Archaeology Without the Bible

[daybrown]

<Yes, that's right. Both have very short and frighteningly pointless lives. Let's all follow their example, eh?>
They who? The Pre-Christian pagans? Let's follow the money. Before Constantine, the sacred sites were run by family lineages like a family business. Family honor was essential to stay in business. Thus, the pagan temples were quite often, like the Parthenon, used as 'banks', and safe deposit boxes for the family silver only taken out at weddings or whatever.

Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", reports that when Constantine converted the Temple of Jupiter in Rome, he first cleaned it out of all idolatry before handing the empty building over to the bishops (who were named by him, something he couldnt do with pagan clergy). Gibbon reports that Constantine hauled away 6 tons of gold to build Constantinople. The conversion of the rest of the pagan temples all over the empire was a no-brainer.

And while the behavior of the pagan Romans was notorious, when you actually look into it, what you see is that these are the reports of the royal house and aristocracy. Like Judging the morality of Americans based on the activities of our Royal elite living in Hollywood.

No, au Contraire, the moral standards of the Stoics, who at the time had a far wider following, was superior to that of the Christians and the Judaic law on several counts. You dont find any Stoic temples or churches because the only thing they built was schools for the kids.

They have looked at the skeletons in the graveyards both before and after the Empire converted to Christianity. Forensic examination shows that the skeletons of the slave women under Christians were so malnourished that they were infertile. And hence the dramatic decline in the population of the empire, and the use of the legions to go on fishing expeditions for more slaves.

Unintended consequences. St. Paul said the slaves would be rewarded by Jesus in heaven, so slavedrivers saw no point in doing it on earth. This stands in stark contrast to the rules of the Stoics, who unlike Biblical law and the words of St. Paul & Jesus, viewed slavery as stupid and immoral. Rather than pleading with Philomen to take back the slave Onesimus kindly, Epictetus would have told him to go to hell, and done what he could to support the freedom of the former slave.

Had the Stoics had their way, the civil liberties of citizens would have been respected, republican government would have continued, and this message would prolly be in Latin.

[Guest]

Religion is the greatest hoax in history. As the police say when investigating a crime...."Follow the money."

At at the end of that trail you will find some preacher with his hand out

unfortunately, there are some of those who get all the press. though there is the old saying-- "one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."
(even three or four) if you judge all christians by a handfull then you are the one making the generalization and the mistake.

[Frank Harrist]

Religion is the greatest hoax in history. As the police say when investigating a crime...."Follow the money."

At at the end of that trail you will find some preacher with his hand out

unfortunately, there are some of those who get all the press. though there is the old saying-- "one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."
(even three or four) if you judge all christians by a handfull then you are the one making the generalization and the mistake.

Just like you did when judging scientists over hoaxes. This is all going in circles. Going nowhere.

[Minimalist]

"one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."

Arch, there is another saying which goes:

If you add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage you get sewage.
If you add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine you get sewage.

[Guest]

Just like you did when judging scientists over hoaxes. This is all going in circles. Going nowhere

i read the whole article and didn't judge but came away with the understanding that evolutionists, (scientists included) do not look for the truth and are capable of fraud just like anyone else. i also came away with the distrust of their experiments and conclusions, not only for the unethical manuevering but basically for the simple reason they do not want to prove the Bible true and ruin their life's work.

it is easy to stretch evidence to justify one's dedication and give meaning to one's committment ut it takes a man to say they are wrong. i am not wrong and i have shown that proving evolution is impossible.

without modern day observation, without control groups, without knowing the original conditions, there is no chance to prove evolution right. you can't even apply the criteria you demand from creationists to your own theory because you know it won't pass muster.

you don't even have the historical record on your side let alone the archaeological record yet you continue to force a monopoly on teaching in the classroom when the theory itself cannot be construed as science or scientific.

that is why i made the contention that you can not have archaeology without the Bible. maybe for a short term you can,but at some point you must address the Biblical record in your investigations.

[Frank Harrist]

Might I point out that the essence of a theory is that it has yet to be proven? ID and evolution are both theories. Neither has been proven here or anywhere. That's why they don't call 'em laws. Theories are tested over and over again until proven false or true. Neither of these theories have been proven true or false. That's why they still call 'em theories. You asking us to prove evolution is ludicrus. It's a theory and that means by it's very definition that it hasn't been proven. We are all just wasting our breath if we're trying to prove any of this to each other. It is an exercise in futility. So I suggest we all STFU about it! I know I am.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Religion is the greatest hoax in history. As the police say when investigating a crime...."Follow the money."

At at the end of that trail you will find some preacher with his hand out

unfortunately, there are some of those who get all the press. though there is the old saying-- "one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."
(even three or four) if you judge all christians by a handfull then you are the one making the generalization and the mistake.

"One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch", huh?
How about a couple dozen seminaries delivering batallions of paedophiles in trusted positions unto a vulnerable populace?
"One bad apple" is the understatement of the year. That's one rotten bunch, my friend.

[RK Awl-O'Gist]

Might I point out that the essence of a theory is that it has yet to be proven? ID and evolution are both theories. Neither has been proven here or anywhere. That's why they don't call 'em laws. Theories are tested over and over again until proven false or true. Neither of these theories have been proven true or false. That's why they still call 'em theories. You asking us to prove evolution is ludicrus. It's a theory and that means by it's very definition that it hasn't been proven. We are all just wasting our breath if we're trying to prove any of this to each other. It is an exercise in futility. So I suggest we all STFU about it! I know I am.

With all due respect, that's not the impression I get from reading posts from people who favour evolution over creationism. There seems to be an element of back-tracking here.

[Frank Harrist]

Oh shut up, realist.

[Minimalist]

i also came away with the distrust of their experiments and conclusions,

Far better to rely on nonsense that was written a couple of thousand years ago by people who merely wanted to make sure they kept their cushy jobs while the rest of the population slaved to support them?



Why bother with a scientific method when we can just believe in fairy tales to explain the world.

[Guest]

ID and evolution are both theories. Neither has been proven here or anywhere

i will disagree with you except on evolution, which is a theory and unproveable. i.d./creation is not a theory and has been proven evewry day since the beginning of time. run through the Genesis account and compare it to the modern daily activity and you will see life happening as said in the Biblical record.

i.d./creation has both the historical record and archaeological discoveries on its sideover the past 10,000, evol;ution has nebver been observed but history has run accordingly to the genesis account and the archaeological record has supported the Bible in all of its finds that pertain to the Biblical record. not one has disproven it.

How about a couple dozen seminaries delivering batallions of paedophiles in trusted positions unto a vulnerable populace?

even the Bible warned of people like that and it is a sad time when it happens, not a time of rejoicing but if you allow yourself to judge Christ by the actions of some humans then you are the one missing out and judging with a generalization without honesty or taking into account those of us who are actual followers of Christ.

Oh shut up, realist

caught and can't be gentlemanly about it. and i agree with RK as he has seen the two-step being done.

[Rokcet Scientist]

A pitiful case of schizophrenia or mps, mister (?). You know they have medicine for that now?

[RK Awl-O'Gist]

Oh shut up, realist.

Who?!

[RK Awl-O'Gist]

[ and i agree with RK as he has seen the two-step being done.

She actually. Easy mistake though.

A pitiful case of schizophrenia or mps, mister? You know they have medicine for that now?

Then I suggest you treat yourself to a dose of it first.

[Guest]

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.