Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cassiterides

Hello

Recommended Posts

Modern humans have been around for about 135,000 years, not millions.  Obviously that is still a long time.

What do you mean by modern humans? Humans in their current form?

 

The first cities arose about 8,000 BCE according to archaeology.

Watch the following video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb9_eE2gpGc

 

Why no sooner?  The Ice age finished about 10,000 BCE.  That means there is a 2,000 year gap between the end of the ice age and the earliest cities.

Sorry but this is wrong. We have historical accounts of the Ice Age.

 

http://ldolphin.org/cooper/appen14.html

 

Menes - 2,900 BCE.  Flood - 2,300BCE.  There is a problem there anyway.

We have no problem.

 

The very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king.

 

The date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has lowered with the passing of time:

 

Champollian: 5867 B.C. / Lesueur: 5770 B.C. / Unger: 5613 B.C. / Mariette: 5004 B.C. / Brugsch: 4455 B.C. / Lauth: 4157 B.C. / Chabas: 4000 B.C. / Lapsius: 3890 B.C. / Bunsen: 3623 B.C. / Breasted: 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff : 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer: 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson: 2320 B.C. / Palmer: 2224 B.C.

 

Note the two last figures closely fit with the Biblical chronology.

 

Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

Evolutionist assumption. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

 

Evolutionist assumption. 

 

This is just insulting. It's a complete misrepresentation.

 

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just insulting.  It's a complete misrepresentation.

 

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

57233[/snapback]

Consider the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

57233[/snapback]

You were there 5,000+ years back to observe it then? Where is this time machine?

 

All you are giving me is evolution assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just insulting.  It's a complete misrepresentation.

 

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

57233[/snapback]

Again you ignored my links and videos...

 

Also may i ask what degree you have in history? Presuming you have one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy. I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

 

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

 

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens. Have you read his book? You are ignoring sources.

 

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

 

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it. The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time. Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

 

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

 

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make. If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents. Scotland and half of England were covered. Why does no other account mention it.

 

Plus: "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

 

How reliable is this source?

 

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

 

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

 

What is the mainstream view on Egypt? What evidence is used to back that up?

 

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy.  I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

 

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

 

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens.  Have you read his book?  You are ignoring sources.

 

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

 

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it.  The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time.  Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

 

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

 

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make.  If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents.  Scotland and half of England were covered.  Why does no other account mention it.

 

Plus:  "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

 

How reliable is this source?

 

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

 

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

 

What is the mainstream view on Egypt?  What evidence is used to back that up?

 

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

57253[/snapback]

Phil,

 

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

 

Cheers, Geode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy.  I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

We have eyewitness testimony of when the Ice Age occurred. That Irish article by Bill Cooper is just one of many.

 

But you don't accept historical accounts, over evolutionist assumption right? Because you were there back then to observe...As i said where is this time-machine?

 

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens.  Have you read his book?  You are ignoring sources.

Who debunked Daniken's nutty theory?

 

http://creationwiki.org/Clifford_Wilson

 

YEC's did like Clifford Wilson in his book Crash Go the Chariots (1972).

 

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

Yes, but it's then evolutionist assumption to believe since they are at the lower level they are older.

 

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it.

Evolutionist assumption. :rolleyes:

 

The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time.  Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

 

Evolutionist assumption (again...).

 

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

:lol:

 

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make.  If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents.  Scotland and half of England were covered.  Why does no other account mention it.

They do, have a look around.

 

How reliable is this source?

The Annals of Clonmacnoise? You can find Connell McGeoghegan's manuscript translation of this Irish Chronicle in the British Museum.

 

It shatters your world-view of course, since the chronicle supports Young Earth Creation, as do thousands of other chronicles.

 

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

There is no 'mainstream view' on the Ice Age since the dates have bever been decided for when it occured.

 

What is the mainstream view on Egypt?  What evidence is used to back that up?

The mainstream view of egypt is that Menes was the first king around 2,900BC, yet this date is being reduced all the time supporting Ussher's dating.

 

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

Why call yourself a skeptic then? As i said you aren't a skeptic at all, you only believe what you are told or what the majority believe in. Why not explore the evidence as an individual? A true skeptic doubt everything at first and then comes to a conclusion based on his independant research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

 

Cheers, Geode

57257[/snapback]

it's best not to make assumptions about people you don't know. And making it personal like you have with the snide remark at the end. If you do not like debating someone you can click on their name then click ignore and their posts will disappear so you don't have to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

57257[/snapback]

This line of reasoning is entirely faulty. I have no more than a high school education, as far as papers go, should I keep my mouth shut about all subject matters until I have a slip of paper that purports my qualifications?

 

Are we getting so intellectually lost, as a culture, that comments like the one above are actually compelling to our mediocre understanding of how to gather knowledge? :lol::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line of reasoning is entirely faulty. I have no more than a high school education, as far as papers go, should I keep my mouth shut about all subject matters until I have a slip of paper that purports my qualifications?

 

Are we getting so intellectually lost, as a culture, that comments like the one above are actually compelling to our mediocre understanding of how to gather knowledge?  :lol:  :rolleyes:

57273[/snapback]

And I agree with you and that is what my post was meant to impart. I guess my tongue firmly in cheek got lost in translation? Please direct your post to Cassiterides who appeared to be seriously making this case further up the thread. My post was in response to his. I thought this would be obvious as I went so "over-the-top"...

