Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
now wait a minute min -Minimalist wrote:I'd rather have the fuckin' pope.
Why do you fear the evidences?Starflower wrote:I think you boys are on the wrong forum. Talk about your pseudo-archaeology.
Typical "skeptic." We provide evidence and you just dismiss it!Minimalist wrote:It does seem to be getting far afield.
Are you serious? I mean, Morgan may be 56, but she could still "rock your dig-site," so to write.I'd rather have the fuckin' pope.
arch has made a distinction between catholics and christians -
which he has yet to explain -
What you propose is a guess - with only a lack of evidence to 'support' it.In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
i never said it was a scientific theory, i said it was a 'reasonable' one.You have not put forth a 'scientific theory' at all
Well . . . then allow us to retort:archaeologist wrote:i never said it was a scientific theory, i said it was a 'reasonable' one.You have not put forth a 'scientific theory' at all
in the peer-review literature, and you have not addressed the evidence given to you demonstrating why such a claim is wrong, and your general approach to a rebuttal is to ignore it in a wave of fallacy and indignation, I think it quite reasonable to observe:archaeologist wrote:i have put forth a reasonable theory that explains why there is minimal evidence for the israelite sojourn and wanderings, which no one has been abe to refute credibly.
to those who are serious andopen-minded about the israeli history, of course.Reasonable to whom?
"i don't want to go searching. . . ."archaeologist wrote:the[Sic-Ed.] theoryis[Sic-Ed.] placed in current biblical archaeology, starting about pg 85. it[Sic-Ed.] is in rough form as i have already stated more work needs to be done on it.
Yet is this individual so rude.if [Sic-Ed.]you want to enter a conversation mid-stream, there are proper ways to do that, like being polite.
Peer-reviewed literature, not some fan rag. Before the individual attempts that, I strongly recommend familiarity with the subject and the basics of grammar and punctuation.. . . when i [Sic-Ed.] put that theory in a paper and submit it to magazines, i [Sic-Ed.] will post it here for perusal, . . .
Do not fear, no matter how deep you descend, we will be hear to try to pull you into the world of, if not Gentlemen, at least that of the Great Unwashed.. . . until then you will have to make do with the fact that the conversation is moved to another level.
You have them HERE. You have failed to convince them. If anything, you have repelled them. You have demonstrated no interest to debate, no interest to educate yourself, you are rude, petulant, and often times boring. These are all defects that require correction if you expect to be received respectfully and taken seriously.to [Sic-Ed.] those who are serious andopen-minded [Sic-Ed.] about the israeli [Sic-Ed.] history, of course.
You may think whatever foolishness you wish; you simply cannot expect the educated to swallow it. Cyrus Teague "thought" the world was hollow, "and we live on the inside." Velikovsky "thought"--well, he thought a lot of foolish things, quite rudely and passionately. None survived scrutiny or confrontation with facts.i [Sic-Ed.] think a lot of misconceptions and assumptions have been made about israel's [Sic-Ed.] past which have led a lot of scholars down the wrong trail [Sic-Ed.] and they missed discovery [Sic-Ed.]the truth.
Ipse dixit.yes [Sic-Ed.], i [Sic-Ed.] put finkelstein [Sic-Ed.] and dever [Sic-Ed.] in that group because they limit their conclusions to what they find and [Sic-Ed.] not contend with other factors.
"There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice....".
-Thomas Paine