Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amen! Once that magical thinking is invoked, everything becomes moot. Why would God require Noah to build anything? Why would God need to use a flood when simple "smiting" would work. Why destroy all the innocent animals, babies, etc. when He could simply selectively weed out the bad ones? I could go on . . . but the problems with invoking the magical thinking paradigm are legion. It epically fails!
Strangely, we are in agreement yet again, Arq.
I have always said that we are agree on more than we disagree on. The only thing we do really disagree on is the interpretation of everything through godfaith.
P.s David Hatcher-Childress.(mentioned in an earlier post)
"Historical archaeologist Charles E. Orser (editor of International Journal of Historical Archaeology) has criticized Childress's writings:
Pseudo-archaeologists continue to perpetuate the idea that Atlantis was a racialized place. David Hatcher Childress, one of the most flagrant violators of basic archaeological reasoning, has provided perhaps the most outrageous racialized vision of Atlantis. In discussing Tiahuanaco in Bolivia—as a palace built long before any Native South Americans were present—Childress proposes that the majestic site could only have been constructed by the "Atlantean League." The league was composed of mythic seafarers who "sailed the world spreading a megalithic culture, and wore red turbans over their blond hair" (Childress 1986: 139, emphasis added). Nowhere did Plato, the only actual source on Atlantis, mention the blond hair of the Atlanteans. Plato did mention that the men and women of Atlantis, being semi-divine, were inherently good . . . The correlation between goodness and whiteness is thus obvious in Childress's formulation and in much else that has been written about Atlantis."
— Charles E. Orser, Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation[Wiki]
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-17-2015 at 06:26 AM..
I have always said that we are agree on more than we disagree on. The only thing we do really disagree on is the interpretation of everything through godfaith.
P.s David Hatcher-Childress.(mentioned in an earlier post)
"Historical archaeologist Charles E. Orser (editor of International Journal of Historical Archaeology) has criticized Childress's writings:
Pseudo-archaeologists continue to perpetuate the idea that Atlantis was a racialized place. David Hatcher Childress, one of the most flagrant violators of basic archaeological reasoning, has provided perhaps the most outrageous racialized vision of Atlantis. In discussing Tiahuanaco in Bolivia—as a palace built long before any Native South Americans were present—Childress proposes that the majestic site could only have been constructed by the "Atlantean League." The league was composed of mythic seafarers who "sailed the world spreading a megalithic culture, and wore red turbans over their blond hair" (Childress 1986: 139, emphasis added). Nowhere did Plato, the only actual source on Atlantis, mention the blond hair of the Atlanteans. Plato did mention that the men and women of Atlantis, being semi-divine, were inherently good . . . The correlation between goodness and whiteness is thus obvious in Childress's formulation and in much else that has been written about Atlantis."
— Charles E. Orser, Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation[Wiki]
The History channel{WE ALL KNOW IS TRUTH/LOL.}
They did a show on the ancient Samoans{I think that's the name}.
Anyway, they dug under miles of ash and found this lost city where supposedly the legend stemmed from. The ash preserved even the colors of the painting on the walls, and they assure us that the people in those images are Hebrew, and supposedly around the time of Moses, some Hebrews went to this place until it was buried, and now contain reliefs of the lost city and people of Atlantis.
I don't know how much truth there is in the whole thing considering the source, but even so, wouldn't it be amusing if Hitler was claiming to be from a people that were originally Hebrew?
Yes, I see, settlements (330 houses - hardly a 'city') daring from after 1,000 B.C. Stone foundations, walls. I didn't see any hypothesis of derivation from the Hebrews, but I did see one linking them with the Minoans. On precious little evidence that I could see.
Let them have their fun.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-17-2015 at 12:04 PM..
Pseudo-archaeologists continue to perpetuate the idea that Atlantis was a racialized place. David Hatcher Childress, one of the most flagrant violators of basic archaeological reasoning, has provided perhaps the most outrageous racialized vision of Atlantis. In discussing Tiahuanaco in Bolivia—as a palace built long before any Native South Americans were present—Childress proposes that the majestic site could only have been constructed by the "Atlantean League." The league was composed of mythic seafarers who "sailed the world spreading a megalithic culture, and wore red turbans over their blond hair" (Childress 1986: 139, emphasis added). Nowhere did Plato, the only actual source on Atlantis, mention the blond hair of the Atlanteans. Plato did mention that the men and women of Atlantis, being semi-divine, were inherently good . . . The correlation between goodness and whiteness is thus obvious in Childress's formulation and in much else that has been written about Atlantis[/i]."
— Charles E. Orser, Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation[Wiki]
Sorry, Arq my friend, but Mr. Charles E. Orser puts forward a nauseatingly stupid argument.
First of all, Mr. Orser bases his entire argument against David Hatcher-Childress on the "Inflation of Conflict" fallacy (The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.)
When it comes to non-mainstream theories and hypotheses, these kinds of cheap tactics are used quite often. In fact, I've even invented a brand new logical fallacy that I've named Argumentum ad Politico Correctium. This is the fallacy of asserting an argument is true or false depending on how politically correct it is.
I see this fallacy a lot when discussing the Pyramids of Giza. Mainstream archaeologists and Egyptologists will actually argue that even suggesting that the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids - or that they had help from elsewhere - is insulting to Egyptians thus the argument can't be true. I've even heard archaeologists claim the Ancient Astronaut Theory as being racist. Seriously?!?! Yeah, seriously. Now, if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is ... and Mr. Orser fell head-first into that trap.
Now, can Childress get over-zealous? Perhaps. I'd be curious to know where he got the idea that Atlanteans wore red turbans and had blonde hair ... I don't know, I haven't researched it. But making the claim that a civilization had blonde hair is NOT racist as Mr. Orser contends (a little bile rises up my throat every time I think of his argument). Talk about playing the race card - it's one thing to do it on a forum debate, but to try and legitimize the race card as an accepted academic reason to dismiss an argument is disgusting, IMO. What if Childress claimed that the Atlanteans had dark skin and black hair? Wouldn't that be a racist statement against whites and the fair skinned?
Strange how even MENTIONING blonde hair or anything physically resembling an Aryan trope is automatically racist. Gimme a break. And I'm pretty far away from being Aryan so this isn't me trying to defend my own race. I just think this issue of white guilt needs to stop as it serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters of academia. After all, there WAS a white-skinned, blonde-haired pre-Inca civilization in Peru that were known by the darker skinned tribes as The Cloud People or "the white warriors of the clouds." Some of the tribes considered them "white gods." But ... I guess we shouldn't talk about that because it is RACIST to think that darker skinned tribes in Peru saw white-skinned people as gods since that would imply being darker skinned is inferior! Gasp, Gasp, Choke, and Gasp!
Oh yeah, and I haven't even gotten around to asking why Mr. Orser's argument in any way invalidates Childress's argument about why a primitive culture would choose to build megalithic structures when they could have built them in a much more manageable way.
Now I'm beginning to wonder how he/they were able to do the more simple things like making the thousands and thousands of planks they'd have needed for the ark.
The simple answer is - Noah couldn't have done any of those things. Boat-building was not exactly a hot career choice for tribes living in the desert so the techniques were not widely known. To give you an idea of just how true that is, take Peter the Great, a czar of Russia in the late 1600's. One of his goals was to establish a Russian navy but no one in Russia had the skills to build a ship with the same complexity and power as the Europeans. Peter the Great actually went to Europe and learned how to build European-style ships himself and brought back the knowledge to Russia.
Now ... if as late as the 1600's even the Russians didn't know how to build large ships, why should anyone believe that one guy living in the Middle Eastern desert somehow knew how to do it? Yeah, it's pretty dumb to even consider it.
In addition, building a wooden ship over 400 feet long is problematic in and of itself. The keel, or the backbone of a ship, wasn't invented until the 600's A.D. by the Vikings. Until then, ships were usually flat-bottomed with shallow drafts which made them unstable in high seas. This is why sea travel was confined to coastal waters for many many centuries and why many archaeologists and historians insist that oceans were barriers to cross-cultural pollination. The technology to build large ocean-going ships simply didn't exist (though it's possible that small raft-like ships may have gotten lucky and made it across large bodies of water).
So what does that mean? It means that a 400+ foot-long wooden ship without a keel would crack in half the moment a wave hit it.
I mean, yeah, sure, apologists will simply say that God told Noah how to build the ark including the as-of-yet unknown keel, but seriously ... might as well just say God poofed all of the lumber into Noah's hands, too, prefabricated complete with nails, rope, tar and pitch to give it watertight integrity, and even an illustrated instruction book written in English, French, Spanish, German, and Chinese.
"Step 5, the deck: Insert deck planks (Part AA) into the grooves as shown in figure 4. Hammer the 8" nails through the pre-drilled holes to secure the deck planks to the side of the ship. See figure 5. Insert tab A into slot B, repeat 2,527 times to complete the main deck."
"Step 6, the tiger pens: Caution - ensure that you complete step 6 BEFORE putting the tigers inside or serious injury or death could occur (and that would really screw up God's plan if you, Noah, Moderator cut: goofed up and got yourself killed by a tiger because you were stupid.)"
