Mysteries of the Bible

[d8alus]

Here's my challenge to you Jaguar, get a bible and research the prophecies of the old testament, the prophecies that Christ made and the book of Revelations. Then research history from the time period of the old testament until today and prove to us that all the prophecies were wrong.

[Guest]

LOL, that is funny Kiran, I know the Bible backward and forward. I was an altar boy, I went to Catholic School from 1st grade to 10th grade.

You do NOT want to have fun with me. That I guarantee.

I am backing out of this debate again, I have said far more then I should have.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

It doesn't work in science, debate or anything else, ONLY in religion is circular reasoning an acceptable logic.

---

Hehe, if Albert Einstein was still around I'm sure he would be quite amused with that statement. I know I am.

[ 12-12-2002, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Andergum]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kiran:

Here's my challenge to you Jaguar, get a bible and research the prophecies of the old testament, the prophecies that Christ made and the book of Revelations. Then research history from the time period of the old testament until today and prove to us that all the prophecies were wrong.

---

Better yet, prove that ANY of them were correct!

Its like an old psychic trick, you can make any statement appear to mean anything you want by the way you twist the meanings around. Also for those you think you CAN prove to be correct, don't you think it would be in the best interest of the parties claiming to know future prophecies to make sure that some of them happen, to lend more creedence to what doctrine they are trying to promote?

"fear of reprisal is an excellent imperial control."

heh, religion has the ultimate "fear of reprisal" with no chance of it ever being disproven. Everyone who REALLY knows what happens to us when we die is already dead.

Do as our religion says or you will burn in hell for all eternity... pretty scary stuff

My only problem with religion comes when people use it to take advantage of others or when people decide that their religion is the "right" one and others are wrong. That's when tempers flair and you end up with problems like in the mideast.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Hehe, if Albert Einstein was still around I'm sure he would be quite amused with that statement. I know I am.

---

Really? and what part of that statement would amuse him?

Circular reasoning is not scientific and you CANNOT use it to PROVE anything, and if you think that Einstein pretended otherwise, then someone gave you BAD information, or was lying to you.

[d8alus]

quote:

---

Better yet, prove that ANY of them were correct!

---

yeah, well, I'm too lazy for that...

Seriously, I wouldn't know where to begin to look. I also admit that a group of people causing the prophecy to come true would make for a great control element. So what happens when the people that fulfill the prophecy are the ones that don't believe it and don't want it to happen?

[Raven]

quote:

---

Luck and random occurance are totally seperate entities (for lack of a better word). A random occurance is just that, random. Luck on the other hand would alter that random occurance to either benefit (good luck) or hurt (bad luck) the person or people involved. That's like saying that every time you flip a coin, God directs the outcome. He doesn't have to, He set physics in place for a reason. And despite what my brother will tell you when he's playing a game, physics do not arbitrarily change for people.

---

Well darling, I agree with you on this one, nothing up and changes the laws of physics in someone's favor, and people who are considered lucky at games of chance usually know how to cheat. However a random event is an event which has some level of uncertainty about its outcome (how the dice are going to land for example). Now, I would argue that there is no uncertainty, simply a lack of information. If you knew the starting trajectories of the dice, there mass, spin, the various properties of the surface they are colliding with, you could come up with a fairly good idea of how they are going to land. If you have every iota of data pertaining to the dice and all forces influencing them, then you can predict exactly how they will land because everything is based off of laws of physics and behaves in a manner exactly accordant with said laws.

Now, that means that every natural event can be predicted by knowing the state of all matter and energy at any point in history (after all, it's like a recursive formula, start at any point and you'll always reach the same result). Now, you might ask what about people? We have free will, we are more then our physical components (well, actually we're not, but a lot of people seem to think we are). The answer is the same, our brains are chemical computers that react based on the laws of physics to produce reactions based on what is happening in the world around us (which we have already determined to be fixed and without random events).

What about the soul? Don't we have souls that make us more then just a conglomeration of chemicals that tend to stay conglomerated? Well, actually no, but you probably believe otherwise, so let's operate under the assumption that we have souls. Now, ask yourself what is a soul. Most people would answer that it is some type of energy that inhabits our physical body and passes out of it when we die (presumably to go to haven, or hell, or purgatory, if that's your belief). Now, assuming the soul has some effect on the decision making process in our brain, let's think about how this is going to work.

