Archaeologica.org

Want more?

you call it evolutionary but how do you know that they weren't designed to act in such a fashion?

the key that is missing from all of these theories and hypothesies, is that these original viruses are still in existence today without producing anything but more viruses. they are not producing life forms other than themselves and by now we should see other transitory species but we don't. we just see the viruses.

I'm sick of coming to an archaeological forum and getting preached to by some holy roller.

i am not preaching, but pointing out some facts. e.g. science is good but it continually omits an element that would explain all mysteries. by eliminating that element, all conclusions, experiments and theories are in error.

also, archaeology includes the Bible and thus to make an archaeological point, the Bible must be brought in or the ppint wouldn't make any sense. the Bible must be brought in as people's point of view rely on its record and to omit it would be practicing censorship.

something that non-believers decry vehemantly.

Trying to explain something to you is like trying to tell someone what a sweet tree-riped organge tastes like to someone who's sucking on a sour lemon. You said " . . . science is good but it continually omits an element that would explain all mysteries. by eliminating that element, all conclusions, experiments and theories are in error. " Science is NOT in error just because they don't fill in the blanks with "Oh God just did it." Science is coming up with theories, examining those theories and then making changes when new data comes along. No we may never completely explain evolution, but at least scientists are continually looking for information not just filling in what they don't know with some simplistic justification.

No we may never completely explain evolution,

Science is coming up with theories, examining those theories and then making changes when new data comes along

nor will you be able to, especially with the hit and miss attitude that science employs.

Science is NOT in error just because they don't fill in the blanks with "Oh God just did it."

sometimes creationists do not have the answer either or the details were left out as they were not germane to the story. only those who lack faith need obvious proof or every detail before they believe something (except when it comes to evolution). we are satisfied with 'God did ' because we know He can and that He prepared for such an event.

God doesn't tell us everything either as we need to build our faith and understanding of what is important and what is not.

sometimes creationists do not have the answer either or the details

That hasn't been my experience. They always think that all the answers are in that one silly-ass old book that they so worship.

guest 12 wrote:

[...] we need to build our faith and understanding of what is important and what is not.

Nothing wrong with your faith, mate. Except the fact that it is blind.
The 'understanding' part needs some work though.

That hasn't been my experience. They always think that all the answers are in that one silly-ass old book that they so worship.

unfortunately, most religious people limit their knowledge to just the Bible and though it is true in all things it mentions, it does not always give all the details. for more specific information we look to those evidences that God has left for us to read.

for example: the creation account says that 'God formed man...' well we do not know how or what method He used to form man so we have to look at what is important which is 'God did it' and we are not at liberty to add to scripture thus our conclusion is limited to what God has told us then we look to why He told us certain things and why He left some details out.

i could go on but i don't want to be charged with preaching.

archaeologist wrote:[...] i could go on but i don't want to be charged with preaching.

Really? That never bothered you before! Why should it now?

and though it is true in all things it mentions

,,,,and therein lies the problem.

and therein lies the problem.

it is only a problem from your point of view. from mine, it gives me a solid place to start.

from your perspective, you seek questions then you question the questions then you question the answers and so on. you would never accept the truth as the truth because you are trained to only ask questions thus you can never realize what really happened and move on to other things.

from mine, i get answers to the questions and when it is not specifically addressed in the Bible it gives me cluse where to look and how to handle the evidence thus instead of being stuck in the questioning level for all time, i get answers and can actually move on and live a real life.

case in point: the fossil record. evenn though the majority of fossils come from one point in time, you can not accept the simple solution but must make up stories (previous life forms were boe free, or whatever thus they left no fossils) which are harder to believe and prove. thus you spend your whole lifetime searching for something that does not exist and never did exist.

to me that is a waste of time and talent.

What did you do? Forget your password?

Trying looking in your precious book.

What did you do? Forget your password?

no. i was just a bit lazy today. don't need to check the Bible on that one, we do have latitude to think for ourselves also.

You should exercise that right more.

You should exercise that right more

i think you just have an unrational hatred for all things religious or for things (the truth) that do not allow you to get your way. or you are being forced to deal with things that make you confront the inadequacies of the evolutionary theory.

anyway it goes it doesn't make you look good.

But at least I don't fall back on fairy tales to explain the world, laddie.

You bible thumpers need to join the 21st century.

But at least I don't fall back on fairy tales to explain the world, laddie.

the Bible is the best place to start and at least i do not mock you or your system. i also use the sciences to help m, i just don't elevate it to a status of infallibility, knowing its ability to be wrong.