Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote: i didn't get mine.

It's in the mail.

archaeologist wrote:

when I say argument I really mean debate. I can see you and I have very different views so I'm sure we will debate quite a bit

depends. i would reccommend reading the current biblical arch., noah's flood, the exodus decoded and intelligent design threads before venturing too much further

It's just an attempt by a non-scientific society and priesthood to explain the world.

that is assuming that the secular scientists have the authority to place restrictions upon a field they do not own and that their definition of what science is is correct. (which they don't and aren't.)

The Bible is not myth so let's not go there.

someone got the t-shirt already

i didn't get mine.

arch

god is dead,

and jchrist is an historical figure of dubious parentage.

& the bible IS myth, and not only myth, but systematically, sociopolitically sabotaged myth, for the last 2k years.

j

First off - everything I say is with respect, although I can see we are not going to agree on too much.

archaeologist wrote: depends. i would reccommend reading the current biblical arch., noah's flood, the exodus decoded and intelligent design threads before venturing too much further

Well, I have read a lot of that stuff, and the Biblical account itself. There isn't any science in it, at least none that can't be pretty easily refuted.

archaeologist wrote: that is assuming that the secular scientists have the authority to place restrictions upon a field they do not own and that their definition of what science is is correct. (which they don't and aren't.)

They are not placing restrictions on what you believe. They are explaining things in terms that can be proven and verified. They are open to peer review so that the results of their work can be examined for error and corrected. By contrast, dogma is dogmatic. The Bible is said to be to word of God (on no evidence) and the Pope is said to be infallable when he sits in a particular chair.

archaeologist wrote: The Bible is not myth so let's not go there.

Why not? Why is your belief system better than somebody elses? If you believe in Jesus because he's in a particular book that's great. But apply that same standard and believe in Zeus as well. Or alternatively, apply the criteria you use to dismiss Zeus as a deity, and look at your own mythology system.

They are not placing restrictions on what you believe

right off the bat you misunderstood what i was talking about. i am not talking about my beliefs but the field of science itself. scientists (usually secular ones) think they have the right to determine what is or isn't science. that is not a right they own nor have the authority to wield.

science is not theirs and the peer review is a fairly new (given the scope of time) system designed to limit what is studied, accepted plus given to the public. in a limited fahion this method can weed out the wingnuts like Os and Hancock but it cannot intrude where it does not belong.

that is it is not the final definitive authority which gets to say this is right and this is wrong. by doing so you have elevated science to a position it has no right to hold for it is merely a tool to understand the world and universe God made.

it has no special powers granted to it which allows it to make final determinations that affect the events occurring during the course of life.

They are explaining things in terms that can be proven and verified

that actually is not true because not one thing of evolution can be verified in any context of the word. all they can do is reinforce the conjecture that is spewed out by those who have chosen to disbelieve the Bible.

look at your own mythology system.

i don't have a mythology system i have the truth. evolution is a myth conjured up to lead people astray and that can be proven by the failure of all the 'evidence' and researchers who can not come up with answers for the origin of life or the universe. which i have shown numerous times in those threads i have mentioned you read first.

Scientists don't have the authority to define what science is? Who does, bus drivers? Can I then define what religion is? I already have and you disagree with my definition.

Evolution can't be verified? What about the fossil record? Where is your proof for creation?

You believe your faith is the truth. So does a Buddhist. So does a Hindu. So did a Viking, Mithraist etc etc. I don't see Christianity any differently. It's just one belief system of many hundreds. It has some great ideas and philosophies, but like so many others it gets smothered in magic, dire warnings and myths. It doesn't fit with what we know of how the physical world really works. That's why I call it and the others mythologies.

Who does, bus drivers?

Preachers. Let the con men decide, eh arch!

Minimalist wrote:

Who does, bus drivers?

Preachers. Let the con men decide, eh arch!

Oh - of course! There was a catchy phrase for that once - the inquisition.

I don't see Christianity any differently.

WEll, christianity is a johnny-come-lately doctrine which can't even demonstrate any factual basis for its existence.

Mithraism at least had an 800 year head start on it.

oldarchystudent wrote:

Minimalist wrote:

Who does, bus drivers?

Preachers. Let the con men decide, eh arch!

Oh - of course! There was a catchy phrase for that once - the inquisition.

The Roman Catholic Church did do some horrible things, but that doesn't miraculously make the Bible not the most accurate history book ever written.

Minimalist wrote:

oldarchystudent wrote:

Minimalist wrote:
Preachers. Let the con men decide, eh arch!

Oh - of course! There was a catchy phrase for that once - the inquisition.

- and burning chickens at the stake for their conversion to satanic principles -

and of course the salem witch trials.

arch.

are you sure you really, really want to hang with jchrist as your arbiter of archaeology, history, moral and ethical values?

j

Genesis Veracity wrote:The Roman Catholic Church did do some horrible things, but that doesn't miraculously make the Bible not the most accurate history book ever written.

The bible can't even agree with itself.

Genesis Veracity wrote:The Roman Catholic Church did do some horrible things, but that doesn't miraculously make the Bible not the most accurate history book ever written.

Correct.


It fails as history all on its own.

archy-- one thing you will notice is that many people willpost off topic or wingnut statements and crowd out the responses. so if i miss something you wrote it is partially because it got lost in the crowd of nonsense.

What about the fossil record

i would like to say read my posts in the I.D. thread but that may be too cumbersome so i will wait till later when i have time to address this and your other statement on fossils.

if that is okay.

I'll sum it up for him, OAS.

Arch doesn't like fossils because...... because..... because they contradict his fairy tales.


He doesn't handle that well.