Archaeologica.org

Saying the same bullshit over and over doesn't convince anyone,

i think there is a lot of new stuff placed in that post but anyways here are two books which give a list of archaeological evidence that relates to the Bible. these books are not the strongest but they are what i have on hand and i can't re-produce thelists for you as they go on for several pages. so if you are interested they are cheap to buy or find in a library:

Can archaeology prove the New Testament &
Can archaeology prove the Old Testament both by Ralph o. Muncaster.

another good book to read is:

Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheller

that is if you are open-minded enough to look at the other side of the coin instead of just listening to those who donot give you answers.

archaeologist wrote: Can archaeology prove the New Testament &
Can archaeology prove the Old Testament both by Ralph o. Muncaster.
Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheller

Probably published by Scientology. Or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

Probably published by Scientology. Or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

actually---no. muncaster's works were published by harvest house and sheler's book by harpersanfransico, a division of harper collins plus zondervan is mentioned also.

i see minimalist has found more credible, scientific data to refute i.d./creation. his case for evolution just keeps getting better (yes,it is sarcasm)

Minimalist wrote:

Terrible typography!

I have heard one slogan regarding evolution. it's on T-shirts and bumper stickers.

"I EVOLVED, YOU DIDN'T"

I believe they are available at shovelbums.com . I'll look for it to make sure.

amazing, for people who want archaeological discussions, they certainly refrain from using them when it comes to supporting their view point.

no good saying that is all this topic is worth as again your credibility is shot by your lackof scholarly reference.

still waiting for those eviolutionists who disagree with creation/i.d. to address the questions i posed with proper, scientific answers, writtenunderstandably and concisely, without double talk and other meaningless jargon.

archaeologist wrote:amazing, for people who want archaeological discussions, they certainly refrain from using them when it comes to supporting their view point.

no good saying that is all this topic is worth as again your credibility is shot by your lackof scholarly reference.

still waiting for those eviolutionists who disagree with creation/i.d. to address the questions i posed with proper, scientific answers, writtenunderstandably and concisely, without double talk and other meaningless jargon.

We'd all love 'archaeological discussion' but you keep trotting out more and more bible horseshit and it is just impossible to take you seriously.

We'd all love 'archaeological discussion' but you keep trotting out more and more bible horseshit and it is just impossible to take you seriously

may i remind you that this is a Biblical topic and you have yet to mount a defense against the questions i have asked. the problem with evolution is that though it is not a fairly new theory, it was first mentioned in china back in the 6th century b.c. (after the flood by Bill Cooper) but it wasn't till the timeof darwin that it started toget any press and serious believers.

time is not on the side of the evolutionist, and even though they have had more than 100 years and millions of discoveries to prove their theory, they have not been able to do so.

whereas, time is on the side of creation as not only is its record consistant as demonstrated in the topic, Noah's Flood, there is a antiquity record which supports its claims along with the world acting in the same manner as stated by the original act of creation. again something that evolution can not claim.

[quote="archaeologist"][quote]We'd all love 'archaeological discussion' but you keep trotting out more and more bible horseshit and it is just impossible to take you seriously[/quote]

may i remind you that this is a Biblical topic and you have yet to mount a defense against the questions i have asked. the problem with evolution is that though it is not a fairly new theory, it was first mentioned in china back in the 6th century b.c. (after the flood by Bill Cooper) but it wasn't till the timeof darwin that it started toget any press and serious believers.

time is not on the side of the evolutionist, and even though they have had more than 100 years and millions of discoveries to prove their theory, they have not been able to do so.

whereas, time is on the side of creation as not only is its record consistant as demonstrated in the topic, Noah's Flood, there is a antiquity record which supports its claims along with the world acting in the same manner as stated by the original act of creation. again something that evolution can not claim.[/quote]

Did you graduate from the Abbott and Costello school of double talk?
Who's on first???????????????????????

archaeologist wrote:[...]still waiting for those eviolutionists who disagree with creation/i.d. to address the questions i posed with proper, scientific answers, writtenunderstandably and concisely, without double talk and other meaningless jargon.

Aha! So you don't understand English prose!
That explains a lot!

You've been given your answers and more places to go to research them but you just want to talk about bible stupidity as if it is real.

Whining that no one answered your questions does not cut it any more.

Like they do on Sesame Street, they teach by repetition, repetition, repetition. Eventually, they get that 2 plus 2 equals 4, not 22.

Some never learn.