jess

um, no. It is up to the archaeologist to catalouge it. It is an artifact, not a piece of historical evidence to an archaeologist. It is historical evidence to an historian.


Why should you be any different?


When I get the name and the paper, I will reference it to you. As I said, his prof is outa town. Normally is, but that is a different rant...

From what I remember, this being an interesting subject, and does branch into telephone, is that there is evidence that there are six seperatly developing mighty eves across Africa, of which we are relatives of one or more. There may be more than six in all, but they have found six. I will get back to you on this, but this thread will be dead by the time the prof gets back.

hundreds of thousands is what I heard.

I am glad to hear that--- since it would be like saying 'my english teacher is in agreement with my chiropracter here.' Archeologists are concerned ONLY with HUMAN remains and cultures. The age of the Earth is not their business...

And archaeology disagrees with scripture left and right... Like the walls of Jericho? Yes, they fell... several hundred years after the city had been abandoned.

Bait

Hi all (especially Di),
Ok....you got me....I can prove...nothing. :-(
What I believe is just that...belief. Why do I believe? I had got to a point in my life where nothing worked, etc...bottom of the barrel so to speak...a friend told me about Christ, I accepted, everything has been working great since. Based on faith...and feelings, and personal experience...things ya'll don't wish to recognise. I personally don't wish to argue with success...sooo. :-) And yes, you could say it could have been something on my own, something that I did...but on my own didn't work for me (neither did the eastern stuff)...this did (for me).

In a nutshell. I personally do not have a problem with anything in the Bible...you do, so ok. You got your point across. :-)
I said from the start I was in this strictly for the debate...you got me, you won the debate (cause I can't answer your tons of questions). (darn! still haven't figured out how to put those animated graemlins thingys here...so just imagine the one that's bowing...ok?)

Like I said, I don't have all the answers...just suppositions based on MY belief. I still do think some of the things I've seen you pick on is nit picking on matter that doesn't really change anything...IMHO. As to the summerizing on what I believe...(my belief now)well, for one our ancestor started the sin, brought it into the world...like a sickness. We are all infected by it at birth...and sin ourselves (there is a record of 3 who did not, was able to overcome sin...one died (Jesus), the other two were taken (Elijah and Enoch). Doesn't make sense to you? Ok...but it does to me.
For the record...I do believe the Bible to be the true word of God, inerrent, inspired...but I also recognise that some poor monk, trying to copy and translate exactly this work word for word, by hand, could have goofed in the translation/copying. Having been a draftsman, who has had to copy/write down hundreds of notes in one sitting of several days...I know how it could happen...very easily (especially if lack of sleep is involved). Course you don't recognise that either. But the original texts...I believe to be inerrant, perfect for their religious message, and historical accuracy. Just can't prove it (and maybe it's not meant for us to prove it...I don't know) And the message? That there is hope for us. Yes, there are some apparent conflicts I can not presently explain...or that I may not even understand. But then, I'm only human.
So my friends (and honestly, I hope there hasn't been any offense to anyone, and I can call you friends)...this exercise has only been intended to be in fun, for laughs...and has taught me a little (make that a lot) more about debate. I do have to give you all one thing...you're VERY good at debating.
Bests to all
(and I'll be back on...for the fun of it...if it's ok to you all)
Ron (the bait) van de Sandt

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

Kosh

OK, now we're down to the truth.

Woah.... I think we just witnessed a first! IIRC,
this the first creationist to have been man enough to admit that he couldn't defend his beliefs!

Hats off to you Ron.

Amazon

Hi Ron!
Whew...this thread has been quite the intellectual workout. I thought I would respond to your responses to my answers (did that make sense?) regarding some of the more general topics of faith.
Here we go:

Ron: "You state "But if the god-concept doen't make sense, etc." I would say it doesn't make sense TO YOU. It makes sense to me, partly because what I've read that "seems" to back up many of the biblical accounts, and partly of my own, personal, felt, experience. I read, for my own, things that convinced ME, then I believed. I talked to people that I trusted, and was convinced...Some of us "Christians" knows how this belief has worked for us, has improved our lives, and try to share with those we care about, to help them."

Amazon: I didn't mean to imply that Christianity doesn't make sense to anybody, I was only speaking for myself. You have obviously done some reading on the subject, but have you tried any books from a non-believing point of view? How I came to be an atheist was due partly to daring to read books whose perspectives disagreed with mine. If you choose not to do that, it's not criminal, but it's harder to debate on a subject without knowing the other team's side of the story.
As for Christians sharing the "good news", I am of the opinion that it is an arrogant intrustion on a very personal subject, if that sharing was not invited. Particularly because Christians have told me that they are commanded by the bible to spread the news far and wide, but that non-believers doing the same thing are "pushing their views". Obviously, that chaps my hide. I am not implying that you feel that way, that is just one of my reasons for my opinion.

