Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
jar, JoeT, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,849 Year: 16,885/19,786 Month: 1,010/2,598 Week: 256/251 Day: 27/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Languages and the Creationist account.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 32 (634849)
09-24-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 1:33 AM


Remarkable credibility?
If you mean the Hebrew bible, yes this is a late comer in the ancient world. However, I find it mysterious that Genesis depicts the history of modern man [speech endowed kind] with remarkable credibility. There is no other document which lists names, dates, places and events dating 5000 to 6000 years which matches Genesis. I know of no name, nation, city, king, monument, etc - older than that depicted in Genesis - there is no history beyond 6000.

Beyond about 6,000 years ago you enter the realm of prehistory and that is defined as before-written history.

But there is a lot of history prior to that date. It is the job of archaeologists to read that history, and we do it quite well.

And if you include paleontology we go back millions of years with human ancestors.

As far as "remarkable credibility" -- for that you have to ignore whoppers like talking snakes and global floods and the tower of Babel.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:33 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Portillo, posted 09-26-2011 9:48 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 32 (635118)
09-26-2011 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Portillo
09-26-2011 9:48 PM


Re: Even less credibility?
In response to my statement that, "It is the job of archaeologists to read that history, and we do it quite well" you wrote:

After a lifetime of study, William Corliss concluded, "The entire picture of human exploration and colonization of our planet is probably radically different from what we have been led to believe".

Corliss was not an archaeologist, and from his writings, seems to have been on the fringe of a lot of different fields. Here is his obit:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/corliss-obit/

British scholar Richard Rudgley summed up his study of the ancient world by saying, "the widely accepted view of the human story is wildly inaccurate" and "preconceived opinions have repeatedly led to the rejection of evidence that does not fit with present archaeological dogmas."

Here is the Wiki article on Rudgley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rudgley

Not exactly mainstream either.

How about getting some statements from real working archaeologists and from peer-reviewed journals. There are literally hundreds of such journals and they have a lot more credibility than the two sources you posted here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Portillo, posted 09-26-2011 9:48 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019