TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-08-2007, 12:07 PM   #1
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
7000+ year Old Tree Stumps

Another nail in the coffin for the so called Young Earth nonsense.... (Like there aren't already TONS of nails in it...)

And perhaps the beginning of a new field. Global Warming Archaeology! LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...dR3OFBiZkPLBIF
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 04:36 PM   #2
metalinvader
IndyFan
 
metalinvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orellana's Cradle
Posts: 2,428
"Global Warming Archaeology!"

I really don't need to see Al Gore in a fedora.
metalinvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 06:57 PM   #3
Aaron H
Moderator Emeritus
 
Aaron H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalinvader
"Global Warming Archaeology!"

I really don't need to see Al Gore in a fedora.
Perish the thought!
Aaron H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 07:29 PM   #4
indy34
IndyFan
 
indy34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalinvader
"Global Warming Archaeology!"

I really don't need to see Al Gore in a fedora.
Hopefully global warming will finish us of before we have to see that
indy34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 10:37 PM   #5
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
Al Gore won the Noble Peace Prize... He don't need no stinkin' fedora.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2007, 05:26 AM   #6
metalinvader
IndyFan
 
metalinvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orellana's Cradle
Posts: 2,428
Yeah but does a Noble Peace Prize make good adventure head wear???
metalinvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2007, 08:02 AM   #7
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalinvader
Yeah but does a Noble Peace Prize make good adventure head wear???
It's roughly 1.5 mil dollars. I guess you can get the best there is with that.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 12:19 PM   #8
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Thumbs up Very Interesting!

First post!!!

Good read there.

I think it would be amazing to have the chance to witness the uncovering of one of those stumps. To see it and to touch it, man...Just thinking of all the great achievements and failures that have occured in human history since that tree was encased in ice really causes one to stop and think.

Great men have come and gone - their bodies have returned to the dust from which they came; the world and its values have been constantly changing; civilizations have risen and fallen; great wars have been fought; technology has advanced exponentially - and through it all, a single tree has endured.

Trees (especially redwoods!) make me realize just how short man's life really is. We're here for a day, and tomorrow we're gone. Really makes you question man's significance in this world, doesn't it?

But I digress. Sorry about that - I just find this sort of thing fascinating. Once again, thanks for the post!

Oh, and to be fair, the article hardly provides evidence against a young earth model. Firstly, the date of 7,000 years fits well within the bounds of the young earth model, which - as far as I know - can range anywhere from 4000 years to around 10,000 years among the more conservative schools. However, it should also be noted that radiometric dating is not very accurate to begin with as it makes several assumptions about the nature of the samples it attempts to date as well as the world around them:

First, a little background...

Radiometric dating functions by measuring the relationship between parent and daughter elements - in the case of radiocarbon dating, this would be Carbon and Nitrogen.

And now, on to the good stuff...

1) Radiometric dating assumes the object in question is part of a closed system (i.e. there is no way for more of a parent element to be introduced)
2) Radiometric dating assumes there is no trace of daughter element present at formation
3) Radiometric dating assumes that the decay rate for the element in question (in this case, carbon) has always been the same

Following this last point, I find very interesting the fact that traces of carbon 14 have been found in coal specimens supposedly dated to 300,000,000 years. The problem with this is that the half-life for Carbon14 is around 5700 years, which means that after 300 million years, there shouldn't be enough of the element remainining to be measured - yet this is indeed the case.

I see this as a suggestion that the decay rate may very well be increasing. This would fit nicely with the concept of entropy as well.

...Now that was a mouthful! (I'm sure you can tell where I stand on this issue)

It's great to be a part of the forum - I'm looking forward to many great discussions in the future!
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 12:27 PM   #9
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
"traces of carbon 14 have been found in coal specimens supposedly dated to 300,000,000 years."
Source please....
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 12:41 PM   #10
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Dig Source...

Just google, "source of carbon14 in coal" for a wide variety of sites discussing this subject.

Additionally, there is some good information on this topic on Wikipedia.

Granted, this is a very controversial subject, and I don't deny that multiple conclusions have been reached with the same information, but it is interesting nontheless.

Hope that clarified!
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 12:47 PM   #11
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
"Just google, "source of carbon14 in coal"
No... if you have a specific example you'd like to discuss, please link the rest of us to it. Otherwise the discussion is so fraught with the potential for misunderstanding as to be pointless.