Either the soul operates under some logical procedures, the equivalent of laws of physics for souls, or else it is chaotic in an extreme way (I don't think the latter is even comprehensible, without the equivalent of laws of physics there would be nothing to keep the soul from dissipating, or from simply ceasing to exist, or from growing to insane proportions). Now, if the first scenario is correct, and souls are bound by some type of physical law, then it is no different then the brain in that it is still bound into the logical progression based on previous physical reactions.

Now, if the latter is true I don't know what to say, your soul just might disappear tomorrow, it would be totally chaotic and illogical. If, however, it was only partially bound by physical laws, thus partially free from the equation that is carried over from one moment to another and determines all of what has happened and all of what will happen then we still don't have free will, rather we are guided by a random factor that would function unfettered by the world around us, physical or spiritual. Let me say it again, this is not free will; rather it is simply being guided by a truly random element. I still do not believe this is possible, however, as it goes against everything we understand about how the universe works.

Thus there is no such thing as free will, and should there be an all knowing and all powerful deity then it is directly responsible for every single event that happens, every bit of misery and joy, everything.

quote:

---

Well, that depends on whether or not you accept the bible as fact or fiction. It is very hard to explain the bible to someone that doesn't believe a word of it.

---

Well, I believe that parts of it are indeed based off of historical events (that there no doubt was a Jesus and other characters, at least in the new testament, though I can't say I know which characters truly existed and which didn't). But that aside, if you need to believe in the bible for the bible to make any sense, then it is circular. You can not prove the bible to be valid by using the information within the bible.

quote:

---

Here's my challenge to you Jaguar, get a bible and research the prophecies of the old testament, the prophecies that Christ made and the book of Revelations. Then research history from the time period of the old testament until today and prove to us that all the prophecies were wrong.

---

First of all, I don't doubt that some of the prophecies can be construed as correct. After all, as I understand it they are worded vaguely and are generally taken symbolically, which leaves an incredible amount of room open for real events to fall at least mostly into place given enough time. Furthermore, it is not impossible for someone (or a group of someones) to try to fulfill a given prophecy.

[ 12-12-2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[DraconisRex]

The way this thread is turning, it may as well be about King Arthur... There's enough evidence to prove that he may have existed, but not enough to state as fact that he did.

Still, proof denies faith. But one with enough faith can move mountains, or so they say. But science promised us flying cars by the year 2000, scheduled trips to the moon, and a moonbase and a base station on Mars. Fell short of that mark...

Logic kills faith, yet faith disproves logic when applied. Which is right? That depends only on what you believe.

Something that may have been missed here -- on the assumption that (a) supreme being(s) created the universe, they would tend to mold out of known designs -- his/themselves. That being the case, there is a little spark in all of us that is God-like, but not all powerful. Oh, what a wonderful web we're weaving -- I just don't want to be the male as the female tarantula decides she's hungry....

[d8alus]

quote:

---

Thus there is no such thing as free will, and should there be an all knowing and all powerful deity then it is directly responsible for every single event that happens, every bit of misery and joy, everything.

---

Ok, let's work with that.

Assume there is a God. Then everything you just typed and everything I type is a result of His control and we are merely puppets, right? Every time I scratch my head it's because He made me? Every game I play and enjoy is because He's making me do it?

Ok, assume there's not a God. Then what? Everything we think, do, say, type, play, watch is just a chain-reaction result of the big bang? The whole universe and all it's elements are just snowballing and have since the beginning?

quote:

---

You can not prove the bible to be valid by using the information within the bible.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

First of all, I don't doubt that some of the prophecies can be construed as correct. After all, as I understand it they are worded vaguely and are generally taken symbolically, which leaves an incredible amount of room open for real events to fall at least mostly into place given enough time.

---

Like horoscopes?

On both the last two points I agree completely. That's where personal experience comes in. It's hard for me to explain, especially now when I'm struggling with my own faith (for reasons unrelated to this thread). But I know it as truth. Not think, not believe, know. I don't want to sound pushy, but that's how I feel about my faith. Take it for what it's worth.

[Guest]

quote:

---

On both the last two points I agree completely. That's where personal experience comes in. It's hard for me to explain, especially now when I'm struggling with my own faith (for reasons unrelated to this thread). But I know it as truth. Not think, not believe, know. I don't want to sound pushy, but that's how I feel about my faith. Take it for what it's worth.

---

I think that it's great, if you need faith to fulfill your life, then who am I to tell you that it's wrong?

