• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Archaeology and Creationism

blutoski said:
That should have tipped anybody off that he was making stuff up. Lava cannot be carbon dated.

Carbon dating is for the remains of living things.
Click to expand...

And that also ignores the fact that carbon dating is useful up to about 50k years, not millions of years.
 
Ahhh...that's the point I was attempting to get acrossed. You guys are focusing on the example, not the meaning.
 
scotth said:
, I nominate your post as the most depressing thing I have read in 2006.
Click to expand...

I think in Denmark something like 80%+ of the population belongs to the official Evangelical Lutheran Church. Last time I checked, most Lutherans believe in creation.
 
Johnny Pixels said:
So my question was, do creationists distrust fossil evidence from palentology because America is lacking in more recent archeological evidence? In the same way you might dismiss higher mathematical proofs if you don't have any evidence of simpler ones.
Click to expand...

What does distrusting the fossil evidence have to do with archeology?
 
T'ai Chi said:
I think in Denmark something like 80%+ of the population belongs to the official Evangelical Lutheran Church. Last time I checked, most Lutherans believe in creation.
Click to expand...

As an allegory, yes.

No, T'ai, you will not be able to make it seem as if my country is populated by Creationists. The facts are, as usual, in your face. Along with a lot of egg.
 
T'ai Chi said:
I think in Denmark something like 80%+ of the population belongs to the official Evangelical Lutheran Church. Last time I checked, most Lutherans believe in creation.
Click to expand...
And therefore most Danes are creationists? Are we playing "Spot the faulty logic"?
 
skooob said:
And therefore most Danes are creationists? Are we playing "Spot the faulty logic"?
Click to expand...

No, we are playing "T'ai Chi wants to get back at Claus". No matter if T'ai Chi has to resort to use the most ridiculous arguments.
 
scotth said:
CFLarsen, I nominate your post as the most depressing thing I have read in 2006.

(of course, it is depressing in its original form with all the quoted material left in it, not my quote of it)
Click to expand...

Well, nominate the poll. I only posted it. :)
 
T'ai Chi- I've put in a request for a special Troll Rapture in advance of the standard one. Good bye.
 
Babylon Sister said:
What does distrusting the fossil evidence have to do with archeology?
Click to expand...

Well it was just an idea. I thought that maybe because there isn't as much archeological evidence in America people might not realise how much information you can get from such finds. Because archeology covers a period that can be related to written history it is esaier to show people that it is accurate, but with the fossil record then creationists can just use the "you weren't there" or "it's just one interpretation" arguments.
 
Johnny Pixels said:
Well it was just an idea. I thought that maybe because there isn't as much archeological evidence in America people might not realise how much information you can get from such finds. Because archeology covers a period that can be related to written history it is esaier to show people that it is accurate, but with the fossil record then creationists can just use the "you weren't there" or "it's just one interpretation" arguments.
Click to expand...
Uhm... Archeology is not restricted to periods covered by written history (note - I may have misunderstood your statement).

Anyway, the words "Clovis", "Monte Verde" and "Luzia" might be interesting... There archeological record in the Americas is quite rich and interesting IMHO, specially the ancient one. The records are just different from those found say, in the Middle East.
 
Correa Neto said:
Uhm... Archeology is not restricted to periods covered by written history (note - I may have misunderstood your statement).

Anyway, the words "Clovis", "Monte Verde" and "Luzia" might be interesting... There archeological record in the Americas is quite rich and interesting IMHO, specially the ancient one. The records are just different from those found say, in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Yes I think my initial idea probably could've done with some more research.

That'll learn me.
 
Correa Neto- I suspect you meant "Mesa Verde", not "Monte Verde".

I think Johnny Pixels' suggestion has merit. While there certainly is much prehistoric archaeology in America, I don't think it has the same place in public awareness that it does in Europe, where there is a longer span of historical archaeology. (The problem being that the line between history and prehistory in the Americas is drawn so much later.)

On the other hand, given the superb palaeontological evidence available in America, there is no excuse for the population being so ignorant of the argument for evolution.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Correa Neto- I suspect you meant "Mesa Verde", not "Monte Verde".

I think Johnny Pixels' suggestion has merit. While there certainly is much prehistoric archaeology in America, I don't think it has the same place in public awareness that it does in Europe, where there is a longer span of historical archaeology. (The problem being that the line between history and prehistory in the Americas is drawn so much later.)

On the other hand, given the superb palaeontological evidence available in America, there is no excuse for the population being so ignorant of the argument for evolution.
Click to expand...

Uhm, no. I was talking about Monte Verde, Chile, a 12.5ky - old human settlement (standard healthy debate still going on IIRC). Should have added Kennewick man instead of findings in South America to keep things within the original geographic context.
 
So lemme get this straight...

Let's DISTRUST anything we find that points to evolution, and refutes creationism...

But let's TRUST any silly scroll, document, or other evidence that helps to prove the Bible's account of history...

Not that the bible is completely untrue... it could be 100% historically accurate... just that the reasons for things happening have been attributed to the wrong entity.
 
i have a big problem with biblical archealogy becasue it seems to start from the premise that the bible is tright and everything we find will jsut back it all up even if the connection is extremly tenuous.
 
Dcdrac said:
i have a big problem with biblical archealogy becasue it seems to start from the premise that the bible is tright and everything we find will jsut back it all up even if the connection is extremly tenuous.
Click to expand...

Kinda like that shroud? :)
 
Dcdrac said:
i have a big problem with biblical archealogy becasue it seems to start from the premise that the bible is tright and everything we find will jsut back it all up even if the connection is extremly tenuous.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. Many biblical archaeologist are starting with a premise and looking to find evidence that supports their premise. That very much colors how you interpret what you find. Real archaeology looks at the finds and then tries to find correlates between sites that may point to larger trends in the culture. Interpretations are constantly being refined and the debates in archaeology on the nature and trends in different cultures is ongoing. You tend not to find this in biblical archaeolgy. They are generally less interested in understanding the culture and the forces that effected that culture than in trying to "prove" biblical occurances. Admittedly, this is not true of all archaeologists working in the Middle East. There is some very fine archaeology being done there..it just doesn't tend to be done by the "biblical" archaeologists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom