Current Biblical Archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:54 pm

So, in your interpretation this means that you are half as silly as your 6,000 year old earth buddies?

no it means ......

i do not think scientifically though i understand it because that isn't the only way to think. one if they are a believer has to think in terms of spirituality which means one cannot conform to what 'the group' wants.

i see the flaws in the scientific method and in scientific thought especially when they place unrealistic restrictions to conduct the process. once you have done that, then you have corrupted the data coming in and manipulating the results.

thus i refuse to do what tj wants because it isn't truth, it isn't honest and it isn't finding the answers. scripture and truths do not go by the scientific method nor is it subject to science, science is not the final authority it is merely a tool to understand this world and the way God made it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:27 am

scripture and truths do not go by the scientific method nor is it subject to science, science is not the final authority it is merely a tool to understand this world and the way God made it.

And, once more, we come back to magic.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:51 am

And, once more, we come back to magic.

no, we come back to a proper interpretation of the evidence which is not left up to unbelieiving researchers who desparately want to disprove the Bible.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:20 am

archaeologist wrote:
And, once more, we come back to magic.
no, we come back to a proper interpretation of the evidence which is not left up to unbelieiving researchers who desparately want to disprove the Bible.

Who's trying to disprove the Bible?

Most archaeology in the Middle East has been carried out in the hope of proving the Bible to be correct. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't always quite accord with the Biblical narrative - strongly suggesting that by the time it was written down many facts had become blurred or changed through frequent retelling of the stories over many centuries. Thus, whilst grounded in a basis of historical reality, the actual details are not reliable.

The lack of colloborative records from other civilisations in the Middle East - such as the Egyptians and Assyrians - likewise indicates that much of the details given in the 'historical' books of the Bible are either entirely fictional or have been greatly exaggerated over the centuries.

tj · Post by tj » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:05 am

archaeologist wrote:my question on the decline rate was intelligent as in all the research i have done, they all ignored talking about it. i also find it fascinating that all such fine tuning, and proclamations are done to the evolutionist side of the scale which tells me that bias is in play here and not honesty.

Decay rate is considerably more difficult to understand and discuss than the dating techniques that use it are. You proved beyond a shadow of any doubt a few pages back that you don't even understand something simple like dendrochronology. Rene and I had to explain it to you. Why should I think you understand C14 levels over time? I didn't. I explained it to you because you asked me to. Given this, why would we even bother discussing variability of radioactive decay if you don't even grasp the simple stuff?

edit:
I better spell this out because you won't connect the dots on your own.

Your question about decay is intelligent if and only if you can understand the answer or are willing to do the hard yards that it takes to understand it. It's amazingly clear that you wouldn't understand, nor would you do the work it takes to understand it. It is, therefore, an unitelligent question.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:42 am

no, we come back to a proper interpretation of the evidence which is not left up to unbelieiving researchers who desparately want to disprove the Bible.

I want to disprove your stupid bible but I'm not doing the research.

Your problem is that bible-thumping morons aren't calling all the shots over there and as soon as a balanced interpretation is made your book goes out with the trash.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:26 am

[quote]You proved beyond a shadow of any doubt a few pages back that you don't even understand something simple like dendrochronology. Rene and I had to explain it to you. Why should I think you understand C14 levels over time?[/quote]

If Arch is an "archaeologist" as he states, this makes me wonder about the quality of education he received. Would not studying dating techniques be part of the curriculum of any reputable institution of higher learning? Unless, of course, he attended a Christian institution and they taught only what they felt necessary and omitted anything that might cause brain pain to their students. If these colleges are manipulating the subject matter they teach, how can their graduates call themselves anything but mindless, unthinking robots?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:45 am

This is arch's view of archaeology.

The term is used pretty loosely!

http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9 ... T=0&P=3706

Each week, the local (Pittsburgh, PA) Christian television station
broadcasts a locally produced show titled "Origins" on which the host
"explores the Creation-Evolution Controversy" with guests who provide
"proof" of Noah's Flood, Neanderthals co-existing with dinosaurs and
geological evidence of an Earth only slightly older than Bishop James
Ussher's estimate.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:30 pm

That's just plain scary. But then, it is a free country and guess we just have to learn to ignore those who refuse to use the brains their God gave them.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:44 pm

It's free as long as those psychopaths aren't in control.

tj · Post by tj » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:55 pm

Great question Leona. I think I might have found the answer ...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:38 pm

You proved beyond a shadow of any doubt a few pages back that you don't even understand something simple like dendrochronology

no i don't think i did. i understand you people just assume something and went from there.

Why should I think you understand C14 levels over time?

well you blew it, as far as i am concerned you have no credibility with me becausseof your assumptions. both you and rene ...no you and the others aren't worth responding to, itis the same mantra each time and you attack the person and can't present yor position which ttells me you all know very little and whatyou do know you can't defend.

i stay with the truth and thatis the Bible, sure we get to fill in details taht are missing but we are not at liberty to change anything because we want to or the supposed 'evidence' says we should.

when you stop dismissing the evidence that supports the Bible then you willsee a clearer picture and until you get the Bible involved in science you will never find the answers you seek.

I want to disprove your stupid bible but I'm not doing the research.

typical, thatis what i thought, you are lazy.

If Arch is an "archaeologist" as he states, this makes me wonder about the quality of education he received. Would not studying dating techniques be part of the curriculum of any reputable institution of higher learning

they were but if you read the link, it said few archaeologistys know about that dating system and coral dating is limited to those sights that are not landlocked. i would venture a guess and say that it would be impossible to use the coral dating method in a place like iraq. there is no correlation to make it work.

Neanderthals co-existing with dinosaurs

i already disagree with them there, i don't believe there were neanderthals but those remains attributed to that category are nothing but ancient humans (or possibly apes) from the pre-flood civilization but since the scientific community has made up its mind and closed it, we will never know the truth.

again, your constant personal attacks on christianity demonstrate that you have nothing to offer. you have made no case for your position for as soon as someone disagrees with you, you attack them and forget your defense----oh wait, thatis intolerance isn't it.

you have nothing to offer except nothing.

That's just plain scary. But then, it is a free country and guess we just have to learn to ignore those who refuse to use the brains their God gave them.

i can say the same thing about evolutionists. who also need to be removed from the science classroom as they are forcing their propoganda on to children something they cry creationists are doing. the pot calling the kettle black. hypocrites to the core. who are nothing but spoiled babies and who refuse to accept alternative theories and must demand a monoploly before they willdo anything.

what a joke evolutionists are. they have only proven how immature, unadult, unscientific, intolerant, and so on, they really are. if they were right then they would have no problem letting others teach what they believe; but because they are so prejudice, manipulative, and a few other adjectives it is easy tosee that they are promoting a false theory and hoodwinking the courts into thinking they aree actually scientific when in reality it is only conjecture.

tj · Post by tj » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm

archaeologist wrote:both you and rene ...no you and the others aren't worth responding to

Why do you keep responding then?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:17 pm

He is a self-appointed Defender of the Faith. He can't resist.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:20 pm

why should i leave personal attacks unchallenged? pointing out your weaknesses and hypocrisy helps others to see what you really offer--nothing because you can never be tolerant nor can you defend your position.

nor canyou be open-minded as demonstrated by your childish display of leaping to a conclusion and attacking without merit. your a prime example of the spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home when no one does what he wants.

all of you are the same--if discussion isn't done your way then it isn't done at all. what a joke.