Well that proves it then
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
I didn't vandalise the page. Changing Wikipedea 'for a laugh' is not exactly clever, is it?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
er...man has been around for at most 200,000 years, and to be honest Homo sapiens sapiens for only about 50,000 years. Prior to that our ancestors were other homonids that hadn't quite got to the sapiens. And as for evidence then there is plenty of pre 8000bc human traces, like at Chauvet and Lascaux, these are 35,000 years old, so could be considered the original "Old Masters" :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
The wee OR had vandalised the page. It was orignially 8000bc as per the cited source, but numpty felt changing it was 'funny'.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
ryanb31 wrote:
doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years?
Not really. I use to think, wow are sociecty creates so much stuff/waste that if there were some 'almost' event (astriod etc.) certainly after the smoke cleared, some evidence would be found. However, in the recent years there is more and more a push for green and parts that easily break down. This is likely to continue even more so. This means in a few hundred years it may be possible for a exitinctional event to occur, that would cause all records of our societies to be erased (espeacially in a digital era). And in addition to that, it is also possible that societies exist with out simply having so much 'stuff'. Some societies may have existed and prospered with out becoming so consumed with obtianing stuff. Essentially, they avoided the key concept of capitalism (good or bad... doesn't matter) But more importantly is what we have seen in the last millenium. During war and assimilation cultures destroy other cultures items. They do not look to them first and say "hey look at this, proof that our beliefs are wrong". They instead started large bonfires and burned everything (and everyone for that matter) they could find, leaving no trace behind. In fact, they would not even record they burned anything or found anyone in some cases. History is written and more importanly re-written by the victor.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
The wee OR had vandalised the page. It was orignially 8000bc as per the cited source, but numpty felt changing it was 'funny'.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
jschell wrote:
If one starts with the assumption
And that is the nub of the problem. Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool. Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you? Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove. In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
But all of you so called intellectuals who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?" Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth. You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there. You cannot prove that. The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science. Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
-
But all of you so called intellectuals who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?" Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth. You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there. You cannot prove that. The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science. Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about. At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology. Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths. Science does not need faith, for all science is repeatable, that is one of the tennets od science. If it can be repeated, it can be shown to be, and once shown to be, no belief is necessary. I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it? It is a self defeating point of view. Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist. Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc. Not much of a way to build a world is it? Generations of people killing and warring because of a story handed down by old people who have a vested interest in keeping the story alive.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about. At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology. Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths. Science does not need faith, for all science is repeatable, that is one of the tennets od science. If it can be repeated, it can be shown to be, and once shown to be, no belief is necessary. I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it? It is a self defeating point of view. Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist. Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc. Not much of a way to build a world is it? Generations of people killing and warring because of a story handed down by old people who have a vested interest in keeping the story alive.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
You had no point, you made an uneducated and typical bromide, oft repeated by people brainwashed into a belief system regardless of any sense of scepticism. I must say though, you are exactly the sort of person I would like to meet when I need to borrow money. Do you believe lots of things you are told? Do you believe in Santa? The tooth fairy? The Loch Ness monster? No? So why believe in an imaginary friend?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
1. You use Wikipedia as your source? There is your first mistake. Go back and read it. It says "about 4000 BC". 2. You are missing the point. Let's assume your 8000 BC is correct, doesn't it seem odd that if man has been on the earth for billions of years there would be some recorded history older than even 8000 years? By you finding something that claims 8000 BC you are still supporting David's point.
Not at all. It proves when writing came in to existence. That is something different ( although I find it interesting, as a Christian, to read that the earliest recorded writing is around the time of Adam ). I think Christians work too hard to twist the bible to prove that it contains details about science. That's not what it's about.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
But all of you so called intellectuals who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?" Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth. You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there. You cannot prove that. The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science. Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
ryanb31 wrote:
But all of you so called intellectuals
Well, more intellectual than yourself, evidently, since you cannot understand, schooled in belief as you are, that...
ryanb31 wrote:
who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?"
... is not a scientific approach to knowledge. I don't 'believe' in the Theory of Evolution. I accept it merely as an explanation of our environment which has held good - so far.
ryanb31 wrote:
Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat
No. The Bible taught that the earth was flat, and Rabbis and Priests believed it. Scientific Method: - the observation of phenomena; - the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena; - experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis; - a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. as performed by the Greeks, determined that it was round.
ryanb31 wrote:
and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, the Bible. The earth is immovable, therefore the sun must revolve around it. Again, Rabbis and Priests believed it. The Scientific Method, the Greeks again, surmised that the earth and planets might just circle the sun. But we had to wait 1,600 years or so for the theory to be accepted.
ryanb31 wrote:
You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there.
