Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Skwim]

You are quite wrong, sir. Archaeological finds have proved that many of the places mentioned in the book of Exodus did in fact exist. Exactly where the text said they were. You need to stop listening to propaganda and do the research yourself.

Your confusing (deliberately?) places with the movement of a million or so people. Just because I write about New York and Los Angeles and claim I jogged from one to the other, doesn't prove I did just because the two cities exist.


.

 

[Shad]

If you go back and look at my post you are referring to I in no way implied that archaeology confirms everything in Exodus. Go back and read it again. You are arguing with the wind here.

You disputed the view that the 3 stories I mentioned are not supported by archaeology.

You start off by claiming I am guilty of a Straw Man and do exactly that in your next paragraph. How do you expect me to take you seriously when do that?

You are as no point in time did I say the places within the story do not exist. I said the story as per the Bible was false. See above for the rebuttal as I made no strawman. You claimed inerrancy. I provided an example which shows such an ideology is false

 

[First Baseman]

Your confusing (deliberately?) places with the movement of a million or so people. Just because I write about New York and Los Angeles and claim I jogged from one to the other, doesn't prove I did just because the two cities exist.


.

I never claimed that or implied it. Go back and read the post again.

 

[First Baseman]

You are as no point in time did I say the places within the story do not exist. I said the story as per the Bible was false.

Like I said, you are arguing with the wind. I never said the Exodus was confirmed by scientists, least of all atheist scientists.

 

[Shad]

Like I said, you are arguing with the wind. I never said the Exodus was confirmed by scientists, least of all atheist scientists.

You better let Aren Maeir know he is not Jewish nor follows Judaism.... You made wild claims you can not backup as an excuse to avoid providing evidence you claimed exists.

 

[McBell]

The "something" exist from "nothing" is not reasonable and had no sense.

but for some reasons it's still beyond the human being understanding.

Yet so many theists claim the whole something from nothing...
They just think that throwing god into the mix makes it sound better than without a god in the mix.

 

[Shad]

I never claimed that or implied it. Go back and read the post again.

Actually you did

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

That is inerrancy. Not my problem you do not understand what you post. I provided an example in which such a view is wrong. You argued against this example. If you didn't support inerracy you would of never argued against what I said.

 

[Skwim]

I never claimed that or implied it. Go back and read the post again.

In view of the fact that you were responding to Shad's remark " no Hebrew slavery in Egypt, no exodus, no conquest." which are events, not places, obviously your reply was to this point, yet you seemed to think that by ignoring it and pretending that because places could be identified this would prove him in error. Hence my remark:

"Your confusing (deliberately?) places with the movement of a million or so people. Just because I write about New York and Los Angeles and claim I jogged from one to the other, doesn't prove I did just because the two cities exist."


.​

 

[Sapiens]

If you go back and look at my post you are referring to I in no way implied that archaeology confirms everything in Exodus. Go back and read it again. You are arguing with the wind here.

Archeology falsifies the story of Exodus.

You start off by claiming I am guilty of a Straw Man and do exactly that in your next paragraph. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you do that?

First you need to see that you are wrong, the rest is easy.

Your anti-Christian bias bleeds profusely. Let it bleed full force or put a tourniquet on it. I can see it clear as day in your posts.

It is hard, perhaps impossile, to be pro-rationality and not be anti most all fundamentalism, Christian and otherwise.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yet so many theists claim the whole something from nothing...
They just think that throwing god into the mix makes it sound better than without a god in the mix.

They absolutly wrong , the whole something is from God .

some Atheists claim the whole something is from nothing this is sound crazy too .

 

[rusra02]

Because it is difficult for some people to believe in both?

Yes, I believe either evolution is true, or plants and animals were created as separate entities. I find the theory of ( macro) evolution long on propaganda and hubris and woefully short on real evidence. I fully realize others have the opposite view. Point is, IMO you cannot reconcile these two disparate world views.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I believe either evolution is true, or plants and animals were created as separate entities. I find the theory of ( macro) evolution long on propaganda and hubris and woefully short on real evidence. I fully realize others have the opposite view. Point is, IMO you cannot reconcile these two disparate world views.

So you believe that god could not have created an animal that can evolve?

