Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 31, 2006 11:44 am

And, in a timely note from Science:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200605 ... SONG1.html

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

55 million years ago is a bit too far for Hapgood's theory.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:03 pm

55 million years ago is a bit too far for Hapgood's theory

again i would challenge the dating process on that figure. i am not saying hapgood is right, i am using his evidence in a different way than he is. alos i may only be willing to grant one to two pole shifts not the many he feels took place in history.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:16 pm

That's always your game. Anyone can "challenge" anything but that is all you ever manage to do. You can never offer any "evidence" other than muttering "bible, bible, bible" over and over again.

When you get off your ass and DO SOMETHING, maybe I'll pay attention to what you have to say.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:05 pm

You can never offer any "evidence" other than muttering "bible, bible, bible" over and over again.

i have offered evidence, even in the last few posts but you never accept it as you are looking for more than what you are going to get.

i have noticed another fatal flaw in you, which i see transpire over many different topics, not just the religious ones. i may mention it sometime but it does get old.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:54 pm

There is no actual evidence to sustain Hapgood's position. In fact, the only evidence from the science of geology says that he is nuts.

You'd be better off sticking your head back in your bible and muttering, again.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 31, 2006 11:58 pm

In fact, the only evidence from the science of geology says that he is nuts.

it all depends on whom you believe. i may not agree totally withhis point of view but at least i can see the evidence he is using. i don't throw out the baby with the bath water like you and your cohors.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:15 am

I think I'm on the right thread. Check out this weird theory. I think someone mentioned it before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02008.html

Someone may have already posted this link.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:35 am

archaeologist wrote:
In fact, the only evidence from the science of geology says that he is nuts.
it all depends on whom you believe. i may not agree totally withhis point of view but at least i can see the evidence he is using. i don't throw out the baby with the bath water like you and your cohors.

No, but you would cut it in half and think that was a model of justice!

Hapgood's "theory" is an attempt to explain disparate pieces of evidence by coming up with an idea. In terms of the Scientific Method he is on Step #2.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments

Rather than trying to predict (as in Step #3) Hapgood is merely looking to explain what his observations in Step #1 told him. It really is not the kind of thing that can be tested by repeatable experiment but geologists have dismissed it based on their own research.

In Fingerprints of the Gods (which you would enjoy, arch) Hancock paints himself into a corner at one point by suggesting that his RCA (Remote Common Ancestor - he never uses the term Atlantis - would have needed a continent sized land in which to develop an advanced society. I don't know where he gets that idea. Certainly there are numerous examples of advanced societies growing up on smaller sites...his own Great Britain for one. However, having established the idea that the ocean level was much lower and that humanity could have lived in great numbers along the sea coast (as we do today) it seems that the rapid flooding of that area would have had more disastrous effects on an advanced culture than a primitive one. He does not "need" an Antarctica free of ice to explain his theory of an early advanced society being brought low by natural catastrophe. There would have been plenty of room on the now drowned continental shelf.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:25 pm

In Fingerprints of the Gods

i read it years ago

Rather than trying to predict

i know the scientific method and i do not agree with this point. why would one always have to predict? there are times when prediction is not warranted. inthe religious world, when one sticks to the rules fervently like you are with the scientific method, we call them legalists which means they are usually wrong.

so some flexibility is needed in the application of those methods for they will not fit every situation. to rigidly apply those methods, is not seeking truth objectively but making sure the rules are applied.

i do not see a problem with an ice-free antartica , you are assuming the world was asit is today, which is a false assumption. pre-flood geography and geology are certainly vastly different.

read the book "The Flood' by Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel, it may be old but it is about the best Bible thumper book out there on the topic and you would be surprised by the scholarship.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:03 pm

You may not see a problem with it but there is always that problem of "evidence" again. Ice cores show that the continent has not been ice free in the last 12,000 years which would seem to rule out the development of any advanced culture there. Your usual stance when confronted with hard evidence is to simply mutter "bible, bible, bible" and stick your head up your ass so you don't have to hear more! This, however, has nothing to do with the bible.

I ran a quick search on "The Flood" at Amazon and found that it is, as you advertised, a bible-thumping book from the 1950's. In a review submitted by a reader (doubtless a good friend of your's) I found this pithy little quote.