Ron: "You show me what convinces you there is no God, I'll show you why I think there is. Faith is one item, to me, but I see evidence otherwise as well."

Amazon: Recently, I wrote out a short list of why I don't believe. Here are some of the items from that list:
1. "Miracles" - The everyday variety are what I am referring to. A miracle is something that cannot occur in nature. Have there been objective reports of events that absolutely can not occur in nature? Not to my knowledge. If something amazing happens, even with perfect timing, that has a natural explanation and has happened before, it is not a miracle - it is a rare event with nothing supernatural required to explain it. If a rare event has not yet been explained, I have confidence that an objective, falisfiable explanation will be discovered in time.
2. Attributing Events to a Deity - this is SO frustrating. Especially when good things are credited to god, but bad things are the fault of people. Case in point: The 11-yr-old girl abducted by her parochial school principal, taken across state lines, and perhaps sexually abused. She was found and rescued by vigilant, skilled police officers. Who did the parents thank for their daughter's return? God. Why didn't they also curse god for allowing her to be taken by one of his own minions?
Then there is life, in general. Flowers come from other flowers, not from god. Humans come from other humans, not from god. The colors of the sunset are refracted light, etc. The processes are well understood science and publicly available information for anyone who wishes to learn about it. Why do people say silly things like, "look at the lovely day god made for us?" It's willful ignorance, and I won't be party to it.
3. Harm is committed in the name of gods - this also comes in as my personal favorite for how to prove whether there is a god or not. Why would a god allow his creations to misrepresent him in such a horrible way? Can he not control the way he is used? Does he not care? Is it a game to him? If, suddenly, no one could do any harm to another person or animal in the name of a god, then I would be on the road to believing.

&gt;[/b]
Ron: "How do you know he doesn't met out corrections, or punishments to us on earth? Why do you say "obviously not during our lifetimes"? Just because we humans have what we view as "correct behaviour", and make laws regulating same, how is that connected to "Gods laws", and why would we not have them (human laws) as well, especially if some of those making the human laws have choosen to ignor Gods laws, or deny the existance of God himself? People die, get sick, have troubles, etc...may or may not be God's judgments/punishments, I personally do not know that they are, or are not, and choose to think that at times they probably are. What proof do you have that they are not? I personally think the final punishment is eternal though, I have no proof, other than faith, of this... what is your proof to the contrary?"

Amazon: My conclusion that a god does not mete out judgments or punishments on earth is that reward does not automatically match desert in people's lives. Devoted religionists who spend their entire lives helping other people still get stricken by horrible diseases and sudden tragic death when they could have done so much more for humanity by staying alive. People who oppress, lie, cheat, and steal still win the lottery and live to ripe old ages in reasonable health. If there was a just deity, how could he let such injustice exist? And since people are constantly asking that, why hasn't anyone come up with a good answer?
As for eternal punishment, why would a just deity punish a "soul" eternally for violating a sin or sins within a finite lifetime? Isn't that a little extreme?

Ron: "'Can't he clap his offenders out of existence?'Probably can, and will, but he has choosen to abide by his own laws. AND he has given us all freedom of choice. If he delays doing as you said, perhaps it's because his time is not the same as ours, and/or perhaps he's giving us a chance to choose. Notice I said perhaps, I don't know everything God has planned."

Amazon: This is a real sticky point with non-believers. The whole free will vs. omniscient being thing. If an omniscient being created a human, he would know whether or not that human would eventually turn away from him, yes? If the god didn't know, then it is not omniscient. You can't have both. So, what's the point of a creator punishing something it knew from the start would go against it's will? It sounds, also, that you are making excuses for delays, which implies that god makes errors. So is the god you believe in omniscient or not?

Ron: "Or did we, as free beings, disobey and make ourselves defective, damaged ourselves? Don't know if you have kids, but are you telling me that you would never punish them? With God out of the picture, that means YOU make your kids, did YOU intentionally make them defective, so you have to punish them? What aren't they born Rhodes scholars? Same basic argument you're using. We're his children, given freedom to choose, we chose badly, and now he's blamed for it."

Amazon: This goes back to free will vs. omniscience again. Also, we humans are subject to the same natural law as animals and plants. Genetics will sometimes result in imperfect offspring. If a perfect being was in charge, then I would expect much better quality of creation.