"multiple conclusions have been reached with the same information"
Not all conclusions have the same validity....
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 01:03 PM   #12
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Specific Link

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14f.htm

There you go.

I agree with you that not all conclusions are equally valid - the only reason I didn't post a specific link in the previous post was because I did not want to imply that I knew which one was correct...

...because the fact is, I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth as I am neither a scientist nor am I studying to become one - I simply found this information interesting.

Ultimately, one's beliefs about the world are shaped by a fundamental choice - whether one believes in God or whether one does not believe in God. Theism or atheism are the only options for explaining how the world originated, and both are equally matters of faith.

I ascribe to theism - specifically Christianity, and for me to spend my life researching all the infinite possible details which could either support or deny this belief would be utterly wasteful. The existence of God and the truth of his revealed word in the Bible (including the idea of a young earth) is an axiom, and I leave the discerning of details to men far more qualified than I.

While I'm not opposed to continuing this discussion, I have a feeling it would just lead to me attempting to prove things in which I do not have proper schooling, and in doing so possibly providing misinformation to those involved in the discussion.

I have the intellectual honesty to realize this would be a foolish exercise.
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 01:11 PM   #13
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
The term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.

creation-science-prophecy.com isn't worth the electrons it takes to display on my monitor....

Atheism has nothing to do with 'faith'.

"I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth"
That much is apparent... but at least you're man enough to admit it.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 01:28 PM   #14
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
"The term 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron."

Well, considering God created the universe and everything in it - I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

"Atheism has nothing to do with faith."

Of course it does. Atheism claims to have insight about the creation of the world - an event which no one witnessed and which is not repeatable. Any inquiry into this must of necessity be historical rather than empirical, and any answers must be reached by deduction rather than absolute knowledge.

An atheist says that God does not exist, in spite of the overwhelming design and perfection of the created world...

A theist says that God exists because of the same design and perfection...

Both are matters of faith, and they speak to an underlying worldview and expectations about reality. Atheism actually requires far more faith than theism, but that's another discussion.

I am not denying there are problems with the young earth model, but it would be equally foolish to claim that the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth are factual or even logical. Such statements are telling signs of an obsession with the notion that science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe.

Science has its uses, but they are limited. Theology and metaphysics are equally valid ways of attempting to explain the world we live in, and have been considered vital parts of the human experience for thousands of years. The recent emphasis on the infallibility of science is not justified.

Really, the nicest thing I can say about evolution is that is is a fairy tale for grownups who are afraid to take responsibility for their actions in the face of an almighty God.

That should provide some meat for discussion!

Last edited by What Truck? : 11-13-2007 at 01:36 PM.
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 01:47 PM   #15
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
"considering God created the universe and everything in it "
According to what evidence? There isn't any, that's what evidence.

"Atheism claims to have insight about the creation of the world - an event which no one witnessed and which is not repeatable."
Creation of the world? For one, it was never 'created'... It evolved, just like all the other planets we've observed (Directly or indirectly) probably from the same cloud of space dust that coalesced (probably because of gravity) to form our sun (And the billions of other suns in our galaxy alone) By observing the process elsewhere, and by checking and rechecking the evidence under our very feet, we arrive at the current model, the current cosmological 'educated guess' as to how our planet formed.

"An atheist says that God does not exist, in spite of the overwhelming design and perfection"
Again, there's no 'design' or 'perfection'.

"factual or even logical"
Evolution IS fact.... full stop. We observe it happening all the time. Anyone who has ever tried to teach you otherwise has insulted (And some would even say, abused) you. Of course they've deluded you.... If they didn't, they wouldn't have their JOBS any more. Like Tobacco Companies, they need new victims to replace the ones they're losing every day.

"science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe"
Not science, but the scientific METHOD....

"the infallibility of science"
Science never claimed to be infallible in the least.... The difference is, unlike 'theology' science LEARNS from it's mistakes... Science is CONSTANTLY modifying and updating its view of the universe as more information rolls in. Theology has its head in the same sand its head was in 2+thousand years ago....


"an almighty God"
Just what this forum needed... another pigeon. There is no god.... never has been... never will be. That you feel the need to call Evolution a "Fairy Tale" only reaffirms what you said above... "I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth", is the only thing you've said so far that has any validity.

You could change that by getting yourself a decent education..... But you'd have to leave the flock and stop pecking at the sidewalk.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 01:59 PM   #16
nezobiwan
IndyFan
 
nezobiwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Truck?
[b]I am not denying there are problems with the young earth model, but it would be equally foolish to claim that the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth are factual or even logical. Such statements are telling signs of an obsession with the notion that science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe.