Very true. But we can construct a theory of the age of the earth consistent with our current understanding of physics and chemistry. It is the theory that is proven, not the age.
ryanb31 wrote:
The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science.
Faith in God has advanced human knowledge not a jot. The scientific method has enabled us to better understand ourselves and our environment, and to enrich our lives immensely.
ryanb31 wrote:
Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
Faith is passive, accepting. Science is active, questioning. <
-
ryanb31 wrote:
What IS funny is that you use the Wiki as your source.
Funnier than using a book of collated myth and history, told and retold, written and rewritten, by men, as the actual Word of God?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
No, I used Wikipedia as a link for a cited source. Without your 'helpful' amendments the article was accurate. I was giving a single example of why the idiot was so wrong. I could just as easily have chosen cave paintings or other artefacts, but I just wanted to check when the earliest writing was produced.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
You had no point, you made an uneducated and typical bromide, oft repeated by people brainwashed into a belief system regardless of any sense of scepticism. I must say though, you are exactly the sort of person I would like to meet when I need to borrow money. Do you believe lots of things you are told? Do you believe in Santa? The tooth fairy? The Loch Ness monster? No? So why believe in an imaginary friend?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
The point was that educated men throughout all of history have been proven wrong after time and your whole argument is that you are educated. You are making the same exact mistake people have made for ages. As Christ said, "Always learning but never coming to the truth."
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But all of you so called intellectuals
Well, more intellectual than yourself, evidently, since you cannot understand, schooled in belief as you are, that...
ryanb31 wrote:
who only believe what science says "believe anything [science] told you just because [science] told you?"
... is not a scientific approach to knowledge. I don't 'believe' in the Theory of Evolution. I accept it merely as an explanation of our environment which has held good - so far.
ryanb31 wrote:
Don't you realize that at one point in history science had "proven" that the earth was flat
No. The Bible taught that the earth was flat, and Rabbis and Priests believed it. Scientific Method: - the observation of phenomena; - the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena; - experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis; - a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. as performed by the Greeks, determined that it was round.
ryanb31 wrote:
and they had also "proven" that the sun revolved around the earth.
Again, the Bible. The earth is immovable, therefore the sun must revolve around it. Again, Rabbis and Priests believed it. The Scientific Method, the Greeks again, surmised that the earth and planets might just circle the sun. But we had to wait 1,600 years or so for the theory to be accepted.
ryanb31 wrote:
You can't prove that something is 2 billion years old because none of you were there.
Very true. But we can construct a theory of the age of the earth consistent with our current understanding of physics and chemistry. It is the theory that is proven, not the age.
ryanb31 wrote:
The point is you should not criticize someone for having faith in a God because you are hypocritical since you have faith in science.
Faith in God has advanced human knowledge not a jot. The scientific method has enabled us to better understand ourselves and our environment, and to enrich our lives immensely.
ryanb31 wrote:
Your faith is just in a different direction but you are doing the same thing you criticize others for.
Faith is passive, accepting. Science is active, questioning. <
So, you accept one historical record because your faith is in science and cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion. The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it. How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?" Since you are 1137 and I am not maybe I am missing something but the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing. That is not holding good at all. It is an incomplete theory.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
What IS funny is that you use the Wiki as your source.
Funnier than using a book of collated myth and history, told and retold, written and rewritten, by men, as the actual Word of God?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
No, I used Wikipedia as a link for a cited source. Without your 'helpful' amendments the article was accurate. I was giving a single example of why the idiot was so wrong. I could just as easily have chosen cave paintings or other artefacts, but I just wanted to check when the earliest writing was produced.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Again, the point is anyone can post anything. So to say it WAS accurate, how would you know? Where you around 8000 years ago? You cannot prove any of what you say.
Using reliable scientific methods, archaeologists [^] can calculate to reasonable accuracy the time when people lived. Even in the Holy Land, they've found remains 400,000 years old[^]. Now, can you disprove this or are you just trolling?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work. Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.
You'll find quite a few practising Christians here, myself included, who will still say your talking out of your arse.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
You'll find quite a few practising Christians here, myself included, who will still say your talking out of your arse.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Of course I believe in the Bible. However I understand that a lot of what it contains is not absolute truth, but the best possible explanation fort the time it was written. As a simple example, do you own a Canadian? Lev. 25:44 states that you may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. So if you accept the Bible as absolute truth, where are your Canadian Slaves? Do you like American Football? Lev. 11:6-8 states that touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean; better you get some gloves. Do you work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)? It's pretty clear if you do that you should be put to death. Children? Well if you're a bit short of cash then sell your daughters into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. If the bible is absolute and everything else mere smoke and mirrors, I doubt you'd last five minutes if we started going through all the 'truths'...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett