Spirituality
20 Aug 13
20 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThere seems to be a contradiction there. It says at the latitude of Göbekli Tepe, Sirius would have been below the horizon until around 9300 BC, when it would have suddenly popped into view. So why would they build a temple to worship this star before they could see it?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929303.400-worlds-oldest-temple-built-to-worship-the-dog-star.html#.UhK7A9LVDhE
INCONVENIENT SCIENCE - THE AGE OF MAN
The Instructor
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHinds9300 BC + 2013 AD = 11,313 years.
There seems to be a contradiction there. It says at the latitude of Göbekli Tepe, Sirius would have been below the horizon until around 9300 BC, when it would have suddenly popped into view. So why would they build a temple to worship this star before they could see it?
INCONVENIENT SCIENCE - THE AGE OF MAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOpGaEmdA6U
The Instructor
I know, math is hard.
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe thing that is so unusual about Göbekli Tepe, though, are some of the inscriptions on these stones. I've heard (I don't know because I haven't been there to see for myself) that some of the markings on the stones appear to resemble airplanes, helicopters and such technological items. Some people have gone so far as to claim that Göbekli Tepe was a spaceport. I say there's at least more there than meets the eye.
And not a day older🙂
I also believe that the dates claimed for Göbekli Tepe also would make it around the same time as the Great Pyramids at Giza (I know, modern archaeologists say they're much younger, but I think they (and the Sphinx) date back further, to around 10,000 years).
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThe markings are rather more likely to be representations of animals, since a simple representation of a bird could be mistaken for a plane. The sphinx could be that old, but not the pyramids; they only started building step pyramids in the first kingdom and the first true pyramid was built in the 4th dynasty.
The thing that is so unusual about Göbekli Tepe, though, are some of the inscriptions on these stones. I've heard (I don't know because I haven't been there to see for myself) that some of the markings on the stones appear to resemble airplanes, helicopters and such technological items. Some people have gone so far as to claim that Göbekli Tepe was a spac ...[text shortened]... much younger, but I think they (and the Sphinx) date back further, to around 10,000 years).
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by PenguinKudos to Suzianne generally, for being a thoughtful and intelligent poster, who stands, in my mind, as a shining example (with some others, and shining examples here in the past—such as lucifershammer and Nemesio) against attempts to paint all Christians (and folks of other religions) as “primitivist” (for lack of a better word at the present). I surely disagree with her more often than not (on religious matters), but I appreciate her presence here. (And she has always responded graciously to me, even when my posts were perhaps less gracious in their tenor than I generally try to be, and less than deserving of the kind of response she gave.)
Kudos to Suzianne for spotting that, and shame on the rest of us for missing it!
--- Penguin
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdI'll second that notion. AND she is a democrat🙂
Kudos to Suzianne generally, for being a thoughtful and intelligent poster, who stands, in my mind, as a shining example (with some others, and shining examples here in the past—such as lucifershammer and Nemesio) against attempts to paint all Christians (and folks of other religions) as “primitivist” (for lack of a better word at the present). I surely dis ...[text shortened]... eir tenor than I generally try to be, and less than deserving of the kind of response she gave.)
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdWhy thank you, vistesd!
Kudos to Suzianne generally, for being a thoughtful and intelligent poster, who stands, in my mind, as a shining example (with some others, and shining examples here in the past—such as lucifershammer and Nemesio) against attempts to paint all Christians (and folks of other religions) as “primitivist” (for lack of a better word at the present). I surely dis ...[text shortened]... eir tenor than I generally try to be, and less than deserving of the kind of response she gave.)
I'm one of those who think that the Biblical creation is merely an outline. It wasn't written for modern scholars so details are definitely lacking. I believe God engineered it, but that he used natural processes to accomplish his goals. Processes that are still at work today. I believe this is critical to understanding the God of the Bible. Free will is a necessary component of Christianity and God needed to create in such a fashion as to make it all look like a natural process, and what better way than to do precisely that, using natural processes to do the heavy lifting of creation. This is why creation took billions of years, not merely 6,000 years. If God just spent a week of 24-hour days waving his magic wand around, there would be leaps in the evolutionary and geological records, and no such leaps exist (except maybe for natural calamities, such as the K-T boundary layer.) Christians with this mindset that God just waved his magic wand and poof there were humans limit God unnecessarily, yet they turn around and profess that God can do anything. I think science has a place alongside religion, for both are true. Those who take only one side limit God to the very small box their mind resides in.
Instead of "primitivist" might I say "fundamentalist"? This is why I claim that I am not a fundamentalist, even though I do believe some of the Bible is not merely allegory, but fact. I guess some of the 'not-so-generous' forumites might call me a 'cherry-picker', which doesn't bother me too much at all. I understand your sentiment, though, that some of the most zealous adherants of a religion like Christianity shun science and so appear to be uneducated or ignorant. Fortunately, this is not required in order to be a Christian.
I think most of our disagreeement on religious matters is probably because I don't accept non-dualism in nearly any form. Because of this, I find non-God religions like Buddhism to be weak. (As always, this is just my opinion, in case anyone decides to become offended.)
But all that aside, thank you for the kind words. You flatter me, nearly to the point of giving me more credit than I deserve.