one by one...
No, it doesn't. The vast majority of the Bible was writing in the period between 200AD and 1200AD. Such sections as COULD be considered historically accurate are the result of interpretation of fragments and local oral tradition. At least be factually correct in this.
So what - you could test the soil ANYWHERE and it would be trace radioactive.
So which is it - either it WAS a nuclear explosion, or they can't explain it. Make your mind up. By the way, how much of a scientist is "most" and does it include the brain?
I'll allow that you calling it "ions later" is some form of Freudian slip. The rest, at best, is wishful thinking.
Lets be honest - the bible is a great handbook for morals (with large chunks about smiting and begetting that are notable exceptions). Apochrophal at best, it is a set of fables and distorted recollections that set out a way to live wrapped in a belief system. It bears mentioning that it was written at the bidding of a political and religious elite (one and the same at the time) with the express purpose of ensuring the continuation of established social strata and mores.
Its neither science nor history in the way we would understand either in this day and age.
Enough - I've skirted and passed through the local boundaries of restriction on religion, politics and that other thing. Take it as read that we seriously disagree.
No, it doesn't. The vast majority of the Bible was writing in the period between 200AD and 1200AD. Such sections as COULD be considered historically accurate are the result of interpretation of fragments and local oral tradition. At least be factually correct in this.
So what - you could test the soil ANYWHERE and it would be trace radioactive.
So which is it - either it WAS a nuclear explosion, or they can't explain it. Make your mind up. By the way, how much of a scientist is "most" and does it include the brain?
I'll allow that you calling it "ions later" is some form of Freudian slip. The rest, at best, is wishful thinking.
Lets be honest - the bible is a great handbook for morals (with large chunks about smiting and begetting that are notable exceptions). Apochrophal at best, it is a set of fables and distorted recollections that set out a way to live wrapped in a belief system. It bears mentioning that it was written at the bidding of a political and religious elite (one and the same at the time) with the express purpose of ensuring the continuation of established social strata and mores.
Its neither science nor history in the way we would understand either in this day and age.
Enough - I've skirted and passed through the local boundaries of restriction on religion, politics and that other thing. Take it as read that we seriously disagree.
Last edited:
I dont think nuclear capability is the issue and neither is it bat crazy, its just your realm of reality is struggling to deal with it. Why is it so hard to believe our ancestors were technologically advanced and died off for some reason. Do you not think we could potentially suffer the same fate? Who will survive and how will they live for the next 10k years?
The issue is there is not a shred of evidence - only conjecture. Bring me one long chain carbon item (plastic) dating from 35000BC, a single piece of credible technology trash of the same or earlier era - hell even as late as 3,500BC since we now have claims of Sodom being a nuclear test site and advanced building techniques at the Pathenon.
The sort of technology you imagine (I wouldn't go as far as signifying it as a theory) doesn't exist in isolation - it is built and supported by vast infrastructures. Vast infrastructure, regardless of age, leaves a footprint.
Where is the size 42 Nike?
you may very well be right. Its true that Graham Hancock stretches things a little, but he has some very interesting points that question the validity of archeology, dating and history.
BTW wouldnt plastic break down over all this time?
one by one...
No, it doesn't. The vast majority of the Bible was writing in the period between 200AD and 1200AD. Such sections as COULD be considered historically accurate are the result of interpretation of fragments and local oral tradition. At least be factually correct in this.
The Irony :
The old testament dates back to 15 BC ....................................
So what - you could test the soil ANYWHERE and it would be trace radioactive.
Yeah really , in that region , by whom , using rhetoric and opinion to override discovery !
So which is it - either it WAS a nuclear explosion, or they can't explain it. Make your mind up. By the way, how much of a scientist is "most" and does it include the brain?
More silliness , they could not explain the findings apart from it had to come from an Nuclear explosion ....
Lets be honest - the bible is a great handbook for morals (with large chunks about smiting and begetting that are notable exceptions). Apochrophal at best, it is a set of fables and distorted recollections that set out a way to live wrapped in a belief system. It bears mentioning that it was written at the bidding of a political and religious elite (one and the same at the time) with the express purpose of ensuring the continuation of established social strata and mores.
Its neither science nor history in the way we would understand either in this day and age.
Enough - I've skirted and passed through the local boundaries of restriction on religion, politics and that other thing. Take it as read that we seriously disagree.
Agree, as you are making up your own words , i never said it was science or history , I said it is a book of record , written from the 15BC , of course I'm confident you have older in your possession to dispute it's ramblings or is this another one of your opinions backed by nothing ...
Thread closed.- Status
- Not open for further replies.