The skulls are interesting from an archeological and anthropological perspective. But no real scientists would make the claims these people do about the abilities this would give one without real evidence.
My vote also says this doesn't belong in the science channel.

Thanks so much for your reply, Doc. I'll just make some small points and leave you to you and yours.

Your scam anecdote is an interesting one, and as a scientist I'm sure you'll understand when I point out that the vast majority of people do not understand or appreciate the value of chance and coincidence in their daily lives. However, the majority of those people don't believe in chance or coincidence either. What happens is a "plan" or simply placed there by something unexplainable.

As fantastic as your prayer and sign may be I'd simply recommend reconsidering that you were going to get that email regardless. A far more obvious sign from god would have been an email whose contents actually contained a message from god, IE: "Doc you asked for for your account to be cancelled if it were wrong and it is, therefore I have had the company in charge of it deactivate it. Signed, The Lord."

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from here. Another good example is in Bill Maher's movie Religulous when he's talking to "The Ex-Jew for Jesus" and that man said when he held his empty glass outside and prayed for rain for a drink and it rained he considered that a miracle for the existence of Christ. Bill's response was excellent when he pointed out that if he asked for rain and it rained he'd realize that, hey "It sometimes rains!". Now if it rained frogs he and I both would take pause and consider that to be a miracle. (Even though, as a scientist, I'm sure you know of the meterological phenomenom which has caused it to rain small frogs and fish in the just the last century,)

I also do not understand how someone as schooled as yourself can take the Old Testament as "fact". There is still no archeological evidence what-so-ever for Jews being used as slaves in ancient Egypt. And for a civilization that kept such excellent records of everything (I once had a fundie-xtian tell me they wouldn't document a "Jew slave rebellion") they might make a small note that an entire race under their command left them after a series of miracles befell the Kingdom.

And on the idea of Jesus dying for everyone's sins (which I know full well about; I was raised Protestant and, no I don't hate Christians or Christianity, I am concerned for their mental health and well being) I just think that it is a little too presumptuous if you catch my meaning. God creates original sin (which many in the church now say is just symbolism) then sends his only son to die for all of man's sin (including the "symbolical" original sin). No one asked for this, God merely forces it on us. Then attemps to guilt us into being saved by this Christ Figure (who has the exact same story as countless other Christ figures before his time) or else!.

But, hey, as I've pointed out I'm an Agnostic Atheist. The scientist in me sees no evidence for the existence of a god or god, therefore I don't believe. I've read the Bible front to back, as well as the Quran and other "holy" texts. They all read the same (aside from some Hindu scripture). And as an Agnostic I don't know if there is a god or gods because the evidence hasn't presented itself yet. Maybe if a miracle of such unexplainable value descends into my life I'd start believing, but it certainly wouldn't be the Christian god of the Bible. Why you might ask? Because the Bible is rife with contradictions, errors, hypocrisies and historical fallacies. And if "God" wanted that book to be written I'm sorry to say he might be a little bi-polar and attention deficit disorder.

And thanks for the 100 Star congrats!

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Hello my furry-hatted friend:
First off, you can read this in brief reply to you comment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Conversing-Badly-A-Converted-Muslim#comment-625934

I'll now continue in private.

I see that you are (by your profile) rather read in science. Fantastic! Few are these days. I may be a Christian but I'm also a scientist as a profession atm. Many see that as either insane or hypocritical, but I can flatten that argument every time people land it on me in person, mwahaha. As for my life:

I once had a scam going where I could trick multiple "ad-bars" (those advertising bars that would stay on your screen and paid you per active minute) into thinking that I was "active" all freaking day every day even though obviously I was sleeping or in class most of the time. One night I felt convicted and prayed asking "if this is wrong, just cancel my account." I arose that morning and checked my email to find that my account WAS CANCELED DUE TO ABUSE... That very morning. That very day. It could have been that very instant.
I realized my behavior was theft and I stopped it. This has happened once more since! Instantaneous evidence.

