Calm, Rationalized, Debate on Religion

[My bestfriends a toaster]

eah that's the most common answers I hear. There's either no God because we can't put God under a microscope and study him, or I don't believe in God because he didn't just make my life perfect because I believed in it.

I don't believe in evolution. Here's why. It doesn't follow any real predictable path. If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago? And how exactly does nothing evolve into something. I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish, and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place. Evolution is a theory that's been accepted as fact. What people see when they notice changes in an animal's structure is called adaptation. The missing link is still missing folks. New research proves that modern man isn't even in the same family as most of the fossils they have found of primitive hominids, and some of those fossils were proven to be hoaxes, if I remember correctly piltdown man was one of those.

Now onto the big bang. So if before there was time, and space and matter there was all these quantum strings that suddenly violently condensed to form sub atomic particles and in turn further condense into matter and the expansion of this created space and time.. then where did the quantum strings come from? And what caused them to suddenly form the universe. If they were always there then we have to assume that there was no reason for them to suddenly become active, unless the act of them creating themselved caused themselves to condense in this big bang that created everything. No physicist has ever explained to me how this doesn't violate the laws of physics. You remember the ones they taught you in highschool that said an object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by an outside force, and vice versa? So what was the outside force in the big bang and where did it come from?
Nothing I've read on physics can explain this. they're left scratching their heads.

I believe in God because if one explination is as good as another I would rather believe that there's something else out there that made me out of an act of love and intension rather than everything just being random, and there's rhyme or reason to the universe s**t just happens deal with it. That's rather a cold and bleaque outlook on life don't you think? Maybe that's easy for some of you to accept, and keeps you from having to think too much about things that no one can answer, but I'm not that shallow.

Now if you do the research, there IS evidence of a spiritual reality. Religion is insignifigant. It's a man made tool to monopolize God. My religion is true and yours isn't so God is on my side and not on your side. That's human thinking, that's not God's thinking.

I can't deny that when it comes to BOTH God and science, there are thousands of questions that we can not answer. It's just a matter of which you choose.

But look at is this way, If there is a God, and you don't believe, you're screwed when it comes to the afterlife. But if there is no God, and you Do believe, then there's no afterlife and you're not loosing anything by believing in God.

[Tlara]

my bestfriends a toilet

eah that's the most common answers I hear. There's either no God because we can't put God under a microscope and study him, or I don't believe in God because he didn't just make my life perfect because I believed in it.

I don't believe in evolution. Here's why. It doesn't follow any real predictable path. If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago? And how exactly does nothing evolve into something. I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish, and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place. Evolution is a theory that's been accepted as fact. What people see when they notice changes in an animal's structure is called adaptation. The missing link is still missing folks. New research proves that modern man isn't even in the same family as most of the fossils they have found of primitive hominids, and some of those fossils were proven to be hoaxes, if I remember correctly piltdown man was one of those.

Now onto the big bang. So if before there was time, and space and matter there was all these quantum strings that suddenly violently condensed to form sub atomic particles and in turn further condense into matter and the expansion of this created space and time.. then where did the quantum strings come from? And what caused them to suddenly form the universe. If they were always there then we have to assume that there was no reason for them to suddenly become active, unless the act of them creating themselved caused themselves to condense in this big bang that created everything. No physicist has ever explained to me how this doesn't violate the laws of physics. You remember the ones they taught you in highschool that said an object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by an outside force, and vice versa? So what was the outside force in the big bang and where did it come from?
Nothing I've read on physics can explain this. they're left scratching their heads.

I believe in God because if one explination is as good as another I would rather believe that there's something else out there that made me out of an act of love and intension rather than everything just being random, and there's rhyme or reason to the universe s**t just happens deal with it. That's rather a cold and bleaque outlook on life don't you think? Maybe that's easy for some of you to accept, and keeps you from having to think too much about things that no one can answer, but I'm not that shallow.

Now if you do the research, there IS evidence of a spiritual reality. Religion is insignifigant. It's a man made tool to monopolize God. My religion is true and yours isn't so God is on my side and not on your side. That's human thinking, that's not God's thinking.

