40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found(Christian/Alpha call out thread) | Page 9

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by VivaRevolution, May 15, 2017.

  1. Greco_Wiz Brown Belt

    Greco_Wiz
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    110
    We can deduce (or induce) and extrapolate from the information we have.

    Using your logic, barring eye witness accounts (or video evidence) no one should ever be found guilty for murder since it's in the past.
     
    #161
    Soul_of_Rage likes this.
  2. Kitafuji Purple Belt

    Kitafuji
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    519
    Location:
    Mt. Fuji
    You are making my point (thanks btw). Why jump to the conclusion, with only one bracelet found, that OMG Denisovans had intricate jewelry making skills even though our other findings show they are to stupid to do so. At least say this is one possibility then make your statement.
     
    #162
  3. helltoupee Brown Belt

    helltoupee
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    3,494
    Location:
    on one wheel
    Are you a religious person?
     
    #163
  4. TheComebackKid Titanium Belt

    TheComebackKid
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,862
    Likes Received:
    9,607
    Is it your position that court systems/procedures are based upon the scientific method?
     
    #164
  5. TheComebackKid Titanium Belt

    TheComebackKid
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,862
    Likes Received:
    9,607
    I don't see the relevance. Why do you ask?
     
    #165
  6. helltoupee Brown Belt

    helltoupee
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    3,494
    Location:
    on one wheel
    I had thought that you were, but didn't want to make assumptions.

    If in fact you are, I was curious as to how you could reconcile your post below, which I think points to the fallibility of human beings, with a group of imperfect men who sat around a table and decided to include, change, disclude aspects of allegorical stories that were themselves borrowed from other imperfect human beings 1,000's of years earlier.

     
    #166
  7. TheComebackKid Titanium Belt

    TheComebackKid
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,862
    Likes Received:
    9,607
    I do believe in the Bible. I reconcile it by acknowledging that this is my belief and my subjective conclusion not an scientifically proven fact.

    There is nothing wrong with scientists, or anyone, studying history and forming conclusions. The problem happens when people pretend that these subjective conclusions are the same as scientific facts as that have been demonstrated, observed, and repeated. It leads to close minded arrogance and deception.
     
    #167
    helltoupee likes this.
  8. Greco_Wiz Brown Belt

    Greco_Wiz
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    110
    The evidence that courts sometimes use is scientific. The system itself is not. So, do you think we can find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt absent eye-wintness accounts?
     
    #168
  9. TheComebackKid Titanium Belt

    TheComebackKid
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,862
    Likes Received:
    9,607
    Isnt the very concept of "reasonable" a subjective one? Wouldn't reasonable mean different things to different people? And isn't it also true that they're have been plenty if cases where we find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only to find out later they were innocent?

    So my answer is to whether or not you can find someone guilty beyond a reasonable is...it depends on who you're asking. One person may have doubt where another doesn't. Who is objectively right in that scenario?
     
    #169
  10. MicroBrew Gold Belt

    MicroBrew
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    20,884
    Likes Received:
    4,859
    That's like saying if dinosaurs existed or evolution is true, why aren't they far more well preserved examples. Considering the amount of time that has passed, it isn't surprising that we have only unearthed 1 soo far. There may be others or they might have all eroded away.

    And what evidence is there that someone else made it?
     
    #170
  11. ReAnimator Reagan Orange Belt

    ReAnimator Reagan
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    252
    Location:
    Innsmouth Circa 1981
    I would say only a very stupid person and one not understanding Genesis would make the post you did. Genesis is not a literal story of creation or a scientific one. It is a theological story of creation and also a telling of the old stories of creation and the flood, but theologically reasoned by the christian God.

    If you really think the physical first woman was communicating like Adam and Eve you are a simpleton.
     
    #171
  12. TheComebackKid Titanium Belt

    TheComebackKid
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,862
    Likes Received:
    9,607
    Why wouldn't they be?
     
    #172
  13. VivaRevolution Yellow Card

    VivaRevolution
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    9,104
    Likes Received:
    5,459
    You should give that speech to evangelicals, not me.
     