&gt;[/b]
Ron: "Or if one is convinced in the supernatural reasons, why is that so wrong? Why wait (for another reason) when one does not have to?"

Amazon: This seems to be one of the most difficult concepts to introduce to believers. How does the supernatural get inserted into any situation? Was god observably THERE? Did something impossible happen that is not explainable in nature? Coincidence is coincidence, no matter how unlikely.

Ron: "A concession? Albeit a little one? Anything is possible? Even perchance that the God of the bible could be real? Seriously, I really do not know the answer to this one. Perhaps he made us capable, and we don't use what's given to us, perhaps he gave us the answers, we just do not want to believe them, perhaps some of the "proofs" were there, and have been lost merely due to the passage of a great amount of time."

Amazon: I have a problem with the original assumption. I see no evidence of god that cannot also be explained in natural terms. The characteristics of the god of the bible - omniscient yet administering free will, omnipresent yet unobservable, unmeasureable, and silent, omnibenevolent, yet capable of extreme atrocities for petty reasons (teasing a bald guy, touching the ark of the covenant, etc.), and neglect defined as "his mysterious ways" - cannot co-exist. Either some of the definition is wrong, or that entity does not exist.

Ron: "Yet NOT ONE of you conceded that it is even possible, rather, I was ridiculed, and statements like the stone would have to be the size of a head or greater, and other such drivel was presented, as well as many attempts at humor at my expense. This is scientifically proving me wrong?"[/B]

Amazon: I hope my fellow infidels will allow me to apologize for us coming across as unwelcoming or intolerant. Feel free, infidels, to flame me if you intended to be hostile and don't want to be hospitable.
My posts can come off in an offensive tone, as well, and my excuse is that I am very isolated in a world of unbending superstition and I am constantly having to defend my position of non-belief. It gets frustrating having to enlighten people that atheism does not equal evil, that not sharing the mainstream view does not make me "lost".
I thank you for taking the time to defend your views here, and I hope you return.
One of my favorite quotes comes from a sitcom called "Sportsnight", starring Robert Guillaume. His character once said,
"When you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. When you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

Welcome, Ron.

Bait

Not a problem Kosh...see, told you I wasn't trying to convert you.
Seriously, I do like to debate...but I know when I'm in over my puny head, and done got wupped. Thought I'd take a crack at it though...maybe another time, another debate...neh? (wait till I get into the flood thing) :-) Most fun I've had getting my backside kicked in a loong time.:-)
Thanks folks.
Ron

Kosh

My favorite quote is from CSI (Crime Scene
Investigators... or as I call it Quincy in
the 21st century).

The episode where a dim witted "good catholic
alter boy" is under suspician for killing people
he finds at gas stations. His preist is talking
to the lead investigator, who's just found
invisible blood (using a special light) all the
kids upholstery.

Priest: "He didn't do it, my faith in God tells me that"

Grissom: "I'll put my faith in the science"

diana

Hey, Ron/Bait.

Just wanted to make sure you understood that you have a standing invitation here, so long as you conduct yourself like a gentleman (which you have). Throwing in the towel so early is quite rare and has caught us all by surprise, I'll warrant. We aren't used to people who graciously step out of the fight when they find themselves outmanned. We aren't sure how to take it.

Here you go. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I've always enjoyed the mental exercise that can only be had through debate, but when I first came here, all I knew how to do was argue. Stick around.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers...just suppositions based on MY belief.

And we appreciate the admission (if I may speak for the general population here) that they are suppositions. We aren't in the habit of assuming anything--a fact I think you've already picked up on. I will readily admit I had no idea how much I took for granted until I began arguing here, and I was already atheist, so I can't begin to imagine the shock Christians experience.

I still do think some of the things I've seen you pick on is nit picking on matter that doesn't really change anything...

We nitpick for a very simple reason: a Manual For Salvation must be reliable and believable if it comes from a merciful god--even the translations. (If it isn't reliable, the god's mercy is lacking, since we were given no other message from him.) But as much as you focus on translation error, the original text itself is indefensible.

Please stick around and engage at will. I recommend limiting any given discussion to a single thought, argument or passage. This should keep the responses down to a level where you can reasonably be expected to answer them.

d

Bait

Hi Diana and all,
Wait a minute folks...I said you got me, I concede that you've overwelmed, and I cannot "prove" my point...but didn't say I was quitting debating with ya'll. I've had too much fun. :-)

I still, after looking at some of the sites you people gave for me to look at...and still have questions myself. (BTW Amazon...I plan to get to your post...so don't think I'm off yet).

