Luxor4u

Thanks for your enthusiasm Stevepj, but please add some sort of description rather than just posting a video link

Stevepj wrote:

I've watched several documentaries on this "mystery" and I have to say this is one of the better ones....although it gets a little far-fetched (IMO) towards the end with the 'evidence" of Egyptian trade with the New World.

This is one of the better summaries of current thinking I've read :

https://palaeopathologyfiles.wordpress. ... n-mummies/

It would be arrogant to dismiss entirely a possible trading link with the New World 3000 years ago....but I would put it at the bottom of the list of possible answers as to why the mummies showed evidence of tobacco & cocaine.

My own view, currently, is inclined towards the use by Egyptians (both personally and in the mummification process) of plants now long extinct....or possibly substances derived from trade links stretching eastwards, perhaps as far as China.

There is NOTHING new under the Sun... Wize up...

John Landon wrote:There is NOTHING new under the Sun... Wize up...

With respect....there is.

For example science constantly comes up with NEW ideas.

Always questioning earlier theories and, where necessary, adopting new ones which more closely fit observed evidence and allow predictions of , as yet, unknown events.

Science has, for example, created NEW elements.

Then again, we have the natural process of biological evolution giving rise to NEW species.

Every second of every day, since the early years of the universe, a NEW star bursts into life.

Science is a religion too. If there are leaps of faith involved then its a religion.

John Landon wrote:Science is a religion too. If there are leaps of faith involved then its a religion.

NO.

Science is the antithesis of faith. It is, therefore, not a religion.

Science requires evidence. If there is a change in scientific theory or opinion, it's based on new evidence which contradicts that theory. Any new theory only holds so long as such evidence that supports it remains uncontradicted.

The "cocaine mummies" seem to contradict scientific opinion that the New World was unknown to the Old World pre 1492 AD. But the evidence is not, as yet, sufficiently robust. There are other explanations which are considered more likely.

If further evidence turns up supporting the idea of intercontinental trade, then the scientific opinion will change. It may take a while before an accumulation of evidence changes a long-held scientific view....but change it will.

It was often the case in the past that religious dogma delayed the advance of science-based knowledge. Less so nowadays.

And that is certainly the crux of the matter, science will change and adapt according to the proven theories prevailing at the time or based upon existing knowledge and is always open to scrutiny and challenge. Religion is the antithesis of science inasmuch as it is founded upon a dogma that in most version is unable to be challenged and in some cases to challenge it is to invite persecution or even death.

Science will change and adapt according to the proven theories prevailing at the time or based upon existing knowledge and is always open to scrutiny and challenge.

Religion does that.

Otherwise we would all be stoned to death for having beards, working on a Sunday, there would be no women priests or gay marriages.

Science is simply the alternative offered by Authority for those who can see past religion and the sky fairy. Religion reinforces Authority. many fingers are connected to the same hand, just loke democracy..

Sorry to disagree, but my quote that you have repeated above is true for all forms of science. Your claim that religion also changes is patently not true for all forms of religion, some as we all know are still adhering to the same dogma laid out by its founder and that things cannot be changed is a core belief of that religion.

There really is no comparison between science and religion.

The former is an enterprise based on the acquisition of knowledge. The very word science is derived from the Latin scientia....knowledge.

Religion is ultimately based on faith (spiritual conviction)......a belief in something without any evidence you could reasonably describe as 'proof'.

There's room in the mentality of many people (not me, I should say) for both science and religion.

But, John, please don't confuse the terms....or seek to equate them in any way.

Whatever your "beliefs" are.....those you've expounded on here many times.....they are often outside the realms of science (lacking much evidence) and are almost 'religious' in the fervour with which you seem to hold them.

If you don't like to be labelled as religious, then you'll have to find another word to describe the faith you seem to hold in matters severely lacking in evidence.

Why is it that so many people who profess not to be religious are equally as pompous and patronising as the God Squad in defending their lack of religious belief or faith?

Mad Dilys wrote:Why is it that so many people who profess not to be religious are equally as pompous and patronising as the God Squad in defending their lack of religious belief or faith?

I do not, nor have any need, to "defend" my lack of religious belief or faith...any more than I need to defend my lack of belief in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy or any number of things for which there is no evidence. Faith is something either you have...or don't have.

I hope I would not stray into patronising those who do have religious conviction. It's something I don't understand, and probably never will, but it obviously means a great deal to those who have it. Insofar as religious belief remains a personal conviction without impinging on anyone else's rights, I have no problem with it.

Please don't confuse having rational debate on religion with patronising. It makes you look unnecessarily defensive...as does using the perjorative term 'pompous'.

Brilliant reply!

And often that is the problem with religion, instead of it remaining a personal thing, the adherents want to impose their beliefs on others whether that be by instigating customs or practices that others are expected to follow or observe, or worse still by knocking on your door on a Sunday morning and giving you literature inviting you to join their own brand of religion.

Like Newcastle I do not need to defend my “lack of faith” why should I? I gave it some thought then decided on balance it was all made up, just a story to control the masses. Modern religions have just about as much validity as those that have come and gone before, do all the believers in the Egyptian pantheon of gods now languish in some sort of purgatory because they did not worship Akhenaten’s ‘one god’ or visa versa? Did those who switched to worshipping the Aten suffer a similar fate? What about all those ancient Middle Eastern gods such as Baal, his followers were just as fervent in their beliefs. The list would be endless if we included all the Greek and Roman gods and not to miss out the Indian/Asian ones and native American, Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs everyone of whom believed that their god/gods were the real thing, so what gives today’s religions the monopoly in worshipping the ‘real’ god? Given the passage of time I am pretty sure that these current beliefs will pass the same way into ancient history and ordinary people of the day will think it absurd that someone would actually believe what is being preached today as being true, no more than ripping out a victims heart would please the Sun God.

I am comfortable with my belief and would never, ever try to persuade anyone that my way was the best, only or call it what you will. Each to his own.

Mad Dilys wrote:I am comfortable with my belief and would never, ever try to persuade anyone that my way was the best, only or call it what you will. Each to his own.

Quite right!

The majority of our species holds to some form of religious belief and has done as far back in time as we care to look. There are various theories as to why this should be so. Evolutionary biologists fall into two camps: those that maintain religious belief confers some advantage in the process of natural selection....and those that believe it's a simply a by-product of other evolutionary processes.

Neither camp would necessarily accept there's any physical reality in the god, or gods, spirits or even more ephemeral concepts, which underlie religions. It's all in the mind....that complex brain of ours!

Nevertheless, many people do believe in the physical reality....notwithstanding the lack of evidence. Such evidence as is produced from time to time usually gives the irreligious a soft target.

As you say MD....each to their own

The problem with the religions that I have studied is that it is taken too literally !

Many people are under the impression that the Old Testa-Ment was introduced BEFORE the New Testa-ment, and that is not true, they were more or less introduced together.

The West got the New Testa-ment. and it seems it caused one or two problems, but I however can see the good that came form it all, despite the suffering.
There is a reason for that.

Science I agree is more "tangible", but there are some explanations that I simply cannot accept without the FULL Picture. Such as the alleged Evolution of Humans.

Dont tell me we evolved from Monkeys, and then say there is a missing link ? there should be no missing link...
How come we still have monkeys if monkeys evolved in to humans ? it cannot be the environment that caused that, since most of the places monkeys live and can be sustained, humans can too.

What is it they say about chains ?

And how about the cetaceans ? it makes absolutely no sense that an air breathing mammal went back to the sea ? I mean, come on, how on earth could they have done that ?

Siriusly....

Dont tell me we evolved from Monkeys, and then say there is a missing link ? there should be no missing link...
How come we still have monkeys if monkeys evolved in to humans ? it cannot be the environment that caused that, since most of the places monkeys live and can be sustained, humans can too.

Oh dear! I thought you'd know more about evolution.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. Even Darwin never said so. We share a common ancestor with all primates. This branch of the evolutionary tree then divided between monkeys and apes (about 25 million years ago) and so on.

The last common ancestor with our (i.e hominid) nearest ape relative, the chimpanzee, was around 7 million years ago.

All this is verified by fossil evidence and DNA.

Read Richard Dawkins excellent "The Ancestor's Tale"

The most glaringly obvious evidence that whales evolved from land animals, is that they are air-breathing mammals!

Their colonisation of the sea began about 50 million years ago...and there's plenty of fossil evidence of the gradual evolution from land -dwelling quadruped to limbless master of the oceans. Here's a helpful animated explanation for you :

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/evolut ... -animation

BTW...the Old Testament predates the New Testament by at least 6 centuries...possibly 10 centuries according to more recent scientific discoveries.

https://www.livescience.com/8008-bible- ... gests.html

I've bred all kinds of farm animals pets and birds, so of course I believe a lot of change can come about by adapting to the environment.

I also know from my gardening that sudden and unexpected mutations occur. That is a universe away from what is commonly known as Evolution in my opinion It's rather like the management of the NHS who draw the lines then try to get the dots to fit them.