    #173
    MicroBrew likes this.
  14. MicroBrew Gold Belt

    MicroBrew
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    20,884
    Likes Received:
    4,859
    Ok then all those claims of super natural phenomena and god speeking/communicating/interferring with man can all just be brushed off made up stories that shouldn't be taken as descripton of actual events.
     
    #174
  15. ReAnimator Reagan Orange Belt

    ReAnimator Reagan
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    252
    Location:
    Innsmouth Circa 1981
    You mean the fundamentalists

    Why would that be? There are different books in the bible. It is a library of books. Do you take the Diary of Anne Frank to be fiction because it sits in the same library as Moby dick?
    Or are you not QUITE that fucking STUPID??? You can see some books are made to be taken literally and some not.
    There is a big different between say the gospels which are based on eye witness accounts and genesis written about events far in the past? A miracle such as curing a leper is not the same as something like the theological creation story. There is not a theological allegory in curing the blind and etc in this sense.

    I refuse to be as stupid as you. Sorry.

    You ever wonder why you never see Jews get bent out of shape about the Earth not being 6000 years old but fundamentalists do???

    In genesis there are multiple creation stories and they do not match up and it is fine because it is not literal. God is outside of our universe and time. There is no day 1 for Him.

    It comes down one of 3 things being wrong if the bible is not "right" 1) God is wrong 2) Science - explaining God's creation is wrong 3) the human reading the bible is reading it wrong or in the wrong context.

    Nice piece about genesis and reading the bible CORRECTLY

    blurb-----------------------

    Delving More Deeply
    In more recent times Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook held that scientific ideas which seem to conflict with the

    need not necessarily be opposed, but can serve as stimuli to delve more deeply into the Torah and discover more profound meaning in it.

    The approach of these thinkers is one that Fritz Rothschild has described as a guiding principle of Jewish biblical exegesis:

    "The view that the Bible contains God’s message to man has led to ever new interpretations, since it constantly forced believing readers of the Bible to reconcile the words of the sacred text with whatever they held to be true on the basis of their own experience, the canons of logic, contemporary science, and their moral insights…. The traditionalist will always feel called upon to interpret the text so that it reflects not ancient error but the highest standards of trustworthy knowledge and insight of his own time." (Rothschild, "Truth and Metaphor in the Bible")

    This approach urges us to probe more deeply into the biblical accounts of creation and to search for the intention of the Bible’s compilers in presenting these accounts. By compilers I mean those who gathered all the sources and books together and produced the Bible in the form in which it was canonized in classical Judaism. In critical terms these are the redactors of the Bible; in Franz Rosenzweig’s terms, rabboteinu (our rabbis).

    Conflicting Accounts of Creation
    Whatever the intention of the individual accounts of creation may have been, it is clear from the Bible as a whole that its compilers were not overly concerned with the details of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis. They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world in six days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2).

    Several other accounts are found in poetic form in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. Genesis 1 says that man was the last living creature created; Genesis 2 says that he was the first. Genesis 1 speaks of the prehistoric waters in purely naturalistic terms and says that God merely commanded them to gather in a single spot so that dry land could appear.

    But in poetic passages the ancient waters are personified as rebellious sea monsters which threatened to swamp the dry land, until God subdued them and created the seashore as a boundary which they were prohibited from crossing.

    The most notable difference between Genesis and all the other accounts is that none of the others mentions the idea that the world was created in six days. This idea–which is the centerpiece of the whole creationist movement–was apparently not considered important enough in the Bible to be repeated in other accounts of creation.

    The fact that so many differing accounts were all accepted in the Bible shows that its compilers were not concerned about these details. They undoubtedly assumed that the differences could be reconciled, but they left this task to the ingenuity of exegetes. This virtually assured that different reconciliations would be proposed and some of the passages would have to be interpreted non-literally.

    What the Bible as a whole insists on is not these details, but only what the stories have in common. In other words, these stories are regarded as poetic statements of certain basic truths, not as literally scientific accounts of how the universe developed.