One of the most fascinating discoveries is also recorded in this book. The great Gilgamesh Epic was found in the ruins of the Assurbanipal library in Nineveh. The narrative bears a striking resemblance to the writings of Moses in Genesis. It was in fact written centuries before.

Clearly this reader does not quite grasp the significance of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Of course, it was written centuries before and the reason it is so similar to the later plagiarized version attributed to Moses and stuck into your precious bible is because the Israelites stole the idea from the Mesopotamians.

You do realize that a book written nearly 60 years ago is going to be seriously out-of-date? I may take you up on your dare, though, because I can always use a laugh and this thing may be like watching an old Flash Gordon serial and comparing it to modern space travel.

Don't get upset when I rip it to shreds, though. This is clearly a book for believers and not scientists. And don't give me any of that "they can be one and the same" shit.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:05 pm

Your usual stance when confronted with hard evidence is to simply mutter "bible, bible, bible" and stick your head up your ass so you don't have to hear mo

sorry but i didn't mutter bible bible bible there. i made a comparison

You do realize that a book written nearly 60 years ago is going to be seriously out-of-date?

you may be surprised. unfortunatele trying to find quality modern books that deal more with the topic and not preaching is difficult.

I may take you up on your dare, though, because I can always use a laugh and this thing may be like watching an old Flash Gordon serial and comparing it to modern space travel.

again you may be surprised.

In a review submitted by a reader (doubtless a good friend of your's) I found this pithy little quote.

i didn't read the reviews but maybe i should put one there if they are that bad.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:16 pm

I have to go back and get you another one for a related book.

It tells one all one ever needs to know about creationists.

Maybe later.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:00 am

I have to go back and get you another one for a related book.

i went and read that review and of course you take the piece out of context in hopes of manipulating the view of the person. smooth move...

but that is typical, always trying to make the other person look bad so you look better. a childhood attitude you should have had removed long ago.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:14 am

What is out of context? The reader assumed that because Gilgamesh was similar to the later Moses version that it somehow validated the Moses story.

A fact relied on by plagiarists throughout the centuries. I have to find that other one for you. It clearly shows why students should study science and spend less time reading their goddamn bibles.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:24 am

Okay that didn't take long. The book was cited as a companion piece by Amazon and is called the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb.

Here is a review written by a smarter than average Creationist...admittedly a low standard to reach but here goes...

"

Reviewer: Jonathan Bailey (Lawton, OK USA) - See all my reviews

I am saying this as a creationist: This book needs to be updated. It is just too out of date. Morris' refutation of radiometric dating is that decay rates are innaccurate and unproven. That is because 40 years ago when this book was written radiochronology was new. Now I agree that radiometric dating is unreliable because there are too many unknowns in our assumptions about what should be in a sample that we measure, but it is simply a fact that we can measure them accurately. Aside from this point, most the bibliographic references in this book are all from the 50s. It is simply not usable as an evangelistic tool. Creationists need to abandon this book for one that is based on current research.

What I find interesting is that you make the same silly comments about C14 dating, doubtlessly relying on books from the dim recesses of scientific history. You should take this guy's advice, arch....except if you do your whole bible-based world goes out the window because there is NO current research.

But this was the one which really caught my eye:

Reviewer: "striped_knees" (anywhere BUT Khartoum) - See all my reviews
Had you asked me a year ago, I would have said that the Biblical story of Noah could not possibly be taken literally. Now I have been forced to reconsider my position.
The authors did what I have never seen or heard before: used the scientific evidence rather than ignoring it. One question I would like to pose for the casual reader: how is it possible we have massive fossil deposits of extinct animals (dinosaurs, et cetera) from millions of years ago, yet no fossil deposits of modern animals? That is a question that made me wonder why I hadn't heard it before.

Relevant part underlined: What kind of bible-thumping shithead does one have to be not to understand that it TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS for fossils to form? Science does NOT NEED fossils of modern animals.....they can still find the actual BONES because they have not fossilized yet.

It is this kind of thing which proves to me the absolute need to strap students down in their chairs and force feed them science instead of this bible based horseshit. There is a reason why 17 nations graduated more scientists than the US last year and the long-range outlook is not promising for this country.

Keep your fucking bible in church where it belongs and out of public education.