Originally posted by josephw
You folks don't get it!

If man had been around prior to 6000 years ago the archaeological remains of civilization would exstend futher back than just 6000 years. And not just a few smatterings of paint on the wall of a cave.

A few smatterings of paint? Have you seen the Lascaux paintings? It ranks with the best of modern art.

In any case, there is plenty of archeological evidence. You might try some background reading -- Wikipedia, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

Originally posted by josephw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian

Okay, I did. I know you trust the science behind the research, but I don't. The science behind the research cannot be relied upon with absolute confidence. No matter how advanced or technologically equipped science may be, it cannot be infallible. We are just not that smart. There's too much we don't know.

Indeed there is a lot we don't know. But we know a lot more than we would if we stuck solely to the bible.

Science, in this case anthropology, does not claim to be infallible. That doesn't mean we cannot gain knowledge about past cultures. Even if 50% of the current theories are wrong, it still means 50% are right. Your problem is that you refuse to accept any amount of evidence that does not fit into your preconceived notion of the past, regardless of how abundant it may be.

Originally posted by rwingett
Indeed there is a lot we don't know. But we know a lot more than we would if we stuck solely to the bible.

Science, in this case anthropology, does not claim to be infallible. That doesn't mean we cannot gain knowledge about past cultures. Even if 50% of the current theories are wrong, it still means 50% are right. Your problem is that you refuse to acc ...[text shortened]... does not fit into your preconceived notion of the past, regardless of how abundant it may be.

Just out of curiosity, where in the Bible does it say that it is infallible?

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiosity, where in the Bible does it say that it is infallible?

Talk to josephw, not me. He's the one who seems to think it's infallible. I certainly don't.

Originally posted by rwingett
Talk to josephw, not me. He's the one who seems to think it's infallible. I certainly don't.

Don't get me wrong, many interpret the Bible to be "infallible", however, it does not make this claim itself as far as I know. What I do know is that it is based in truth and is for the most part reliable truth. There is a difference. Just ask Biblical archaeologists.

I think that many Christians adopt the "infallible" concept of the Bible, however, know that this is an interpretation of what scripture says rather than it saying this about itself. I think many Christians end up worshipping the Bible in the same way Muslim worship the Quran in that it is flawless and if one so much as sneeze with a Quran in the room they should be beheaded!!!

Originally posted by whodey
Don't get me wrong, many interpret the Bible to be "infallible", however, it does not make this claim itself as far as I know. What I do know is that it is based in truth and is for the most part reliable truth. There is a difference. Just ask Biblical archaeologists.

I think that many Christians adopt the "infallible" concept of the Bible, however, kno ...[text shortened]... s flawless and if one so much as sneeze with a Quran in the room they should be beheaded!!!

So what's your point? Are there cultures older than 6,000 years, or are there not? Is josephw an idiot, or is he not?

Originally posted by josephw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian

Okay, I did. I know you trust the science behind the research, but I don't. The science behind the research cannot be relied upon with absolute confidence. No matter how advanced or technologically equipped science may be, it cannot be infallible. We are just not that smart. There's too much we don't know.

How much do you know about science?

Do you use a cell phone?

Science.

Do you eat food?

Science.

Are you typing on a computer?

Science.

Medicine?

Science.


EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How much do you know about science?

Do you use a cell phone?

Science.

Do you eat food?

Science.

Are you typing on a computer?

Science.

Medicine?

Science.


EVERY aspect of your life is underpinned by science, yet you would deny that. I call that hypocrisy.

I don't know about the eating of food. They certainly ate in pre-scientific cultures. Are you referring to food processing?

Originally posted by josephw
You folks don't get it!

If man had been around prior to 6000 years ago the archaeological remains of civilization would exstend futher back than just 6000 years. And not just a few smatterings of paint on the wall of a cave.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/662794.stm

First hit on a google search.

500.000 years old.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know about the eating of food. They certainly ate in pre-scientific cultures. Are you referring to food processing?

The increased availability of food is based on science.

Also, the ability to transport fresh food over longer distances has been enabled by science.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The increased availability of food is based on science.

Also, the ability to transport fresh food over longer distances has been enabled by science.

I agree with the physical aspects of food science being a benefit; however the latest processed foods (last hundred years or so) has probably reduced lifespans rather than enhancing them, simply because the application of the science behind the processes have been subverted to enhancing profitability rather than providing food benefits...

Originally posted by snowinscotland
the latest processed foods (last hundred years or so) has probably reduced lifespans rather than enhancing them, simply because the application of the science behind the processes have been subverted to enhancing profitability rather than providing food benefits...

Do you have any research or evidence that this is true?

Lifespans have increased dramatically over the last hundred years or so. I'd be interested in actual evidence that processing food has somehow reduced them.

I do agree that there have been failures and that processed food is often not as good tasting (spray cheese doesn't even come close to a nice sharp cheddar), but I think you'd have to back that claim up if you want to claim that all processing has reduced lifespans.

Originally posted by josephw
The preponderance of evidence spanning the past 6000 years is clearly seen in the archaeological record. but it doesn't fade into the distant past as it appears it should if in fact we evolved.

Unless of course the was a sudden leap in evolution.

Or we could take a giant collection of fables and tales that have been translated umpteen times, hashed about by the church to suit public opion and hold them to be true from blind faith???

Science can be wrong but I think it is slightly more reliable than a book that was written centuries after the actual events happened, you may as well build a religion on fairytales.. or a science fiction novel 🙂

Anything that tells you just to have faith and not question is manufactured to control, if it all happened you should be able to question it and be confident it stands up to scrutiny. It should grow and develop not stifle and control. I wonder what God has to hide personally.

How many different version of the bible are they actually? And which is the right one? I'm guessing the answer to that would result in bloodshed. So much for acceptance and understanding of others.. yeah if you follow the same version of a book

Originally posted by rwingett
So what's your point? Are there cultures older than 6,000 years, or are there not? Is josephw an idiot, or is he not?

What I am saying is there appears to be evidence that there was a change in terms of how mankind kept track of his historical record that seems to have begun around the Biblical time of Adam. You may not agree with the time line regarding the age of the earth, however, the time line from Adam to present is not really disputed that much. I am not saying josephw is an idiot, on the contrary, I think he raises a valid point. There seems to have been a change of somkind regarding the human race around the time of Adam. Perhaps mankind physically appeared well before the time of Adam but had God breathed life into him or had man had a spirit-man breathed into him as of yet making him as we are today? Additionally, have we changed as a race since the time of Adam?

Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is there appears to be evidence that there was a change in terms of how mankind kept track of his historical record that seems to have begun around the Biblical time of Adam. You may not agree with the time line regarding the age of the earth, however, the time line from Adam to present is not really disputed that much. I am not saying jose ...[text shortened]... yet making him as we are today? Additionally, have we changed as a race since the time of Adam?

What??? Now you're jabbering on like someone from the Olduwan culture of the Lower Paleolithic. Or worse. What historical record is there for this supposed change in the keeping of historical records? Pray tell. When was this "time of Adam"? Was that during the Paleolithic era as well? Or earlier? Was "Adam" an Australopithecus or a Homo Habilis? Or something a little later, when we supposedly became fully human? Please regale us with your assembled physical evidence for your ground breaking theories.