Archaeology Without the Bible

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...]so, since you can not step up to the plate and defend your belief, you must be wrong for you have nothing of substabce to back your claims.

• Archaeology is a science. Not a 'belief'.

• Stepping up to the plate:
EVOLUTION HAPPENS BEFORE YOUR OWN EYES IF YOU CARE TO OPEN THEM!
Today, western people are 20 centimeters (= 8 inches) taller – on average! – than only 100 years ago.
Check the records!
It proves
1) that evolution happens, and
2) that it happens in spurts.

And if you still don't believe it, go stand next to your own gramps and grannie and see the difference...!

[Frank Harrist]

She actually. Easy mistake though

my apologies.

realist was a poster who had his fill of the evolutionists, he seemed like a nice guy who didn't agree with me but at least he could carry on a decent discussion without the bull that was witnessed in the other topic.

which reminds me, not one evolutionist has yet attempted to answer any of my questions, both in my original post and in a recent one that someone thought was gibberish.

so, since you can not step up to the plate and defend your belief, you must be wrong for you have nothing of substabce to back your claims.

Ok you're right. Im going to church this sunday and repent. Are you satisfied? You win! Now go away! Go pat yourself on the back and tell god what a good evangelist you are. I will ignore you from here on out.

[Guest]

Archaeology is a science. Not a 'belief'.

your belief is in evolution not archaeology or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Check the records!

you haven't provided any but RK's original post concerning healthier diet, better medical car, less dangerous work areas and so on all contributing to the change in size is probably true. the government has spent the last 50+ years telling people to eat right, they have spent billions in medical research and so on yet you want to attribute that effort to evolution? i think you are way off.

EVOLUTION HAPPENS BEFORE YOUR OWN EYES IF YOU CARE TO OPEN THEM!

let's talk about that here is a quote from the article "early humans on the menu" of 2/18/06

"These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat why would they hunt."

this article talks about one of the species that evolutionists belief to exist whenever. i don't believe in the categories of species as outlined by those same scientists, i believe that there is only one human race, past and present so what evidence they find that relates to 'pre-historic man' i believe is evidence from the pre-flood civilization.

so here you have scientists saying early man ate no meat, so far so good, now listen to what the Bible says about this:
"And God said, I have given you every herb that bearing seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed, to you it shall be meat." Gen. 1:29

so pre-flood, humans were not meat eaters but vegetarians thus the research of non-christian scientists have stumbled across evidence for this fact but they chose to apply it to evolution.

now meat eating did not come into the diet until after the flood, in Gen 9:3 we read:
"every moving thing that liveth (qualified later as non-human, v.4) shallbe meat for you, even as the green herb have i given you all things."

so it is not the believer that needs to open their eyes but those people who willingly choose to ignore the evidence that they discover.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Archaeology is a science. Not a 'belief'.

your belief is in evolution not archaeology or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are one sadly confused puppy:
the reason we're having this conversation is 1) this is an archaeology forum, and 2) the topic is evolution. Both science. Nothing to do with 'belief'. 'Belief' belongs in a church. Not here.

Check the records!

you haven't provided any but RK's original post concerning healthier diet, better medical car, less dangerous work areas and so on all contributing to the change in size is probably true. the government has spent the last 50+ years telling people to eat right, they have spent billions in medical research and so on yet you want to attribute that effort to evolution? i think you are way off.

What RK said there is right: all those things together are 'circumstances'. So people today are a lot taller than 100 years ago because of 'circumstances'. That, my friend, is the very definition of evolution...!

EVOLUTION HAPPENS BEFORE YOUR OWN EYES IF YOU CARE TO OPEN THEM!

[Minimalist]

R/S, I'm going to do it. As soon as I can get around to it.

[daybrown]

OK, evolution, even eugenics, is when white families can afford to quit keeping the demented and retarded in the house, but move them to state institutions, where they are removed from the gene pool.

Minorities couldnt afford to do that, and besides, their cultural values were different so that such deviants remained in local gene pools. But now, after several generations of this, we see white people are smarter. They are also crazier, but the variation in the causes of insanity is far wider, and would take several more generations to reduce the incidence.

However, there are geneology sources for white families that have, in effect, a eugenic effect, in that those considering conception can identify the risks as well as the advantages from various lines. Any man can have his Y chromosome tested, but from what I can tell, very very few non-white men are paying the 100$ to have this done. In time women will, in the process of mate selection, look at the geneological data, if for no other reason to identify the risk of genetic diseases like sickle cell anemica, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, and whatever else they have marker for at the time.

This is an *evolutionary* process that wont be driven by the strength and agility of the warrior. Those cosmologies which were designed to pander to their instincts will have a hard time convincing women to avail themselves of the Y chromosome lines of such aggressive alpha males.

[Guest]

You are one sadly confused puppy

you are so funny.

the topic is evolution

no, the topic is archeaology without the bible not evolution. evolution may come into play but it is not a topic about solely about evolution.

