Archaeologica.org

This is what you're up against, FreeThinker....

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

BTW, welcome aboard.

Religious dogma concerning the nature of the world falls into the catagory of superstitious guesswork

let's not judge Christ, Christianity and christians by those who refuse to go out and learn something. that is like me judging all scientists by the snowboarders at the video store.

If a particular religion has something to say about how it views the structure of the world or the universe, hold it up to a scientific examination

are those doing the examining going to be objective and honest?

checked against our scientific understanding of chemistry and atomic decay

this is the weak point as no one knows if those decay rates are correct. nor does it take into account the amount of contamination in each sample.

And lastly there is a great deal of the "history" as presented in the bible has been proven to be flat out wrong (like a flood that covered the whole of the earth or the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve)

this is wrong as archaeologically the bible has never been proven wrong. as for the flood being wrong that is subject to one's beliefs and perspective thus this argument does not hold any water. (scientists find 'Goliath' inscribed on pottery--msnbc news story)

First of all humans have only been investigating the world and greater universe around them properly for a little over 500 years

sorry but the babylonians were doing it 'properly' long before modern science was even thought of.

To get an accurate reading of history there is only ONE method to get to the truth...the scientific method

here is another person raising science to infallibility status when it is run by fallible people. one can't trust science because of all the influences that determine the results. said results are not always true nor are they objective due to the desires of those who are looking for certain conclusions. can we say---piltdown man. then there is the pressure put on by adherents to evolution if someone disagrees with them---"intelligent design and academic freedom' NPR news story.

so stop saying that science is the only way, it is not and has been proven to full of erros and inconsistancies, etc. throughout history.

Sorry to interupt bob
Science is fallible , science is always changing as we discover new ways to find evidence and facts , we will be forever changing the text books , because thats what science is, an ongoing struggle to find the truth about our world and surroundings , it uses study and investigation , evidence and tests , facts and figures .
You are entitled to your faith as are muslims , krishnas , etc......
but it is not factual , it is faith and shall remain so .
This is an Archaeology forum(science) and will hopefully continue that way
Faith is a personal thing and should not be forced on others

FreeThinker wrote: Many ideas were widely accepted as truth that had never been held up to the light of an empirical examination of the factual reality or falsehood of those assumptions.

Like evolution, for instance? The main criteria for accepting it seems to depend on how loudly its supporters can decry everyone who dares not take their word for it. And this thread is a perfect example.

Freethinker wrote: In a proper dig this "date" would then be checked against other techniques that are used to establish dates such as dendrochonology (tree ring dating), volcanic ash dating (like Vesuvius erupting at a known date...79 AD), and other temporal methods (there are many such methods). Subjecting archeological finds to this battery of scientific methods to determine, in this example, the age of a sight can well be establish beyond any resonable doubt. This is the one and only proper technique to draw truthful conclusions through the scientific disclipine of archeology.

Not according to one of those "scientific" websites quoted earlier. In fact, one went to great lengths to stress the limitations of both C14 and Dendrochronology.

Freethinker wrote:Archeology (and other disclipines like paleoanthopology and paleobiology) has established that humanity in its modern form (Homo Sapiens) is over 100,000 years old and that the human species is well over a million years old and the fossil evidence of our pre-human ancestors goes back and back and back.

Archaeology is less than 200 years old. That's a mighty tall claim.

Freethinker wrote:Can there be archeology without the bible? Of course there can! Has the bible been important in the recent history of humanity? Unquestionably! Is the bible an accurate source for a reading of history? No, certainly not.

I'd refer you to the link I posted on Israel Finkelstein...who was originally quoted as "proof" of the superiority of the scientific method!
And it's telling that the best refutal Minimalist can offer is a clerical quote from four CENTURIES ago.

but it is not factual , it is faith and shall remain so

provide some example how it is not factual, keeping in mind that every archaeological discovery that is Bible related has not disproved the scriptures.

even though this topic is entitled archaeology without the Bible, i contend that eventually as one digs deeper, researchers must deal with some part of the Bible eventually. even if it is to address the disporia of babel fame, the Bible will be drawn in.