I can't deny that when it comes to BOTH God and science, there are thousands of questions that we can not answer. It's just a matter of which you choose.

But look at is this way, If there is a God, and you don't believe, you're screwed when it comes to the afterlife. But if there is no God, and you Do believe, then there's no afterlife and you're not loosing anything by believing in God.

Eloquently stated! Your gonna get flack for it, but very well said!! You have said what I have failed to be able to say. If there was a clapping smiley face I'd use it here. 3nodding

[defenestrated]

my bestfriends a toilet

I don't believe in evolution. Here's why. It doesn't follow any real predictable path. If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago?

First of all we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, not from the apes we see today. As to why we haven't seen other species follow our line of evolution - why would they evolve the same way we did?

Quote:

And how exactly does nothing evolve into something. I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish, and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

That's abiogenesis, which strictly speaking is not a part of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place.

We have evidence of mutation and speciation, actually.

Quote:

Evolution is a theory that's been accepted as fact. What people see when they notice changes in an animal's structure is called adaptation. The missing link is still missing folks. New research proves that modern man isn't even in the same family as most of the fossils they have found of primitive hominids, and some of those fossils were proven to be hoaxes, if I remember correctly piltdown man was one of those.

Absolutely there have been some hoaxes and absolutely we still have much to learn and the science changes as new discoveries are made. There is a massive difference between that and the position you're presenting that ignores the mountains of evidence aside from that and treats gaps in our current understanding as an indictment of the theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory that can be treated as fact, yes. We're dealing with the scientific definition of "theory", not the colloquial definition, so I fail to see the problem.

[Katherine1]

my bestfriends a toilet

I don't believe in evolution. Here's why. It doesn't follow any real predictable path. If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago?

Because Evolution is not a linear process with us as the end result. We are just one of many branches.

Quote:

And how exactly does nothing evolve into something. I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish, and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

Evolution does not address the origin of life, nor does it need to. That's like asking the Theory of Gravity to explain where mass came from. There is another theory called "Abiogenesis" which is trying to explain how organic life can come from inorganic processes. It shows promise.

Quote:

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place.

We have observed speciation, we have observed changes in creatures. Evolution can and is observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation: [1][2]
Observed Instances of Evolution: [1][2]
Fossil Evidence detailing the changes over time [1]

Other Good References:
Evidence and Testing In the Scientific Field
Is "Intelligent Design" different than Creationism?
The Failure of "Irreducible Complexity"
Entropy, Evolution, the Big Bang, and the Second Law
[******** are ID Proponents/Creationists Intellectually Dishonest?

Quote:

Evolution is a theory that's been accepted as fact. What people see when they notice changes in an animal's structure is called adaptation.

Evolution is adaptation. Stop trying to erect a division that doesn't exist.

Quote:

The missing link is still missing folks.

No it isn't. Evidence and Testing In the Scientific Field

Quote:

New research proves that modern man isn't even in the same family as most of the fossils they have found of primitive hominids, and some of those fossils were proven to be hoaxes, if I remember correctly piltdown man was one of those.

Give citations for this claim. Now.

Quote:

Now onto the big bang. So if before there was time, and space and matter there was all these quantum strings that suddenly violently condensed to form sub atomic particles and in turn further condense into matter and the expansion of this created space and time.. then where did the quantum strings come from? And what caused them to suddenly form the universe. If they were always there then we have to assume that there was no reason for them to suddenly become active, unless the act of them creating themselved caused themselves to condense in this big bang that created everything. No physicist has ever explained to me how this doesn't violate the laws of physics. You remember the ones they taught you in highschool that said an object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by an outside force, and vice versa? So what was the outside force in the big bang and where did it come from?
Nothing I've read on physics can explain this. they're left scratching their heads.

The big bang says that at one point the entire universe existed at one single point, before it began to expand. What happened before then? The current Laws of Physics break down at super high energy densities. We can't predict what the inside of a black hole is like, much less a singularity containing the entire universe.

Quote:

I believe in God because if one explination is as good as another I would rather believe that there's something else out there that made me out of an act of love and intension rather than everything just being random, and there's rhyme or reason to the universe s**t just happens deal with it. That's rather a cold and bleaque outlook on life don't you think? Maybe that's easy for some of you to accept, and keeps you from having to think too much about things that no one can answer, but I'm not that shallow.

