Archaeologica.org

Min thinks Israel didn't exist until 1948 A.D., he thinks the Philistines lived there until 1948 A.D.

archaeologist wrote:i have noticed that minimalist has ignored the review i posted about finkelstein--twice now. can't handle criticism of your pal??

Arch, I have no doubt that your bible-thumping pals will criticize. But, as their criticisms are bible based they are worthless.

They have the same challenge that I have given to you. EVIDENCE.

I do not give a shit what the bible says as everything it says is a later fiction. Prove your point with artifacts that prove Finkelstein's main points wrong...(Israel arose at the end of the LBA in Eastern Palestine) or give it up. Prancing around shouting 'Hallelujah' is not "evidence"....it's childish.

Hey min, did you know that the Biblical Philistines were thought to be mythological by your ilk until the ruins at Ekron were discovered in modern times, and now you do believe that the Philistines did exist?

Another credible link for you Arch, since you were asking. A great overview.
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

But, as their criticisms are bible based they are worthless.

if i recall...you chastise me for dismissing something without reading it yet you do this all the time....there is a name for that but i will let it slide...seems it is okay for you to do it and not anyone else.

Prove your point with artifacts that prove Finkelstein's main points wrong

i love it. he says something is fiction without artifacts to prove it yet he asks for artifacts to be proven wrong himself. what a joke.

archaeologist wrote:

But, as their criticisms are bible based they are worthless.

if i recall...you chastise me for dismissing something without reading it yet you do this all the time....there is a name for that but i will let it slide...seems it is okay for you to do it and not anyone else.

Prove your point with artifacts that prove Finkelstein's main points wrong

i love it. he says something is fiction without artifacts to prove it yet he asks for artifacts to be proven wrong himself. what a joke.

You refuse to read them at all. I at least wait until I see some idiot start to quote the bible before I dismiss your rubbish as .....rubbish.

You refuse to read them at all.

why would i read it at all when the few quotes that get posted tells me he is omiting and ignoring data that is vital to his conclusion?

i can tell he is off and wrong just by those few blurbs.

i can tell he is off and wrong just by those few blurbs.

Exactly how I feel about the fucking bible!

Hey min, the Bible has never been shown to have any historical inaccuracies, so you are a fool to discount it, you are obviously a half-assed academic, but that's ok, you just look moronic, but since you don't care, we'll ride with it.

So we were trying to talk about the Leakeys.......

Yes, min saying "that's about the way I feel about the fucking Bible" is a bit off track, isn't it?

So we were trying to talk about the Leakeys.......

well talk. i know about their work and their discoveries thoughi disagree with their dating and cinclusions. which seem farfetched giventhe amount of evidence they base their theories on.

who has taken over for them ? i kind of lost track of which family member is carrying on the exploration? i know richard went to kenya after that i lost sight of him, i believe his brother inherited the family responsibility but no real word has come to me what happened after that.

archaeologist wrote:well talk. i know about their work and their discoveries thoughi disagree with their dating and cinclusions. which seem farfetched giventhe amount of evidence they base their theories on.

who has taken over for them ? i kind of lost track of which family member is carrying on the exploration? i know richard went to kenya after that i lost sight of him, i believe his brother inherited the family responsibility but no real word has come to me what happened after that.

Didn't check the Leakey Foundation link did you? And after you asked for credible links too.....

Actually - although I disagree with you 100% at the most fundamental levels - at least you are willing to discuss on topic. I'm sure we all appreciate that.

Oas - you do what you want, but I wouldn't waste an ounce of cyber-breathe on Arch.

Notice that when we get a little peace, and start posting a lot of archaeology - he starts trying to cause trouble. That is what he does. He knows absolutely nothing about archaeology and wants to talk religion. Just like our other fellow in here now.

He'll keep posting behind you, but Arch will get mean about it. He is terribly threatened by actual archaeology.