So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?

Oh that's right, Barney and Fred domesticated them...

Who decided that the Bible was wrong about animal sacrifice and slavery and the objectification of women? Oh that's right, people who actually change their thinking when the old way of thinking no longer makes sense logically.

For the record. I'm agnostic. There might be a god or gods, but with the plethora of diverse religions in this world, to choose one by default of geographic location and anglo-saxon ancestry would be pretty close minded of me.

Considering Jesus, if he lived, lived many thousands of years ago, when people are even dumber than they are now (thanks David Cross for that great line) and more prone to rumor and hearsay (that gigantic game of "telephone" before telephones were even conceived of) and the majority of those people were not educated (and galactically uneducated by today's standards), then that makes me even less inclined to believe the most fantastic of it all ever happened.

"History is a myth that men agree to believe." --attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

If we can't explain the Kennedy assassination without debate arising--when we can actually talk to people who were there and we have actual VIDEO evidence of what happened--what makes anyone think that events that happened before recorded history could possibly be absolute truth? Did you know there are people out there who think Elvis is still alive? (to quote MIB: "Elvis is not dead, he just went home.")

Last time I checked, science never "proved" anything. All it does is supply theories and challenges others to find fault with those theories using observable proof.

That's the difference between religion and science. Science says "I could be wrong, so test me and change your mind based on what you can find. IF what you find can be duplicated." Religion says, "This is the way it is and damn it all if we're ever going to change our minds. Anything that shows proof of our being wrong is just a test of your faith."

Religion=totalitarian
Science=egalitarian

I find it extraordinarily liberating to be free of institutions that tell me I can't question things and figure them out for myself.
nezobiwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 02:19 PM   #17
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
"So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?"
Please oh please oh please, do NOT encourage the pigeons to coo...
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 02:31 PM   #18
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Well, this is certainly getting interesting!

"probably from the same cloud of space dust that coalesced (probably because of gravity) to form our sun (And the billions of other suns in our galaxy alone)"

All you've done is move the problem back a step. You have yet to explain where the cloud of space dust, as you put it, came from. The idea of spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago - you simply cannot get something from nothing. Until you resolve the problem of where all the materials came from, you have no right to discuss how they 'evolved.'

As to your remark about gravity - if there ever was such a thing as the big bang, all the elements of the universe would have been expanding outward from its initial point. What makes you think that all that material could defy inertia and coalesce together?

Matter should be equally distributed throughout the universe if your scenario were true, yet it is not. Further, if our entire solar system came from the same spinning gas cloud which somehow formed around our star, why is there retrograde motion in the some of the planets and moons?

"Again, there's no 'design' or 'perfection'"

1) The human body
2) The earth
a.) Moon and its affect on tides
b.) Distance from the sun
c.) Tilt of the earth
3) The hydrological cycle
4) Weather
5) Gravity

Really, the list goes on and on. We often take for granted this design because it seems so natural. Even evolutionists are forced to speak of the 'illusion of design". For you to insist that even the appearance of design is non-existent is little more than denial.

Evolution IS fact.... full stop. We observe it happening all the time.

Even if the idea of evolution had been present from day one of recorded history and man had been carefully observing nature to discern this process, we would still not have been studying evolution for a fraction of the time which this process supposedly takes. Evolution has never been observed - there are no examples of evolution in the modern world or in the history of the earth.

The only thing which has been witnessed is adaptation (whether in life or through the fossil record) - that is, variation within a species. This is totally consistent with the biblical conception of all animals and mankind as having been created as separate and distinct kinds.

Adaptation, or micro-evolution, as it is sometimes called, does not equal macro-evolution. A bird with a slightly modified beak, or a fruit-fly with an extra set of wings has nothing to do with a monkey becoming a man.

"Not science, but the scientific METHOD...."

Might I recommend The Limitations of Scientific Truth by Nigel Brush. I believe you would find this book informative.

"Science never claimed to be infallible in the least.... The difference is, unlike 'theology' science LEARNS from it's mistakes"

You're correct, science didn't claim to be infallible - you claimed it to be infallible by your loyalty to a discipline, which by your own admission is constantly growing. The very things you are now defending may not be scientifically viable 50 or 100 years from now.

Regarding theology - if it's not broken, then there's no need to fix it. Constant change isn't necessarily a good thing.

