Archaeologica.org

Not every civilization has mass-entertainment sports....but all of them seem to have priests sucking the life out of people

actually, quite a few did have mass-entertainment sports. romans, greeks, mayans so i would bet many more did also.

i will disagree with the latter part of that statement as religion has always been a part of society from the beginning. how much power is ascribed to the priests and those religions is really up to the archaeologist interpretating the data. i would not be surprised if the role of religion was not as extent, as claimed, in many cultures.

Tell that to the thousands who were murdered by Aztec/Toltec priests.

I'm sure they'd be very interested to hear how little power the priests had!

Minimalist wrote:Tell that to the thousands who were murdered by Aztec/Toltec priests.

I'm sure they'd be very interested to hear how little power the priests had!

And they could add some interesting firsthand ... experience to the record.
Let's see how that would shift the picture in today's world of populist tabloid drama!

i would like to explore the subject, why i.d. is not a science. i would like to hear concise, constructive and honest viewpoints (not blanket statements) in semi-simple english not scientific language(so i won't mis-understand your point and you won't have to keep explaining words)from the opposing side as to why they think that.

if you think something is untestable, then explain why you think so. i will state that i think intelligent design uses science and is scientific though the initial act of creation can only be proven by the evidence that follows it and the act itself is a matter of faith.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

.....pick apart the semantics of this. While we're at it why don't you prove Intelligent Design?

Arch,

It is the opposite of science. Creating gods to explain complex phenomena is what our cave dwelling ancestors did to explain wind, thunder, earthquakes, fire, snow, and rain. Science involves looking for the reasons why something happens. ID or any other form of faith-ridden silliness merely throws up its hands and says "we are too stupid to figure this out so it must be "god" who did it....now, pray to this rock and don't forget to put a few shekels in the collection plate. Hallelujah."

One by one those specialist gods have been retired as mankind has come to understand the forces of his environment. Only one more deity to be retired until mankind can free himself from thousands of years of self-inflicted darkness.

Frank Harrist wrote:http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

.....pick apart the semantics of this.

Well, let's see. No references, no bibliography. It seems to say "take my word for it, I know better than you". Says who? My 14 year old daughter wouldn't get away with handing in a school essay in that style, but that guy is supposed to be an academic?! That title obviously means something different over the pond, or people over there are just easier to fool. You choose.

Frank Harrist wrote:While we're at it why don't you prove Intelligent Design?

Wouldn't it be easier for you just to "prove" it wrong? Or is that beyond the capability of all you "experts"?

i took a look at the link and the following makes no sense whatsoever:

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

i fail to see his point or what he is talking about and he sounds like he is talking to two year olds not adults.

It is the opposite of science

i will have to disagree with you here because i.d./creation embraces science. you can use any of the sciences to dissect the evidence , get the age, the chemical make-up and so on. science is not left out of i.d./creation it puts it in its proper place, which is a tool and not the final authority.

Science involves looking for the reasons why something happens.

right; but how many times do we hear scientists say, 'we don't know why it happened..." and so on. in evolutionary thinking you do not get to answer why because their is no reason for it unless there is a living God behind it.

we are too stupid to figure this out so it must be "god" who did it

no, we.they are not too stupid to figure it out because we already recognize who did it, much of the guess work is removed. we can still use science to explore this world as we need to understand many things. certainly, the world of science is beneficial even to believers, it just needs to be regenerated, refreshed and re-tooled.

right; but how many times do we hear scientists say, 'we don't know why it happened..."

But they KEEP LOOKING for answers. They don't throw up their hands in despair and say 'god must have done it.'

ID is not looking for answers. It is not even looking for questions. It thinks it has all the answers in that one old book.

But they KEEP LOOKING for answers. They don't throw up their hands in despair and say 'god must have done it.'

i can agree with you on both points but sometimes scientists look in the wrong place. also i will grant you that there are lazy people inside the church and there are those who are content with the knowledge that God did and they can be frustrating. me, i like to look for the deeper answer and get the answer to why. for example:

the six days of creation. were they 6 24 hour days? i have come to the conclusion that yes they were. Why? because God set the example for man to follow. He commanded man to work six days and rest on the seventh thus God, to avoid being hypocritical, chose to do the same thing. if He didn't do it, then we would be free to ignore His later commands and advice and God would be relegated to non-perfect status with no chance to punish or use His authority.

think about what you thought of your parents when you discovered them to be hypocritical, God has to be above that or He could not be God.

ID is not looking for answers. It is not even looking for questions

Because i.d/creation finds its answers in the Bible, there are many questions that they feel do not need to be explored or answered. in the long run they are right and wrong as they miss out on important lessons they need to learn.

Plus i think i.d. limits God too much as they feel he was restricted to one design. we could have been designed to drink carbon monoxide instead of water, or whatever. the design is not as important as who did it , how much power He really has, and how creative he really is.

Anonymous wrote:

Frank Harrist wrote:http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

.....pick apart the semantics of this.

Well, let's see. No references, no bibliography. It seems to say "take my word for it, I know better than you". Says who? My 14 year old daughter wouldn't get away with handing in a school essay in that style, but that guy is supposed to be an academic?! That title obviously means something different over the pond, or people over there are just easier to fool. You choose.

Frank Harrist wrote:While we're at it why don't you prove Intelligent Design?

Wouldn't it be easier for you just to "prove" it wrong? Or is that beyond the capability of all you "experts"?

Prove evolution wrong!

Oh yeah and once again you skirt the issue by looking for flaws in the semantics or the lack of bibliography. Just read the damn article and comment on the contents. Don't just disregard the contents because of something only an english teacher would notice. Even if bibliography was supplied you'd find something else to nit-pick about. Why don't you try to answer some of the question we have already raised. You guys don't supply any info. You just deny deny deny the facts.

archaeologist wrote:[...]faith.[...]

A.k.a. superstition.

Archeologist wrote:

i would like to hear concise, constructive and honest viewpoints (not blanket statements) in semi-simple english not scientific language(so i won't mis-understand your point and you won't have to keep explaining words)from the opposing side as to why they think that.

That is why Minimalist cited an essay written in very simple terms.

Then Archeologist wrote back:

i fail to see his point or what he is talking about and he sounds like he is talking to two year olds not adults.

So it is clear that Arch just wants to argue and has little to offer.
Perhaps the rest of us should just ignore his posts.

stan wrote:Archeologist wrote:

i would like to hear concise, constructive and honest viewpoints (not blanket statements) in semi-simple english not scientific language(so i won't mis-understand your point and you won't have to keep explaining words)from the opposing side as to why they think that.

That is why Minimalist cited an essay written in very simple terms.

Then Archeologist wrote back:

i fail to see his point or what he is talking about and he sounds like he is talking to two year olds not adults.

So it is clear that Arch just wants to argue and has little to offer.
Perhaps the rest of us should just ignore his posts.

I'm all for that! He's gonna be obtuse and ignore the facts given him so why bother. Right?