Where does science preclude the existence of any supernatural entity? Science does not touch the supernatural because it cannot be proven or disproven. Why must accepting science mean you must give up your religion?

Quote:

Now if you do the research, there IS evidence of a spiritual reality. Religion is insignifigant. It's a man made tool to monopolize God. My religion is true and yours isn't so God is on my side and not on your side. That's human thinking, that's not God's thinking.

Show me this research then.

Quote:

I can't deny that when it comes to BOTH God and science, there are thousands of questions that we can not answer. It's just a matter of which you choose.

Why must one be chosen over the other? One explains the natural world, the other explains the supernatural world (or spiritual, if you prefer)

Quote:

But look at is this way, If there is a God, and you don't believe, you're screwed when it comes to the afterlife. But if there is no God, and you Do believe, then there's no afterlife and you're not loosing anything by believing in God.

And if you believe in the wrong god you are screwed. In the end, most or all of humanity is screwed if you play by those rules. Who knows if there is anything after death. I don't know, you don't know. No one knows.

[SomeGuy1235]

my bestfriends a toilet

eah that's the most common answers I hear. There's either no God because we can't put God under a microscope and study him, or I don't believe in God because he didn't just make my life perfect because I believed in it.

I don't believe in evolution. Here's why. It doesn't follow any real predictable path.

While there are actually some trends that can be followed, what exactly does this prove anyway? So because you can't predict something perfectly, it can't be true? Certainly you can't predict everything God is going to do in the future; only God can.

my bestfriends a toilet

If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man

Ah, now I understand why you don't "believe" in it; you don't understand it. Humans did not evolve from apes, humans are apes. If you think we evolved from some other existing primate, you are still wrong. We share a common ancestor, but that ancestor does not exist anymore.

my bestfriends a toilet

is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago?

Again, no understanding of how evolution works at all. At least try to understand the concept before attempting to disprove it.

my bestfriends a toilet

And how exactly does nothing evolve into something.

Where, in the theory of evolution, does it say that there was "nothing" in the Earth?

my bestfriends a toilet

I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish,

There were compounds that are necessary parts of life today. One of the current working theories is that environmental conditions and the introduction of some new compounds(possibly through one of the hundreds of asteroids that have struck our planet) caused those compounds to form in ways that led to the development of genes.

my bestfriends a toilet

and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

I'm glad all your evolutionary knowledge comes from Jurassic Park.

my bestfriends a toilet

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place.

Evolution takes place today. Want to know why you have to get a new flu shot every year? Evolution in action. What is most of our medical knowledge based on? Evolution.

my bestfriends a toilet

Evolution is a theory that's been accepted as fact.

All of science is theory, nothing is fact because there is always the chance to be wrong. Even something you're sure you know could be entirely wrong. It is not the job of science to ascertain absolute truth; it is the job of science to reduce the margin of error. So far, evolution has the smallest margin of error of any theory in that area.

my bestfriends a toilet

What people see when they notice changes in an animal's structure is called adaptation.

Part of evolution. If you admit that species adapt to fit environments, how do you not agree that this can happen many times, to the point where the resulting species and the original species are quite distinct?

my bestfriends a toilet

The missing link is still missing folks.

Again, poor knowledge. "Missing link" is a popularized term for "transitional fossil". It does not mean there is some break in only our chain that renders all evolution worthless, it is applied to the transition stages of our evolution, which we have discovered(Homo erectus, Sinanthropus pekinensis, etc.). The term came from the nineteenth century, when everyone thought that finding a "missing link" between humans and "lower" animals would finally prove evolution(we've come a long way since then.)

my bestfriends a toilet

New research proves that modern man isn't even in the same family as most of the fossils

Care to show us any of that "research"? I'm going to guess it is not actual research, but someone else's research presented through a creationist filter.

my bestfriends a toilet

they have found of primitive hominids, and some of those fossils were proven to be hoaxes, if I remember correctly piltdown man was one of those.

Wow, they disproved fossils gathered in 1912. Is that how recent your "research" gets?

my bestfriends a toilet

Now onto the big bang. So if before there was time, and space and matter there was all these quantum strings that suddenly violently condensed to form sub atomic particles and in turn further condense into matter and the expansion of this created space and time.. then where did the quantum strings come from?

Again, sounds like you don't know what the Big Bang is. The Big Bang was a series of observations that suggested the universe is expanding. Considering that, then the universe must have been smaller/denser at some point in time, and further observations support that. The Big Bang is not perfect, but it is one of the best we have. The point is that people are still researching it. With Creationism, there is no further research, there is the absolute assumption of fact, which is flawed. For those of you not really gung-ho "the Bible is the literal story of how the world was made", you might want to take a step back and realize that the Big Bang theory does nothing to disprove God in any way.

my bestfriends a toilet

And what caused them to suddenly form the universe. If they were always there then we have to assume that there was no reason for them to suddenly become active, unless the act of them creating themselved caused themselves to condense in this big bang that created everything. No physicist has ever explained to me how this doesn't violate the laws of physics.

1. What physicists do you talk to? Do you have an in with really good ones, are are you just talking some teachers?
2. Can they not explain it, or can you not understand their explanation?

my bestfriends a toilet

You remember the ones they taught you in highschool that said an object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by an outside force, and vice versa?

Who says the universe is, or ever has been at rest?

my bestfriends a toilet

So what was the outside force in the big bang and where did it come from?

From what I understand, energy can be changed to mass and vice versa without any loss under the right conditions.

my bestfriends a toilet

Nothing I've read on physics can explain this.

What have you read?

my bestfriends a toilet

they're left scratching their heads.

So they can either continue researching to either improve or finally throw out the theory, or they can just stick with what they have and say "this is the final answer, completely, because we've put it down in these books." Hm, what C theory does this sound like?

my bestfriends a toilet

I believe in God because if one explination is as good as another

If you can qualify explanations. However, they are not as "good" as each other in terms of ability to be backed up by observations.

my bestfriends a toilet

I would rather believe that there's something else out there that made me out of an act of love and intension rather than everything just being random, and there's rhyme or reason to the universe s**t just happens deal with it.

Really? I think it's exactly the opposite. In one scenario, the universe is governed by unthinking, unbias rules of physics and chemistry that can be observed and understood. In the other scenario, the universe is governed by a bias intelligence that can choose to do whatever it wishes; that can never be fully understood and that does not have to obey any of these laws of physics or chemistry to achieve whatever goal it seeks. That's scares the crap out of me.

my bestfriends a toilet

That's rather a cold and bleaque outlook on life don't you think?

For you, perhaps, because you're used to picturing a God behind everything. I'm used to not picturing any sort of God, and I don't think the world has any less value to me.

my bestfriends a toilet

Maybe that's easy for some of you to accept, and keeps you from having to think too much about things that no one can answer, but I'm not that shallow.

Wow, that's funny. Like, to the point where I have to wonder if you are serious or not. You are that shallow; not having to think too much about things that can't be answered is exactly what you do. The scientific person develops hypotheses and makes observations and experiments to either support or discredit them. The religious person attributes everything to a God and leaves it at that. The scientific person assumes he will never be 100% correct but strives to get as close as possible. The religious person assumes that he is already 100% correct and strives for nothing.

my bestfriends a toilet

Now if you do the research, there IS evidence of a spiritual reality.

Of course, you can provide that evidence. It's not our responsibility to do it for you.

my bestfriends a toilet

Religion is insignifigant. It's a man made tool to monopolize God. My religion is true and yours isn't so God is on my side and not on your side. That's human thinking, that's not God's thinking.

I can't deny that when it comes to BOTH God and science, there are thousands of questions that we can not answer. It's just a matter of which you choose.

But look at is this way, If there is a God, and you don't believe, you're screwed when it comes to the afterlife. But if there is no God, and you Do believe, then there's no afterlife and you're not loosing anything by believing in God.

That is actually a famous set of predictions, someone trying to prove that the best possible choice is to believe in God. However, one could make the argument that if you believe in God and there is no God, then you've wasted your life following rules and restricting what you actually wanted to do. One cannot simply make themselves believe in something, so I'm left to assume that "believe in God" can mean "practice the tenets of a certain religion", which often restrict pleasures of a worldly nature.

