now you are getting absurd again. science cannot measure or track miracles or other acts of God. when it comes to theological realms secular science is in over its head.
Nice sidestep. This time, answer the question.
don't blame God but blame your own interpretation and acceptance of secular views.
I don't blame God. I blame fundamentalists for suggesting that God would do such a thing. I blame people like you.
evolution is the secular world's answer to what God has done, it has no purpose but to lead people astray.
Or it's just what God has done. But nooooooo, archaeologist doesn't like that.
i do. God does it is just the mis-understanding that makes creation scientists think evolution happens in one form. omitting the factor of the results of the fall of man will do that to people. those results are a viable and correct possibility.
You're an army of one, archaeologist.
oh please--not me. Jesus, for one:
But, clearly, you speak for him. Doesn't speaking for God make you a prophet?
i can when science goes beyond its role and purpose.
Science's role and purpose is to study the universe. Whine about it all you want.
it is not the final authority and by its removing God from the picture it is nothing but a struggling field full of deception, vulnerable to evil and so on.
Science doesn't remove God from the picture. Where along the way were you deluded into thinking it does?
what little truth it can ascertain is not enough to qualify it as superior to God's word.
You mean the Bible? How about calling it the Bible?
I was. You have a problem with the context? It was your quotation, after all.
i am not jealous, sad maybe but not jealous.
Really? Sounds like jealousy to me.
it is sad to see people abuse their positions of influence and lead others away from God's word and the truth.
I agree! We should work on preventing fundamentalist leaders from doing that.
Which is all the funnier followed by the butchery of scientific methodology that follows.
please repeat the original conditions which makes evolution possible.
Not the original condition.
The test needs to be repeatable. The
test. Not the "original condition", or whatever you want to call it. Man, what did you
learn in high school?
please repeat the action that caused evolution to exist.
Not required by the scientific method.
please repeat the original dividing of the common ancestor which leads to 'making' all species.
Not required by the scientific method.
We really should stop debating with you until you agree to learn what you're arguing against. It would save us all a lot of headaches.
i think those are enough requests. posted links to credible studies which verify all will suffice.
Those requests are both impossible and unnecessary. The scientific method doesn't need them. Learn science. Then come back. Or ask us to teach it to you. Without an attitude.
i fail to see how this example applies to what we are talking about.
Fine by me. Everyone else does.
plus, dating is very subjective so that time frame could be wrong.
No, it's not. And it's not.
problem is, 1. how would the tell it came from your refrigerator and not bought recently from somewhere else?
Perhaps my refrigerator has a camera on the inside that recorded it with a timestamp.
last i heard condensation was not unique . 2. the fridge could not be working properly giving a wrong time line,
Sure, but we'd be able to uncover evidence of that as well.
3. who placed it there, competing fingerprints would throw confusion on that,
Again, cameras. Lovely cameras.
4. who is to say that you put it there or that the bottle was placed there temporarily because a person's hands were full?
Cameras.
5. the air conditioning could be on, slowing the warming time and skewing the results.
But we'd be able to tell that the air conditioning was on and compensate for it in our calculations.
all you have done is given an ideal based upon assumptions.
Nope. I've given conditions and ways to uncover evidence of those conditions, even though they took place in the past. You're wrong, archaeologist. Indisputably wrong. So totally wrong that I'm surprised you're arguing the point.
you do not know what really took place.
No, but we're pretty sure. More sure than you have any right to be with nothing but a book written thousands of years ago to support you.
also your example was too easy for you to 'support' your point.
I didn't need to prove a difficult example. I needed to prove
any example. As long as it can be shown that it's possible to measure the past, you have to acknowledge that given proper equipment and adherence to scientific methodology we could discover what happened when. That's all I needed. Don't pretend that I needed to use something more complicated.
try placing the bottle in the ground and wait for 1 year and then see if you can 'see' into the past.
Powerful enough equipment and you could determine it, sure. But that does raise an interesting point, archaeologist. How long into the past do we have to go for the scientific method to suddenly stop being useful? When does it break down? One year ago? Ten years ago? A thousand years? Millions? Last Thursday?
no, you can find options but unless you were there you do not have definitive results of what took place. too many factors play a part.
Nah, you just have to account for them all. It's done all the time.
example: you find a decapitated body from 2,000 years ago. was it murder, an accident, punishment? your equipment cannot define the action that caused the result.
Sure it can. When your equipment includes an history of the people of the time, their practices, punishment methods and so on, as well as top-notch forensic anthropology gear and a team of experts. Forensically speaking (as I have some knowledge here), excessive trauma would indicate a murder, as would signs of struggle. Accidental deaths and executions tend to be much "cleaner".
no, you don't even know a lot. (stop repeating my name, i know who i am and whom you are talking to. it is annoying)
I like typing it all out, archaeologist. Besides, it helps me connect with my opponent as I write my responses. It's helpful to feel as though I'm actually talking to you.
when one can only expose 2-5% of the total site, you know very little. the same with science.
That's what representative samples are for. You're familiar with the law of diminishing returns, I imagine.
you just keep believing that, and ignore all the fallible elements to their work.
I'd love for you to point them out. Please,
please give us something, archaeologist. An article of yours. Some study you've done. A critical review involving succinct challenges to a conclusion.
Anything.
how much time do you have? we already know that the dating systems half lives cannot be verified and are based upon ideals and assumptions, neither of which are fact .
Aaaaaaand you're pretty clearly not familiar with how radiometric calibration works. Can't say I'm shocked.
don't misrepresent what i said. the origins of all are from the miraculous and far beyond the comprehension of secular science. it is the arrogance of scientists who think they can determine what took place long before they were born.
You call it arrogance because you don't like it. I call it brilliance, daring and bravery because it is.
another faulty assumption based upon belief without discernment or consideration of all factors,information and so on.
So on? Do you have a copy-paste response now? I'd love to see you actually challenge something concrete, archaeologist.
then you have no proof for your statement as i never told anyone not to think or study. it is your twisting and misrepresenting of what i say that makes you draw that conclusion.
Nah, I simply interpreted your words literally. I figured I'd try it out and see whether or not it was all it's cracked up to be.
please prove that and since you do not know me or follow me around that would be pretty hard to do. i may use certainthings but i certainly do not follow the world's thinking in their application.
Yes, the "You don't know me!" defense. Solid.
your returning tothe absurd only undermines your own credibility and demonstrates the lackof ability to frame a continuous logical argument .
Man, if I had a nickel for every time you used the phrases "undermines your own credibility" or "demonstrates the lack of"...
, are between 20,000 and 30,000 years old. The most recent carvings date from the Western Xia period (1032-1227 AD) with the majority of the inscriptions and pictographs dating from about 7,000 years ago.