Nothing to do with 'belief'

you obviously don't read whay you write. either you believe it (which makes it a belief) or you don't. we would not be having this discussion if you did not believe evolution. archaeology may be a science but it is not one that supports evolution no matter how hard you try.

That, my friend, is the very definition of evolution

that is not evolution but taking care of the body. besides, people used to die at great ages, it is not getting better but worse. even the sumerian king's list indicates longevity not the shortened life span evolutionists want people to believe.

SINCE, this is a topic of archaeology without the Bible, i would like to change direction as i saw on discovery channel a program concerning jason and the argonauts. now this may not be a new show to the western world but it is here.

quite an interesting theory, does anyone have more information or links that discuss the train of thought, (that it might be based on a real voyage)?

[Gene]

Since the last glacial Max the Seas have risen about 400 ft.

Is that enough water for a flood around the world?

The Dead Sea was once fresh water till the Sea breached.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... cksea.html

[FreeThinker]

Gene, the level of the oceans have risen the close to 400 feet to their current level, which quite obviously is not enough for a flood around the world. To flood the WHOLE world the oceans would have to rise an additional 29,035 feet, the height of Mt. Everest.

[Guest]

Since the last glacial Max the Seas have risen about 400 ft.

you are going from the bottom to the top. if the seas have risen 400ft then it would be safe to consider that all the flood waters did not leave the earth but stopped at a point where the pre-flood civilization and geography was no longer influential upon the new civilizations.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Sea-levels have risen and fallen many hundreds of feet all throughout the earth's existence. Sometimes slowly, sometimes fast.
Sometimes sea-levels were a lot higher than today. Sometimes many hundreds of feet lower.

Today, the level is rising. Current calculations predict that in 100 years sea levels will be between 60cm (15") and 150cm (37.5") higher than today.
Leaving property to your heirs may be a meaningless gesture when that property floods...

Long term investment tip: buy real estate in the mountains!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_levels

[Guest]

It is useless debating with people who define the cosmos according to their belief systems rather than from careful and open-minded study of evidence.

Despite the cumulative progress of human capacity to study the physical world with more reliable techniques, building upon the body of information compiled across the span of time, many people reject all of that work because they have a different authority informing them. Sometimes, the "authority" is not in fact divine inspiration recorded in holy writ - but, rather, the product of some fellow-believers whose "facts" become "truth."

Although the work done more than two centuries ago by some obscure British theologians "established" the "precise Biblical age of the world" is neither revealed Scriptural text nor even very reliable deduction based on Scriptures, today that "date" is taken as an unimpeachable article of faith by some persons.

Perhaps the only rationalist who I suggest has elegantly, successfully, and respectfully examined seriously the positions of Biblical literalists is the late and much-lamented Steven Jay Gould. Any Biblical literalist who desires to sincerely enter the discussion should read the outstanding compilations of Gould's essays from the journal "Nature."

A good starting point might be the middle of Gould's oeuvre - the book titled, "The Diet of Worms and Leonardo's Clams." (Yes, "The Panda's Thumb" is more famous.) In one of the two title essays, "Leonardo's Clams," Gould discusses the outstanding study of hydrology and geologic stratigraphy conducted by Leonardo da Vinci. Gould observes that da Vinci's work puzzled the great man - because the evidence challenged common understanding of the Biblical flood. It left da Vinci without a route to hypothetical evaluation of his findings and prevented him from actually learning from his studies - although, of course, da Vinci acquired great understanding and skill in the application of hydraulics.

As Gould observed, da Vinci was a man of medieval opinion living in and creating the Renaissance, and his world-view was that of a believer who neither chose to nor would have challenged his belief system.

Today's Biblical literalists share that characteristic with da Vinci.

And so the person of faith who defines the universe in terms of faith's teachings is not available for debate. That is unfortunate and ultimately self-defeating. Just ask the shade of Galileo.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...]And so the person of faith who defines the universe in terms of faith's teachings is not available for debate.[...]

And isn't it a hoot that they think they are?


Oh blissful innocence!

[Guest]

It is useless debating with people who define the cosmos according to their belief systems rather than from careful and open-minded study of evidence

that is so funny. coming from the most close-minded people on earth. if you are so open minded, then you would have no objection tocreation/i.d. being taught in the clasroom for you would have nothing to fear. you are hypocrites to the core.

Sea-levels have risen and fallen many hundreds of feet all throughout the earth's existence. Sometimes slowly, sometimes fast

here is a quote---"It varies globally in a range of ±2 m."

which part of the world are you taking your measurements from?

another quote--"Mean sea level does not remain constant over the surface of the entire earth"

you can't find a constant to provide quality work.

and another one--"During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice in northern hemisphere glaciers. The majority of the glaciers had melted by about 10,000 years ago, but minor glacial melting has continued (with occasional reversals) throughout recorded human history"

does nothing to back your claim, except to retreat to the 'million years ago' haven. does provide evidence for the flood except it attributes the rise in warter to the melting of glaciers. which again proves my point that researchers would rather apply evidence to their theories than what is true or Biblical.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I think my students (freshmen psychs) may appreciate this thread as a good illustration of selective perception.