Glenn wrote, in part: "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."
I want to say a word here about this concept. The ancient Greeks had a
philosophy of science that had two parts. Part 2 is the one I usually refer
to in discussions here -- it says "Ascribe nothing to the gods." IOW, look
for natural causation. But part 1 is what my friend Glenn refers to; "Look
at ALL the evidence." Both are important.
My daughter, a lawyer, tells me that if she cannot argue her opponents case
as well (or better) than he can, she does not have much chance in court. I
think that concept must apply even more to matters of science, morality and
religion. It is for that reason that on my web site, when I discuss a
certain question of Christian morality (one which persons here are not
particularly prone to discuss), I necessarily include arguments and source
data on both sides. It is for that reason that Glenn is not afraid to look
at ALL the evidences, and is also not slow to back down from a position when
he finds contrary evidences. It is for that reason that he reads ORIGINAL
SOURCES whenever possible. Yeah -- he is sometimes more blunt than I, a
peacekeeper by nature, might be. But I suggest that he has good reasons to
be.
I highly commend for STUDY Glenn's two books, and the sources on his site
which support them. He does competent work. I disagree with Glenn not on the
basis of his data sources, but on the necessity for holding to a historicity
of Adam and Noah; he holds that such is important and I hold that they are
simply folk stories. Both of us agree, however, on the position that early
Genesis does have important theological truth to teach us.
Regards from
Hoss (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Glenn Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
>To: "Adrian Teo" <ateo@whitworth.edu>, "'Asa@Calvin. Edu '"
><asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: How and when did we become "men"?
>Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:54:37 -0700
>
>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
>
> >
> >
>
Hoss (aka Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 21 2002 - 16:48:07 EDT