That is the problem with most Christians that I run across, it isn't enough that what I believe makes me happy, IT HAS TO BE what they believe or nothing. I find that sad really, because NO ONE is the same, and Christianity may be enough for some, but it definitly was NEVER enough for me.

If you are ahppy in your faith, then that is what matters, just don't force your faith upon others, and we will get along JUST FINE!!

[d8alus]

quote:

---

That is the problem with most Christians that I run across, it isn't enough that what I believe makes me happy, IT HAS TO BE what they believe or nothing

---

I agree...and last time I checked, it wasn't my choice to decide what you believe. In fact, that very reason is what turns most people off to discussing beliefs and the saddest part is that this kind of behavior is not what Christ intended. I'm perfectly content to let anyone believe what they want. If they ask me my beliefs, I'll tell them. If they ask me what I think of their beliefs, I'll tell them. But I won't be rude about it and I won't insult them for it, after all, that's un-Christian.

[IceCold]

Jaguar,

Do you understand the GENERAL theory of realtivity? Do you have any clue? All of modern science is based upon circular reasoning, the act of proving something using principles that define it already. I ask you this, PROVE any scientific theory or hypothisis beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can't do it? I'll make it harder, don't use any mathamatical deffinitions to define the theories. There is no absolute truth in science, the question "prove the bible," is irrelevent for you cannot prove anything you know or beleive in.

It is all faith.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Do you understand the GENERAL theory of realtivity? Do you have any clue? All of modern science is based upon circular reasoning, the act of proving something using principles that define it already. I ask you this, PROVE any scientific theory or hypothisis beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can't do it? I'll make it harder, don't use any mathamatical deffinitions to define the theories. There is no absolute truth in science, the question "prove the bible," is irrelevent for you cannot prove anything you know or beleive in.

It is all faith.

---

It is NOT faith, science is NOT based on faith, nor is proven through circular logic like you claim.

Whomever brainwashed you into actually believing that did a pretty good job. Get me his number, I want to congratulate him on a good job. Snow job that is.

[IceCold]

Fine, prove any scientific "truth"

(I am a physicist)

Scientific deffinitions are taken on faith. They are ASSUMED. You choose to beleive in them. The brainwashing has been done on you my newtonian friend.

[ 12-12-2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Scientific deffinitions are taken on faith.

---

Your ideas on faith are quite amusing.

Science is NOT based on faith, science is based on experimentation to prove a fact through experimentation. If what is proven is not what you expect, then your Hypothesis must be changed. That is NOT faith, that is relying on facts to tell you what the truth is. And if your socalled truth is proven false, then it is layed aside for the hypothesis that fits the facts at hand better.

This is NOT faith, it is taking the facts and creating a scientific Theory based on those facts.

As a physicist, I may be able to see where you are coming from, you have faith that the particles that you are working with exist, because you cannot see them, you only see their reactions with other elements, but not the particles or whatever you happen to be trying to find themselves. This is still based on facts, because SOMETHING has created the condition that you are observing, it does NOT take faith to see that indeed those particles are DOING something, because you can OBSERVE that. Observations are facts, to explain those observations may take some faith, but not much.

So, again, I must disagree wholeheartedly.

Religion takes faith, science relies on facts and REAL observations. You may build a theory on what you believe the facts are, because as yet we do not have the technology to prove those Hypothesis as of yet, ubtil then it may be "faith" as you think of it, but I look at it as, if this does this, then it probably will do that, since obervations and facts tell me that it probably will be so. This takes logic, not faith.

[IceCold]

The primary problem with science is that there are infinite different results to the same experiment. Particle physics hinges on the probability that something may happen. There are infinite variables upon the same experiment and the search for "truth" is ongoing. The scientific method is flawed in the sense that identical results are impossible. The definition of this phenomenon is the chaos theory. Science does not provide fact, it provides theories that are not the rule of the universe but merely an interpretation of the genuine article. If one derives his truth from religion or science both are equally questionable.

Life is about the pursuit of truth. This is why Christianity is not the same as it was in the year 1000 AD. It is a dynamic process. The bible is just as valid as "the origin of species" they are mediums for truth that must evolve toward the ultimate and unreachable goal of certainty.

The Newtonian laws of the universe are not infallible predictors of the universe. You merely need to drop a ball out a window to see that it will not always perform the same way. Relativity is my favorite subject for in its realm, anything can happen. Time is merely an illusion. There is so much more to the world than can be predicted with a series of equations.

