Archaeologica.org

There is nothing "objective" about lies told to goatherders 2,500 years ago.

i never said i was or going to be objective, i prefer the truth, which happens to be the Bible not some religious person's interpretation or some scientist's viewpoint.

Which is what I have been saying all along. You prefer magic or gods or demons rather than searching for scientific facts. YOu prefer any explanation that does not involve reality.

Medication might help.

Ok, I'll try one more time and I'm done. Feel free to take the last word.

archaeologist wrote:

As for looking for excuses not to believe, I don't need science for that. I've read the bible enough times to do the trick

then you have exercised your freedom of choice given to you by God. that is a characteristic you will find absent in the theory of evolution, for evolution has no ability to choose, how can it 'develope' it in subsequent species? it can't

So, if you aren't currently able to explain freedom of choice then it must be the result of the supernatural. Thank you for providing a concrete example of what I am talking about.

archaeologist wrote:logic demands that all prodigny(sp) of evolution be robotic because there is no capibility to think for oneself in the theory nor any foundation to establish that process.

The theory places no such demands, nor limitations, on what can or can't evolve. You're really grasping here as do all that suffer from your particular malady when they find themselves painted into a corner. I understand that you don't realize you are in a corner so there is no need for you to deny it. I was a believer too, I understand.

archaeologist wrote:if there is no God, how did freedom of choice develope

I don't know archaeologist, but I don't need a pacifier to sooth my worried self with either. I'm not worried about not knowing. I'm a big boy, I can take it.

archaeologist wrote:and why is there a concept of sin,

Because people like you are credulous enough to be controlled by it. Keep in mind that you are the one that believes humankind is intrinsically evil. Think on this.

archaeologist wrote:of right or wronjg or immorality??

Some behaviors benefit groups and/or individuals, some don't. Why not concoct a fairy tale to help enforce which are which? It's a perfectly viable and logical thing to do.

archaeologist wrote:none of these concepts have a foundation in the evolutionary theory and by your reasoning should not exist at all?

Now we're back where we started. If it can't currently be explained, it must be the work of the supernatural. *yawn*

archaeologist wrote:then again, if there is no God, why are you so bothered about me writing there is? this is a website for differring opinions, if i am wrong, youwould not be worried about what i write.

If I present an idea or a personal belief here in this wonderful public forum, I fully expect and fully hope that the good folks here will shoot it full of holes. I don't require the special pass for my opinions that you seem to require for yours.

archaeologist wrote:i am not forcing anything down your throats, just presenting my side of the coin which includes archaeology and science so it fits here.

Frankly, I'm not overly impressed with your understanding of science although you seem like a nice enough person otherwise. What I see instead is cherry picking and an inquisitive mind that has chosen an unfortunate path to resolve its cognitive dissonance.

if you aren't currently able to explain freedom of choice then it must be the result of the supernatural.

if you can't explain it then how do you know you have the truth? i can explain it and demonstrate the foundation.

The theory places no such demands, nor limitations, on what can or can't evolve.

that is the point, this is just an escape clause to avoid the difficult issues and the weakness of evolution. darwin laid it out this way in the beginning, making it easy to accept the theory and discourage digging too deeply lest one realizes how futile evolution really is.

what a great way to escape trying to find the answers---'oh it just happened' that isn't satisfying nor does it solve the problem.

You're really grasping here as do all that suffer from your particular malady when they find themselves painted into a corner

this is another typical tactic used by those who believe in evolution, you are put on the spot so make it seem like others are in your predicament.

i am not grasping nor am i in a corner, i see how evolution has no way of conceiving all that you attribute or credit to the process. i know evolution the theory cannot do what you say it has done because it has no concept of what it is 'evolving'. there is no possible way that evolution would have the knowledge of foresight to evolve a camel for it would have no idea that a desert would be in existence

nor can you tell me which came first, the desert or the camel. or lets take the example of mountain goats (sheep whatever) how would evolution even know there were such things as mountains thus 'evolve' those special hooves to meet the daily climb?

see, i am not grasping at straws but pointing out the impossibilities that escape evolutionists.

I was a believer too, I understand.

I or II Peter talk about believers who turn away from scripture.

Some behaviors benefit groups and/or individuals, some don't

where would the idea come from initially? it is not found in the evolutionary theory thus humans, animals or whomever was evolved would have no concept in themselves to even conceive of such an idea. evolution has no need for morality, sin, right or wrong, for what purpose would it use it ? there is none. but there is a purpose for it in the Bible.

Why not concoct a fairy tale to help enforce which are which?

how could they concoct a fairy tale if they have no concept of good nor evil? that is an impossibility, there is no reason for the Bible to even exist if evolution is true, nor is its morality viable for there would be nothing to hold people to that morality. just because someone said as you have stated in your post doesn't mean they have the power to enforce it.

you are missing the big picture here, there is more to the Bible than a few stories, if there wasn't then it would have been laid aside thousands of years ago. there is no purpose for one person to concoct the Bible for any reason because they have died by now and will not reap the benefits nor glory in their con.

it makes no sense for that to happen, now would it make sense how many millions of people have chosen to follow it, over the centuries, in different countries, in different cultures, if it were false.

I don't require the special pass for my opinions that you seem to require for yours.

God requires it, i don't. it is His truth not mine

What I see instead is cherry picking

another typical evbolutionist accusation. accuse the other person of what you are doing yourself. i don't cherry pick, i don't need to nor am i unfortunate.