 

evolutionfairytale post #64

 

(ikester7579 @ Jun 18 2010, 04:19 AM)

And what about H*vind and Carl Baugh? I guess when you are a creationist, degrees do matter because what you believe does not support certain views. Because if degrees did not matter, the hoopla created about their degrees would not have mattered either. But the idea that they did not go to Harvard was driven into the ground and broke off. So if that is the way a creationist is going to be treated, that is also the way I will treat a evolutionist. If people cannot take what they dish out to others, not my problem.

 

But then again, Ben Stein has several degrees from schools like what is required by evos. What good did that do when he decided to go against evolution? So it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't if you dare challenge evolution.

*

Geode: You seem to be answering to something other than what I posted. I have made a case in multiple posts that the presence or absence of a degree is not what really counts in scientific research. It was the creationist to whom I made the reply who was trying to undermine the credibility of some individuals due to their lack of a degree, and it was to this that I responded. I actually took a rather neutral stance, unlike what he or she did, or the "tit for tat" argument you seem to be making here in apparent support of that claim.

 

"My comments, edited only to correct the spelling of "pursue"...

 

And a contemporary, Abraham Lincoln didn't have a law degree.  How many of the notable men of that era actually obtained degrees in subjects they were able to pursue successfully? Lyell and Darwin had university training in the sciences they came to dominate that was about as good as anyone in that era. Lyell became a professor of geology."

 

But it is true that actually having university training in the sciences helps one to understand what they are either supporting or challenging. How many here have taken university geology or biology classes?

 

It is true that I make a case for actually learning about the subject one is either supporting or attacking. I see an apparent lack of much if any understanding about geology in some posts made on this board. This is most readily accomplished by taking some courses, but can be done by reading and researching. I mostly self-taught myself in this way about carbonate stratigraphy while doing my thesis as it became apparent that it would be a large element in my study. I held my own in grilling by professors during my thesis defense.

 

I didn't go to Harvard either, and certainly do not use such arguments against anyone on either side of the fence. The truth be known one of my best courses in geology and the best instructor I ever had in the subject was at a junior college.

 

Most of the work of a petroleum geologist involves training that was gained after starting work, and not from university classes. Rarely are the specifics of what we do covered in university courses. We usually learn the basics in university that provide a foundation to build upon. Some companies have formal class work in the specifics, others have you learn on the job and learning more through mentoring.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geode @ Jun 26 2010, 11:11 AM)

 

Phil,

 

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

 

Cheers, Geode

 

*

 

it's best not to make assumptions about people you don't know. And making it personal like you have with the snide remark at the end. If you do not like debating someone you can click on their name then click ignore and their posts will disappear so you don't have to read them.

57265[/snapback]

This was obviously meant to be a little joke for Phil to chuckle about since someone had taken a swipe at him just a little earlier about history degrees. My post was purposely way over-the-top and I thought this would be obvious to anybody posting on the board. Phil seems to have gotten the joke as was evident in a similar post from him. I would think the jibe I took at myself at my own expense would clinch my intent. What was snide at the end, my using "cheers"....well Phil is British so I used a sign-off they use. I guess I have learned that humor will not be as easily recognized here as I have found it is elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::lol:

 

I should have read a little more before applying my comment to Geode. Please transfer my comment to the likes of my fellow creationist and we'll see if my new friend Cassiterides can stand the heat. ;):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line of reasoning is entirely faulty. I have no more than a high school education, as far as papers go, should I keep my mouth shut about all subject matters until I have a slip of paper that purports my qualifications?

As long as you are being honest about history, i accept anyone to debate, i don't care about qualification. However all i have seen in this thread is evolutionist lies and dishonesty. I don't tolerate lies. :rolleyes:

 

Let's make it real simple:

 

1. History only begins with the historical record (ancient writings).

2. Anything before this, it speculative and not real history.

 

When did the historical record begin?

 

It began only a few thousand years ago, there are no ancient texts or documentated evidences of history before this period. Thw following quote notes of this fact:

 

''It should be remembered...that real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''

 

- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

 

The evolutionists in this thread however ignorantly think it is a 'fact', man is hundred's of thousands of years old. When i asked them were they there to observe that, they then attacked my beliefs or typed out some other garbage.

 

So this combined with the fact PhilC and Geode don't even have a degree in history is why I just don't want to waste my time debating liars.

 

So we have lies + people who don't even have an education in history. It's a disgusting mix, which just wastes my time.

 

No one tollerates liars or dishonesty. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's make it real simple:

 

1. History only begins with the historical record (ancient writings).

2. Anything before this, it speculative and not real history.

 

That explains a lot!

 

Menes 2,900 BCE. Who was his dad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That explains a lot!

 

Menes 2,900 BCE.  Who was his dad?

57291[/snapback]

The date is 2200BC, his father was Ham. See Genesis 10: 6.

 

Mizraim = Menes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this is not going to stop here. So I am closing this thread.

 

If this personal argument continues into other threads, I will suspend and even ban. So if you need cool off time, or think you cannot debate such a person. You click on their name and then click ignore. The member you do this with his posts will disappear so you don't have to read them if what they say hits you hot button.

 

Now does the member's posts you ignore totally disappear? nope. It becomes a link so you don't have to read it unless you want to. Now if anyone makes fun of a member who ignores another, I will suspend you. The ignore option is there for a reason. It allows members cool off time, or in the case where two don't get along, it allows them to stay at the forum without getting on each others nerves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms