Posted on 10/31/2019 11:48:43 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Wow, an ancient relative of Sid Caesar!
LOL Good one...
Neanderthals preferred Spanish Art? Think of the famous Hand Print Goya.
Appropriating Neanderthal Culture.
When will these outrages ever halt??!!
lol
Hey, that's a given.
Restudying a site makes sense for several reasons. For one thing new scientific tests are developed over the decades, also digging deeper can find new things. Now that the dogma of nothing before Clovis is being seriously challenged, new deeper digs are finding that indeed there was SOMETHING before Clovis in several likely locations. New knowledge of major world events means that you can start looking for information that did not occur to you originally. For example now that the Toba eruption and the Dryas event are being looked at there are a number of new ideas about what mankind was doing 73 thousand years ago and 12 to 13 thousand years ago, not to mention where he might have been doing it.
I understand, and am a firm believer in digging deeper to find even older stuff. But in some of these theories one must also dig deeper into who is funding and promoting the study and theory. In this case Durham University. Because of the source there is a very strong indication that this study could be biased towards supporting Anglican theology with science.
Can you explain to me in what ways Anglican theology might be used to slant science reporting. Or Catholic theology, or Funamentalist theology, as I suspect you may have a good point here.
Oh, were to start... I guess the history of early British human nature studies and anthropology it’s self would be where to start. Like early paleontologists, Almost all of the so called historical “scientists” were devout Anglican Christians, clergy, and missionaries. Similar with the Catholics and their own studies of anthropology and inferior pagan aborigines past and present. Still this stigma of early man prevails and it is rooted in hard set church doctrine and faith.
Right off the bat, the strong obsessive scrutiny of uncivilized non-christian “inferior barbaric pagan religions” causes every structure found to be classified as a “pagan religious alter”. It could be a horse trough or a toilet, and it will still automatically be officially classified as a pagan alter. No need to question this or explore other possibilities, it’s always an ignorant heathen alter. This habit is even unconsciously being used by non-fathful scientists, it has just become common practice with roots from the earliest practice of the fields of anthropology and archaeology by those with faith first.
Some sources are obsessed with using science to prove the biblical age of the earth at 6k. The common consensus that all early man were cave brutes who could only grunt at each other based on the fact the were not as “intelligent” as the “superior civilized Christians”. There are many cases where the faith sets up the environment to have predetermined assumptions that we are now finding to be wrong. And I truly think many very important past and even current discoveries have been lost, destroyed, or hidden just to protect an impression of “superior doctrine and culture” no matter how important they actually were.
:^)
I don't think it's a theological slant, it's a xenophobic nationalistic slant -- Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it, and one of those pronouncements was that the chimp was the closest relative of humans (that was long before the discovery of DNA) and that all our ancestors came from Africa (unknowable then, still that way)..
“I don’t think it’s a theological slant, it’s a xenophobic nationalistic slant — Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it, and one of those pronouncements was that the chimp was the closest relative of humans (that was long before the discovery of DNA) and that all our ancestors came from Africa (unknowable then, still that way)..”
I agree to a point, and there is the “never question the foremost expert” stuff. But if there are any religious organizations helping fund a dig or project, you better bet on the fact that there is a “desired” findings slant from the start. And will they continue to fund it past the 6k year level? Would they insist certain findings be omitted from the collection because they don’t fit the desired results? I am absolutely sure this has been happening since the beginning of historical studies and it influences all the fields of historical study both directly and indirectly.
It is very important to look into the source funding the project before taking the findings as objective, unbiased, and most probable. Just look at the biblical bandwagon, just the discovery of a coin with Pontius Pilate on it instantly proves every word in the bible as literal fact in full and the undeniable existence of Christ. When in reality we know of Pontius Pilate from other non-biblical sources never mentioned at all. And this happens every time a find can relate to just one word in the Bible. Just go do a internet search for Pontius Pilate, you will find that almost every resource assumes the bible and Christ as literal fact as a predetermined prerequisite.
And know what? If this satisfies their own beliefs and does not suppress other real discoveries or theories then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem is many times it can, propaganda can indeed influence the chances of funding or acceptance of objective creditable findings. We even see it here, where every find that might be older than 6k is immediately discredited with theological bias in an effort to squash even discussing it. And I can’t even count how many history articles I have read on the net over the years that have absolutely been plagiarized, twisted, rewritten, and claimed to be an original to fit a theological narrative and audience without citation or credit to the true original source and facts.
I still maintain that when it comes to historical studies, there has always been a huge underlying biased theological influence that still bleeds into and affects everything both directly and indirectly, both consciously and unconsciously...
Many, many years ago which I was attending Mexico City College, a Catholic run school, I was told that a thesis proposal had been rejected for “political” reasons. The thesis would have explored pre-Christian practices in Mexico that had persisted into the Catholic era. One example was hanging umbilical cords from a “sacred” tree for the welfare of the infant.
And what would it have hurt to explore and learn from this practice? Squashed just for religious political reasons. I am sure a LOT of this has happened throughout history. Just look at the destruction of the Library at Alexandria. That destruction was based on faith. And it is not selective, every faith has done this throughout history. And they still manipulate and control knowledge when they can get away with it, especially if they are funding it. But when anything is trying to be proven as extremely “newer”, I immediately have suspicions about the source and desired outcome.
Other “newer” stuff is rejected for the simple reason that some important “researcher” has made their reputation on something else that the new stuff might challenge. It often has nothing to do with religion. Then there is the fear of change that also impedes progress.
While there absolutely is a lot of that, for myself depending on the source, when I see a source trying to prove a much much newer date like within 10k they are making an effort to prove the Biblical new earth theory.
Climate change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.