Now we're back where we started. If it can't currently be explained, it must be the work of the supernatural

not necessarily- but that explanation will come later

It seems to me Arch is having a few problems understanding the logics of evolution .The question what came first ,the desert or the camel is irrelevant .It is like the question What came first ,the chicken or the egg ?Evolution is ruled by law of Nature .Let nature be the origin and proof of science .On every possible level religion is swept away as science advances ,not only in history and archaeology but in every science .We need them all and they all work for us .It seems Arch is having a bit of a problem relating statistics and the laws of probability to mathematics .Let me tell you statistics do not apply to methematics,they are derived from it ,you will find no argument against mathematics trying to oppose them.On the contrary .they apply first of all natural phenomena like the second law of thermodynamics and the chaos-theory .You can use them in less exact sciences too like economics .As for briniging in Einstein into thisdebate,Arch,what exactly did you mean? To which statement of Einstein are you refering ?About what ?I am afraid you are only digging your own grave if you try to bring the fundamental physical laws of the university into this debate .If it wasn't for the fact that we are supposed to debate the Ark of Gilgamesh or even Noah I would challenge you to reply to my questions .

archaeologist wrote:

There is nothing "objective" about lies told to goatherders 2,500 years ago.

i never said i was or going to be objective, i prefer the truth, which happens to be the Bible not some religious person's interpretation or some scientist's viewpoint.

Er, but isn't the idea that the Bible is the truth simply a religious person's interpretation

Ooops wrong discussion, sorry.

On every possible level religion is swept away as science advances ,not only in history and archaeology but in every science

In fairness, Andy, I do understand why people like arch fight so desperately to cling to their simplistic world view. It's comfortable. Religion is like having a comfortable chair that is falling apart piece by piece. You desperately wish you could fix it rather than buy a new and more modern chair but some people are just too lazy to go shopping.

Religion was created by humans to find something better than simply to be born, work a while, then die. There had to be an afterlife, otherwise, whats the point? They drveloped the gods of various types to direct their simple lives, and give hope in their endiviours. We continue today with the same concept. We all. almost, know we are just animals like the horse, dog, or cat with more intelligence. To bring something more than the dog or cat to life, we have invented gods. We can pray to our various gods and FEEL GOOD. The gods also said to be cool, dont screw your neighbors wife, no lie or cheat. Good things necessary in the cities developing.. All gods, ours or others, say the same things. But---But---our is better, and we will nuke you to prove it.

But---But---our is better, and we will nuke you to prove it.

Allah Ahkbar.



Jesus Saves.



Moses Invests.

Someone once said, "Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."

Arch, just because you think the Bible is true, doesn't necessarily mean it is. It is truth only when that is what you want. You need to believe that it is, so to you it is. We don't need it, we get along just find without it. How can one worry about going to hell, if they don't believe that a hell exists except in the mind of someone else. Is there an afterlife? Don't know, but I'll find out someday. And if there is a God (your God) waiting to judge me, he'll be in for one hell of an argument. Don't we teach our chidren that is they want to be respected they must first earn it by showing respect.

Even there, Leona, he rationalizes biblical atrocities when it suits him.

Joshua wasn't a murdering thug because he was doing god's will.

Which was pretty much the same defense that Himmler used.

It seems to me Arch is having a few problems understanding the logics of evolution

typical evolutionist response, you are stumped and can't answer the question so i am the one with the problem...that is a joke.

The question what came first ,the desert or the camel is irrelevant .

no it is not irrelevant, it exposes a fatal flaw of evolution which you refuse to admit to.

It seems Arch is having a bit of a problem relating statistics and the laws of probability to mathematics

no i am not having the problem, what i see is you trying to manipulate things to fit what you want and not put it where it is. evolutionists do this a lot, say one thing for one question thensay something else for another. you can never remain constant or consistant with your answers. one thing about believing the Bible, we are consistant and our answers (if honest) rarelyt change, which is a sign of having the truth.

I am afraid you are only digging your own grave if you try to bring the fundamental physical laws of the university into this debate

no i am not digging my own grave, that was a story attributed to einstien (which i said), which demonstrates the arrogance of scientists and the scientific field plus it undermines your statement about nature you just made here.

Religion was created by humans to find something better than simply to be born, work a while, then die.

why? there would be no reason to do so, nothing to gain by such an invention plus no concept to originate the idea let alone the staying power to maintain it over the centuries.

The gods also said to be cool,

why would someone invent that? there is no concept of morality, right or wrong good or evil in evolution so there is no reason why anyone would think in those terms.

We don't need it, we get along just find without it.

then you are just deceiving yourself. evolution has nothing to offer, is nothing, and does not exist except to be an alternative to the Bible and to draw people away from salvation.

everything you attribute to evolution cannot be found in evolution itself but everything in this world i can show you comes from God because God possessing all of the characteristics except sin. there has to be a origin of thingsa which possess those attributes or there is no way it can be conceived or implemented.

this is the fallacy of evolution, along with the excuses why it can't be reproduced or seenin action aas stated today. it is all smoke and mirrors with you.

by the way joshua and those other stories have a purpose not only for the history of the conquest but to demionstrate that God punishes sin, love isn't always a pat on the head but it discipliones and punishes as well so don't confuse love with feeling good. there is more to it than that

'Joshua' who did not exist (as opposed to Himmler who unfortuately did) served a political purpose to justify the territorial ambitions of the Yahweh-alone group of priests and their fair-haired boy, Josiah. Fortunately, the pharoah Necho smote his sorry ass and the bible writers had to go back to the drawing board.

'Joshua' who did not exist

prove it (not using any non-religious material, archeologists, or opinions without corroboration from religoious source documents, such as the jewish histories and the old testament and without excluding ancient religious sources, such as jewish histories and the old testament)

i decided to use the same type of criteria you try to force on me.