Here they are:
1. The URL I was sent to, had this gentleman start out as saying that it is "generally accepted" that the earth is ABOUT 4.5 Billion, accurate to about 1% (error). Sounds good on the surface, except 1% of 4.5 BILLION years is a couple of MILLION years...real accurate? And "generally accepted"?...does not sound like real scientific FACT to me...rather, more like an educated GUESS. And what about the fact that when the "scientist" tested a living molusk with carbon dating (the most used test of how old something is), the test showed it had died about 6,000 years ago. My point is that their testing only gives them an educated guess..nothing more.

2. He went on to explain how the various "proof" us Christians give to the descrepancies were incorrect, including the gap "theory". Ok...except he leaves out the entire 10th chapter of Genesis...where the gap occurs, and the gap is NOT picked up elsewhere in the Bible as he states.

3. He states that even if there was a gap, it could only be up to 13 generations. I put to you that 13 generations would be plenty enough time to place the flood over 4,000 years BCE...well before written history in either China OR Egypt...and also placing it near the time period that geologists have found layers of mud all around the world. But then this is a debate all in itself.

4. Genesis account says that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (resting on the 7th). This gentleman suggests that the Hebrew word indicates "day" being a 24 hour period, not eons...which I won't dispute. However, the book of Job says that to God,"A day is liken to a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day". IF you ASSUME (which I know you do not), for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve is a correct account, God told them that if they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they would die THAT DAY. Adam lived just under 1,000 years...one of God's days? In fact, up to Noah, most mentioned lived to just under 1,000 years...again, one of Gods days?

5. IF then one of God's days is a thousand years, and the 24 hour days did not begin to occur (be counted as such)until after Adam fell from grace (a supposition), then the heavens and earth were created in 6,000 years, plus another 1,000 years for God to rest, plus the 6,000 years that is a common argument as to how old the earth is. That is not counting that if you "suppose" Adams age did not start to be counted in 24 hour cycles until after his fall, how many of Gods days did he live BEFORE he fell? But not counting that last tidbit,that still equals 13,000 years, NOT 6,000. And that is NOT counting the possible "gaps" in the timeline of generations. It would be about 7,000+ years that man has been on the earth. How many years does scientists "generally accept" that man has been around?...10,000 years?

6.And that is not counting (something I had not thought of until I read the piece I was sent to)the fact of "how old was Adam two minutes after he was created?...answer:Two minutes...but he physically appeared older (as did EVE) because they were told to go out and populate the world (they then logically had to be at least of child bearing age, physically). God created them already appearing older, so would he not have done the same thing with the animals, the earth itself, the universe, etc.? If so, then that would make all of our scientific tests bogus right off the bat, would it not? So God COULD have created everything in six (24 hour)days, and everything would be as it appears now.

What I cannot reconcile is that even Einstein himself ended up having to admit that since the universe is finite (which he tried to dispute, but couldn't)....has a mathematically calculated end, then it logically has to have had a beginning (which could also be calculated). What was before the beginning? What caused the beginning? What did it look like before the beginning? (void?, empty? without form?)The only answer I can come up with is God...and if he (his life, being) can be thought of as like a circle in time (for lack of better analogy)...no beginning, no end, timeless...well, you can come to your own conclusions, use your own imaginations.


Finally...

&gt;&gt;&gt;Just wanted to make sure you understood that you have a standing invitation here, so long as you conduct yourself like a gentleman (which you have). Throwing in the towel so early is quite rare and has caught us all by surprise, I'll warrant. We aren't used to people who graciously step out of the fight when they find themselves &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;outmanned. We aren't sure how to take it.

Thank you Diana, I will continue to challenge...this last one I really do want to see your opinions. I cannot defend it, have no "proof" that would satisfy my worthy opponents on this list. But my, it should be fun.:-)

Bests to all,
Ron v.

Kosh

"I'm not dead yet!"
(why is it that Monty Python quotes are so
apropos in creation/evo debates?)

Ron, since this topic now focuses solely on the
age of the earth, I'm going to start a new
thread over in the Evolution/Creationism forum.

We've shown the common sense facts, etc, and you're
still insisting on the "but you could have
missed something" approach, so over in the other
forum are many experts who are much more informed
than myself or Diana (don't mean to speak for
you Diana) about the scientific basis of modern
geology, evolution, etc.

But I warn you... you're about to experience a
whole new level of "overwhelming"....

Edited to add: The topic at evo/creat is
"Care and Feeding of the Kitty..."

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

Muad'Dib

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000250" target="_blank">Care and feeding of the kitty</a>