[ 12-12-2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]

[IceCold]

...Or with a set of religous doctrines.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Still, proof denies faith. But one with enough faith can move mountains, or so they say. But science promised us flying cars by the year 2000, scheduled trips to the moon, and a moonbase and a base station on Mars. Fell short of that mark...

---

Bah! You mean science fiction, not science.

As for moving mountains with faith, darling, the only things that move mountains are the convection currents in the lithosphere.

quote:

---

Logic kills faith, yet faith disproves logic when applied. Which is right? That depends only on what you believe.

---

First of all, logic doesnÔÇÖt kill faith, that's the problem with it, faith doesn't accept logical refutation. Similarly, faith isn't very good at disproving much.

quote:

---

Oh, what a wonderful web we're weaving -- I just don't want to be the male as the female tarantula decides she's hungry....

---

I don't know darling, I thing that arachnid mating practices are rather fascinating, not to mention sensible.

quote:

---

Assume there is a God. Then everything you just typed and everything I type is a result of His control and we are merely puppets, right? Every time I scratch my head it's because He made me? Every game I play and enjoy is because He's making me do it?

---

Not exactly. Assuming the existence of god, and assuming he isn't actively interfering, then it isn't so much that he is making you do stuff as he made you (or I should say caused the events that ultimately resulted in your birth) in such a manner as you would do various things at various points throughout your life. Now, if he is interfering, the point remains, it simply means that the progression of events is changed from time to time.

quote:

---

Ok, assume there's not a God. Then what? Everything we think, do, say, type, play, watch is just a chain-reaction result of the big bang? The whole universe and all it's elements are just snowballing and have since the beginning?

---

Pretty much, though I don't know if there was a big bang or something else.

quote:

---

Like horoscopes?

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

On both the last two points I agree completely. That's where personal experience comes in. It's hard for me to explain, especially now when I'm struggling with my own faith (for reasons unrelated to this thread). But I know it as truth. Not think, not believe, know. I don't want to sound pushy, but that's how I feel about my faith. Take it for what it's worth.

---

Actually, that's called believing, not knowing. Changing the nomenclature changes nothing.

quote:

---

If they ask me my beliefs, I'll tell them. If they ask me what I think of their beliefs, I'll tell them. But I won't be rude about it and I won't insult them for it, after all, that's un-Christian.

---

Actually it's very Christian; it just isn't very Christ-like, go figure.

quote:

---

The primary problem with science is that there are infinite different results to the same experiment. Particle physics hinges on the probability that something may happen.

---

Which means that not all of the outcomes are equally probable, which means science is in fact a valid method to predict events. Furthermore, probability is used not because the results are random, but because they are impossible to predict with 100% certainty due to unknowns.

quote:

---

The scientific method is flawed in the sense that identical results are impossible.

---

And how, pray tell, is this a flaw?

Science uses inductive reasoning, which means that it will never provide 100% answers the way that math does, which means that there will always be some margin for error. Also, the problem with experiments is simply that not all of the variables can be controlled tightly enough. In an absolutely controlled environment results would be absolute identical, problem is it's impossible to control all variables to this level.

quote:

---

If one derives his truth from religion or science both are equally questionable.

---

Rather they are both questionable, but not equally so. Religion is highly questionable, but while the theories science pumps out are at times questionable, this is part of the scientific process, and science itself is pretty hard to question in a rational manner.

quote:

---

The Newtonian laws of the universe are not infallible predictors of the universe. You merely need to drop a ball out a window to see that it will not always perform the same way.

---

Of course it will react differently; again, this is not because the world is chaotic and unpredictable, but rather because there is a huge mass of missing information that is necessary for accurate predictions (wind currents at various levels, the exact momentum of the ball at point of release, etc.

[d8alus]

:: looks at the direction the thread is taking and runs away waving his hands in the air and screaming hysterically ::

I think some people are taking it a bit too personal.

[d8alus]

quote:

---

Actually, that's called believing, not knowing. Changing the nomenclature changes nothing.

---

You say tomato...I'm not gonna argue that, it's moot.

quote:

---

Pretty much, though I don't know if there was a big bang or something else.

---

So if I went on a killing spree, it's not really my fault, right? I'm just following the effects of the physics around me. That takes away any accountability.

quote:

---

Actually it's very Christian; it just isn't very Christ-like, go figure.