"'I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth', is the only thing you've said so far that has any validity."

As you and I both know, that commet was made concerning the specific topic of carbon14 dating, and I stand by it. However, you chose to move this discussion into the much broader realm of theism vs. atheism, and on this subject I am more than prepared to hold my own.

"You could change that by getting yourself a decent education..... But you'd have to leave the flock and stop pecking at the sidewalk."

Ad hominem arguments are the oldest trick in the book, and I won't be taking the bait. Tempting though...

All statements made in this discussion are my own opinions which I have formed, and continue to form through careful study, analysis and research. There's no need to pretend that someone is feeding me this information - rather, it is my firm belief, and one which is grounded in truth.
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 02:36 PM   #19
nezobiwan
IndyFan
 
nezobiwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
"So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?"
Please oh please oh please, do NOT encourage the pigeons to coo...

Lead by example, chief.

nezobiwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 02:44 PM   #20
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
"which is grounded in truth"
Archaeology is the search for FACT... not truth... If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

You're welcome to go there along with the other pigeons. Because "I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth", is still the only thing of any value you've posted here. Everything you've posted since only serves to support that one statement.

Back On Topic.
7+ thousand year old tree stumps can teach us an awful lot about our environment, how it changes and perhaps, how we can keep ourselves from contributing to our own destruction.
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 03:12 PM   #21
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Truck?
1) The human body
2) The earth
a.) Moon and its affect on tides
b.) Distance from the sun
c.) Tilt of the earth
3) The hydrological cycle
4) Weather
5) Gravity
The counter-argument... these things are not here for us, but we're here because of them. Every being is a sum of the things around it, not the other way around. A pity that you somehow failed to mention it, would have given your presentation of things a little more credibility.

Still, there's plausibility in both ways of looking at it. And that's where science differs. Even though there might something known as the "leading theory" which is considered to be most close to the truth, each and every one of them gets some credit... after its inconsistencies has been tested, of course.

Religion, however, credits just one of them and ignores its inconsistencies 'til there's an explanation that supports the original theory.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 03:36 PM   #22
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
In response to Nezobiwan...

"So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?"

They were created along with all the other animals and man during the six days of creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1. Dinosaurs co-existed with man until Noah's flood, when representatives of the dinosaur kind were taken aboard the ark. At this point, all other species of dinosaurs became extinct (except those who were water-based, of course). After the flood, dinosaurs continued to exist for some time before climate changes brought about as an after-effect of the Great Flood caused their extinction.

"Oh that's right, Barney and Fred domesticated them..."

That was a great show, wasn't it?

"Who decided that the Bible was wrong about animal sacrifice and slavery and the objectification of women? Oh that's right, people who actually change their thinking when the old way of thinking no longer makes sense logically."

This statement speaks to a lack of proper schooling in basic theology and hermeneutics.

Regarding hermeneutics.

There is a very basic fact you should know before attempting to slander the Bible - description does not equal prescription. Just because something is described in the Bible (animal sacrifice, slavery) does not mean it is condoned by Christianity. Instead, this simply speaks to Biblical truthfulness of how life was at the time the scriptures were written.

Regarding animal sacrifice.

The Bible makes it clear in Genesis that man is to have dominion over the animals. Additionally, both the Old and New Testament emphasize the importance of stewardship. Killing animals is not wrong in any way, unless the killing is done for no reason or is wasteful. Animal sacrifice served a very specific purpose - namely, reminding the Israelites of their sin and illustrating the principle that wrong deeds must be paid for in blood. The Old Testament sacrifices are a fore view of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross - the Lamb of God who was slain for the sins of the world. He died once and for all to pay the penalty of man's sins, and that is why animal sacrifice is no longer required or practiced. The Levitical priests who offered these sacrifices were sinners, just like you and I, and as a result their atonement for the people was imperfect. Not so in Christ.

And lest you still comment that the killing of animals is cruel, remember it was man who rebelled against God and began the cycle of violence and death on earth through the curse of sin.

Regarding slavery.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any affirmation of slavery as a trade. Now, some of Paul's letters in the New Testament do deal with slavery, but never in a way which says "slavery is okay, let's all own slaves." Instead, the Bible recognizes the existence of slavery, and then speaks to individuals on how to live in spite of the existence of that institution.

Theologically, the Holy Scriptures have a great deal to say about slavery. In Romans we find that we were once slaves to sin, and that the wages of that lifestyle is death. However, the gift of God (namely, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, his only begotten and perfect son, for the sins of the world) restores mankind's relationship with God if they will only accept the atoning blood of Christ's cross. When an individual makes this decision, he is born again, and is freed from his slavery to sin. This does not mean that individual will never sin again, but rather than he is now the slave of a new master - righteousness. So in that sense, the Bible does advocate slavery!

You may find it shocking that I just openly admitted to that, but it is true. You speak of Christianity as an institution which stifles free thought and encourages narrow-minded thinking, but nothing could be further from the truth. A relationship with the Creator of the universe is the most fulfilling and liberating experience any man could ever hope for!

Nor does Christianity encourage blind faith. In 2 Peter 3:15 Christians are told to always be prepared to give an account for the hope that is within you, doing this with gentleness and respect." That is exactly what I am doing here. Having one of life's fundamental questions answered (where did we come from) frees the mind to seek answers to all of life's great mysteries through the framework of truth.

This is where all true scientific enquiries begin: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." Genesis 1:1

Regarding the Objectification of Women.

I don't know who taught you that the Bible objectifies women, but they have done the Word of God a gross disservice. Indeed, the entire meta-narrative of the Scriptures, that of God redeeming the human race, is structured around the concept of marriage.

The church is referred to as the Bride of Christ, and the Lord's second coming culminates in a great wedding feast where He is consummated with his bride.

The book of Hosea provides a wonderful metaphor for how God views humanity - we are the unrepentant, unregenerate whore Gomer who continue to sell ourselves out to false gods of money, power, and sensual pleasure - even, as this discussion makes apparent, to the infallibility of human reason. Yet, in spite of this Hosea constantly pursues Gomer (his wife), even going to far as to buy her back off the auctioning block when she has resorted to selling herself to men publicly.

This kind of absolute, unconditional love is what the Bible teaches about the relationship between a man and a woman. Indeed, part of the purpose of the institution of marriage is to help Christians along in the process of sanctification (becoming more like Christ), because it gives us a tangible representation of how Christ loves his people. "Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church." No objectification there.

Additionally, the psalms and proverbs speak to both the dangers of the whorish women and the joys of a prudent wife. As Proverbs 31 says, "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." No objectification there.

"There might be a god or gods, but with the plethora of diverse religions in this world, to choose one by default of geographic location and anglo-saxon ancestry would be pretty close minded of me."

That would indeed be closed minded - it would appear, then, that you have a lot of work to do in researching these other religions to find out which one is true. And no, all religions are not equal - that nonsense has been propounded from time immemorial and has no grounds in reality.

Any decent worldview survey book should be able to clear up that misconception. I recommend "Prevailing Worldviews" by Dr. Glenn Martin.

"Considering Jesus, if he lived, lived many thousands of years ago, when people are even dumber than they are now (thanks David Cross for that great line)"

For all your concern about being open-minded, you sound pretty condemning of past peoples. I recommend taking a good humanities class to get an appreciation of just how 'stupid' these ancient peoples really were.

Western Civilization did not appear from nowhere - it developed for the hard-fought-for ideas of generations and generations of intellectuals. This evolution of our culture can be traced from the ancient Greeks to the Romans, up through the Medieval Ages, through the Renaissance and Reformation and into modern times. How you can suggest that people were "even dumber than they are now" is beyond me. Without the tireless innovations of these past peoples, you wouldn't be standing here, slandering them. Ironic, really.

"History is a myth that men agree to believe." --attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

Now how do we know he ever said that?

Although all the specifics of history cannot be preserved, we can know generally what happened in the past and how. Historical enquiry, as I hinted at in another post, is different from empirical enquiry and there are different standards of evidence. A historical approach works in terms of framework - the theory that explains the most about a given set of data, rather than in observable fact. This does not make history any less valid.

And just a side note regarding the historicity of the Bible - it is without dispute the most accurate of all ancient documents. The sheer number of manuscripts we have to work with (something like 25,000 for the Old Testament) and several thousand for the new, ensure that any discrepancies in copying would be easily identified. And while there are minor textual issues, none of them are contained in passages with any real theological significance. Most errors come down to misspelled names, addition or subtraction of numbers in lists, or substituted words like and or a.

Additionally time time gap between when the events recorded in the Gospels took place and when they were recorded is less than 100 years, which was well within the limits for the eye-witnesses to record their stories or have it written by someone else. Luke was actually a doctor and a well-versed scribe. If he had been lying in his account, wouldn't it have made sense for the ruling religious leaders and the Roman government to show these to be unfounded claims?