    The Divine Plan
    What matters in Judaism are the concepts shared by all these stories: that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man. These are the very conclusions to which astronomy now points. The other details of the biblical accounts should not be taken literally, but metaphorically or poetically.

    To give just one example: the six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath on the seventh day symbolize how God guided the development of the world stage by stage according to a well-thought-out plan. The process is described as taking place over a period of seven days because seven was regarded in the ancient world as the number of perfection and seven days were regarded as the ideal length of a process. The unit of "seven days" is more a statement about the perfection of the process than a chronological statistic.

    Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally.

    Literalism is not only misleading but is also a disservice to the cause of the Bible itself. It forces the Bible to compete as science, and in such a competition it cannot win. In a scientific age such as ours the Bible will never be accepted as science by educated people.

    What is more, attempting to secure acceptance for it as science is hardly worthwhile, for this would divert attention away from the Bible’s religious message to details which from a religious point of view are trivial.

    The religious message is precisely the realm in which science cannot compete, and those devoted to the cause of the Bible would do far better service to their cause by stressing its unique religious message. To the religious person it makes little difference whether the world was created in six days or several billion years.

    What counts is the deeper message of the biblical account of creation: The world was made by a wise Creator who seeks man’s welfare, who created the world carefully with man’s benefit in mind, who created man with Godlike qualities and commanded him to administer the world wisely.

    Though we observe the Sabbath every seven days, it is this deeper message which we celebrate each week. The current views of modern science deepen our understanding of this message and renew our confidence in it.
     
    #175
  16. meauneau Purple Belt

    meauneau
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    572
    So your belief about the bible is not actually and objectively true but merely subjectively true, true only to you? Why such a weak level of belief? Is your belief that Abraham Lincoln was a president of the USA also "a subjective conclusion not an scientifically proven fact" as you put it?

    So if the claims about the bible and Christianity are not scientific facts that have been demonstrated, observed, and repeated, then they lead to close minded arrogance and deception?
     
    #176
  17. Rebound59 2GM/c^2 belt

    Rebound59
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,292
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Location:
    The Garden of the Gulf
    The problem with this statement is neither you nor I know all the scientific knowledge used to reach this conclusion. How the fuck do you know they are "jumping" at all. The conclusion may be inescapable based upon what they know, or they may be just giving the most logical interpretation of the evidence. Either way, I doubt it's just leaping to conclusions. That may be how scientific discovery press releases work, but it isn't how the scientific method works.
     
    #177
  18. heloder Orange Belt

    heloder
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    727
    This entire post boils down to "I don't know". That's perfectly fine and all, and you're certainly allowed to believe what you want, but I hope you understand that your assumptions aren't enough for some people.

    I will say that polygonal walls and granite boxes not being "cheap" means nothing. You can't derive anything from today's world and apply it to the world thousands of years ago. You can look at these enormous stone monoliths, statues, and buildings and say that it would take forever and wonder why they would ever attempt something like that with the rudimentary tools they had available to them, but you have to remember that this was their life. They weren't watching movies and playing video games and driving their cars around; they woke up, worked on shit like this, went to bed, and repeated the process until they died.

    Also, though their technology was inferior to ours, it's important to understand that intellectually speaking they were every bit the equal of modern humans.
     
    #178
  19. aus101 Brown Belt

    aus101
    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    800
    Location:
    sydney
    The real answer is they were much higher tech than we give them credit for. Just because stone megalithic construction is your bag doesn't change the physics.

    Why use such large stones unless you have the tech where such construction methods are cost effective. Form follows function, unless we're talking megalithic construction, where form is infeasable and function unfathomable.[​IMG]
     
    #179
    RIPWarrior likes this.
  20. RIPWarrior Brown Belt

    RIPWarrior
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    2,011
    Which assumptions are we talking about here?

    It not being cheap means a lot because it took humans a long time to obtain the technology to achieve the same high level of precision these ancient people were capable of.

    There's no way the people that came before the Egyptians and the Incas were traveling around the world and making precisely cut stone structures using simple tools and slaves.
     
    #180

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"