Archaeologica.org

Noah's a fictional creation

well i have to call you on this one--prove to me archaeologiclly andscientifically that it is a fairy tale. so far all you have done is given your opinion that it is such.

you may cite lack of physical evidence and scars but that is not proving that it is a fairy tale, such evidence may not have been found as of yet. so where is your evidence concretely proving it is fiction and not fact?

kep in mind all the legends that refer to the tale in all societies which gioes against your theory.

archaeologist wrote:

Noah's a fictional creation

well i have to call you on this one--prove to me archaeologiclly andscientifically that it is a fairy tale. [...]

It is a fairy tale so long as there isn't a shred of physical evidence supporting it.

It is a fairy tale so long as there isn't a shred of physical evidence supporting it.

sorry but that doesn't qualify as proving it a fairy tale. besides i called minimalist on his assertions and i am waiting for himto put up or shut up.

#1. I hope you don't sit around waiting for me to reply to your drivel because I have better things to do...most of the time. BTW, today was Sunday. Shouldn't you have been praying or something? God may have to send out a search party.

#2. You want a scholarly discussion of a fairy tale, and not even an original fairy tale. One that was stolen from older and wiser cultures and then retrofitted with standard post-exile Jewish moralizing about how God will get pissed if the people don't do exactly what the priests....oh, I mean God, says.

What will we do for a follow up? A scholarly discussion of Little Red Ridinghood? Because they both have the same amount of fact and LRR has a better moral.

You know what the Jewish version of the flood myth tells me? That the priests were so insecure that they conjured up a god who was equal parts psychotic mass murderer and vainglorious prima donna.

Horse shit from the word 'go.'

What will we do for a follow up

discuss the long day of joshua.

I hope you don't sit around waiting for me to reply to your drivel because I have better things to do.

no. i just called you out, like they did in the old west, so far you have proven to me that you can't do it. i just got tired of hearing you present arguments on the same level that you accuse religious people of doing.

One that was stolen from older and wiser cultures

not proven yet

That the priests were so insecure that they conjured up a god who was equal parts psychotic mass murderer and vainglorious prima donna

interesting point, one worthy of discussion and i humbly disagree with your point.

Minimalist wrote:#1. I hope you don't sit around waiting for me to reply to your drivel because I have better things to do...most of the time. BTW, today was Sunday. Shouldn't you have been praying or something? God may have to send out a search party.

#2. You want a scholarly discussion of a fairy tale, and not even an original fairy tale. One that was stolen from older and wiser cultures and then retrofitted with standard post-exile Jewish moralizing about how God will get pissed if the people don't do exactly what the priests....oh, I mean God, says.

What will we do for a follow up? A scholarly discussion of Little Red Ridinghood? Because they both have the same amount of fact and LRR has a better moral.

You know what the Jewish version of the flood myth tells me? That the priests were so insecure that they conjured up a god who was equal parts psychotic mass murderer and vainglorious prima donna.

Horse shit from the word 'go.'

I vote for Peter and the wolf!

not proven yet

Nothing can ever be proven to you. THAT is the problem with faith based belief systems.

Nothing can ever be proven to you. THAT is the problem with faith based belief systems.

it isn't that nothing can be proven to me, it is that you can't disprove it. when it comes to things like faith, choices have tobe made and i choose to believe it as true. so no you can't convince me of the validity of your statements mainly because the are based in findings that can't be proven.

In his epic 'Nineteen Eighty Four' George Orwell called it 'doubletalk'.

In his epic 'Nineteen Eighty Four' George Orwell called it 'doubletalk'

sorry wasn't meant to be double talk but regardless, i have looked at the evidence provide tosupport evolution and it just doesn't add up. not only does the theory violate scientific principles but it cannot be tested today. nor dowe see the results of evolution in action as we do the creation story.

archaeologist wrote:[...] not only does the theory violate scientific principles [...]

You don't have scientific principles, mate. So that 'violation' of 'm is pure wishful thinking.
You should be so lucky... HA!

it isn't that nothing can be proven to me, it is that you can't disprove it

Oh, stop it. When people proved to you that the volume of water on earth is insufficient to cover the entire planet you retreated to magic to "prove" your point.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

This is so incredibly silly!

Just wondering why you guys didn't figure out this isn't going anywhere about 12 pages ago?

Personally, I enjoy the repeated opportunities to keep insulting him.

Personally, I enjoy the repeated opportunities to keep insulting him.

that is why your arguments have no validity. you focus on the messenger and not the message. you can't even provide proper responses and i wonder how you get to remain on this site because of your lack of arch. and scientific posts.