[SomeGuy1235]

Tlara

Eloquently stated! Your gonna get flack for it, but very well said!!

Please do not encourage self-victimization.

[Tommy Trojan]

Tlara

Tommy Trojan

As for the begining, I don't really care of the etymology of Genesis.

As for the second part, Jehova/God inspired writings are not credible.

I agree with the third part in respect that writing did take place at a very early time.

Gensis copies the (saying it once more)older Sumerian religion. Nearly every religion in history has its own form of Genesis. The Sumerion version of Genesis is known as Enuma Elish, which pre-dates Judeo-Christian original scriptures. Look into it.

I did read it. It states probably written before Nebucanezzer(I know I spelt that wrong) I see no where that says the Sumer area was the first populated.

Do you remember where Babylon came from?

Tower of Babel

The article follows the stance of the Bible being myth, but its interesting reading.
Funny how the Bible can name so many rulers, but secular information disbelieves it. Oh well they didnt believe Belshazzar existed till they found it in stone, but it was there in the bible.....

Encyclopedia Britannica- Babylon

Babylon was the name given to them, not what they named themselves. Just as when Colombus came and called Native Americans "Indian." Its just a name, he didn't come as an expert saying: Oh they're Cree, Cherokee, etc.

As for more on Sumeria, look into the website. I'm sure you'll find more.

[Arapuff]

Err... few things first! heart I'm sorry about the lateish reply, I barely got any time on the computer the past few days, and this proved to be a rather length response.... x.x" And, for all of you who don't feel like reading a lot, the following post is reaaaaaaaaaaaalllly long, so just skip past it. razz

Tlara

The Bible is a historical book, preeminently so among ancient writings. The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. Thus, the ancient document known as The Sumerian King List begins: “When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu. (In) Eridu, A-lulim (became) king and ruled 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings (thus) ruled it for 64,800 years. . . . (In) Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-Anna ruled 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna ruled 28,800 years; the god Dumu-zi, a shepherd, ruled 36,000 years. Three kings (thus) ruled it for 108,000 years.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 265.

Hm.... okay... the Bible may be based on the history of the Jewish people, but... how is it necessarily set apart from the other culture's histories/myths? (Not to be rude or anything sweatdrop ). I forget the exact number, but doesn't the Bible say Adam (and a lot of other people) lived for hundreds of years? Why is that any more (or less) believable than the Sumerian kings ruling for the length? smile ::edit:: Okay, I saw someone else asked this too, but... that wasn't a very good answer. Can you answer that in a bit more detail? confused Why is it more believable because Moses only choose 900-some years, instead of a few thousand? Both are nigh impossible....

Quote:

What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.

Ahh, a big paragraph and a lot to address. smile I'm not sure when this was written (or researched), but the thing about archeological records are that they keep growing as more and more things keep being discovered. So, yes, while the most obvious things come from monuments and temple/tomb walls (for example), there are more and more of the common things found yearly (not to mention the odd tome or hidden temple that pops up from time to time). The thing is.... you (or whatever you're paraphrasing smile ) say that "the vast majority of [them] are religious texts or business documents." The Bible would fit into the "religious text" category, so... why should that be considered any different? smile And perhaps I need to brush up on my Bible contents again, but... isn't a rather sizeable portion of the Old Testament a record (or retelling) of the battles fought, won and lost, by God's Chosen, and the prophets and all? Surely that must be on par with the military histories and the lives of the emperors in secular history.... And you have to admit that the language the Bible uses (especially depending on what version you are reading), while beautiful, is quite grandiose at times…. razz

Quote:

The Bible, by contrast, gives an unusually coherent and detailed history stretching through some 4,000 years, for not only does it record events with remarkable continuity from man’s beginning down to the time of Nehemiah’s governorship in the fifth century B.C.E. but also it may be considered as providing a basic coverage of the period between Nehemiah and the time of Jesus and his apostles by means of Daniel’s prophecy (history written in advance) at Daniel chapter 11. The Bible presents a graphic and true-to-life account of the nation of Israel from its birth onward, portraying with candor its strength and its weaknesses, its successes and its failures, its right worship and its false worship, its blessings and its adverse judgments and calamities. While this honesty alone does not ensure accurate chronology, it does give sound basis for confidence in the integrity of the Biblical writers and their sincere concern for recording truth.

