxious. The Good Book has many debatable parts, the most obvious of them the Genesis.

I'm trying to look the Bible here through the eyes of a historian, and thus disregard even the parts that appear impossible judging by the modern laws of the physics (miracles, etc). The Bible mostly accounts the days when there has been plenty witnesses around to see and hear the things that have been written up to its pages. But what about the part when there was no one getting up a live account?

As the human cognitive thinking has been pretty much the same for the time homo sapiens has roamed on this Earth, it would be easy to say that the missing part where reconstructed by using the most viable scientific theories available.

So I'm not accusing the writers of the Bible for writing sheer fiction; the Good Book can well be a very accurate historical document that's written after the knowledge and theories possessed on the day.

It brings us to an interesting mindplay. What if the Bible was written on this very day? Presuming, of course, that it actually was written based on the facts and theories people knew at the very moment back then. People taking the Bible literally these days can't probably deny that in core, it's a history book to them that sheds the light into the early days of a man. But at the same time, they're creating a paradox, as they fail to read it as any other historical document should be read in order to bring out the most of it; reflect it to their own time.

If a modern day encyclopaedia and one that's been written fifty years ago possess contradicting information, rare is the mind who trusts the latter one. Now, why can't same be taken into account with the Bible? Possibly because people have been told that the Good Book can't possess misguiding information. And we shouldn't forget that the quarter who most outlines this is the one that wants to keep the religion organized, something Jesus himself found non-favourable.

I think the biggest threat to reaccounting the Holy Word using the current knowledge is that it strips people from their faith. I don't think so, as there is no way to scientifically prove there is no God.

Half a millennia ago a man named Martin Luther made an enormous favor to the world with what he did. Perhaps it would be an opportune time for a modern-day counterpart who'd bring the christianity up to speed with the rest of the world without mutilating its core ideals.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2006, 10:51 PM   #61
intergamer
IndyFan
 
intergamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,325
not reading beyond the first post of this thread, sorry, but:

Any scientist that believes the earth is only 7000 years old is full of crock... and apparently hasn't heard of carbon dating?

Why, after so many years, do we not see undeveloped half humans, instead of just different species of monkey?

surely you don't think this is unexplainable by the theory of evolution? (it's mandated by evolution theory, but i'm not going to regurgitate a book about it)
intergamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 11:51 AM   #62
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
I trust carbon dating, but it has been wildly innacurate in many cases...

rocks created in the Mount St. Helens eruption were in fact dated many years older than they should have been.

Fossils, in one theory, are much too old to carbon date, due to the extremely low level of Carbon 14. In another theory, scientists extrapolate that the Carbon Dating is not so innacurate as it seems, and points more to a flood catastrophe.

A good place to start is here - http://www.worldbydesign.org/researc...dinosaurs.html

We also can't date things that are too young. The nuclear tests of the 1950's created a lot of C14. Also, humans are now burning large amounts of "fossil fuel". As the name suggests, fossil fuel is old, and no longer contains C14. Both of these man-made changes are a nuisance to carbon dating.

If you hear of a living tree being dated as a thousand years old, that is not necessarily an example of an incorrect dating. Trees only grow on the outside. Wood taken from the innermost ring really is as old as the tree.

Plus, we assume that the reservoirs of C14 have remained constant throughout history.

So, it can be innacurate.

The real fact is that all scientific research into the history of the earth is marked by some kind of bias, whether it be evolutionist OR creationist. Both sides do experiments to validate their claims, over and over again, and both points seem to be proven.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 12:27 PM   #63
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,962
Even though carbon dating can be proven to be a throw-off some times, there is some concrete evidence that the cycle required for evolution of species seems to reach far further than the alleged 7000 years.

I don't generally see what's the big deal with the core ideals of evolution being against what the Bible says. Even to those who won't support the Genesis being a scientifical haycase, the building of man starting from small cells and finishing the development cycle into a "finished product" about ten millennia ago would suit well to the metaphor of creating the man from the dust of Earth. That certainly leaves just time as our only issue.

I can understand that some people have hard time accepting this, as God was supposed to create man as His own image. We'll of course have to take into account that this opinion is burdened by the bias of the thought that Earth, the cradle of mankind, is the center of the universe. This has of course been misproven centuries ago by a certain Polish astronomist.

Yeah, I know that Bible still says this or that, but please refer to my previous post for some ideas why taking the tellings of the Good Book completely literally is a bad idea.

