Archaeology user 2. AMA

Please don't encourage his behavior with (You)s.

First of all, do not assume that every scientist that supports Darwinism is an atheist.

No it has not been disproved. Instead of posting random pics, show me some scientific papers or just link the site where you have those pics from.

Show me the evidence for creationism and also show me the evidence that universities are marxist.

Ok.

HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013

1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

creation.com/
icr.org/
trueorigin.org/
answersingenesis.org/
creationwiki.org/Main_Page
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
newgeology.us/presentation32.html
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/

Show me the evidence for evolutionism.

Every science paper should be factually deducible. If you are going to get it public in a known periodicum for example, bullshit will be called out in reviews.

The only ridiculous things that are not being called out much are alien, atlantis related topics because scientists do not have time to waste time reading some guy's LSD trip put on paper. I do it however and it is hard to fight these people.

The atheist in most cases will assert that he has no belief and that his atheism is all about a ‘LACK of BELIEF’. They really love to stress this, and I can see why, because such a claim has a smuggled-in superiority that they are the rational ones who build their lives solely on reason and evidence opposed to the believer’s position of faith. But what they don’t tell you and what they refuse to mention is that they do have a positive BELIEF which forms their worldview and that is the belief in philosophical NATURALISM Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is). Every person runs their life on presuppositions - assumptions about life and the universe. No one is without them; even a position of skepticism implies a whole lot of knowledge and opinions about the nature of reality. In short nobody lives in a philosophical black hole – nobody is neutral. The fact is many atheists don’t want their own position scrutinised; they have their beliefs/opinions in regard to the bigger questions of life. When I asked one particular atheist what is your worldview, and what is the evidence for it? What is your philosophical position and what is the evidence that it's true, and truly reflective of ultimate reality? He just retorted back that he had no beliefs. I then asked him to just tell me what he doesn't believe so that I could establish what he believes by default, I got no reply. It was clear to me that this particular person – and I have met many others like him – did not want to shift the ground to discussing his positive beliefs as such a move would invariably lead into his belief of philosophical naturalism – much better for him to just assert atheism and its single one-eyed view of lack of belief.

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

They have none. It's a religion.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" Romans 1:25
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" 2 Thessalonians 2:11

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

Facts don't care about your feelings.

why did you do an AMA on /lgbt/?

Beucase a few years ago I visited a lecture about gender roles in praehistory.

You did provide me with one quote from someone but did not include the publication.

The statement about fossils makes no sense. They are petrified remains embedded on a rock. They can be dated and if you look at stratigraphical layers you will see, each one has its own species and is clear evidence for evolution. They can be dated by carious methods.

Current monkeys are not our ancestors. We are just related. In the past, there existed a ancestor monkey for both of our species. After that a split happened. Some monkeys did not ascend to hominids. Some did.

Natural selection produces the survival of the fittest. Basically only life forms that adjust accordingly to an environment will survive.

The rest I will leave to paleontologists, genetics and paleolithic archaeologists. This is not exactly my specialization.

Stop bringing this religious stuff into this topic.

You are not Ben Shapiro. Stop imitating.

>Science is now religion

Atheists are funny.

No. Your posts are religiously based. Not responding to you anyway. Other people are asking questions too.

>Scientific articles, research or study that proves evolution wrong is religious

How retarded are you?

This is a noble notion but it's simply not the case for most other scientific fields. The breadth of "experts" in hyper-niche subjects limited the ability for peer review calling out the not-so-obvious deductions from evidence. An example of this is in the field of archeology can be found by googling Carthaginian Child Sacrifice; two different papers with the opposite conclusions from the exact same archeological evidence.

So if you're OP and this is your response then my conclusion is you have dug deep enough to discover this phenomenon.

What *were* those gender roles?

>have
Haven't*

Well archaeology is not an exact science. The thing you wrote about here is called interpretation of evidence but I would have to see this case in order to see possible bullshit.

Some women were warriors for example because of their attributes. Being born more masculine. Some men were more feminine and adopted a female role.

Also old men that survived long enough and were too weak to fight or work with men started working around women.

>some women were warriors because of their attributes
But they were still a minority, weren't they? Do you happen to have any of the specific archeological evidence on hand?

You have this recent discovery of a female viking grave that has been all around the news. Certainly it was not common but not absolutely rare in germanic societies. Then you have then Amazonians for example.

Classical societies were more conservative to women.

It still remains to be proven whether that woman was an actual warrior or not. And weren't the amazonians just a complete myth?

There are female graves in the black sea region with warrior grave goods. They are not numerous too.

What culture are they from?

I have to ask my colleague for that. I forgot.

>steppe nomads, germanic tribes, etc
Why did the huns decide to fuck shit up in europe?

>creationist scientists.
You mean hoaxers.

Start with this. It is a good periodicum. academia.edu/34213816/Great_Women_The_emergence_of_female_in_elite_s_graves_in_the_Celtic_World_Late_Bronze_Age_-_La_Tène_B_

How much GIS and geospatial analysis do you use? That's my field of study, I'd love to get into archaeology. I've been working with one professor on some projects of his so that's my introduction to the field.

They did try to invade China but failed. They are mentioned in chinese written sources as Xiongnu.

A change of climate in the steppes and a lack of green pastures motivated them to move west.

I work with Peter Stadler and his Winserion software. Look it up. He has his own website.

I don't speak german

Are there any actual respectable people still trying to find out where Atilla is buried?

Well, the article I wanted to send you was not uploaded by the filthy author so we are out of luck. Also I forgot to tell you that you need at least english and german to navigate yourself in my field.

I do not think there are many because we only have small leads from written sources. If it was not already discovered it would probably be found more by chance then intent.

Ah, ok. Do you have any academic papers on what warfare was like back then? Preferably in english lol.

Something I've always wondered, and never had the chance to ask any of my friends from Europe: do you know what percentage of European archaeologists work in academia vs. the private sector? I'm also working on my PhD in the US, and over here (as you may already know) the great majority of people who make a career out of archaeology end up working in the private sector in CRM, not in academia. Most don't end up with grad degrees either. I've always been curious what the situation was like across the pond, but I've never seen any data on that for any part of Europe (or Asia) and wouldn't really know where to look for it.

I'll probably think of other questions later after I sober up a little bit; I've had plenty of American professors/peers who worked short stints in Europe (although I haven't made it there myself) but always wished I knew more about how our actual European colleagues did things.

academia.edu/12827554/Bows_used_by_the_Huns

academia.edu/34594873/2017._The_Visigoths_and_the_End_of_the_Roman_Empire_in_the_West_Ancient_History_Magazine_11_

academia.edu/31125981/Long_Spears_and_Tactics_of_the_Western_Germans_in_the_1st_Century_A.D._according_to_Tacitus_Description_in_Gladius._Vol._36._Madrid_2016._P._49_58

Try this for example.

I do not know the statistics but archaeologists end up aeither working in a job that is not related to archaeology or working in private archaeological companies, working as field workers on excavations, mostly funded by an investor because he wants to build something.

Only a small number of people get to work on universities and scientific institutions.

I heard an user talking about how swedish archeology programs are not very well regarded, is this true?

I am not from Sweden so I can not say.

How much do you earn?

I only work for my adviser when he wants me to do something. It is 12 euro/hour

>working in private archaeological companies

How does this work?

t.non archeologist

You are working in field mostly. Leading or working on excavations. Digging, taking photos, illustrations and other things for documentation. The pay is not as good as on universities.

Thanks! Do you happen to know of any good journals that deal with the military history of the germanics (like the journal of slavic military history)?

I'm not the OP, but I'm another archaeologist (and I guess I can contribute the question answering, if people want). Pretty much every developed western country has heritage protection laws that require archaeological surveys to be carried out ahead of construction projects to make sure archaeological sites aren't destroyed. Contractors and government officials hire private archaeology companies to carry out that work.

If you think that's a serious problem, you probably don't understand archaeology enough. It's a field based on educated interpretations of evidence. There's pretty much no way to be completely sure about anything, and disagreements happens all the time. In a case like you describe, it's up to the people using those articles for future research to expand on them, add to the evidence, and decide which position is more likely. It doesn't mean the articles are bullshit; if they relied on bad assumptions and shitty research, that would have been called out in peer review, or by people writing reviews.

That being said, archaeologists do usually have a sense of humor and sometimes sneak bullshit into contexts that aren't as formal. I have a friend at a university where the students have a tradition of submitting the most ridiculous presentation they can think of to present at a conference; the "loser" is the person whose presentation gets approved, because they have to bullshit their way through a presentation.

>If you think that's a serious problem, you probably don't understand archaeology enough. It's a field based on educated interpretations of evidence.

And other natural sciences are not?

