Archaeologica.org

The "Club" has sufficient organs to get its message out.

No need for the doubters to pay homage to them.

like where he compared the Popul Vuh to genesis and claimed that a previous race must have been incontact

you are going to have to be more specific, one of your downfalls and why i ignore you usually is that you just make blanket statements and don't even try to show where you get the idea from.

actually mentions christianity in chapter two

again, i checked chapter 2,and did not find it, doesn't meanit isn't there, just i can't find it, so place page numbers if you are actually quoting real material, please.

nothing wrong with mentioning christianity nor should that discredit anyone but again we are talking about those who refuse to accept data.

Fingerpaints of the Gods P170

The Popul Vuh is accepted by scholars as a great resovoir of uncontaminated pre colombian tradition. It is therefore puzzling to find such similarities between these traditions and those recorded in the genesis story,Moreover, like so many of the other Old World/New world links we have identified, the character of the similarities is not suggestive of any kind of direct influence of one region on the other but of two different interpretations of the same set of events......

the Popul vuh page one (not chapter two)

"This we shall write now within the Law of God and Christianity; we shall bring it to light because now the Popol Vuh as it is called cannot be seen any more, in which was clearly seen the coming from the other side of the sea, and the narration of our obscurity, and our life was dearly seen. The original book written long ago existed; but its sight is hidden from the searcher and the thinker."

The original Popul Vuh has never been found and nobody actually knows if it actually ever existed in any form
therefore the version of it written by a student in Latin and found in a church by a spanish priest hardly qualifies as "uncontaminated pre colombian tradition" and "not suggestive of any kind of direct influence of one region on the other" as Hancock tries to deceive the reader into thinking.....

Hmmm....I'm not sure who is more guilty here.

Check this link, arch.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/pv02.htm

This document, written shortly after the Spanish Conquest by a Quiché Indian who had learned to read and write Spanish, is generally known as the Popol Vuh, Popol Buj, Book of the Council, Book of the Community, the Sacred Book, or National Book of the Quiché, and it contains the cosmogonical concepts and ancient traditions of this aboriginal American people, the history of their origin, and the chronology of their kings down to the year 1550.

Now, here, is the translated version, however, you will notice that what marduk is quoting from is a "preamble" and written in a suspiciously flowery language which was fashionable in the 18th century.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/

This we shall write now under the Law of God and Christianity; we shall bring it to light because now the Popol Vuh, as it is called, 6 cannot be seen any more, in which was dearly seen the coming from the other side of the sea and the narration of our obscurity, and our life was clearly seen. 7 The original book, written long ago, existed, but its sight is hidden to the searcher and to the thinker. Great were the descriptions and the account of how all the sky and earth were formed, how it was formed and divided into four parts; how it was partitioned, and how the sky was divided; and the measuring-cord was brought, and it was stretched in the sky and over the earth, on the four angles, on the four corners, 8 as was told by the Creator and the Maker, the Mother and the Father of Life, 9 of all created things, he who gives breath and thought, she who gives birth to the children, he who watches over the happiness of the people, the happiness of the human race, the wise man, he who meditates on the goodness of all that exists in the sky, on the earth, in the lakes and in the sea.

Contrast this with the writing style employed in the Popol Vuh, Book One.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/pv09.htm

THIS IS THE ACCOUNT OF HOW ALL WAS in suspense, all calm, in silence; all motionless, still, and the expanse of the sky was empty.

This is the first account, the first narrative. There was neither man, nor animal, birds, fishes, crabs, trees, stones, caves, ravines, grasses, nor forests; there was only the sky.

The surface of the earth had not appeared. There was only the calm sea and the great expanse of the sky.

There was nothing brought together, nothing which could make a noise, nor anything which might move, or tremble, or could make noise in the sky.

There was nothing standing; only the calm water, the placid sea, alone and tranquil. Nothing existed.

There was only immobility and silence in the darkness,

Right off the bat I'm not convinced that the "preamble" is part of the Popol Vuh and the different styles of writing make it seem likely that the preamble is a later addition, offered in way of explanation.

It may not be "uncontaminated" or the author might have felt that he had to cover his ass or get burned at the stake by some overzealous friar.

there is quite a difference betweenthe two and i have always suspected marduk of poor referencing as if he is here only to make trouble and not contribute. notice how he avoids my polite request for specific pages.

Right off the bat I'm not convinced that the "preamble" is part of the Popol Vuh and the different styles of writing make it seem likely that the preamble is a later addition, offered in way of explanation

i will agree to that for now.

why would he mention that th eoriginal is lost when no one is talking about the popul vuh, just a specific reference point in the work of Hapgood?

to discredit a theory it first has to be accepted
none of hancocks ever have been as he is an idiot

i just noticed this--- i am talking about Hapgood and he turns it into Hancock?? is he just messing up the forums on purpose?

there is quite a difference betweenthe two and i have always suspected marduk of poor referencing as if he is here only to make trouble and not contribute. notice how he avoids my polite request for specific pages.