In addition, if you look at the evidence for when and who wrote what book in the bible, you'll find that the majority of scholars support the "old testament before new testament" history. That continues to say that the prophecies and foreshadowing of the old testament is a valid justification to say that the new testament is valid as well.

People who hate Christianity are often simply misinformed. Jesus did not die as a sin sacrifice for "good" people or for "christian" people or for "generous" people. He died for ALL people, free of charge, should they only accept it. God is good, but God is just, and for some things death is just, and Jesus spent that punishment for us all. All we need do is believe that the price is paid for us in Jesus. The justice has been dealt to Jesus on our behalf. That is by no means insane. That makes legal sense. It makes human sense. It makes honorable sense. No new dedication is required.

Also, grats on 100 stars.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
I would be extremely interested to know the evidence you've witnessed that makes you a believer. And why Dawkins is a douchebag. Send me a PM if you like.

>> ^Doc_M:
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

So she is worried that there are people who will think that is really her and that is how she lives her life?
If there is someone that stupid (and if you have seen part of the video, you really need to be abysmally stupid), then they are beyond help.

If you think that really is Sarah Palin, in all likelihood you also think that Harrison Ford was really an interplanetary smuggler, who at one point found the Holy Grail in the 1950s while being an archeology professor.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is a great little bit of geek archeology - Upvote for pre-landfill ET cartridge and the Osbourne "laptop"

"crash course in archeology.." - dr.'s and prof's all over just threw up in their mouths a little bit.

Oddly enough, this storm was only circling Ayers rock in a 10 mile diameter funnel over three miles high. Extended video of the archeological dig at Ayers caught much more interesting views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8DJDMT6JoA
(They wear the suits because of the extreme dust.)

To be specific. I don't think the Mormon religion has legitimacy to anyone other than mormons :-) or anyone who is knowledgeable about what their faith asserts. I also think Christians, Native Americans, Women and African Americans should be especially critical of the mormon "faith" for the following reasons.

for CHRISTIANS
Mormonism has in recent decades invested a great deal of effort in generating an appearance of Christianity, and insist that they are Christian. But there has been no substantive change in their core doctrines which are antithetical to biblical Christianity. This trend of creating a Christian appearance is very troublesome for two major reasons--first, it discourages Christians from reaching out to Mormons with the truth of Jesus Christ, since it would not appear to be even necessary.

Secondly, it makes Christians vulnerable to conversion tactics of Mormonism, making it appear to be a simple change of denominations, not a conversion to a new faith system.

from here http://www.lhvm.org/ministry.htm
or for much more detailed info go here http://epologetics.org/mormonism.php
http://epologetics.org/questionsformormons.php

NATIVE AMERICANS
The Book of Mormon states, in an introductory paragraph added in 1981, that Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians".

Lamanites are described as having a "skin of blackness" caused by God's curse on the descendants of Laman for their wickedness and corruption.

the term "Lamanite" comes to signify wickedness (rather than blood heritage), whereas "Nephite" comes to signify a follower of Christ, both terms alluding to the previous nations' predominant moral tendencies.

The 1981 statement position was controversial. Based on genetic and archeological data, mainstream scientists have concluded that Native Americans are descended from the prehistoric inhabitants of East Asia.

(IMAGINE THE LOOK OF YOUR CULTURE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO A CURSE BY GOD)

also, the wikipedia entries on mormonism have been heavey altered in favor of their religion. I've tried to reference a site that gives you both the original mormon text and a comparison to the current mormon text.

more to come

When did Mario get a degree in archeology?
And KP, when I expanded the comment section all I saw was your first line, and I was thinking you need a sense of humor. Then I opened it to leave a comment and saw the rest. Rofl.
And Arvana - is the standup tag supposed to be seggestive?

How do they "prove biological evolution"? (8:30) Hmmm guess they don't.

When confronting a Creationist, who ironically finds it ridiculously easy to "prove" the bible right (basically all they need is fallacious "proof" the other explanation is wrong ie: "irreducible complexity" some fossil gap etc), It suddenly becomes very hard to "prove" anything. If a creationist believed the earth to be flat, a photo of the planet from space wouldn't be sufficient "evidence" for that person, they would blame it on photoshop, or the fact that you cant really see the other side of the planet in the same photo or some shit like that.

To any sensible, reasonable person, who is familiar with expressions like "reasonable doubt" or "empirical data", the transitional forms of life found in the different layers, basically showing how life changed over time, from one species to the next, will accept these findings as solid proof, more solid than an earth photo proof that biological evolution has taken place, and is taking place. When seen together with the history of all of biology,geology and archeology that confirms the theory, it becomes even more solid proof.

MINK... oh how you amuse me.
this one inparticular had me rolling.
"because when you actually look into it, unravelling the Bible is as hard as unravelling quantum mechanics."
for who ? a monkey ? or someone who is gullible beyond belief.
a great many people have easily unravelled the bible with ease. why, how you ask ??
because the bible makes grandiose absurd claims that are not backed up by history, archeology, or any factual evidence.
check out some of the books on this link (I've provided synopsis's for you)

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/my-books-list-4chris.doc

qruel:

Check out E.P. Sanders for a good intro of the historical figure of Jesus and the attempts by scholars to use scientific and historical method to parse the mythology from the historical figure of Jesus.

In the field, the minority view is that Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination. And the archeological proof (both canonical and non-canonical sources) seems to point more towards a historical reality of Jesus than the idea of an imaginary Jesus. By no means is the debate settled, but it doesn't mean that all of the papyrus is bullshit.

And there are a number of sources from Josephus, to Pliny, to Jewish sources, to the canonical and non-canonical gospels that indicated that Jesus existed.

Taking mere existence to Son of God and Trinity status is a whole different can of worms, but I have to disagree that the historicity of Jesus has no basis.

Upon ascending the throne at the age of 13 (in 246 BC), Qin Shi Huang, later the first Emperor of all China, had begun to work for his mausoleum. It took 11 years to finish. It is speculated that many buried treasures and sacrificial objects had accompanied the emperor in his after life. A group of peasants uncovered some pottery while digging for a well nearby the royal tomb in 1974. It caught the attention of archaeologists immediately. They came to Xian in droves to study and to extend the digs. They had established beyond doubt that these artifacts were associated with the Qin Dynasty (211-206 BC).

The State Council authorized to build a museum on site in 1975. When completed, people from far and near came to visit. Xian and the Museum of Qin Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses have become landmarks on all travelers' itinerary.

Life size terracotta figures of warriors and horses arranged in battle formations are the star features at the museum. They are replicas of what the imperial guard should look like in those days of pomp and vigor.

The museum covers an area of 16,300 square meters, divided into three sections: No. 1 Pit, No. 2 Pit, and No. 3 Pit respectively. They were tagged in the order of their discoveries. No. 1 Pit is the largest, first opened to the public on China's National Day, 1979. There are columns of soldiers at the front, followed by war chariots at the back.

Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses Museum, Xian, China No. 2 Pit, found in 1976, is 20 meters northeast of No. 1 Pit. It contained over a thousand warriors and 90 chariots of wood. It was unveiled to the public in 1994. Archaeologists came upon No. 3 Pit also in 1976, 25 meters northwest of No. 1 Pit. It looked like to be the command center of the armed forces. It went on display in 1989, with 68 warriors, a war chariot and four horses.

Altogether over 7,000 pottery soldiers, horses, chariots, and even weapons have been unearthed from these pits. Most of them have been restored to their former grandeur.

The Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses is a sensational archeological find of all times. It has put Xian on the map for tourists. It was listed by UNESCO in 1987 as one of the world cultural heritages.

Above information from: http://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/shaanxi/xian/terra_cotta_army/index.htm

"I'm not going to tell you we actually found the arch, but I'll tell you what we found;" What a strong openning statement!

'We didn't find the Arch, but I'll now proceed to justify how I've wasted my life, and, in turn, waste your time.'


Wyatt Archeology can be found at www.wyattmuseum.com

To Mauz15, thank you for your compliments. However, you make the argument that Mel Gibson had the movie putting stakes through the hands of Jesus and not the wrists of Jesus. Yes, I stand by the statement that Mel Gibson used so much blood because he was trying to stay historically accurate... but the semantics of if the nails were in the hands or the wrists really holds no relevance other than a simple mistake, if it is that, due to the fact that if I put a stake in your hand OR your wrist... you will still bleed copiously from both.

Benjee writes "The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real."

Well, I have your sources of proof.

Gnostic texts

Gnostic texts date to the mid second century at the earliest, and show a lack of attention to history, generally avoiding the standard historical narrative in favour of sayings framed in the structure of a private, and often secret revelation, and therefore emphasize allegory. The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, some scholars consider these texts valuable as they were generally not subject to the influences of Christian orthodoxy.

Early Church fathers

The early church fathers, such as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius and Jerome, wrote of Jesus. Papias preferred to rely on surviving witnesses who had known one of the twelve disciples, rather than what had been written in books. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4)

Flavius Josephus

(c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it Jesus is mentioned twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Tacitus

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) wrote a paragraph in the Annals on the subject of Christianity and possibly Christ in 116. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from "Christus/Chrestus", who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate"[19][20] Tacitus, in keeping with the Imperial edicts concerning Christianity, described it as a "most mischievous superstition" and "evil".[21] Some note that this makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.

Tacitus simply refers to "Chrestus", a possible misspelling of "Christus", the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held—prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect.It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.

Some scholars suggest that Tacitus is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e., that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Theologian Karl Adam, argues that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus' execution before writing it.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings."[22]

Others

Although Celsus, a late second-century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer, he never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.[23] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".[24] Furthermore, there is a passage of debatable significance by Lucian of Samosata, which credits Jesus as the founder of Christianity.[25]

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Many scholars, such as Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the non-Abrahamic myths and Christianity. Grant states in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a FABRICATION from its midst is very hard to credit."

Benjee also writes "P.S: Taking things out of context? Surely, the bible is taken out of context with its millenia's of 'translations' or 'editions' and without the rest of the removed sections...E.G: Dead Sea Scrolls anyone? in your own words, DirtyWildkat: 'The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse' And don't even get me started on the anti-semitic inclusion of The Crucifiction by the church a few hundred years ago. Surely, if the bible is the true word of god, then the entirety of it must be true and followed 'religously'...therefore editing it must be the ultimate blasphemous act!? "

The problem with this statement about translations and what not are that we have original documents to TRANSLATE from. Yes, over the years as our knowledge of these ancient languages developed some words or phrases have changed, but scholars have basically come to an agreement now. Learn greek, as I had to in school, and read the greek New Testament for yourself, or learn hebrew and read the Old Testament. The meaning is there. And when I said the Bible has to be taken as a whole book to be in context, I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I am arguing that the Bible is a progressive work telling the story of a God and his people and their development over millenia of time that is written by men. Are there certain to be small spelling errors in Hebrew and Greek that get translated incorrectly? Yes,HUMANS WROTE THE ACCOUNTS, there will be minor errors but the message still stays the same, the basic meaning does not shift.

You also mention the Crucifixtion as something added by anti-semites later... since when? I've already given writings by non Christian ancient historians that record Jesus as being crucified.

benjee:

Check out E.P. Sanders for a good intro of the historical figure of Jesus and the attempts by scholars to use scientific and historical method to parse the mythology from the historical figure of Jesus.

In the field, the minority view is that Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination. And the archeological proof (both canonical and non-canonical sources) seems to point more towards a historical reality of Jesus than the idea of an imaginary Jesus. Of course, your point about the interpretation of the sources reflecting more about the culture of a particular period rather than a higher Truth about Jesus is well-taken, but it doesn't meant that all of the papyrus is bullshit.

If you take a mistrust of historical textual sources too far (the it's all myth view), then perhaps Alexander the Great did not exist, or Plato, or Socrates. Jesus is actually "better-sourced" than all of these figures. In 200 years, maybe IKEA itself will be thought to be a figment of our cheap Swedish furniture dreams.