Hm…. This seems to take it for a fact that the Bible is 100% correct in its history and timelines… honestly the only part I agree with is what I put in bold. smile

Quote:

Detailed records were manifestly available to Bible chroniclers, such as the writers of First and Second Kings and of First and Second Chronicles. This is seen by the lengthy genealogies they were able to compile, amounting to many hundreds of names; also the connected and factual presentation of the reigns of each of the kings of Judah and Israel, including their relations with other nations and with one another. Modern historians still express uncertainty as to the correct positioning of certain Assyrian and Babylonian kings, even some in the later dynasties. But there is no such uncertainty regarding the sequence of the kings of Judah and Israel.

*shrugs* Just because the genealogies (whether or not they are true) were written down doesn’t mean the writers of the Bible were the only ones who could do that. I realize it’s out of the geographical area we’re talking about, but the skalds of the Scandinavian countries prided themselves on being able to retell a king’s complete genealogy; it’s not restricted to just the Bible authors. smile How do you know the presentation of the reigns is “factual?” And please, cite a reliable, secular source that says that “Modern historians still express uncertainty as to the correct positioning of certain Assyrian and Babylonian kings, even some in the later dynasties.” Heh… even a less vague term would work, and I’ll do the research myself: what kings, exactly, do they contest? smile

Quote:

Archaeological Dating. Dating methods based on artifacts found in excavations are discussed under the heading ARCHAEOLOGY. Briefly, it may be said that, in the absence of actually dated inscriptions, dating by artifacts such as pottery shards can never be more than comparative. That is, the archaeologist can only say that ‘this particular stratum and its contents in this mound evidently belong to the same general period as a certain stratum in that mound (or before it or after it).’ Thus a general chronological sequence is built up, but always subject to correction and change, the changes sometimes amounting to hundreds of years. For example, in 1937 archaeologist Barton assigned “Early Bronze Age” pottery to the period 2500-2000 B.C.E., whereas in the following year W. F. Albright listed the same period as 3200-2200 B.C.E.

Ah-hah, my favourite part. smile Yes, of course things can be dated like that, and are probably done so when immediately discovered, as a way of keeping things straight. However, that whole argument is just one big strawman. smile The people doing the dating are highly trained, and can tell something belong to a time period from another thing from a different time period. In addition, relative dating (as described above) is not the only way scientists and archaeologists have of dating things by far; I’m sure someone else that is more scientifically-minded can point you out to a list of the different ways, but I can offer one up to you right now – carbon dating. smile Research the types of dating (outside of church documents) and enjoy. smile

Quote:

Hence, as G. Ernest Wright stated: “In this area we can seldom work with certainties. Instead, it is necessary to construct hypotheses which always possess greater or lesser degrees of probability. The truth in them rests upon their [the archaeologists’] ability to interpret and hold together a variety of disparate data, but new information at any moment may make it necessary to change a given hypothesis, or cause a scholar to express it somewhat differently.”—Shechem, The Biography of a Biblical City, 1965, foreword p. xvi.

*grins* Isn’t always questioning something better than accepting it blindly? smile Archaeologists, museum curators, professors, other similar professionals… all of them verify things of this nature – it’s called peer review. If something is generally accepted as belonging to a certain reign, or a certain dynasty, then it is presented as so. If new facts pop up and prove it further (or disprove it), the new facts are taken into consideration. Yes, some things have been changed throughout the years because of it, but isn’t that better? You’re more assured of a more correct fact that way. smile

Quote:

Further illustrating this is a statement in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, edited by Robert Ehrich, printed in 1965 to supersede an earlier work of 1954, and containing a compendium of views on “the floating network of relative chronologies” as expressed by prominent archaeologists. The foreword (p. vii) says: “The purpose of this book is to present, in series, the chronologies of various contiguous areas as they appear in 1964 to the eyes of regional specialists. Despite the new information, the over-all situation is still fluid, and forthcoming data will render some conclusions obsolete, possibly even before this volume appears in print.” This may be kept in mind when evaluating the dates archaeologists give for the age of certain cities, such as Jericho, or the period to which they assign the conquest of Palestine by Israel.