Faith is a personal thing and should not be forced on others

i am not forcing my faith on anybody but like everyone else,i am presenting my point of view. i feel that those who believe in evolution are trying desparately to force their thinking on everyone else especially when they lower themselves to personal attacks or other less gentlemanly manuevers. or by trying to limit the discussion where the only accepted point of view is their pre-approved theory.

It is not a personal attack and I apologise if it seems so .
My point is that anybody that believes the bible to be true
cannot be objective as they are going to defend anything
that goes against their faith , it is a closed state of mind which will accept no other evidence or facts no matter who or where they came from.
Evolution theory is a work in progress , more is learned every year ,
it may turn out to be flawed but if so it will be from serious work by serious scientists and not from saying the bible is true , the bible is true

Tech wrote:Evolution theory is a work in progress , more is learned every year ,
it may turn out to be flawed but if so it will be from serious work by serious scientists and not from saying the bible is true , the bible is true

And therefore it hasn't been 'proven beyond all reasonable doubt', which is exactly the point some of us have been trying to make all along. To listen to some people in this thread, evolution has not only been proven but refusing to accept that is a sign of mental illness, apparently.

Realist wrote:[...]evolution has not only been proven but refusing to accept that is a sign of mental illness[...]

Quite literally... yes, indeed!
Only, those afflicted can't handle describing it like that and thus call it 'faith' and 'religion'.

Which you know full well wasn't what was said in the original post. The FULL quote started with "To listen to some people in this thread". Either quote people correctly, or don't bother doing it at all.

My point is that anybody that believes the bible to be true
cannot be objective as they are going to defend anything
that goes against their faith , it is a closed state of mind which will accept no other evidence or facts no matter who or where they came from.

the same can be said for those who believe in evolution thus we have a problem or so it seems.

apology accepted.

Evolution theory is a work in progress , more is learned every year ,
it may turn out to be flawed but if so it will be from serious work by serious scientists and not from saying the bible is true , the bible is true

in the evolutionist's mind this may be so but from my perspective it is the same announcement year after year, 'we think it was this way', 'we believe it took place that way', 'we are not sure but it may have happened this way' then the next year it changes. so you don't really know but heaven help those who disagree.

i think that after millions of years, it should be 'this is the way it happened' but it can never be as you can never explain the reason for the changes and why they were necessary to be made. if the earth could support life during the transitional phases why was it necessary for the species to evolve to another life form? what was the purpose for such transitions? it certainly isn't logical to think that all previous species lived just to allow a descendent life form to evolve to a higher developement? what about all the people who have lived and died, was their existence solely for the benefit of those who come after their generation?

it doesn't sound fair that, after how many years, humans may transform to something better than we are now. so at present humans are just incubators and test tubes for the next generation of species that is supposed to be better than we are now. what purpose then is there in living if that is all there is? what happens to all the humans if this is true? we just die and that's it?

it doesn't even make sense and you may want to believe in evolution but you are believing in nothing.

Quote:
what purpose then is there in living if that is all there is? what happens to all the humans if this is true? we just die and that's it?

Archaeology isn't there to prove your faith , and life after death belongs on some religeous forum not here.

Quote:
it doesn't even make sense and you may want to believe in evolution but you are believing in nothing.

It's not beleif , it's not a religeon it's science , it's facts not faith

Quote:
what about all the people who have lived and died, was their existence solely for the benefit of those who come after their generation?

Archaeology doesn't care , its the study of the past , the facts
it's not a phylisophical discussion about the meaning of life !!!

I repeat
Evolution theory is a work in progress , more is learned every year ,
it may turn out to be flawed but if so it will be from serious work by serious scientists and not from saying the bible is true , the bible is true
Which is what you keep doing !!!!

Tech wrote: Archaeology isn't there to prove your faith , and life after death belongs on some religeous forum not here.

It's not there to disprove it either, despite what some people in here think.

And this...

