Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate


tsquare21 wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:

<snip>

Construction goes back a very long way. Until the last ca. 5,000 years,
none of it was written about. 'Confirmation records' (by which I take
it you mean written records) did not exist before then, while it is
clear that construction did.

5000 50000 500000 1.500000 You were missing a few numbers there so i
filled them in for you. Unless you were serious and that construction
by man STARTED only 5000 years ago. Let me get this straight man has
been roaming this earth for 1.5 mil. and all of a sudden he learns
construction only 5,000 years ago.

Read what I wrote again.

What is truly amazing in a few
short years he acumlates enough knowledge to build structures like Giza
pyrimids.

Not really. The pyramids of Egypt (which didn't begin at Giza) are the
result of an in situ development of building techniques. It took more
than 'a few short years'.

Even more amazing is that today with all our technolgy
moderen man would strugle to complete ancent man's achievment.

Not really. The struggle would only be to develop the need for such a
structure. Our technology, despite what lots of woo-woos repeat
endlessly, is up to the challenge.

Well
calling the pyrimid builderes aincent would be a disservice to true
anceint man, will just say recent man. lol

I agree. Without the laughter, though. In my view of things, what we
think of as the 'Ancient World' is last week. But then, I tend to think
of the last few millenia of Neandertal existence as fairly recent.

<snip>

Knowledge is obtained all along the way, in real archaeology. In your
stick-drawing of archaeology, nothing is known until all the evidence
agrees with written records (I'm pretty sure you mean the Bible; if you
meant, for instance, the Upanishads or the Popul Vuh, you would have
picked a very different terminus post quem) that you find meaningful.

Did I mention the bible or any other refferences.

I don't recall. However, since other writings refer to human existence
going back much farther than 10,000 years, which is your, apparently
arbitrary, terminus post quem; and since the Bible takes us back to
about the middle of that range if read literally; it seemed like a good
guess.

But I didn't insist on it.

Why did you pick 10,000 y.a.?

That my friends is proper method of confirmation or actualy being
there. No carbon dating or other questionable findings. Facts,
Evidence, and most of all a recorded witness of exactly what we need to
know. Now once we determine the age of something and THEN one may
bring the carbon method to confirm what we suspect.

Again just an simple evidence of man older then 10,000 years old.

<snip>

I suggest you try your proceedure on the Popul Vuh, as to my knowledge,
not a lot of archaeological work has been done using the timelines in
that work as a starting point. I don't mean by this that the Popul Vuh
hasn't been useful to Mesoamerican archaeology--it certainly has. But
no one so far has had the blinding insight to use it to prove the
claims of extreme age contained in it. You could make a real name for
yourself.

Yuo know if the professional archeologist decided not to waste there
time with some pie in the legend why should I.

Professional archaeologists use the tools available to them in
determining the age of what they are investigating. They all (with
perhaps a few exceptions for religious convictions) have no problem
with dates for humanity (or, if you are a splitter, hominids) going
back several million years.

BTW, all archaeologists would have a good laugh at your complete
misunderstanding of archaeology. You seem to have learned all you know
from Indiana Jones movies.

<snip>

This simple fact should be the only
proof anyone needs of G-D.

Those that require proof would not, for the most part, find your
suggestion anything but pathetic.

Pathetic, hmmm.

Yep.

Tell me Tom, how is an atom put together.

Your point? I learned the Bohr model of the atom in high school. Since
then, I've been interested in the great increase in understanding about
sub-atomic particles and the energies and forces involved in atomic
physics. But no, I'm not up-to-date enough to tell you what the current
state of play is in particle physics..

Do you even
understand any thing about Gravity other then it keeps your head on
this earth. Oh if you say it's like a magnet then you don't understand
much do you.

See above. I've been reading about gravity for a long time, but without
the specialist focus to intelligently discuss the bleeding edge of
research about it.

And no, I don't think that it is anything like a magnet. Although that
may change if we ever do get a TOE that unifies the four forces.

Have you even tried to understand your own bodie and the
complexty that keeps one alive. I won't ask if you even gleen the
truly amazing method that keeps it all working our DNA. Sure you may
have seen and been awwed by the Milky Way, so what. To truly see one
has to understand how it was brought about. If you believe it was some
big bang then exactly how and why is all the way it is. Can a big
event produce what we see throught out the universe, it can't by the
way.

Prove it.

BTW, how well versed are you on string theory?

Tom to believe everything one is taught is not seeing very much.
especialy since man know so very little. To see anything we need to
understand it know it and yes be there when it happens. If you cant be
or do any of these things then you need to start looking that one day
you may see also.

I share your fantasy of being omnipresent throughout all of time. One
of my ideas about heaven is that it would include a ship with all of
the tools needed to study anything, and then going to every place in
the universe to use those tools to figure stuff out.

Till then, I'm reasonably content with the tools humans have developed
over the last couple of million years. This is an exciting time to be
alive.

.

Relevant Pages