archaeologists--the players

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:33 pm

You can't debate, arch. You don't know the meaning of the word.

All you can do is repeat whatever nonsense you've said before. Then you trot out discredited (or at least obsolete) archaeology and convince yourself that you have 'proof' for that which has been junked by real science.

I'm tired of you.

Either find real archaeological evidence or give it up. Posting nonsense from the Pellegrinos and Wyatts or tying to breathe life back into Albright and Garstang is simply not going to cut it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:08 pm

You can't debate, arch. You don't know the meaning of the word.

i imagine a review of posts will show that you were the one using the closed sentences, the mocking attitude, the swear words, the insults and so on. your close minded & 'the club' approach are indictative of your perspective of archaeology; if it disagrees with what you want to believe, you try to bully it.

All you can do is repeat whatever nonsense you've said before. Then you trot out discredited (or at least obsolete) archaeology and convince yourself that you have 'proof' for that which has been junked by real science.

i don't know how many times you hide behind statements like this. you say this over and over when someone points out the flaws and weaknesses, along with disagreeing with, your favorite authors. you may think that albright and garstang are out dated or over turned but the reaity of it is that isn't true.

you just want to side with someone who tries unsuccessfully to undermine the israeli history and property claims. along with trying unsuccessfully trying to prove the Bible wrong. finkelstein has been discredited by his own professors and it shows that he is an arrogant upstart as he persistantly ignores credible data and theories.

I'm tired of you.

so what now? do we go through a messy divorce??

Either find real archaeological evidence or give it up. Posting nonsense from the Pellegrinos and Wyatts

nothing wrong with using pellegrino, he is a scientist, he has a Phd. he has experience, i have never used wyatt for any evidence except to show how bad and off he was. wyatt was a wingnut who was very misguided and wrong.

tying to breathe life back into Albright and Garstang is simply not going to cut it

since the dating system is as arbitrary and subjective as your opinions, they cannot be used as reliable or factual evidence. thus albright's and garstang's thinking, observations and conclusions are just as valid oday as they were when they were first issued. you don't like them because you like those opinions that go against the Bible due to your hatred concerning your pre-adult years.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:08 pm

You deserve to be mocked. Period. End of story.

BTW, in case you don't know it, your last chance with me was when you punked out after I took a considerable time to answer your absurd Noah's Flood "questions."

YOu failed your final, laddie.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:21 pm

in case you don't know it, your last chance with me was when you punked out after I took a considerable time to answer your absurd Noah's Flood "questions."

yes and i responded to you. here is my second response:

i thought i pointed out some weaknesses in your presentation. it was a good response but i thought it was too unrealistic in requiring that kind of evidence.

here is my intitial one:

http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... start=1260

i thought i responded in kind. i did not get back to you on the DNA point because i couldn't find what i was looking for. so if you weren't satisfied with the answers (when is there a time when you are) not much i can do at this time to rectify it. i felt that some of your required evidence was a little unrealistic and i mentioned that. So i do not know why you are upset, i certainly didn't ignore you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:02 pm

it was a good response but i thought it was too unrealistic in requiring that kind of evidence.

It's only unrealistic because you can't supply it. As usual, if the answer isn't in your little book of fairy tales you are up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

YOU (and your ilk) claim the world was flooded to the tops of the mountains. Therefore, if you want to find proof of that, LOOK ON TOP OF MOUNTAINS....not at the bottom of a coal mine.

YOU (and your ilk) claim that that ole Noah and his little clan were the sole survivors. Therefore, it should be simple to find a DNA link among everyone on earth going back to approximately 2600 BC. DNA studies are done all the time and frequently commented on right on this board.
It didn't happen....but if your fairy tale (or any of the similar fairy tales) are true it would have to show up in the DNA.

YOU (and your ilk) claim that poor little Noah gathered up every animal and stuck them on the ark...in two or sevens because you can't get your story straight but no matter. DNA of animals today should show a link to a founding group (or pair). It does not.

Not only can you not prove the noah tale to be true, science has already disproven it. There are no flood layers on the tops of mountains. There is not enough water on earth to cover it. There are no DNA links.

It is a MYTH....like the rest of the bible.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:00 pm

It's only unrealistic because you can't supply it

let's look at the waterline as an example why it would be unrealistic. the biblical account states specifically that the water rose 15 cubits above the tallest peak. just where would you want me to start searching the sky for a water mark?

then even if the water receded slowly, animals, vegetation, snow lines, frost lines and so on would obliterate any such markings, so where would you like me to start exploring where to dig?

the world is a large place and these are just two of such factors which render your requirements unrealisitc.

shall we now look at the D.N.A. situation? since we do not know or have Noah's or his wife's D.N.A. nor know the location of his gravesite, where do you suggest i begin to get a sample for comparison?

DNA of animals today should show a link to a founding group (or pair). It does not.

maybe it does but since researchers haven't collected samples from all the animals to test such a theory, i think you would be out of luck there. i have heard that they did it with dogs but i cannot find the article anymore.

Not only can you not prove the noah tale to be true, science has already disproven it

that is just the problem, science hasn't proven it false because it comes from a human perspective and understanding. also because it figures in modern conditions, whether geographical or climate or whatever. you make assumptions based upon calculations from modern times just won't work.

It is a MYTH....like the rest of the bible

that is your choice to believe that but it isn't true.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:28 pm

Do you ever bother to learn anything about what you choose to shoot your mouth off about?

In a famous example, Wooley proclaimed that he had found THE flood when he had merely found A flood. Evidence remained, however. A trained eye (which you do not possess) can sort out flood debris from many thousands of years ago.

It wasn't so long ago that you were trumpeting a cave in South America as "proof" of THE FLOOD. You are very selective when it comes to evidence. I repeat, if there was a flood covering mountain tops the evidence for that flood would be on the top of the mountain. And since, YOU claim it to be unique it should only have happened once and thus be readily visible to a trained eye.

Instead, your heroes would rather go tramping around looking for arks.

You know, its funny how DNA can be used to trace populations going back much farther than 4,000 years but you think that they couldn't possibly trace the decendents of modern humans. I think you are a bit out of touch with the reality of DNA....which does not surprise me since in your view man was fashioned from dirt....not DNA.

Science has trashed the noah-tale whether you like it or not. In fact, logic should have trashed the noah-tale but I never expect logic from bible-thumpers.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:02 am

Here.

Learn something.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/Drght/ ... 20-MARS%22

Although the contrast in Figures 2 and 3 may be partly related to the selected plotting interval, an examination of the individual radiocarbon dates in Ely (1997) reveals a clustering of high magnitude floods and frequent floods during 900-1100 AD and after 1400 AD, and a decrease in the occurrence of large floods during 2200-400 BC and 1200-1400 AD (ranges of ±220 to ±70 yrs BP in the radiocarbon dates). Ely (1997, Hirschboeck et al., 2002) also observed a positive relationship between paleoflood ocurrence in some regions (e.g. Southwestern United States) with long-term variations in the frequency of El Niño events, while in other
regions (e.g., the Nile River, Northwestern United States) fewer paleofloods occurred during El Niño dominated periods. This kind of information about regional paleoflood episodes -- when further explored
and linked to the full spectrum of ocean-atmosphere teleconnections and modes of large-scale atmospheric circulation variability -- may provide important insights on changes in precipitation intensity and the
magnitude and frequency of large floods over past millennia.

So, tracking these things is not such a problem. Still....no indication that it ever happened EVERYWHERE.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:02 am

Do you ever bother to learn anything about what you choose to shoot your mouth off about?[/quote

It wasn't so long ago that you were trumpeting a cave in South America as "proof" of THE FLOOD
since you never accepted my previous evidence i asked what you wanted, when you are told that it was unrealistic what you offered you go ballistic and when it was explained to you why, you then return to hold up evidence you rejected and try to hold it over my head.

make up your mind what you accept or reject. i haven't discarded those past evidences, i have just been responding to what you require.

I repeat, if there was a flood covering mountain tops the evidence for that flood would be on the top of the mountain
not really, receding water goes down thus it would be natural to find the flood evidence at the bottom of the mountain and not the top. some artifacts may be left behind as the volume went down but the most effects would be seen where the water action was greatest--at the bottom. thus Wooley may be right after all.

its funny how DNA can be used to trace populations going back much farther than 4,000 years but
only if they have samples with which to compare. if you don't then the trail goes cold and you can't get that final proof. there is one organization that promotes doing your D.N.A. history and from what i have heard almost everybody they test ends up being related to Ghengis Kahn. i have my doubts at this time about such procedures and i would have to do more study on it.

Science has trashed the noah-tale whether you like it or not

science has done no such thing. it has gone as far as it limitations has allowed it to go and beyond that the adherents to that field just throw up there hands and say it is impossible. without faith you will never get the answers you seek because your studies omit and eliminate the data it needs to provide any solution.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:27 am

archaeologist wrote:
Do you ever bother to learn anything about what you choose to shoot your mouth off about?[/quote

It wasn't so long ago that you were trumpeting a cave in South America as "proof" of THE FLOOD
since you never accepted my previous evidence i asked what you wanted, when you are told that it was unrealistic what you offered you go ballistic and when it was explained to you why, you then return to hold up evidence you rejected and try to hold it over my head.

make up your mind what you accept or reject. i haven't discarded those past evidences, i have just been responding to what you require.

I rejected it then and reject it now. But as I have said before, you are very selective in what "evidence" you choose to utilize. For a guy who doesn't think that ancient floods are still noticeable you were pretty quick to jump on this one when you thought it would help you. As I recall, the early excavations on that site dated from the 1830s....continuing a trend you have for obsolete research!

I repeat, if there was a flood covering mountain tops the evidence for that flood would be on the top of the mountain
not really, receding water goes down thus it would be natural to find the flood evidence at the bottom of the mountain and not the top. some artifacts may be left behind as the volume went down but the most effects would be seen where the water action was greatest--at the bottom. thus Wooley may be right after all.

Wooley was a blind bible-thumper who, like so many others, thought every rock he turned up was something right out of the bible. He was wrong. Receding water will leave debris behind...always has, always will. How come the supposed "greatest flood ever" couldn't do these things that every little pissant flood manages?

its funny how DNA can be used to trace populations going back much farther than 4,000 years but
only if they have samples with which to compare. if you don't then the trail goes cold and you can't get that final proof. there is one organization that promotes doing your D.N.A. history and from what i have heard almost everybody they test ends up being related to Ghengis Kahn. i have my doubts at this time about such procedures and i would have to do more study on it.

You are out of your element when it comes to DNA studies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1323485.stm

Scientists based across Asia, in the US and the UK examined the Y-chromosomes of more than 12,000 people from across Asia and found no traces of any ancient non-African influence.

Science has trashed the noah-tale whether you like it or not
science has done no such thing. it has gone as far as it limitations has allowed it to go and beyond that the adherents to that field just throw up there hands and say it is impossible. without faith you will never get the answers you seek because your studies omit and eliminate the data it needs to provide any solution.

Limitations? Not when it comes to dismissing fairy tales. That is what science does best.

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:56 am

I have no problem with anybodys faith but it should be kept behind church doors. Trying to drag modern thinking back to the medievil is wrong and the results are becoming far too intrusive in the scientific world

Kenyan evangelical Christians have hopped on the anti-evolution bandwagon, and are demanding that all reference to the theory be dropped from an exhibition of hominid fossils in Nairobi's National Museum.

The museum houses Louis and Richard Leakey's collection of hominid fossils, one of the most extensive in the world. The collection includes the famous Turkana boy, an almost complete fossilised skeleton of a young hominid who lived approximately 1.6m years ago, and is arguably one of the best illustrations of the origins of our species.

However, Bishop Boniface Adoyo, chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, says that the exhibition does not represent scientific evidence of human evolution. He says evolution is still a theory, and that the fossils cannot be called as evidence to support it.

Adoyo said he would be satisfied if the exhibition merely renamed itself and worded its material to avoid giving the impression that the fossils were in any way connected with humanity.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18 ... _in_kenya/

Everytime this happens its a step backwards for man .
How long before they start burning books ??

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:18 am

Wooley was a blind bible-thumper who, like so many others

yea whatever. whenyou are interested in talking constructively about archaeologists let me know.

I have no problem with anybodys faith but it should be kept behind church doors

the same needs tobe done for evolutionists and their beliefs. evolution is not true just read the inteligent design thread. this is a thread for archaeologists, please.

the leaky's did some good work but again let their unbelief dictate their results. i am glad someone is standing up to the the evolutionists besides me.

leading people to unbelief is not progression and leading peole to the Bible isnot leading someone to the stone age. it is a misconception heralded by those who cannot accept the Biblical message.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:16 am

Creationists believe in evolution, per se, but we don't believe in Darwinian evolution (goo morphed into you).

Natural selection occurs within gene pools (such as the cat gene pool), but cats don't morph into a new kind of creature, as you would have.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:51 am

evolution is not true just read the inteligent design thread

I don't know....you must have been reading a different thread than I was because you came across looking foolish and petulant.

While the mechanisms of evolution may not yet be fully understood the fact of evolution is really beyond doubt.

And the bible version is no more credible than any other primitive religious system which cropped up around the world.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:12 pm

I don't know....you must have been reading a different thread than I was because you came across looking foolish and petulant

that is your opinion. from my perspective it is those who adhere to evolution that look foolish and out of touch. itis both laughable and sad to see those who proclaim such a theory continue to do so when all they have to do is open their eyes and see how everything goes according to the creation account.

While the mechanisms of evolution may not yet be fully understood the fact of evolution is really beyond doubt.

case in point. it takes a wild imagination to subscribe to the theory of evolution. fill in the blank theory is not scientific but a wild guesstimate which illustrates a non-knowledge of what really took place.

mutations in finches can and do not prove the theory, all they prove is mutation, disease, or some other degenerative calamity that alters the body. all it proves is that the world is full of imperfections and illness not that evolution is true.

the fact that hybrids are sterile when mated out of 'kind' is the nail that seals the coffin for evolutionary thinking. it removes any hint that transitory species could survive past the initial cohabitation.