Archaeologica.org

spoken like a true biblical redactor
well done
have you considered the priest hood ?

And you.....are one complete, total, dumbass.

And you.....are one complete, total, dumbass

i hate to ask who you are reffering to...?

have you considered the priest hood ?

yes, i considered being a preacher once.

yes, i considered being a preacher once

you should have pursued it
you'd make a great priest
which denomination ?

Besides, it is just plain foolishness.

Way more time has been spent on this troll than he is worth....

Well, that was interesting -- how many rules has this thread broken now?

Minor point and OT -- the rejection, which was indeed unfriendly, of Wegener's continental drift theory (Day Brown is, I believe, very wrong in calling it plate tectonics and this is a bit worrying) was due in part to the fact he had no acceptable mechanism for his particular version of continental drift. See for instance http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
"Reaction to Wegener's theory was almost uniformly hostile, and often exceptionally harsh and scathing; Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories." Part of the problem was that Wegener had no convincing mechanism for how the continents might move. Wegener thought that the continents were moving through the earth's crust, like icebreakers plowing through ice sheets, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents. Opponents of continental drift noted that plowing through oceanic crust would distort continents beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents -- one scientist calculated that a tidal force strong enough to move continents would cause the Earth to stop rotating in less than one year. Another problem was that flaws in Wegener's original data caused him to make some incorrect and outlandish predictions: he suggested that North America and Europe were moving apart at over 250 cm per year (about ten times the fastest rates seen today, and about a hundred times faster than the measured rate for North America and Europe). There were scientists who supported Wegener: the South African geologist Alexander Du Toit supported it as an explanation for the close similarity of strata and fossils between Africa and South America, and the Swiss geologist Émile Argand saw continental collisions as the best explanation for the folded and buckled strata that he observed in the Swiss Alps. Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents and land bridges."

So, Wegener was (partiallY) right for the wrong reasons.

you should have pursued it
you'd make a great priest
which denomination

a lot of people said that when i was studying (hopefully you are not being sarcastic), problem was the powers that be did not like my non-evangelical streak which looked for truth outside the evangelical world.

nor did they like the fact that i thought there was more to the christian life than the great comission. i never blindedly supported evangelism at the cost of other areas of the Bible.


kind of wondering why weller posted what he did and how it relates to this thread?

hopefully you are not being sarcastic

everyone has the right to an opinion about God Arch
i expect my opinions would make your toes curl as yours do others but you don't see mine interfering with scientific fact or being rammed down peoples throats where they aren't welcomed
iirc thats actually a sin,
Pride isn't it ?

but that aside i always root for the underdog
and in this forum thats you

I'd love for you to prove that Enlil is alive and well and controlling the universe

I couldn't disagree with arch, more. Theology has no place in archaeology since it apparently refuses to play by the same rules.

So, when someone introduces superstition and magic into a scientific discussion it deserves to be smacked down hard.

It does not get a 'free pass' because it is someone's 'belief system.' People have believed in some pretty stupid shit throughout history. That does not mean it should be tolerated no matter how bloody, mysogenistic or racist it may be. In fact, given the presumption of 'holiness' that these people claim as their right, religion in a serious argument needs to be smacked down harder just to level the playing field.

but destroying someones belief system because they dont agree with yours is a christian ideology
i try to avoid that kind of evil

but destroying someones belief system because they dont agree with yours is a christian ideology

All religion is guilty of that...it was hardly a christian invention.


(Although Cardinal Torquemada may have perfected it.)

its a modern era thing mainly
most of the ancient world was fine with other peoples gods
some were actually pantheistic like the babylonians and the hittites
theyd still kill you but theyd also worship your god just in case he got mad

theyd still kill you but theyd also worship your god just in case he got mad

Talk about small favors!

marduk wrote:spoken like a true biblical redactor
well done
have you considered the priest hood ?

Marduk I misfired earlier. I didn't realize that Arch had posted and thought that your remark was directed at Starflower. (that would have been straight from the gutter).

Sorry about the response.

you've been misfiring a lot lately Beagle
check your weapon