the fact that hybrids are sterile when mated out of 'kind' is the nail that seals the coffin for evolutionary thinking
evolutionary speaking does not at any time state that a new species is born from the mating of two seperate ones
clearly Arch you don't have a clue what you're talking about
as per normal
the fact that hybrids are sterile when mated out of 'kind' is the nail that seals the coffin for evolutionary thinking. it removes any hint that transitory species could survive past the initial cohabitation.
hint: in n america, the native coyote and various breeds of domestic dogs imported by europeans have been interbreeding successfully for at least two centuries. and their offspring have been interbreeding successfully.
naturally occuring mutations, contrary to your line of thinking, are not "hybrids". some mutations get passed along as a result of intra-species copulation (not cohabitation, by the way, your anthropomorhpism is showing).
it doesn't take much to understand why i ignore certain posters.
wooley was mentioned and i know that he recanted his belief that he discovered evidence for noah's flood yet i hesitate to agree with that recantation as there is no guarantee that the flood evidence will be consistant, uniform or identical when it is discovered.
i think a re-examination of wooley's work is in order.
archaeologist wrote:it doesn't take much to understand why i ignore certain posters.
wooley was mentioned and i know that he recanted his belief that he discovered evidence for noah's flood yet i hesitate to agree with that recantation as there is no guarantee that the flood evidence will be consistant, uniform or identical when it is discovered.
i think a re-examination of wooley's work is in order.
Say "Hello" to a Liger, Arch. Other than the fact that lions and tigers live on different continents, they seem to have no trouble figuring out what to do when they get together.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
archaeologist wrote:
but that is your type of argument, you refuse to list specifics and try to give the impression that the field of archaeology is one way when in reality it is just a small faction of unbelieving researchers who want to usurp israel's claim to the land they now possess.
I had no idea that archaeology had such an anti-Jewish agenda. That certainly doesn't represent me or any archaeologist I have ever met.
I think it is fine to ask archaeology to provide proof for the conclusions it draws or the inferences it makes. As a scientific discipline this is a reasonable request. However if you wish to do that then you must be prepared to subject your own sources to the same rigourous examination. Giving creedence to events that end-run the laws of physics, chemestry etc and trying to explain the purported events as an intervention by a mythological deity is invoking an unreasonable double standard.
Say "Hello" to a Liger, Arch. Other than the fact that lions and tigers live on different continents, they seem to have no trouble figuring out what to do when they get together.
what does this have to do with archaeology and archaeologists?
I had no idea that archaeology had such an anti-Jewish agenda. That certainly doesn't represent me or any archaeologist I have ever met.
that may be true for you but that is not the impression i get from other archaeologists and their writings. here is a quote from the link i posted earlier:
Finally, in Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh there are almost no Late Bronze sites in the hill country. This is the well-documented conclusion of Finkelstein who states, "Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II between Jezreel and Beer Sheba." [Finkelstein, I. 1988]. This is in contrast with almost 200 Middle Bronze sites and over 300 Iron I sites in the same area. Over 80% of the Middle Bronze sites are abandoned. He insists that this supports a view that the Israelites entered into an essentially empty Canaan occupied mostly by nomadic groups during the Iron Age.
This evidence is a very serious problem to any biblical Conquest model. If the Conquest began in the Late Bronze or early Iron Age then the hill country was deserted and the battles fought there against the walled Canaanite cities by Joshua are fiction. If the Conquest is in the Middle Bronze then during the period of the Judges the Israelites deserted the hill country en masse and returned only in the Iron Age. The book of Judges is then full of fictional events of people who never lived there
seems to me that the undermining of israel's history and territorial claims is quite prevalant.
All this says is that there was nobody there when the supposed Exodus migrants arrived. This is not new. I believe Kathleen Kenyon reached the same conclusions in her excavations at Jericho. To state that the physical evidence does not support a particular mythological tradition is not taking a political stance per se. It may certainly be interpreted that way, but it's just a scientist reporting their findings. It does not indicate a prejudice.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Arch is planning to run for the presidency of the B'nai B'rith by screaming "THE BIBLE IS TRUE" at the top of his lungs.
You'll get used to his nonsense after a while, OAS. Pay him no mind.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
