Posted by Al; on March 14, 1999 at 19:09:43 {MWbp7CDcBo4Qg}:
In Reply to: *More Archaeology posted by a7p on March 14, 1999 at 17:31:00:
With all respect A7, I didn't ignore anything. The truth is you haven't actually addressed most of the issues that I summarized in digging up the past. It was largely made up of previous posts to you. But I don't expect you to address them, nor do I need you to do so. You certainly can if you want. The repeated issue that you do not address is that The Bible which you say is from God is actually from people, just like science, unless you show differently, and is therefore on exactly the same footing.
I could say that science is inspired by God. You would point out the flaws as best you could and I would say that that was false science, or that critics of science have twisted things and there's a book or is going to be one that answers all your questions. I would say you just have to trust that God inspired science.
Somehow science gets no credit for what it has accomplished, however fitfully, but no other human endeavor is shown to be it's equal. You exempt The Bible from this sort of analysis by claiming that it is from God. You notice that we have not discussed The Bible. We have discussed science. Suppose we blow science away and decide it is worthless. What have you offered us? A naked claim that The Bible is the word of God. Either somebody believes it or they don't, you indicate. Apparently, you think the most logical thing is for me to prove that it is not the word of God, and until I do, we must all assume that it is, and it is exempt from the imperfections of man, unlike science.
But what, in fact has The Bible given us? Exactly? We speak of hope,of promises, but what has actually happened, so far? Mankind has blessings. What does that have to do with The Bible? A7, with all your criticism of science, you have not even attempted to show us why The Bible is more reliable.
The function of multiple methods is to verify that the methods work. Once that is established, especially multiple times, then it is established. No, they can't always use tree ring, or any particular method. But if there is a method used it has been verified by other methods. Sometimes methods are devised, then they turn out not to work well, or not work well under certain circumstances.
Tools with Australopithicines. I don't recall refering to that particular species. It really doesn't matter who had the tools. The tools age is what matters. In Hadar, in Ethiopia they date to as much as 2.5 million years. Of course, there are many more dated from 100,000 to 20,000 all over Asia, Africa, and Europe. Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Neanderthal, hundreds and hundreds of sites. Let's suppose, though, that no one had the the tools. But there are thousands of stone tools all over the world from 20, 000 years to 2.5 millions. What does that mean?
Archaeologists not thorough or diligent. According to who? You? Are you the well read and informed one? And what did you read? You keep trying to dismiss these things with generalities.
Assure you that "it" won't change in 10 or 20 years. - I can assure you that some things will change, and somethings won't. One thing that won't change. No one will give me evidence that the current interpretation of Bible chronology is rational, much less the word of God. I have great respect for God, and would respect whatever God may have to say. But who says he says what? Whoever they are, they make as many mistakes as the scientists. I would say a great deal more. Why, A7, can we trust those people more than the scientists. This is the one thing you need to explain. You are counting on people every bit as much as I am, actually, a great deal more, but you never address that fact. That's OK, if you don't want to, but don't tell me I have ignored you. I've been given nothing to ignore.
I assume you have read my response to fundie, below.
Al