Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:37 am**

many of themare too lazy tosearch out the iformation they need prefering to remain as little children and not learn anything.

Funny that you would criticize others of your ilk. I have the same general feeling about you.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:08 pm**

"you cannot substantiate any claim as there are no scientific records that pre-date 10,000 years ago to corroborate any conclusion you come to in this day and age."

So you ARE arguing that unless there is a written record of an event there is no way of knowing what happened! Unbelievable! That is utterly ABSURD! Ever hear of forensic analysis? Just how do you think crimes get solved or the cause of accidents are figured out? It is a totally foolish line of argument that holds that just because there is no contemporary written record of an event or series of events that those events are unknowable.

Also, there is ZERO evidence of any writing 10,000 years old. All evidence and indications are that written language is only about half that age. Until any evidence is found to the contrary I see no reason to think otherwise.
..............................................................................................
Science: The PROOF shall set you free!

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:13 pm**

FreeThinker wrote:
"you cannot substantiate any claim as there are no scientific records that pre-date 10,000 years ago to corroborate any conclusion you come to in this day and age."
So you ARE arguing that unless there is a written record of an event there is no way of knowing what happened! Unbelievable! That is utterly ABSURD! Ever hear of forensic analysis? Just how do you think crimes get solved or the cause of accidents are figured out? It is a totally foolish line of argument that holds that just because there is no contemporary written record of an event or series of events that those events are unknowable.

..............................................................................................
Science: The PROOF shall set you free!

That's what I've been trying to tell him for weeks now. We should all ignore him, because he's an idiot.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:31 pm**

So you ARE arguing that unless there is a written record of an event there is no way of knowing what happened

And, he ignores the obvious implication that even when things are WRITTEN it is usually for the purpose of advancing someone's agenda.

For example, his precious bible or the Republican platform.

It is necessary to subject written documents to meticulous scrutiny to separate the facts from the horseshit.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:55 pm**

There is one place where the truth is written free of all bias, where it is literally written in stone. The geologic record is free of idiological bias. An examination of the geological evidence reveals the truth. To argue against that geologic record is to argue against the very stones of the earth!

BTW, even though those stones are far older than the human race in most cases, through careful analysis geologists have been able to read the geologic record. That is what the science of geology is all about.
..............................................................................................
Science: The PROOF shall set you free!

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:21 pm**

True but the stones require a "geologist" to speak for them and they have to be watched like hawks because they have the same tendency to read evidence in whatever way fits their own little theories.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:52 pm**

That is where peer review comes in. If some knucklehead tries to tilt the findings to serve his own agenda the next guy will catch the error and expose it. Peer review and replicatable results are cornerstones of science.
..............................................................................................
Science: The PROOF shall set you free!

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:20 pm**

Just as long as someone is watching!

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:04 pm**

I used to joke with the geologists where I worked, when I was a bird watcher,
calling them "dirt watchers."

Before I stopped responding to Rev. Archie, I mentioned the same point Freethinker just raised in reference to the scientific rigor of geology.
It is based really in chemistry and physics, which are even more
rigorous and "pure," I reckon, than geology itself, being so dam complicated and complex, trying to figure what the hell happened with continential drift, plate tectonics, volcanos, erosion, and every thing else over the last 4billion years or so. (I can see how it would be hard to
untangle all that.)

I haven't researched this, but archie asserts that 90% of the fossils came from the Cambrian, and he associates that with Noah's flood.
(BUt....but...but....the Cambrian was eons and eons ago.....of course.)
Is it true that there are more fossils from the Cambrian than other
periods? How are they counted...by the shell? Or by the species?...

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:31 pm**

Instead the story the physical evidence revealed was very different than any of the stories promoted by any of the religions

butyou are wrong here. the Bible does not state a date or an age for the earth. all it says is---"in the beginning..." so to use the age of the earth as physical evidence against creation is a mistake.

people who believe ussher made the assumption that creation happened in 4004 b.c. Ussher, is not the final authority nor is that figure imbedded in stone. there were toomany flaws in his workto be taken as literal fact.

in my own education ihave found out that there is about 10,000 years of archaeological evidence but that doesn't meant that the earth was created at 8000 b.c. what the message is saying is---God did it and the age is of no importance to the issue.

I haven't researched this, but archie asserts that 90% of the fossils came from the Cambrian, and he associates that with Noah's flood.

this comes from evolutionary websites i have researched and not any of the christian ones.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:38 pm**

archaeologist17 wrote:
I haven't researched this, but archie asserts that 90% of the fossils came from the Cambrian, and he associates that with Noah's flood.
this comes from evolutionary websites i have researched and not any of the christian ones.

Yeah... the Cambrian... when the earth was still flat... those were the days...

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:45 pm**

Peer review and replicatable results are cornerstones of science.

how can you have peer review when you cannot even replicate the very basic claims of evolution? allof your evolutionary 'discoveries' have come in the last 100 years and not one of them can duplicate the original thesis.

we do not see experiments that show humans coming from apees, we donot see reptiles turning into birds nor can you do it in the lab. soinstead of mocking me, you shuld be mocking your theory as it cannot be substantiated without gross conjecture.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:48 pm**

Yes! "Gross" is applicable!
The nail on the head.

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:34 am**

i am going to point something out and here is an excerpt from the article 'rat-squirrel not extinct after all' by Lauran Neergard, AP writer:

[/quote]"it has the face of a rat and the tail of a skinny squirrel--and scientists say this creature discovered living in central Laos is pretty special: It's a species believed to have been extinct for 11 million years...The nocturnal rodent lives in Laotian forests largely unexplored by outsiders, because of geographic remotemess and history of political turmoil. Schaller calls the area "an absolute wonderland", because biologists who have ventured in have found unique animals...Dawson describes it as a pre-historic zoo, teeming with information about the past and present biodiversity."

you wonder why people ,especially religious ones donot take your science and your theories seriously, well here is the answer. you base your conclusions upon assumptions not scientific fact. here is a prime example of that statement. scientist without proof, declared a species extinct for 11 million years when in reality all they had to do was stop being lazy and go out and LOOK.

This has happened before as of the coast of africa some years ago, a fish was 're-discovered' after being extinct for 35 million years. evolutionists continue to get egg on their faces yet they are stubborn and close-minded and never learn anything.

the article says, "to reappear after 11 million years..." how do they know it disappeared at all? they never looked to see if the assumption was true. how can anyone believe what you spout when all you do is take conjecture and say it is fact. this is not limited to these two species this kind of thinking is prevaleant throughout the evolutionary supporters.

only the gullible would believe what you say is true about evolution. nothing you have to present is based in any fact. it is all hindsight guess work with nothing substantial to back up your word. you talk about all 'the evidence' that supports evolution yet it is just talk to convince yourselves that it is true.

here is another quote:

"it shows you it's well worth looking around in this world, still, to seewhat's out there," Schaller said.

DUH! do you think... why didn't you do this years ago? obviously scientists like their comforts. so much for their credibilty.

evolution is designed to be convenient, to make excuses and there is nothing to it except smoke and mirrors. open your eyes.

Posted: **Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:09 am**

"The Cambrian is a major division of the geologic timescale that begins about 542 Ma (million years ago) at the end of the Proterozoic eon and ended about 488.3 Ma" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian).

Wow! That Noah geezer was an OLD guy...

Archaeologica.org

Evolution evidence.

Forensic Analysis

Re: Forensic Analysis

Truth Written In Stone

Combating Unscrupulous "Scientists"

dirt