Hi Adrian,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Adrian Teo
>Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:56 AM
>AT: Glenn, my point was not to say that we should doubt everything that has
>less than 100% mathematical certainty. Instead, I am saying that we should
>not readily jump to conclusions unless we have ruled out other
>possibilities
>(to some degree of certainty). Perhaps these scientists have (to their
>credit), but it was not clear in the quotes you posted.
Then I would suggest reading the articles. I have. They discuss the issues
of effort to arrange the bones at Nahr Ibrahim.
The effort of some of these sites is far more than required for showing off
[afterall why take a showing off trophy deep into a cave where no one will
see it?] At Bruniquel, the Neanderthals went deep into the cave, totally out
of the range of light and that is dangerous, requires effort. They had to
plan lighting (lamps or torches) and take enough to never run out of light
or they would be lost forever. And then they had to bring the bear body with
them. Bears are not found deep underground, so it is unlikely that they
found a bear there as deep as they were. Even bears in cave rarely go into
the total darkness of the deeper cave. They also need to find their way back
to the surface. The Bruniquel people then built a square structure and
burned the bear there. Fires are not very likely underground in the total
dark of a cave even if a bear gets trapped there. And they had to have
enough fuel in the form of wood to burn the bear. One simply doesn't touch a
torch to a bear fur and expect the bear to be incinerated. These were the
days before gasoline you know.
At Chauvet, the intentionality of the bear skull arrangment is clear from
the fact that there are NO skeletal bones! The bears heads were carried
into the cave but no legs. Thus, this deposit is not the site of natural
bear deaths. Once again, fire is not common in caves. There is nothing
combustible and there is no spark. Caves are damp (if you have ever been in
many you will know). Thus to find a bear skull on a rock
__
| |__ Skull
|_____|
fire*____
| |rock
| |
| |
| |
Sure, it could have
>been for religiouse purposes, but the language of the reports you cited
>gives the false impression of a high degree of confidence that I thnk is
>unwarranted.
Yeah, because they have examined the evidence and you havn't. This is a
case of the non-expert, who hasn't actually read the articles, much less
excavated the site, telling the expert what he found. That seems to be a
bit over the top. One really should listen to the guy who did the study
unless one has clear evidence refuting what he says.
In fact, such unwarranted confidence is an indication of a
>strong bias. It would be perhaps be more helpful if they could give some
>rough estimate (and not even necessarily numerical) of the level of
>certainty that comes with these conclusions.
Probability is never done when we discuss the Bible or concerning Washington
crossing the Delaware so why are you asking for something no one else does
in any equivalent field? I suggest it is to give cover for the denial of
evidence that you don't like.
>AT: I don't know Binford, but I would not go to his extreme. I am not
>casually discounting these evidence that are in fact consistent with the
>religious practice hypothesis, but rather, asking to see if there are
>perhaps other pluasible explnations that have not been ruled out. You seem
>to be way too defensive in your reaction to my post.
The first thing to do is read the articles if you are serious in doubting
them. To do anything less is to avoid the responsibility of the researcher.
Go read the articles and then decide.
>
>AT: 4000 years ago, we have lots of written record of ancient practices.
I am sorry, I meant 4000 BC. We have no written records of the use of the
Maltese temples. And so what if we did? Can't those people lie? I mean if
we are going to doubt things, lets go whole hog! Why do things halfway.
WE
>know what the norm is in those days for various civilizations. It is
>altogether a different matter when we are speaking about Neanderthal
>activities.
Given the correction, tell me how you can prove that the Maltese temples
were religous in nature. THey were built just prior to writing. And what of
the stone circles in Scotland? There are hundreds of them, all built before
writing came to the British Isles. Are we to discount them as religious
sites? One site in the Orkneys took 200,000 man-hours to build! Seems a bit
over the top if it wasn't for religion.
>
>
>
>Glenn:I would ask why one would doubt the Chauvet Cave example I cited?
>
>AT: So that one does not readily allow one's bias to creep in.
But you are showing your bias by never having actually read the articles and
books on these sites. Go read the articles.
>
>
>Glenn: Why else
>would people take bear skulls (only skulls) into a dark cave and place
>one
>of them on a big rock in the center of the cave starting a fire behind
>it?
>
>AT: Wait a minute! This is a highly suspect argument. Just beacsue
>one can't
>imaigne it to be otherwise does not automatically permit one to conclude
>that therefore there are no other possibilities.
The doubt anything that we can't overcome argument. While logically true, I
can apply your methodology to historical temples. Just because someone says
that it was used for religious purposes doesn't make it so. Do you beleive
every thing you read in the press?
>AT: No I am not asking for that level of certainty. In your eagerness to
>defend your theory, I think you may have misunderstood my point.
Oh yes you are, see immediately above!!!!
>
>GLenn: Apply your skepticism
>to
>the Bible and you will find that we have no proof of the resurrection,
>no
>proof that Jesus lived, no proof that Moses was real, no proof of David,
>the
>exodus, the conquest, Solomon or any other event recorded in the
>Scripture.
>I can claim that Jesus was a mythical figure inflated to existence by
>his
>imaginative disciples and there is nothing you can do to prove me wrong.
>
>AT: The skepticism that you are describing is not mine.
Sure looks the same to me.
I am not
>looking for
>mathematical proof. I am looking to systematically compare the data to
>competing hypotheses.
And you do this by not even reading the articles? I would commend you on
your methodology.
>
>AT: I can't help but notice an unusual level of defensiveness in your post.
NO, it is frustration at dealing with someone determined to doubt
everything. Of course we can do that. But upon what basis? Why can we only
use analogy on religion when it is in historical periods where we have
historical documents attesting to religious activities? What kind of sense
does that make? It means that religion began when man began to write. And
that seems silly.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 16:53:11 EDT