Archaeologica.org

And if his PH D is in dentistry do you suppose they'd let him do heart surgery because "what the hell" he's a doctor?

sorry you argument here doesn't hold up. you may have takena quote from his website (just enough to try to manipulate the discussion) but you didn't read his book as it describes his experience which would help his thinking. even stephen jay gould gives him credibilityand who are you to argue with stephen jay gould. in fact who are you at all to place yourself in a positionto discredit anyone? do you hold a doctorate in archaeology?from a credible university? if not, i think you should be silent on who gets to be a reference and who doesn't.

You are right, arch, he is entitled to his opinion....uninformed though it may be!

again, i would like to know who died and made you the definitive person as to who gets to have an opinion and who doesn't. i don't think you have the qualifications to say anything

in fact the impression i get from your posts and superiority complex is that you are nothing more than a monday morning armchair quarterback. but that is just an assessment based upon what i have read and experienced.

He admits it! Face it. It's HIS website.

Why do you take his word for what happened 2500 years ago but refuse to accept when he prints that his theories have no scientific basis?

Sometimes you really are dense, arch.

He admits it! Face it. It's HIS website.

everyone is entitled to their theories. substantiated or not a theory is a theory.

Why do you take his word

you don't know what i do

And unsubstantiated theories should be treated that way....just like Osmangovich's pyramid until definitive evidence is uncovered. The advantage that Osmangovich has over the bible is that at least Ozy has found 'something'.

i treat it just as it is but since he had source material you have to take that into account.

it is easy to dismiss something if you do not want to believe what it is saying.

archaeologist wrote:i treat it just as it is but since he had source material you have to take that into account.

it is easy to dismiss something if you do not want to believe what it is saying.

This is where you are wrong, my friend. As with most children I was subjected to the same religious propagandizing as almost everyone else.
It is not easy to reject it as preposterous and unsupportable nonsense. It has taken a lifetime of study.

It is much easier to mouth the slogans and pretend that any of it makes sense.

It is not easy to reject it as preposterous and unsupportable nonsense. It has taken a lifetime of study

so the question is, why would you listen to those who would destroy your faith and what makes you think they are right?

Because 'blind faith' is not a desirable characteristic. It is a suspension of thought and reason. My cat had faith that I'd feed him every day. Didn't make him a reasoning creature....although he could be a royal pain in the ass at times.

You have no idea how liberating it is to be free of bible tyranny and having to worry about some ludicrous notion of an invisible man in the sky.

[quote]an invisible man in the sky.[/quote]

Here's one for DayBrown.

Hell, yeah....whatever happened to D/B. She was a liberating presence.

Maybe she got scared off by the devil.
Bad, Leona.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Because 'blind faith' is not a desirable characteristic.

not asking you to use blind faith nor does the Bible teach it either but one must have faith regardless no matter which system you believe.

All faith is blind. That is your problem.

i think i will wait awhile for this topic to return to evolutionary news-- the constant focus upon me and not the subject at hand is a big distraction and a waste of time.