*sigh* It is a fact that scientific things (yes, archaeological findings and all count under that smile ) get outdated fast… that’s why most decent classrooms have textbooks printed within the past few years, a lot of colleges require you to retake science classes if you go for a degree more than a certain amount of years after your last science class, etc… The mere fact that they point this out instead of saying “THIS IS TRUTH! FORGET EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTER IT, FOR ‘TIS LIES!” is rather nice. smile

Quote:

[Fate’s note: *info on dates, please see the page 11 for the original post, because this is getting really long* >_> ]

*sigh* And yes, I realize that’s how the dates are set in the Bible, but…. Honestly, what proof do you have (other than the Bible, and the theological books that are based on the Bible) to prove that the date of Neb’s reign and the fall of Jerusalem is true? smile (I still have to figure out what the Bible’s passage would mean in real-time, it could very well come out to 586BC *shrugs).

But I mean, honestly… what would it originally do to the prophecy for it to happen 21 years later? If you take 1914 (from the original prophecy you pointed out) and add 21 to it, you get 1935… rather convenient with Nazi Germany and all, I’d think that would be an easier target than WWI, but that’s just me. confused

*shrugs* But, perhaps I missed some important info. smile Where did you get what you posted from? The title, author? Is it findable online, or will I have to go to my library to find it? smile

And not to be rude or mean or anything, but I would appreciate it if you responded with your own words, not just copy/pastin things this time around.... smile

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

I heart Misguided Fate and her smilies.

[Arapuff]

John Calvin

I heart Misguided Fate and her smilies.

*bows and blushes* biggrin

[Tlara]

As to where to find the book, its probably at your local library. Its Insight on the Scriptures. Under chronology. Its very detailed and I only gave you a small part of what they had, its like 10-12 pgs long. I hope you find it interesting.

[Arapuff]

Tlara

As to where to find the book, its probably at your local library. Its Insight on the Scriptures. Under chronology. Its very detailed and I only gave you a small part of what they had, its like 10-12 pgs long. I hope you find it interesting.

Thankies for the title. Who's the author? smile

[Harvested Sorrow]

Another book that's related to this topic is The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein, since we're naming books now.

[jaden kendam]

my bestfriends a toilet

eah that's the most common answers I hear. There's either no God because we can't put God under a microscope and study him, or I don't believe in God because he didn't just make my life perfect because I believed in it.

Those are probably strawmen arguments. So what?

my bestfriends a toilet

If we're to assume that our evolution from ape to man is a common process then why haven't other species on earth which have been here far longer than apes have evolved into people long ago?

Different strain? Different path of evolution? Geeze, even a fifth grader could think of that.

my bestfriends a toilet

And how exactly does nothing evolve into something.

Not part of evolution? Abiogenesis does not equal evolution.

my bestfriends a toilet

I'm talking about before there were micro organisms to evolve into fish, and fish to evolve into dinosaurs and dinosaurs to evolve into birds?

Archeopteryx, though the spelling is horid, it is still a link.

Look Here

Some look at the Dimetrodon as being mamillian in the way its heart is set up.

my bestfriends a toilet

The truth is you can't prove evolution anymore than you can prove God because no one lives long enough to actually watch evolution take place.

HIV and Avian Flu are prime examples of things that have evolved.

my bestfriends a toilet

Now if you do the research, there IS evidence of a spiritual reality.

Prove it.

my bestfriends a toilet

Religion is insignifigant. It's a man made tool to monopolize God.

What about those religions that do not worship YHWH? Or those who do not have a god at all?

my bestfriends a toilet

that's not God's thinking.

So, you speak for God now?

my bestfriends a toilet

But look at is this way, If there is a God, and you don't believe, you're screwed when it comes to the afterlife.

Same can be said for just about any God.

But answer me this, if you believe in YHWH but not evolution, then how come you are making God look non-powerful?