>There's pretty much no way to be completely sure about anything, and disagreements happens all the time. In a case like you describe, it's up to the people using those articles for future research to expand on them, add to the evidence, and decide which position is more likely.

That's not what I said. I said that they both drew from the exact same archeological research and came to diametrically different conclusions. No new evidence was involved. So someone is bullshitting here and both were published.

>It doesn't mean the articles are bullshit; if they relied on bad assumptions and shitty research, that would have been called out in peer review, or by people writing reviews.

This is circular logic here. I'm asking how often bullshit sneaks through because of the inherent issues with the peer review system and you say no bullshit sneaks through because of the peer review system. The peer review system isn't fundamentally different between academic sciences and every other field has this issue. The basic issue being that the guy who specializes in Bronze Age Scandanavian Mating Rituals likely doesn't have too many people specialized in that field for peer review so he can't be adequately challenged by someone as "equally" knowledgable. Argument of authority is a documented issue in published science journals all over the spectrum of reputation. Again, if you haven't noticed it then you're probably not deep enough into the field to notice it yet.

>other

Didn't mean to leave that in.

>And natural sciences are not?
Not in the same way. You can conduct an experiment or calculation in natural sciences and come at an answer that you know (and can conclusively show) is right. You can't do that in archaeology.

>No new evidence was involved.
I didn't say it was. I was talking about potential new research and its ability to settle which interpretation is right.

>So someone is bullshitting here
Not necessarily. Archaeology isn't like physics where you can run a calculation to answer a question. People can come to different conclusions based on a variety of different reasons. Maybe those authors were looking at different aspects of the site to answer those questions. Maybe one person did some analysis that another person didn't. Maybe one of the articles is a direct response to flawed methods of the other and is focused on correcting it. I'm not familiar with those papers, so I don't know if one person was clearly wrong or not.

Peer review doesn't catch everything (and I never tried to imply peer review meant that a paper is 100% correct), but it helps catch serious analytical flaws. Beyond issues which are caused by flawed or incorrect research, archaeological conclusions are based on interpretation and there's really no way to disprove them except by making a better argument.

Continued:
An example is most experimental archaeology done about bow and arrow technology. Most archaeologists aren't archers and don't understand that many of the experiments they conduct are flawed on serious ways. I even know a very respected archaeologist who argues completely stupid things about some projectile points (like saying that some were made to break on impact, which makes no ballistic sense). Because of things like this, there's a lot of stupidity relating to this area, but further experiments and critique are cutting down on this.

Here's a personal example: my graduate research is based on the analysis of a very under researched material type found at a site that was excavated 25 years ago and only had one publication tied to it. That publication only focused on very basic analysis and got basically nothing right about the material type I'm analyzing. When my research is done, there will be exactly two publications in existence about this site, and they'll say completely different things about my material type; the original paper describes they're presences as modern trash, and I'm saying they're not. Neither me nor the guy who excavated the site is bullshitting. He just didn't know enough about this material type (and didn't care enough to analyze it properly) to realize he was seriously wrong, and I've done enough legwork to prove it.

People get things wrong all the time, which is why further research is always done. But in my experience, it's very uncommon that people will be deliberately misleading, which is what "bullshitting" implies (to me, at least). Good, scientifically-focused archaeology has only been around for about 60 years, and the field is still working out a lot of kinks. At least among cases I've seen (which have involved some pretty nice fields), it's pretty rare to see a sketchy conclusion go completely unchallenged, even if it's through grey literature that's hard to access.

Is it true archeologists are in constant danger of local threats, like warlords and cartels?

That depends where do you excavate. Surely in Iraq, Libya or Syria it will not be safe.

Hi there colleague. Are you female by any chance?

It depends on where you work, but sometimes yes. For the most part, people don't specifically target archaeologists, but you can run into dangerous situations because of the isolated nature of the work. I've run into angry, armed ranchers and violent methheads in the field before. People who work in dangerous areas often have stories about cartels and civil wars. Diseases can be a pretty big deal, too; in lots of places, it's common for archaeologists to get serious diseases (I've had two). One time I got a nasty spider bite on the dick, too, if that counts as a local threat.

It's not necessarily a dangerous job, but things happen sometimes. A few years ago, some ISIS people beheaded an archaeologist.

Why haven't you learned to tripfag when you start an AMA?

How do you feel about your thread being hijacked by an evolution "debate"?

Seriously though, what was your last job, and what were you doing there? What was the most interesting discovery you've taken part in?