Archaeologica.org

He would bash you sternly about the head and shoulders if you ever told him that he was supporting religion in any sense of the word!

again you prove my thesis. the evidence is there, you just have to connect the dots to find the truth (which is the Bible)

Hancock's vision is of a human society which was not destroyed because they pissed off some god or other. It is of a society which was lucky to survive the end of the ice age.

i understand that but he is another good example of those who find the evidence yet attribute it to something other than the truth (the Bible).

Naturally. Not everyone believes in fairy tales.

Science, to its detriment, requires some thought and understanding...unlike your nonsense.

Naturally. Not everyone believes in fairy tales

this is the crux of the issue. you call it fairy tales yet you have never investigated it thoroughly or honestly enough to make such a conclusion. you allow men like finkelstein anddever to do your thnking and investigative work for you.

i don't question their credentials as archaeologist, i question their motivations, their beliefs and the other influencing factors that lead them to their declarations and conclusions.

What is to investigate?

The bible is roughly akin to Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Silly ass stories to frighten small children and adults who resist growing up.


...and Aesop's Fables are better written.

The bible is roughly akin to Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales

that is your opinion but the the issue here is the fossil fish which is being extropolated to a whole theorywith nothing to back it up to support such thinking. there is more archaeological evidence to back the Bible than this theory about the fish. yetyour more willing to believe a fish story than the truth.

It is one more fossil than you have.

Come up with a fossil of a talking snake and we'll discuss it. Until that time, you have bupkes....(to get all biblical on you.)

Come up with a fossil of a talking snake and we'll discuss it

i gave you the U.S. News and World report article on that very subject-- 'Some snakes didn't slther,' (doing it by memory) obviously i can not give you a fossil of a talking snake because the fossil is dead and can not speak any longer.

How about the Queen of Sheba's panties? I notice you let that one go.

How about the Queen of Sheba's panties? I notice you let that one go.

if a woman's panties lasted that long, i am sure there would be a line of men worshiping it. (me not included)

why don't you put something substantial down instead of these comments which are just a wasteof time?? i notice everytime i beat you on evidence you you conveniently stop talking about it.

You haven't given any sort of evidence yet, except for the Aharoni thing which was obsolete.

Wild recountings of bible excerpts are not EVIDENCE. They are a sign of a mental disorder.

You haven't given any sort of evidence yet, except for the Aharoni thing which was obsolete.

that is only a matter of opinion. but like i said, i am not up to speed on the the occupation and failing to find some websites that would help out in that area i am still trying to play catchup.

one of the problems is in even debating this, you willuse your sources as the trump card and always call my ,aterial out of dateor obselte because it disagrees with your position. so even if i came up to speed, i doubt that you would accept any material i present.

But it is the opinion of reputable archaeologists who have done the work and the surveys of the sites.

In the mid 60's I had surgery on my knee. It left a seven inch scar and I was hospitalized for a week.

Now, they do it on an outpatient basis and you end up with a couple of band aids covering the wounds.

Science makes progress, arch. At the time he did it Aharoni's work was groundbreaking but his own students have superceded him.

That's life.

Science makes progress, arch. At the time he did it Aharoni's work was groundbreaking but his own students have superceded him.

in what direction?/ towards or away from the truth? certainly not towards it

.

But it is the opinion of reputable archaeologists who have done the work and the surveys of the sites.

whose qualifications?/ my reputable archaeologists you like to dismiss y whatever standard you choose to impose. so when there is an even standard we can dicuss who belongs where.

The only reputable archaeologist I can remember you offering is dead and buried.

We are talking about CURRENT archaeology...not the bullshit they pulled in the 1900's when everything was measured against the phony litany of biblical events.

We are talking about CURRENT archaeology

current archaeology may be up to date but it doesn't mean or guarantee that it is true or pursuing the truth.