 

[First Baseman]

Archeology falsifiproving-bible-be-reliable-source-historyo see that you are wrong, the rest is easy.
It is hard, perhaps impossile, to be pro-rationality and not be anti most all fundamentalism, Christian and otherwise.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

http://www.gotquestions.org/archaeology-Bible.html

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ngly-proving-bible-be-reliable-source-history

I could go on and on. For you to say there is no archaeological evidence to prove the Bible is just not true and proves you do not approach the Bible with a neutral attitude. Your bias defines you.

 

[McBell]

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

http://www.gotquestions.org/archaeology-Bible.html

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ngly-proving-bible-be-reliable-source-history

I could go on and on. For you to say there is no archaeological evidence to prove the Bible is just not true and proves you do not approach the Bible with a neutral attitude. Your bias defines you.

Does the blatant bias of your "sources" define you?

 

[First Baseman]

Does the blatant bias of your "sources" define you?

No more so than anyone else on here. The evidence is there is my point. If you don't buy it, fine. But don't tell me it doesn't exist because it clearly does exist.

 

[McBell]

No more so than anyone else on here. The evidence is there is my point. If you don't buy it, fine. But don't tell me it doesn't exist because it clearly does exist.

The word "evidence" without conditional modifiers is to broad/generic for me.

 

[First Baseman]

The word "evidence" without conditional modifiers is to broad/generic for me.

Okay, I have no problem with that. It is the gentleman above who said there is no evidence is what I have a problem with. Pushing atheism = pushing a religion.

 

[McBell]

Pushing atheism = pushing a religion.

I disagree.
Atheism is not a religion.

 

[First Baseman]

I disagree.
Atheism is not a religion.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Sapiens]

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

http://www.gotquestions.org/archaeology-Bible.html

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/archaeology

-increasingly-proving-bible-be-reliable-source-history

I could go on and on. For you to say there is no archaeological evidence to prove the Bible is just not true and proves you do not approach the Bible with a neutral attitude. Your bias defines you.

You misquoted me, I said: "Archeology falsifies the story of Exodus.."

Answers in Genesis is not taken seriously by anyone but those presuppositionally committed to their narrow belief system. Is has been debunked too many time for me to bother to do so again.

AIG actually believes this!

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/archaeology yields a site that asks: "Has Porn Really Become a ‘Public Health Crisis’?" I don't see how this relates.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/ leads to apologia written by one Clifford Wilson (an archeologist with so little in the way are real professional credits that his bio on Answers in Genesis makes reference to his grades in graduate school). In any case, the evidence that Wilson offers up is basically, "cause the bible says so." Even so, he admits: "We have already said that we do not use the statement: “Archaeology proves the Bible.” In fact, such a claim would be putting archaeology above the Bible. What happens when seemingly assured results of archaeology are shown to be wrong after all? Very often archaeology does endorse particular Bible events. And some would say that in this way it “proves the Bible.” But such a statement should be taken with reservation because archaeology is the support, not the main foundation." The bottom line is what Wilson is an advocate of the idea that the bible is a credible source of historical information because it contains the names of "real" people and "real" places.

Here, chew on this: The Exodus, had it occurred, would have left a billion and a half fire pits (and everything else, like daily kitchen middens, burials, etc.) and yet nothing has been found. That's 64,750 pits for every square mile of Sinai or one pit in every 430 square feet (that's about a moderately sized living room). Food and burials are required, they and fire pits and kitchen middens are not archaeologically invisible and can be seen world-wide as the remains of much smaller and much older migrations.

And this: STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem.

The Exodus: Does archaeology have a say?

The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

The short answer is “no.” The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists. The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it.

For the account in the Torah is the basis of our people’s creation, it is the basis of our existence and it is the basis of our important Passover festival and the whole Haggada that we recite on the first evening of this festival of freedom. So that makes archaeologists reluctant to have to tell our brethren and ourselves that there is nothing in Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.

Nothing at all. There are three Pharaohs who said they got rid of the hated foreigners, but nothing to say who the foreigners were, and no Pharaoh is named as having persecuted foreign slaves or suffered unspeakable plagues.

However, there is another way of looking at it, another way of seeking support for this fundamental experience of our peoplehood.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Exodus-Does-archaeology-have...

The author goes on to explain / excuse the embarrassing LACK of evidence to support the claimed "exodus".

If experts in archaeology, history, and theology are NOT convinced, WHY are lay people so positive?