It's history repeating itself all over again. It took the church two hundred years to give Copernic the credit. Judging by the same cycle we still have about fifty years to go before they admit that Darwin was right too.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 12:50 PM   #64
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
I see your point, and referring to my previous posts, you'll see I believe in evolution, just not a species jump from monkey to human.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 12:59 PM   #65
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortuneandglory
I see your point, and referring to my previous posts, you'll see I believe in evolution, just not a species jump from monkey to human.
Well, the common ancestor has most likely been some kind of monkey... but it's of course not like one day this being would just have pushed a human being out of its womb. The process is far more complicated than that.

And my jabs aren't exactly tossed as much to you as those Bible literalists who fail to see that there's lot more of new stuff to be taken into account than what we knew 2000 years ago.

Last edited by Finn : 09-09-2006 at 01:35 PM.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 01:13 PM   #66
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
It's worth saying that again

The process is far more complicated than that.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 01:59 PM   #67
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Well, the common ancestor has most likely been some kind of monkey... but it's of course not like one day this being would just have pushed a human being out of its womb. The process is far more complicated than that.

And my jabs aren't exactly tossed as much to you as those Bible literalists who fail to see that there's lot more of new stuff to be taken into account than what we knew 2000 years ago.

Heh, have no fear finn, I don't take your comments as jabs, they've given me much to consider. You give a lot of intelligent posts, and I appreciate what you are saying, however I am not in the least studied enough on evolution to debate this point. *man i need a subscription to archaeology magazine...*

Until then, i'm going to keep on reading.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 02:14 PM   #68
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
" I am not in the least studied enough on evolution to debate this point. *man i need a subscription to archaeology magazine...*"
Especially if, as you've said before, you think you want to actually BE an archaeologist!

"i'm going to keep on reading"
Never stop, F&G!! Never stop... :-)
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 02:22 PM   #69
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Thanks for the encouragement CH, despite our differences...

We actually get Archaeology magazine here in Oklahoma, but I'm a bit short on money... Maybe for christmas?

And of course i'll never stop reading . I have actually done more studying up on current archaeological issues since our little debates... so on that note, you have been a good influence on my development in archaeology.
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 02:58 PM   #70
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,237
"despite our differences..."
What a boring ol' world it'd be, if we were all the same eh!


"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"

"you have been a good influence"

Damn... there goes my reputation as an a--h*le!
,-)
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 05:44 PM   #71
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Don't think this changes things though! We're still mortal enemies, Belloq!
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 07:37 PM   #72
intergamer
IndyFan
 
intergamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,325
...

thousands of objects have been carbon dated to times hundreds of thousands of years ago...

I assure you, our knowledge of chemistry is not so completely off base that all of this is wrong

the sites you refer to are unscientific babble spreading FUD
intergamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 08:00 PM   #73
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
I never said that all Carbon Dating is wrong. I said that in some cases, it has been PROVEN to be wildly inaccurate. And, this site, that is singular, provides some scientific evidence pointing in this direction. Babble spreading FUD? That's very mature. I look forward to seeing examples of these objects dated hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And perhaps this site is a little more scientific for you.

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm

enjoy!
fortuneandglory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 10:17 PM   #74
intergamer
IndyFan
 
intergamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortuneandglory
I never said that all Carbon Dating is wrong. I said that in some cases, it has been PROVEN to be wildly inaccurate. And, this site, that is singular, provides some scientific evidence pointing in this direction. Babble spreading FUD? That's very mature. I look forward to seeing examples of these objects dated hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And perhaps this site is a little more scientific for you.

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm

enjoy!

sorry, I meant 10's of thousands, which is more than 7K to be sure.
that website isn't more scientific, and you are spreading complete nonsense
do you even understand how carbon dating works? it's not some random black box... it's based on the fundamental properties of radioactive decay. The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.
intergamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2006, 11:19 PM   #75
fortuneandglory
IndyFan
 
fortuneandglory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Marshall College
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by intergamer
sorry, I meant 10's of thousands, which is more than 7K to be sure.
that website isn't more scientific, and you are spreading complete nonsense
do you even understand how carbon dating works? it's not some random black box... it's based on the fundamental properties of radioactive decay. The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.

Carbon dating is actually not accurate beyond 50,000 years, if you had read the website I gave you. Is my information nonsense because it conflicts with your views? Again, I know exactly how carbon dating works. It measures the amount of decay, the half life of Carbon 14 being about 5 and a half thousand years, and that gives you the date. Again, i'm not saying its all inaccurate, but there are certain points where you cannot date using this method. Dont be so inflammatory, and think before you insult my intelligence next time.
fortuneandglory 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 07:11 AM.