---

I see what you're saying, but just cuz a lot of self-proclaimed Christians act that way doesn't mean it's a Christian way to act. That's a bit close to an insult.

[Raven]

quote:

---

So if I went on a killing spree, it's not really my fault, right? I'm just following the effects of the physics around me. That takes away any accountability.

---

Well yes, but you're also who you are and thus responsible for what you do. It's kind of hard to explain, but I rather keep accountability.

quote:

---

I see what you're saying, but just cuz a lot of self-proclaimed Christians act that way doesn't mean it's a Christian way to act. That's a bit close to an insult.

---

Well darling, I apologies, I didn't mean it as an insult. Again, our dispute is on nomenclature, and I don't see any reason to argue that.

Besides, doesn't it make you feel important when someone goes out of there way to insult you?

[ 12-13-2002, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[DraconisRex]

Kiran:

My only problem with the church is that, when they ask me my denomination, I say "Christian," and they don't have a clue what to do with me. If I said Catholic, Baptist, Luthran, or whatever, they'd say "Cool, dude." But somehow, at most churches, if you simply say you're a Christian they get flubber-gusted.

Jesus told me to pray in a closet, and I do. (Well, sorta -- I haven't actually walked up to a closet, went inside, and closed the door, but I am alone when I pray.) And if that upsets some folks, oh, well.

[ 12-13-2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[IceCold]

Waits for someone to prove a scientific truth.

[DraconisRex]

Okay, everybody got off the actual subject -- neither side is going to agree that the other side's arguments are valid, so let's quit trying. This thread is about Mysteries in the Bible; not whether the Bible is true or not. Why does it matter? -- that discussion is a moot point, and the truth will only be known if you die. Any volunteers? Let us know in the afterlife or your next life what you find out... If you can remember.....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Israelites had a deal with the Egyptians -- there was a great famine throughout the land, and the Egyptians would leave them alone for 1/5th of their crops. But the old Pharoah died, and the new Pharoah had no idea about this deal, so he enslaved them in Exodus 1:8 to 1:15.

Now, the Egyptians were fair-skinned, but the Israelites were not, which is difficult (at best) to swallow from the lines of Adam in only a couple of thousand years (big argument from the Creationists concerning how many years passed from Adam to Egypt -- if you follow the "feel" of the changes from Eden to Egypt, they got considerably more learned once they had access to Egyptian libraries; even the layman.) That convinces me that the Egyptians were not from the loins of Adam. (Actually, just because God created Adam doesn't preclude the possibility that other life was already here. That would explain a lot, and end the ceaseless bickering on that point.)

When Moses led the people through the parted waters, there may have been a mis-translation. Most scrolls read "Red Sea," but there is an argument going on about whether it was the Red Sea, or the Reed Sea. Remember -- the Israelites were mostly on-foot, with horse-drawn carriages, and children, etc., which could take several weeks to traverse the Red Sea bottom. The Reed Sea is considerably smaller, and fits more in-line with the story.

The scrolls were written and re-written many thousands of times, and re-translated from old texts. Minor errors would be common; dialect in itself could explain the differences over the years.

Chavik:

Manna -- Exodus 16: "31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey."

In Numbers 32, it explains why they had to wander in the dessert for 40-years -- "6 And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? 7 And wherefore discourage ye the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the LORD hath given them? 8 Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadeshbarnea to see the land. 9 For when they went up unto the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel, that they should not go into the land which the LORD had given them. 10 And the LORD'S anger was kindled the same time, and he sware, saying, 11 Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me: 12 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun: for they have wholly followed the LORD. 13 And the LORD'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed."

Wooly Mammoth, from the Discovery Channel:

quote:

---

Who (or What) Killed the Mammoths?

By Bill Gasperini

MOSCOW ÔÇö Nearly 18 months after the icy block containing the remains of the so-called Jarkov mammoth was carved out of the permafrost in northern Siberia, scientists involved in the project say research is progressing slowly, but well.

Samples of everything from mammoth hair to bone marrow to tiny Pleistocene plants have been taken to laboratories around the world for analysis. Much of the material comes from the original 23-ton block that was airlifted to an ice cave in the town of Khatanga. Many more samples come from hundreds of bones, tusks and other items found during an extensive expedition to Siberia's Taimyr region last summer.

