ID v.s. Archaeology

[Sideline]

They analyzed the gold that was not confiscated from the remains and found gold chuncks. They discovered that the gold had traces of a material that was used in fillings from dentists.
Their analysists was that was the only kind of hardener that was used in this manner so they had to be fillings, therefore the proof that the remains had abeen people who were killed by burnning.

So much was burned beyond recognition or thought to be destroyed all evidence but here I.D.(God’s design) of the gold leads to the discovery which is what archaeology is about.
Sorry I haven’t any site for it maybe someone can get one but I seen it on the history channel.

I hope this doesn’t sound snide, but I find it fascinating that you spelled chunks wrong, but not archaeology.

That being said, are you suggesting that God designed gold to be used as fillings so that holocaust victims could be identified?

That’s one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

 

[dessert]

I hope this doesn’t sound snide, but I find it fascinating that you spelled chunks wrong, but not archaeology.

That being said, are you suggesting that God designed gold to be used as fillings so that holocaust victims could be identified?

That’s one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.

LOL I even have spell check and a dictionary right next to me I really thought that was how you spell it.

The intelligent part is that with God nothing remains a secret all will be made known.
Well, the way that man uses the precious metals and minerals
could be reflective of God.
He didn’t want them making statues, we know that.

 

[edwest2]

This is a thread about how a real science archaeology, contrasts with intelligent design. His posts show that he has no knowledge of what archaeology, nor does he want to know. He then starts talking, as you do, about a particular religion’s take on the world.

I’m not Catholic. I think that should be fairly clear by now. I’m probably closest to a Deist. Why would I respond to one religion’s claims about nature? The whole reason people who promote I.D. say it should be in schools is because, they say, it isn’t a religion. So why should it bother you, or them, that I’m not talking about it on a religious level?

You want me to comment on Catholic Church teaching? Fine, it is irrelevant to this thread, but fine. I don’t believe in an activist God, so I think they are wrong about seeing what His works in nature. Does nature provide me with a sense of wonder? Absolutely, and that is why I call myself a kind-of deist, instead of an atheist. I stress the wonder instead of the absence of a planner. Can I see that you would call the wonder the work of God? Yes, and you are entitled to that… non-scientific… opinion. Just as I am free to have my… non-scientific… opinion that God does not exist.

We live in… well, we should live in… a world where we can have and express any opinion that we want. But our opinions are meaningless unless we can back them up. That’s why we have science and logic. Science provides the evidence, and logic allows us to examine the validity of the evidence. Personally, I find troubling the fact that there is a distortion of science rampant in society and on this board, that’s why I posted. I… mostly… don’t care what people believe. What I have a problem with is when they say, “Your evidence conflicts with my belief, so it must be wrong.”

If someone told you, “You need to believe it, it’s in the Koran”, how would you respond? That’s pretty much what happened here.

You say you “mostly… don’t care” but you mention you find a certain thing troubling, and then you play the guilt by association card by mentioning the Koran.

Speaking as a Catholic, I am 100% against the promotion of naturalism. Also speaking as a Catholic, my beliefs do enter into the equation. This does not mean that I want to harm anyone because of it, which appears to be one of the concerns of people like yourself. And believe me, I have no stake in setting American science policy. But I will not be promoting a “it all got here on its own” belief system either. I suggest you look into the sociological implications of promoting naturalistic only explanations of how human beings got here. May I also suggest you look at the mission statement for SETI, a search for intelligence in the universe. We may know nothing about ‘them’ or even if they are out there, but we are looking for signs of intelligence.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

You say you “mostly… don’t care” but you mention you find a certain thing troubling, and then you play the guilt by association card by mentioning the Koran.

Yes, mostly implies “with only a few exceptions” which I name. Then I try and put it into terms that I think a Catholic will understand. You almost managed to correctly interpret something I said. Compared to our other conversations, this shows promise. Now if I could only get you to read full sentences we would have mad a breakthrough.

How is the Koran playing the “the guilt card”. I have no idea what twisted associations that you have with that book. I mention it because it is a “holy” book that some people believe in, just as the Bible is a “holy” book other people believe in.

Speaking as a Catholic, I am 100% against the promotion of naturalism.

Thanks for clearing that up… again. I had mistakenly thought that you were completely for naturalistic explanations.

Also speaking as a Catholic, my beliefs do enter into the equation. This does not mean that I want to harm anyone because of it, which appears to be one of the concerns of people like yourself.

No kidding. You think you are right to believe and act the way you do. I’m shocked, really.

I’m really losing patience with you, do you have a point?

And believe me, I have no stake in setting American science policy. But I will not be promoting a “it all got here on its own” belief system either.
I suggest you look into the sociological implications of promoting naturalistic only explanations of how human beings got here.

So Ed is saying, “I’m not interested in setting policy, but your point of view is dangerous and shouldn’t be rejected.”

May I also suggest you look at the mission statement for SETI, a search for intelligence in the universe. We may know nothing about ‘them’ or even if they are out there, but we are looking for signs of intelligence.

Wow, you are really desperate aren’t you? I mean really, really panicked. What is with that? That’s just a rhetorical question; I really don’t want to know any more than I’m forced to.

P.S. For those of you who think I’m just picking on Ed, I’d like you all to know that this isn’t our first exchange. I’m sick of his misinterpretations, contradictions, and desperate attempts to prove anyone who disagrees with his way of thinking wrong whether his arguments remotely hinge on truth or not.

 

[wildleafblower]

This is amazing! This kind of insight makes me giddy. :bounce:
Spotting entire new cities is one thing, but these images can also provide intricate data about already well-known sites.

Hi Sideline

I appologize for not returning sooner. I often get giddy. Thrilled to know that you like archaeology. NASA is doing awesome stuff these days. They get a big hug from me as do you:hug1:

This will make the 5th and 6th link you’ve posted that I’ve now got bookmarked.

Golly Gee Wilikers!!! That’s a superduper compliment. Thank you.

Yes!!!

This is what I was trying to explain in my less capable way. Science studies it all, not just focusing on the few small details that will help it out.

Great! It appears to me that you have been been holding down the fort so to speak. You’re doing a fine job of keeping the bandits away. I’m impressed.

A warm thanksto you and Tom.

 

[Al_Masetti]

this changing back and forth of the title of this thread is making me dizzy.

Any reason for the constant flip flop?

Or can someone sort the posts out into two separate threads?

thankyouandhaveaniceday