Tech wrote:I repeat
Evolution theory is a work in progress , more is learned every year ,
it may turn out to be flawed but if so it will be from serious work by serious scientists and not from saying the bible is true , the bible is true
Which is what you keep doing !!!!

...contradicts this..

Tech wrote:It's not beleif, it's not a religion it's science, it's facts not faith

But according to you, it may turn out to be flawed? So it isn't facts, then, it's just a leap of faith by any other name?

No , evolution is based on the facts at hand just now .
Man learns more as his ability to investigate increases and his knowledge increases .
I am trying to make one single point
Evolution is based on facts not faith
Show me another theory based on tangible facts without religeon
and we can have a serious debate .

Tech wrote:No , evolution is based on the facts at hand just now .
Man learns more as his ability to investigate increases and his knowledge increases

And may well find that he's wrong. Look how many times theories on the origin of the universe have changed just in the last 30 years.

Tech wrote:I am trying to make one single point
Evolution is based on facts not faith

Current facts. And the furore over the 'Hobbit' remains last year shows exactly what happens when someone dares challenge the accepted consensus. There's no difference between religious dogma and the scientific variety, except that the latter reacts even more hysterically to challenges.

Tech wrote:Show me another theory based on tangible facts without religeon
and we can have a serious debate .

Not sure I follow?

I saw Sam Harris, "End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" last nite speaking to the Center For Inquiry http://centerforinquiry.net ... weigh in on this issue by pointing out that there are religions which dont have a problem with science and evolution such as Buddhism. Now that I think about it, the *only* religions which produce books and media presentations against evolution are based on Levantine scriptures.

So- according to the opponents of evolution and the supporters of what passes for 'intelligent design, not only is science wrong, but so is every other kind of religion. Reason would cast doubt on that assumption, but we're not talking about reason here, we're talking about faith.

As Sam notes, were such faith held without the backing of a religious organization, we'd regard it as some form of dementia. Which, in fact, it is. Sam cites Sweden. It is also a nominally Christian nation, but nobody there is producing books in Swedish attacking evolution. Why not?

The reason is that the Swedes have been far more diligent in controlling agribusiness and the nutrition and purity of their food supply. They dont have nearly as much junk food nor fast food outlets. They dont have nearly the obesity problems, cancer rates, cardiac, pulminary, or diabetes problems. As Sam notes, that if the claim that the Levantine religions prevent crime, then Sweden, which now is 80% non-believers would have a higher murder rate than the US which is 80% Christian. But in fact, the crime and murder rate in Sweden is far *lower*.

What Sam dont get into is that the lack of nutrition and contamination of the American diet has damaged mental development in childhood. which we see in the alarming rates of autism, ADD, ADHD, and the decline in scholastic performance. All of which have been going on so long there are generations of voters now whose reasoning power is limited by neurosis.

Freud noted that neurotics have an intolerance for ambiguity, and thus the dualism of the Levantine tradtion is reassuring to them. Everything is either good or evil. They dont worry about shades of gray. They dont have the functional gray matter to do that, and discourse online with them, such as we've seen here, does not get thru to them. As Dr. Freud noted, neurosis is intractable, but not so debilitating that an individual cannot function at some level, such as a career path where the emotional state is repressed and the mind is focused on the task at hand.

The Fundamentalists have made a lotta money by ignoring the ultimate environmental and hidden social costs of their operations. And they have used that money to control the political process so that no rational policy can be formulated. Which is why the national debt is 8.6 trillion.

As Spinoza noted, when a fallacious idea is accepted in youth (based on inadequate information such as scripture) it is later defended with remarkably ingeniuity. Thus the remarkable scholarship that dredges up every obscure data point that does not conform to dendochronology, Greenland ice core data, C-14, or other scientific methods of dating events.

But the Bagavad Gita has a better explanation for all these trivial anomalies. The world that you see was not created 4.2 billion years ago, nor 6000 years ago, but just a minute ago, projected, as Quantum physics says, in several dimensions, and as we say now, its a 'virtual reality'. complete with Fundies to debate with that make you feel superior to fools.

It makes the game interesting, but winning is not an option. Only continued play.