History Of The World Part ?

[TomOfSweden]

So I came across a link that talks about some artifacts found in the earth. I was wondering if the question the article raises has any basis for consideration. I specifically thought of Tom, because I know of his love for science.

http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=75&z=1

I'm curious as to everyone else's thoughts.

These are all fun and all. There's many more and many more interesting problems, but which require lot's a pre knowledge to understand. Biggest problem with geographic history is that the only good dating technique we have is carbon dating, and that only goes 60 000 years back. Beyond that we have to use old fashion detective skills and inference. But I believe they're doing quite well considering. But that's down to faith. The article writers analogy that science could be as wrong as Biblical loons should be offensive to any thinking person.

It's not that I have a special love for science. I have a special love for evidence before drawing conclusions. But that's true for all of us. Even religious people. We will never take the required leap of faith if we don't find acceptable, (by us) evidence. Science is just one methodical way of judging evidence. It's not important which method we use, as long as we agree on which method to use when communicating findings and opinions. The thing is that we are so stuck to this paradigm that even Christians use scientific language when justifying their faith to themselves. We don't have any other shared language for judging evidence.

It's not that I love science more than the proponents of a supernatural intelligent deity. Christianity isn't a non-science, it's sloppy science. It's about finding evidence to prove a theory instead of finding evidence to disprove a theory, which is the archetype of sloppy science.

The cardinal error often done is to say that science is a separate faith than that of the Bible. Being Christian is loving science just as much as being an atheist. It's only down to the skill of applying it.

edit: I'm not implying that atheists can't suck as much at critical scientific thinking as any religious person. Just because the random atheists arguments for atheism might suck doesn't mean that it gives any strength to religious supernatural faith. It's not a competition.