God Was An Alien, It's True...You Can't Prove It's Not: My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology. I would best describe his positions he takes in regards...

woodguru

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

You despise your own brother too?

Hug

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

Science is the number one false God.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

Much like scientists who find evidence that man isn't causing c*****e c****e, to report such heresy is tantamount to choosing disgrace and being defunded.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

Gawd can nuke a city, he just doesn't need a nuclear bomb to do it.

2quick4u Loc: Somewhere in central Tx...

Wiley (C Coyote) wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

Maybe so Wiley.. but what he-GOD-wasn't and isn't.. is an i*****l a***n (with no recognizable and/or legitimate skin in our game).

Why do you h**e the church so much Wiley??? Did it 'hurt you' somehow-or cause you to do something against your will or beliefs??? Wait a second.. I just had a thought.. were you ever an alter boy W???

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Hug wrote:

Science is the number one false God.

It is.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Michael Rich wrote:

You despise your own brother too?

It appears that way, doesn't it?
If either one of my brothers were as arrogant, and self absorbed as this guy is, I wouldn't have much to do with them. Maybe it's mutual between them.
Doesn't matter either way though. Everything Taliwood spouts off about is what falls out of the North end of a Southbound bull.

woodguru

Michael Rich wrote:

You despise your own brother too?

You can disagree with someone without despising them, you can even know someone is laughably wrong about something and it doesn't mean you despise them to be able to laugh about how ridiculous they are... the right doesn't believe disagreeing goes hand in hand with all the logic about hating trump meaning you h**e the country blah blah blah.

This is why republicans can't disagree with a single thing about trump without coming under attack for being t*****rs and RINO's

woodguru

Hug wrote:

Science is the number one false God.

Science is facts and the t***h, it cares nothing about whether facts agree with god or the bible. Science can be proved, religion is taken on faith and beliefs that cannot be proved.

woodguru

nwtk2007 wrote:

Much like scientists who find evidence that man isn't causing c*****e c****e, to report such heresy is tantamount to choosing disgrace and being defunded.

The three "scientists" that disagree with 950 others that accept data and conclusions based on reality and facts?

woodguru

nwtk2007 wrote:

Gawd can nuke a city, he just doesn't need a nuclear bomb to do it.

So could an alien species that obviously had superior technology...

What kind of bomb would you suppose god used to nuke three cities (there was a third)

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

The three "scientists" that disagree with 950 others that accept data and conclusions based on reality and facts?

In the original "consensus" survey, the "scientists" were asked to estimate the "chances" that the "warming" was caused by man. Any one who said there was even a 5% chance that man is contributory were deemed to be part of the "settled science" that c*****e c****e is man caused. I was part of that survey. We had a pretty good laugh about it at the time. Over the years I have seen many, many who have become convinced of one thing; we have a minuscule effect and none of that effect is related to CO2 emissions.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

woodguru wrote:

So could an alien species that obviously had superior technology...

What kind of bomb would you suppose god used to nuke three cities (there was a third)

There were actually five. They were called the cities of the plain. And who knows. As far as I know there is no residual radiation or was there?? Maybe he used his thunderbolts!

woodguru

2quick4u wrote:

Maybe so Wiley.. but what he-GOD-wasn't and isn't.. is an i*****l a***n (with no recognizable and/or legitimate skin in our game).

Why do you h**e the church so much Wiley??? Did it 'hurt you' somehow-or cause you to do something against your will or beliefs??? Wait a second.. I just had a thought.. were you ever an alter boy W???

A hundred peaceful societies were destroyed by missionaries that brought the word of god to them when they were just fine without it...and of course used them as s***es to mine gold and silver that they had no use for k*****g themselves as s***es to get.

Hundreds of years of dark ages that people lived in fear of the church, a church that did nothing but take from people.

Hey, we are no longer in the dark ages, and you are free to believe wh**ever you want, and thank your god that others are free to not believe in god or your religious principles.

I have many friends and family that are christians, I don't care what they believe or hold it against them, but they can keep it to themselves.

For some reason h**e is a word and emotion that goes hand in hand with christians, I don't feel it for very many people or things