[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

...you have to choose between the Bible and science,...

No.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

* I was reading a very interesting article about it recently, unfortunately I forgot which journal it was in, maybe Smithsonian Magazine? I wish I could find it to provide a proper citation. Anyway, based on the available data it seems to be one of the oldest myths of all humanity, which I suppose would make it even more "real" than Jesus, according to your own definition of what constitutes proof for something/someone being real.

EDIT:
This is not exactly the reference I was looking for, but it's close enough, and it's beautifully rich in data.

This article appears to contradict the Solutrean hypothesis.

[handmaiden]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolores de Barriga
...you have to choose between the Bible and science,..

No.

Then you may wish to obtain a recommendation for a good chiropractor.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

...you have to choose between the Bible and science,..

No.

You are lying to yourself, Mr. Stone. You have already chosen the Bible and rejected science, by deciding to believe the Bible and make up additional "evidence" to support your preconceived notion, and ignoring evidence which shows that events described in the Gospels did not happen.

It's nothing to be ashamed of. As I said, millions of Christians do the same. However, if I may make a tiny recommendation in this regard. There are so many shades of Christianity, and most of these churches don't even chose the entire Bible, but rather cherry-pick a few verses which sound nice and ignore the other 90%.

The Landover Baptist Church is the only church I am aware of, which does not ignore any part of the Bible. Not the genocides, not the misogyny, not the homophobia, not the xenophobia, not the support for slavery, which fill the Bible page after page after page.

Since you have already made your decision to follow the Bible and ignore science, I would recommend that you join this church. You wouldn't want to be a part of a church which ignores 90% of its holy text, would you now?

This article appears to contradict the Solutrean hypothesis.

Archaeological data contradicts the Solutrean hypothesis as well. Again, that's the beauty of science - the ideas which have no supporting evidence fade away. Unfortunately, some seem to keep on living in popular media long after science has moved on.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Archaeological data contradicts the Solutrean hypothesis ...

Not true. The mtDNAX2a genetic markers found in ancient and modern Native American populations is consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis. Further, there are similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technologies that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Not true. The mtDNAX2a genetic markers found in ancient and modern Native American populations...

Guy getting tired of this says, "Says who?".

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Not true. The mtDNAX2a genetic markers found in ancient and modern Native American populations is consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis. Further, there are similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technologies that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia.

Who really cares? Not me. I have my Bible (KJV 1611) and that is all I need.
It will never steer me wrong
2 Timothy 3:16


“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”



YIC
TT

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Not true. The mtDNAX2a genetic markers found in ancient and modern Native American populations is consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis. Further, there are similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technologies that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia.

If I were to nitpick I'd say that mtDNA lies outside of archaeological evidence. Also, I should disregard that entire blurb based on lack of reliable sources provided.

But, I'm a really nice person, so instead I'll provide a couple of citations which dispute your claim. Citation 1, citation 2.

Now, about the technology. I don't know much about you, but I think it's safe to assume you've never done experimental archaeology in your life, and therefore have never seen flintknapping technology in action. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the fact that scientific and religious paradigms are mutually exclusive, so I won't dwell too much on it, but: here is a picture of Solutrean points, and here is a picture of a Clovis point. There are two differences between them which should be obvious even for an untrained eye: 1) shape, 2) the long "flute" flaking present only on Clovis points. Basically, the Solutrean points are simple and ugly, and Clovis points are very complex/difficult to produce. These are quite big differences in terms of stone technology.

Now, I could spend the next half hour listing academic sources debunking the details of the presumed Clovis/Solutrean technological similarities. But what's the point? You are going to simply ignore it and start arguing about something totally unrelated. I'm beginning to wonder, is that because I'm a woman, or is that because you think that I'm not white due to my name?

If it's neither - maybe you just forget things which do not fit into your religious paradigm easily - I would like to remind you that you have forgotten to explain what is your reason to believe that some skills or types of intelligence are better than others, which is a question I have asked you here.

Guy getting tired of this says, "Says who?".

I know, right? At this point Mr. Stone really should remember that Google Scholar is his friend.

Who really cares? Not me. I have my Bible (KJV 1611) and that is all I need.
It will never steer me wrong
2 Timothy 3:16

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for this beautiful demonstration of how a truly religious person thinks.

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

This article appears to contradict the Solutrean hypothesis.

Isn't that the crackpot theory that the Indian Hamites are actually Frenchmen?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I have my Bible (KJV 1611) and that is all I need.

If you read the book by Gaon Saadia ben Joseph Al-Fayyumi : “Emunotve-Deot “ or Beliefs and Opinions, you might understand that there are natural sources of knowledge such as reason and logic which in no way contradict divine revelation, but rather complement and support revealed religion. You will find further developments of this theme in the 34th chapter of Book I of Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim) by Moses ben Maimon.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

If you read the book by Gaon Saadia ben Joseph Al-Fayyumi : “Emunotve-Deot “ or Beliefs and Opinions, you might understand that there are natural sources of knowledge such as reason and logic which in no way contradict divine revelation, but rather complement and support revealed religion. You will find further developments of this theme in the 34th chapter of Book I of Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim) by Moses ben Maimon.

I'm growing tired of your out-of-nowhere provocations, which do not contribute absolutely anything to the ongoing discussion, as you keep name-dropping instead of actually providing arguments. And no, I do not mean copy+paste from some random Wikipedia page, I mean providing actual arguments which may be derived from the work of someone else, but are expressed in your own words, as you understand them, and supported by relevant, up-to-date data.

I know we've been here before, so once again: you cannot discuss science/reason/logic if you have no idea how they work. And at this point, I don't think anymore that you even want to learn how science/reason/logic work.

I am also still waiting for you to address my previous post. For now, your silence makes me believe that it is my sex and/or my ethnic origin which make you disrespect me.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

No.

Yes. Stop trying to place obligations onto God and making Him conform to your expectations. This is what happens when people read Maimonides.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I'm growing tired

Me too.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Me too.

This is good news! Perhaps you are now ready to choose Jesus and only Jesus and discard the appeals to authority and obscure references produced with confirmation bias?

Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Perhaps you are now ready to ... discard the appeals to authority ...

I don't regard recommending works by Gaon Saadia or Moses Maimonides as an appeal to authority, but rather an appeal to study how natural sources of knowledge such as reason and logic in no way contradict divine revelation, but rather complement and support revealed religion. Divine revelation is one source of knowledge, but not the only source.