It still isn't clear how complete the Jarkov mammoth's remains are, as the gradual process of defrosting the giant chunk of permafrost continues. Scientists are using hair dryers in a frozen cave to thaw the block, millimeter by millimeter, and collect everything that doesn't melt. Only a small fraction of the block has been revealed, but mammoth bones, hair and other items have been found. It is still possible that meat or even organs lie farther down, but scientists have seen enough to determine that the mammoth is not as unbroken as they had originally hoped.

"No one ever claimed there was a complete, intact mammoth carcass in there," says scientific coordinator Dick Mol of the Netherlands. "Moreover, the project has never been just about a single mammoth; our intent has always been to learn about the animal in its environment, to find out about all the other fauna and flora that existed in the Pleistocene epoch in which it lived."

While no frozen meat has been found in the block, cartilage and tissue samples have been taken from another mammoth carcass out in the tundra. And the team plans to recover the rest of this second mammoth in April.

Biologist Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History in New York says results from more than 50 radiocarbon dates obtained from mammoth material (as well as remains of other ancient mammals, including horses, musk oxen, moose and even a Pleistocene wolf) indicate that mammoths lived in the Taimyr region for tens of thousands of years. However, during two periods (36,000 to 32,000 and 19,000 to 14,000 years ago), the dating record indicates that mammoths were either extremely rare or absent in places where their bones are most often found, such as lake margins or along riverbanks. Perhaps they moved to the south to get away from adverse conditions, such as the absence of suitable food or catastrophic flooding.

"We know that the mammoths lived through many different climatic periods, warm and cold," says MacPhee. "They were adaptable animals, resilient." MacPhee says this finding may cast some doubt on the prevailing theory that the mammoths died out ÔÇö roughly 10,000 years ago ÔÇö due to climate change. MacPhee is looking for evidence to support a counter theory: that a deadly virus introduced by humans killed the mammoth and other mega-fauna at the end of the last ice age.

Meanwhile at the University of Michigan, Daniel Fisher has analyzed material from the Jarkov's tusks, examining isotropic systems and "growth lines." Similar to tree rings, these can reveal seasonal differences in growth and metabolic rates based on diet. He says there are signs the mammoths may have migrated with the seasons, or as conditions changed due to food availability.

Bas van Geel, Jan Peter Gels and Guido van Reenen of the Netherlands have examined pollen, seeds and tiny plants found in the block and in the mammoth's hair. They say the remains point to grassy steppe vegetation and a dry climate, meaning there was probably little snow cover in the winters, unlike the extensive cold and snow of the Taimyr tundra today.

In essence, the giant block and other remains constitute a "slice of life" as it was 20,380 years ago, the age of the Jarkov mammoth as established by radiocarbon dating.

In all, 37 scientists are part of the Jarkov team in what Alexei Tikhonov, Russia's most noted mammoth expert, says is the largest, most extensive effort ever mounted to investigate these giants of the ice age. "Excavations used to be made during the summer thaw, often using water hoses to clear the dirt away from the remains," he says. In the process, much valuable material was lost.

Lifting the block of permafrost clear out of the ground allowed for new levels of scientific study. "For the first time the remains of an extinct mammal as large as a mammoth have been airlifted to a lab for more leisurely study than the Siberian summer usually allows," says geologist Larry Agenbroad of Northern Arizona University. "This is a multifaceted, ongoing project, and I think it only gets better."

---

Jonah and the whale? Gonna have to re-read that part of the Bible -- slept since then....

Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt? Maybe -- She was told not to look back... Based on the description, I'd say some sort of atomic device hit both cities. Yeah, yeah, we didn't have those back then. The Egyptians didn't have batteries either, right? Never heard of atomic bombs turning you into salt, but they didn't exactly hang around long enough to do bioscans on her either.

I don't really know about the parting of the Red (Reed?) Sea. Belief? Aliens from a UFO "helping out?" I have to admit, if you read the whole Exodus, it does read like a science fiction that doesn't truly identify the Hero(s). God went out of His way to never be seen, which begs a lot of questions....

That's all my brain can deal with at 4:40 in the morning...

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceCold:

Waits for someone to prove a scientific truth.

---

A scientific truth is anything scientific that is actually true (not just "believed to be".) It doesn't need to be proven, as it is, by definition, already true.

Which scientific "facts" are true? I have no idea. Can you prove, beyond the shadow of doubt, that you actually exist? I can't. Since everything we believe is based on what we perceive (which may be an illusion), there is no absolute proof that anything does or does not exist.

So, what exactly is your question?