Fingerpaints of the Gods P170

the Popul vuh page one

yeah sure whatever you say dumbass
once again youre off cherry picking your evidence even when everyone can see my second post was specifically for you when you asked for it

the concept of intelligent design, in its basic form, is correct. that is the one that God created man in his image. God hates, so do we; God loves; so do we; God feels, so do we...to attribute that to chance, evolution is making a big mistake.

but again, in hopes of initiating an intelligent discussion, intelligent design then shoots itslf inthe foot by limiting the options God had in making man. Along with compromising some of its positions, intelligent design comes across more as an attempt to put the Bible in the school instead of examining their thinking along scientific lines.

for science to eliminate the possibility of examing all options, all possibilities in an objective manner only undermines and discredits all its claims. to say that their are restrictions of what can be studied, is not education but poor scholarship. education presents without bias, well most of the time with, and allows the student to choose which they prefer to believe.

that is the ideal and we know that rarely happens and is finely exampled by north korean classrooms. (yes, i have viewed their texts and seen sample classes in progress)

science , and all sciences, can be applied to the result of creation just as it is done for evolution, there is nothing limiting that application, that investigation except fear that the Bible is right.

FDR said, 'you have nothing to fear except fear itself" so why are those adherents of evolution afraid to let certain theories be investigated? the excuse of 'being scientific' is just that, an excuse because in investigating the results of creation, science would have a free hand and can test, observe and predict what will take place under that theory. their limitation would come in the origin of creation and the existence of God.

But they already face that limitation as i have shown with those quotes from the book entitled 'Origins". so they are faced with a similar problem and must choose what they think and what to believe. much the same as they do now with the theory of evolution.

so in reality, the reason they refuse to share the science field, whether it be the classroom or the laboratory is that they not only have placed extreme restrictions upon their work, pre-determining the results but also have rejected the Bible which in turn undermines any claim they make about their field of endeavor.

and that is what they have to deal with, their own hypocrisy.

and that is what they have to deal with, their own hypocrisy.

while we just have to deal with yours

while we just have to deal with yours

this is why i ignore you as this fits your pattern of just posting whatever comes to mind and rarely do we see any scientific reasoning or links from you.

most of the time you avoid the requests to support your posts with links or where your source material is. instead of complaining about me,i would worry about the quality of your own posts.

at least minimalist, my arch-nemesis, can support his arguments withsound reasoning...even when he uses swear words, i know his position is legitimate.

Having previously mentioned the creationist con-man, Hovind, this seems like the ideal place to post this update.


http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/app ... 40333/1006

A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats against investigators.

Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500 from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002.

At the couple's first court appearance Thursday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis, Kent Hovind professed not to understand why he is being prosecuted. Some 20 supporters were in the courtroom.

"I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me," he said.

Kent Hovind, who often calls himself "Dr. Dino," has been sparring with the IRS for at least 17 years on his claims that he is employed by God, receives no income, has no expenses and owns no property.

Lock him up and throw away the key!

Quoting you know who :
the concept of intelligent design, in its basic form, is correct. that is the one that God created man in his image. God hates, so do we; God loves; so do we; God feels, so do we...to attribute that to chance, evolution is making a big mistake.
As usual Arch has no comprehension of the mechanismso f evolution .If this ist o constitute proof for creationisù it fails miserably .I dare evensay it constitutes an argument in favor of evolution .Asyou rise on the ladder of evolution you wil not help but notice how patterns of nursing and affectionate behaviour becomes more and morecomplexeven in the animal world .
Simple organismsaswere present at the start of evoltion did not need such behaviour .Bacteria,polypsetc disposing of the very simple forms of procreation such as spores,seeds and large quantities of eggs do not need nurturing and elaborate behaviour towards their offspring .THe survival of the species resides on the survival of the fittest in its most simple form .As we move higher on the ladder of evolution reptiles and other more progressed lifeforms show a more complex pattern of behaviour in providing for the survival of their offspring .A crocodile will make a nest,a turtle will dig a hole in the sand .They lay less eggs than the fish ands so they have to rely more on protecting them against predators.Need I say that this behaviour becomes more and more complex finetuned during evolution .Mammals show an even more complex behaviour which we can all observe around us. Humans as the culmination of evolution at this stage dispose of the most complex tools to perpetuate their survival,motherly love,tenderness,protection of their sibblings.Nobody can deny that this behaviour is beneficial for the species .They are beautiful aquisitions of mankind .

this is the only time i will say something concerning evolution as i am tired of discussing it and am concentrating on other topics:

As usual Arch has no comprehension of the mechanismso f evolution .If this ist o constitute proof for creationisù it fails miserably .I dare evensay it constitutes an argument in favor of evolution .Asyou rise on the ladder of evolution you wil not help but notice how patterns of nursing and affectionate behaviour becomes more and morecomplexeven in the animal world .

again rene demonstrates he does not even know his own theory. evolution has no concept of feelings, emotions nor was there any built in when the original theory was framed.

when someone/thing has no concept of an item then it is impossible to conceive of such an idea. i.e. man would not have thought of flying if there were no birds to show him that it was possible.

evolution has no feelings, no way of conceiving that they would be needed thus it would be impossible for it to construct it at a later date. such thinking illustrated inthe quote above, shows how evolution is missing answers and how desparate evolutionists are whenthey are trying to fill in the blanks.

they take the impossible , thnk of the absurd and then callit scientific in hopes they will win when all they have done is shown how ludicrious they can be.

now if rene wants to talk evolution i don't care, for me i am out of the discussions as i want to concentrate on the archaeological aspects of this forum.

You're out of it because you lost! How can a scientific theory have emotions? What kind of ridiculous bullshit is that? Does the theory of relativity have emotions? You have gone completely off the deep end. If that's all I had I'd quit discussing it too. That's just insane! A child knows better than that. I did think you were a fairly intelligent, yet deluded person, arch, but now.............that's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.............that's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life!!!

Ah, c'mon, Frank. That's not even close to the stupidity of Genesis!

This may help, then again maybe not...I can't quite figure which side of the fence this guy's sittin on.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-03/intell ... esign.html