I find it grossly hypocritical that scholars readily accept the works of Shakespeare and Caesar when the manuscript reliability is far less than those of the Gospels.
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 03:37 PM   #23
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
In response to nezobiwan (cont.)

"Last time I checked, science never "proved" anything. All it does is supply theories and challenges others to find fault with those theories using observable proof."

That's just the point I was trying to make - there may be evidence, but at the end of the day, one must take what he or she believes on faith. Your choices are theism or atheism. Choose wisely.

"Religion says, 'This is the way it is and damn it all if we're ever going to change our minds. Anything that shows proof of our being wrong is just a test of your faith.'"

While "religion" - in the worse sense of that word, may indeed make such a claim (sans profanity), Christianity says no such thing. Rather, the Bible is the revealed Word of Almighty God, and by this very definition it is truth. Christianity is the pursuit of applying the wisdom imparted to humanity through God's word to daily living, in an attempt to become more like the One who made us, and to demonstrate His love and the joy of His salvation to those around us!!!

Wow, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Getting pretty involved! I wish there were more hours of the day to talk about these issues. After all, they are vitally important to our eternal destiny. Archaeology may not be the search for truth - but this certainly is!

Also, let me just clarify one thing - I'm not doing this for the sake of argument. I genuinely care for all of your well-being, and am doing this out of gentleness and respect.

I am not here to call names or say You are a liar! simply to inflame. I am just defending God's truth in the hope that it will in some small way benefit those who are participating.

God bless!

Oh, and in response to Finn:

"The counter-argument... these things are not here for us, but we're here because of them. Every being is a sum of the things around it, not the other way around. A pity that you somehow failed to mention it, would have given your presentation of things a little more credibility."

The reason I didn't mention the counter argument is because it is ridiculous and can hardly be considered an argument at all.

Even if you were to grant that all the conditions of our planet and solar system just happened to be what was necessary for life (which is a mathematical impossibility), this still does not explain the number one evidence I supplied, which is of course, humans. To believe that the human body evolved from anything, let alone from some sort of microscopic protazoa, is utterly absurd.

I can't believe such foolishness has been allowed to remain in the public's attention for as long as it has! The structure and perfection demonstrated in the structure of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the human eye, and the complexities of the skeletal system, nervous system, respiratory system, etc. could not have evolved.

And ClintonHammond:

You're welcome to go there along with the other pigeons. Because "I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth", is still the only thing of any value you've posted here. Everything you've posted since only serves to support that one statement.

I don't know what I've said to offend you - I've done nothing but present simple truths which are evident by what has been created. There's no need to get upset - my conviction requires that I share the good news with others, after all!

Once again, I see you've totally ignored the context of my statement about not being qualified to discuss the topic. As you admitted when you posted, back on topic, we were in the midst of a digression which you initiated. I merely said that there are only two choices - theism or atheism and which one you choose is a matter of faith.

This is a completely logical and true statment, so any decision to pursue this topic further (while not unwelcome) was your decision.

Unfortunately, most of your posts have been comprised of unfounded insults against my education and character or taking phrases out of context in an attempt to make me look foolish, rather than in any honest attempt to deal with the content of my posts.

While regretful, I can't say I didn't see this coming, which was why I was reluctant to begin this discussion in the first place. However, if you ever do look into those books I recommended, I think you would enjoy them immensely.

Perhaps we will continue this at another time and in another thread!

Last edited by What Truck? : 11-13-2007 at 04:00 PM.
What Truck? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 03:50 PM   #24
ClintonHammond
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Windsor Ontario Canada
Posts: 3,244
Can we PLEASE have this blatherskite removed from this thread so that the OT can continue.....

This has to be some sort of record.... from "Join" to "Ignore List" in 8 posts
ClintonHammond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 04:14 PM   #25
What Truck?
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48
More insults?

You really ought to be careful there, ClintonHammond, you're on your way to getting moderated.

This entire discussion arose naturally from the subject material you provided - so in that sense it is entirely on-topic.

Regarding 7,000 year old trees, I've said just about all I had to say in my original post. However, if you care to avoid such 'blatherskites' as myself in the future, you would do well to refrain from making unfounded and inflamatory remarks in your initial post, about which you are not knowledgeable.

Have a blessed day.
What Truck? 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 12:24 PM.