German mass grave records prehistoric warfare

[royalscot]

German mass grave records prehistoric warfare - BBC News


A mass grave containing at least 26 skeletons is further evidence of the brutal conflict that appears to have beset central Europe 7,000 years ago.

The remains were uncovered at Schöneck-Kilianstädten in central Germany.
Individuals had their heads smashed. Some even had their legs broken, which could indicate they were also tortured.
Scientists tell the PNAS journal that the condition of the burial pit fits an emerging pattern of widespread violence in Early Neolithic times.
Similar mass graves have been unearthed at Talheim, also in Germany, and at Asparn/Schletz in Austria.
The occupants were likely all drawn from agricultural communities whose pottery decoration style has led to them being dubbed the Linear Pottery culture, which translates as Linearbandkeramik (LBK) in German.
This group has left a rich archaeological record, which Christian Meyer and colleagues say highlights the unusualness of the mass graves.

 

[didymos]

How is that possible when the earth is only 6000 years old?

(hehehe)

 

[royalscot]

thats science thomas, they can see, and still say they can prove it. ie who would want to refute, there findings, who has the equipment to want to refute there findings. yet bones are bones. with an eerie twist. lol

mass murder at 7000 ad. sounds like a film.

 

[didymos]

so you trust science more than Genesis? tut.

 

[royalscot]

so you trust science more than Genesis? tut.

when did i say that, are you speculating, with your tut. can you prove the world of the bible is 6000 year old.

because science has just said them bone are 7000 years old.

even genesis said god made the world and all that is in it. so them bone must have been made by god. tut tut

 

[crossnote]

This isn't about the age of the earth but about existing civilizations thousands of years ago.
Since the flood happened around 4300 years ago, this claim of 7000 bc would have been pre-flood.
True, there was violence in the earth before the flood, but the date would have put these events 2000 years before the flood, probably a scanty population and maybe one of Cain's communities in Nod.
Another problem, wouldn't the flood have erased evidence of bones?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

This isn't about the age of the earth but about existing civilizations thousands of years ago.
Since the flood happened around 4300 years ago, this claim of 7000 bc would have been pre-flood.
True, there was violence in the earth before the flood, but the date would have put these events 2000 years before the flood, probably a scanty population and maybe one of Cain's communities in Nod.
Another problem, wouldn't the flood have erased evidence of bones?

It depends. Floods are capricious things. Perhaps a wall of mud buried the plain where the grave is located, preserving it from the ranging waters in the early days of the downpour and erupting fountains of water -- which, as I understand it, would have also brought up lava, magma, and a lot of dirt and rock.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

"Perhaps" a number of scenarios could have happened given that there is no true way to date such things. Especially being a mass of random bones in Europe, they could frankly even be from the past 2000 years of Europe's dramatic history. No need to even reach as far back as the Flood. Plus the picture makes it seem a little fresher, but perhaps it is just that picture. Lol did humor me at the modern day "science" spin of it though; "Perhaps, there were too many people; perhaps some climate change was affecting agricultural production."

While we're playing the perhaps game, perhaps it is from the Dark Ages, when the reset button got hit on civilization.

 

[royalscot]

have you got the equipment to refute there claim has already been posted.

the stone tabs, going to pen and ink, the tree of life with fruit on it. (take more that a day to grow a tree). dos the sea move the sea bed. yes speculation,

thats science thomas, they can see, and still say they can prove it. ie who would want to refute, there findings, who has the equipment to want to refute there findings. yet bones are bones. with an eerie twist. lol

mass murder at 7000 ad. sounds like a film.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

have you got the equipment to refute there claim has already been posted.

the stone tabs, going to pen and ink, the tree of life with fruit on it. (take more that a day to grow a tree). dos the sea move the sea bed. yes speculation,

thats science thomas, they can see, and still say they can prove it. ie who would want to refute, there findings, who has the equipment to want to refute there findings. yet bones are bones. with an eerie twist. lol

mass murder at 7000 ad. sounds like a film.

Lol they don't have the equipment to prove the date of their own findings. There is no such equipment that can accurately date relics of antiquity. The best anyone can do is compare the findings to known history and to other finds that seem to be of a similar cultural origin, but even that is not totally accurate.

 

[didymos]

when did i say that, are you speculating, with your tut. can you prove the world of the bible is 6000 year old.

because science has just said them bone are 7000 years old.

even genesis said god made the world and all that is in it. so them bone must have been made by god. tut tut

Some people just don't get irony, tut.

Them bones, them bones, them dry bones: now hear the Word of the Lord!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

when did i say that, are you speculating, with your tut. can you prove the world of the bible is 6000 year old.

No, but I can prove that Moses wrote the first five books 3,500 years ago, that the subsequent books through the remainder of the New Testament were written prior to 400 BC, and that the Gospels and New Testament were written over a span of 63 years, ending in 96 AD. Other than that, what do you want?

because science has just said them bone are 7000 years old.

And that again raises a valid, even if rhetorical question as to whom you trust more, God or scientists?

even genesis said god made the world and all that is in it. so them bone must have been made by god. tut tut

I'm sure they were, but how do we really know their age? We take scientists word for it, the same scientists who tell us the world is 4.5 billion years old, but can't prove it.

 

[royalscot]

Some people just don't get irony, tut.

Them bones, them bones, them dry bones: now hear the Word of the Lord!

proof, is missing. so again put up or shut up.

 

[royalscot]

No, but I can prove that Moses wrote the first five books 3,500 years ago, that the subsequent books through the remainder of the New Testament were written prior to 400 BC, and that the Gospels and New Testament were written over a span of 63 years, ending in 96 AD. Other than that, what do you want?

And that again raises a valid, even if rhetorical question as to whom you trust more, God or scientists?

I'm sure they were, but how do we really know their age? We take scientists word for it, the same scientists who tell us the world is 4.5 billion years old, but can't prove it.

prove it.

how, on stone, or left in cypher.

bearing in mind i said science, has said them bone are 7000 year old.
how are you going to refute this ,if your going to prove to me the bible is 6000 year old.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

prove it.

how, on stone, or left in cypher.

Meticulous copying of Scripture has maintained its integrity through 5,000 copies dating from barely 30 years after John's death, to the 11th century. The Hebrew writings are even more meticulous, and they were fanatical about throwing out even the least flawed copy of a book, because "least flawed" wasn't good enough. It had to be perfect.

Through that record, we have confirmed most of the Bible back to the Exodus, and there are fragments of history found in other ancient writings that indicate Moses' accounts are true in certain segments we can independently confirm. Therefore, having a good eighty percent of the Bible's history confirmed, though for the last 200 years academics had claimed the writings were false, leaves little doubt that the rest is also true, given the record of the writers of the Bible not being prone to hyperbole or falsehood.

bearing in mind i said science, has said them bone are 7000 year old.
how are you going to refute this ,if your going to prove to me the bible is 6000 year old.

By calling into question the accuracy of carbon-14 radiometric dating, which information is readily available on the Internet. The earliest such scrutiny came from The New York Times.

Errors are feared in carbon dating process

Anything else?

 

[royalscot]

Meticulous copying of Scripture has maintained its integrity through 5,000 copies dating from barely 30 years after John's death, to the 11th century. The Hebrew writings are even more meticulous, and they were fanatical about throwing out even the least flawed copy of a book, because "least flawed" wasn't good enough. It had to be perfect.

Through that record, we have confirmed most of the Bible back to the Exodus, and there are fragments of history found in other ancient writings that indicate Moses' accounts are true in certain segments we can independently confirm. Therefore, having a good eighty percent of the Bible's history confirmed, though for the last 200 years academics had claimed the writings were false, leaves little doubt that the rest is also true, given the record of the writers of the Bible not being prone to hyperbole or falsehood.

By calling into question the accuracy of carbon-14 radiometric dating, which information is readily available on the Internet. The earliest such scrutiny came from The New York Times.

Errors are feared in carbon dating process

Anything else?

i believe the bible to be true.
and the old testament told you this how. we all can date the new testament.
copy of scripture you need a pen. fragment are not all, quote would be nothing new to a jewish person give the old testament would have be passed by word of mouth till pen and ink,so there has to be gaps, because the writer of any said book would only have what he can prove, or told to write. to keep it short. (around 1500 ad. )so again speculation (perfect is proof) next.


if religion for example cant agree with each other, what chance has science got in agreeing with each other. so any web site will do. next.

could you ask an expert, like why would the bbc print as you said rubbish. so again can you prove the bible is 6000 year old.(perfect is proof) ie the element of faith.
can you refute 7000 year is what you were asked to disprove science. next.

big gaps in proof, because of paper and books were not in used in the old testament so speculation has to be a part of how, it did get handed down. spoken word to wrote on stone to ink to parchment to books etc. next.

 

[royalscot]

i believe the bible to be true.
and the old testament told you this how. we all can date the new testament.
copy of scripture you need a pen. fragment are not all, quote would be nothing new to a jewish person give the old testament would have be passed by word of mouth till pen and ink,so there has to be gaps, because the writer of any said book would only have what he can prove, or told to write. to keep it short. (around 1500 ad. )so again speculation (perfect is proof) next.


if religion for example cant agree with each other, what chance has science got in agreeing with each other. so any web site will do. next.

could you ask an expert, like why would the bbc print as you said rubbish. so again can you prove the bible is 6000 year old.(perfect is proof) ie the element of faith.
can you refute 7000 year is what you were asked to disprove science. next.

big gaps in proof, because of paper and books were not in used in the old testament so speculation has to be a part of how, it did get handed down. spoken word to wrote on stone to ink to parchment to books etc. next.

i forgot to put anything else on the bottom. you have more hole in you theory that sieve.Viligant_Warrior post.

 

[royalscot]

i believe the bible to be true.
and the old testament told you this how. we all can date the new testament.
copy of scripture you need a pen. fragment are not all, quote would be nothing new to a jewish person give the old testament would have be passed by word of mouth till pen and ink,so there has to be gaps, because the writer of any said book would only have what he can prove, or told to write. to keep it short. (around 1500 ad. )so again speculation (perfect is proof) next.


if religion for example cant agree with each other, what chance has science got in agreeing with each other. so any web site will do. next.

could you ask an expert, like why would the bbc print as you said rubbish. so again can you prove the bible is 6000 year old.(perfect is proof) ie the element of faith.
can you refute 7000 year is what you were asked to disprove science. next.

big gaps in proof, because of paper and books were not in used in the old testament so speculation has to be a part of how, it did get handed down. spoken word to wrote on stone to ink to parchment to books etc. next.

i forgot to put anything else on the bottom. you have more hole in you theory that a sieve. Viligant_Warrior post.

 

[didymos]

proof, is missing. so again put up or shut up.

You STILL don't get it, now do you?

 

[Agricola]

This is an appropriate thread to mention Guadalupe woman. This is a complete human female skeleton that was found in limestone in the 1800s. It was on display until evolution became the official stance on creation and simply removed from public view. Plenty of people have subsequently tried to debunk this, but here we have it, a human skeleton in a block of limestone. Apparently limestone takes millions of years to form.

SO If Carbon dating is correct, then this is going to totally destroy evolution, but if evolution is correct, then of course that means the carbon dating is wrong, and if that is wrong then of course that will throw even more doubt on all other tests, so no one tends to speak of this find, neither do scientists speak about items found in coal and rock, as that will also debunk evolution.