The ark wouldn't be any harder to build than a prefabricated desk you can buy at Wal-Mart!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
This wasn't a small scale operation. And took more than 100 years to complete.
Heh, yeah, and by taking that long to build, by the time he finished, the part of the ark he built first would be suffering from dry rot, splitting beams, and nails working themselves loose. Oh, but I'm sure God was there working his miracles to keep any of that from happening - perhaps even giving Noah some manna like he did for the Israelites.
Sorry, Arq my friend, but Mr. Charles E. Orser puts forward a nauseatingly stupid argument.
First of all, Mr. Orser bases his entire argument against David Hatcher-Childress on the "Inflation of Conflict" fallacy (The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.)
When it comes to non-mainstream theories and hypotheses, these kinds of cheap tactics are used quite often. In fact, I've even invented a brand new logical fallacy that I've named Argumentum ad Politico Correctium. This is the fallacy of asserting an argument is true or false depending on how politically correct it is.
I see this fallacy a lot when discussing the Pyramids of Giza. Mainstream archaeologists and Egyptologists will actually argue that even suggesting that the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids - or that they had help from elsewhere - is insulting to Egyptians thus the argument can't be true. I've even heard archaeologists claim the Ancient Astronaut Theory as being racist. Seriously?!?! Yeah, seriously. Now, if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is ... and Mr. Orser fell head-first into that trap.
Now, can Childress get over-zealous? Perhaps. I'd be curious to know where he got the idea that Atlanteans wore red turbans and had blonde hair ... I don't know, I haven't researched it. But making the claim that a civilization had blonde hair is NOT racist as Mr. Orser contends (a little bile rises up my throat every time I think of his argument). Talk about playing the race card - it's one thing to do it on a forum debate, but to try and legitimize the race card as an accepted academic reason to dismiss an argument is disgusting, IMO. What if Childress claimed that the Atlanteans had dark skin and black hair? Wouldn't that be a racist statement against whites and the fair skinned?
Strange how even MENTIONING blonde hair or anything physically resembling an Aryan trope is automatically racist. Gimme a break. And I'm pretty far away from being Aryan so this isn't me trying to defend my own race. I just think this issue of white guilt needs to stop as it serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters of academia. After all, there WAS a white-skinned, blonde-haired pre-Inca civilization in Peru that were known by the darker skinned tribes as The Cloud People or "the white warriors of the clouds." Some of the tribes considered them "white gods." But ... I guess we shouldn't talk about that because it is RACIST to think that darker skinned tribes in Peru saw white-skinned people as gods since that would imply being darker skinned is inferior! Gasp, Gasp, Choke, and Gasp!
Oh yeah, and I haven't even gotten around to asking why Mr. Orser's argument in any way invalidates Childress's argument about why a primitive culture would choose to build megalithic structures when they could have built them in a much more manageable way.
Ok. do, please, get around to it. When you point it out, Orser is getting his drawers in a twist about Atlantis populated with blond aryans. I posted it because really the Atlantis inhabited by Greeks theory as per Plato does rather prejudice me against Childress. But theories on their merits. The various odd theories about the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids or some frothing about perceived racism is not really the issue. I take the point about couldn't they have picked an easier way? I already mentioned that, if you are going to spend days shaping a surface with stone tools, you don't make a lot of small blocks to work: you make the biggest you can handle as you have less work per block.
The only worry is that we may have got off the topic and the Mods may be getting impatient.
Yes, I see, settlements (330 houses - hardly a 'city') daring from after 1,000 B.C. Stone foundations, walls. I didn't see any hypothesis of derivation from the Hebrews, but I did see one linking them with the Minoans. On precious little evidence that I could see.
Let them have their fun.
Minoans, Samoans, tomato , tomato, LOL , I already said I wasn't sure of the name, but it had to be true, it was on the history channel.
Minoans, Samoans, tomato , tomato, LOL , I already said I wasn't sure of the name, but it had to be true, it was on the history channel.
Well, the facts seem to have a basis, it's all in the Interpretation. Btw Minoans and Samoans are a lot more different than different accents when referring to a fruit.
Well, the facts seem to have a basis, it's all in the Interpretation. Btw Minoans and Samoans are a lot more different than different accents when referring to a fruit.
The global flood was not necessary ... Since humans were the problem why would God destroy every living thing and wash away the entire surface of the planet when a virus would have done a very neat job in a far shorter time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Btw Minoans and Samoans are a lot more different than different accents when referring to a fruit.
