Archaeologica.org

Here you go, arch.

You're deluded, arch. It's gotten to the point that everything you say just comes off as ridiculous. You don't have anything to present except the bible. I'm not trying any more. I don't know why any of us try at all. You're not gonna accept anything we say as proof. Your pious attitude is insulting and arrogant. Live your life the way you like. We'll live ours like we want.

You're deluded, arch.

frank-- i have always liked you and your posts don't ruin it now.

You don't have anything to present except the bible.

that is right and there is more being offered by the Bible than evolution

Your pious attitude is insulting and arrogant

i could say the same about evolutionists

You're not gonna accept anything we say as proof

i looked at your proof and asked questions or pointed out errors then you don't respond but attack. you have nothing to offer why should i side with you?

Live your life the way you like. We'll live ours like we want.

i do and i will present my side of things. those that don't like it, try to restrict entry because they are close-minded. The Bible and what it offers is as scientific as evolution, it is those that disbelieve that try to omit alternative theories and make this just one big 'pat onthe back' website thinking they are discussing something when they actually reaffirming their point of view and preaching to their own choir.

prime example--the fingerprint of the gods bookreview. i gagged in reading those posts, i won't say what my intitial raction was but suffice it to say it was avery sterile conversation.

Here you go, arch

well at least someone other than my dog does.

Dude, I have cussed you like a mangy dog. I've said much worse things to you before. Don't take that "turn the other cheek" attitude with me. I've told you before and I'm telling you now...I DON'T LIKE YOU! You're just trying to come off as all pious and humble and shit. It's mind games and I ain't fallin' for it. The reason I don't like you has nothing to do with your beliefs. I won't fault a man for his beliefs. It's the way you belittle others who don't subscribe to your beliefs. It's not even what you say, but how you say it. Like you think your the patient monk on "Kung Fu" and we're all "grasshopper". Screw you! I don't need your instruction. Keep your religion to yourself. I want no part of it or you.

Arch, again your sanctimonious, self-rightous, arrogant attitute is showing. You talk, talk, talk and yet you say nothing. You constantly repeat your same old dogma and claim it as new. It's the same circular reasoning for every point one of us makes (that is if you bother to answer it). Regardless of subject matter, it always turns out to everyone else is wrong because we are what you refer to as "evolutionists" like we are some kind of evil demons. We are not evil, we are not sinners and we certainly not mindless robots like you.

Oh, and when you do write your paper, find yourself a really good editor, because from what I've seen you're going to need one.

Regardless of subject matter, it always turns out to everyone else is wrong because we are what you refer to as "evolutionists" like we are some kind of evil demons. We are not evil, we are not sinners and we certainly not mindless robots like you.

believe what you want to, i am just presenting the side that offers salvation. God is right or He wouldn't be God and we would not have any hope.

I have cussed you like a mangy dog

i know but when you post your thoughts (not attacking me), they are usually level headed and insightful.

It's the way you belittle others who don't subscribe to your beliefs.

binary is very limited and though you may take it as belittling, i may not have intended it to sound that way. then there are times i am just responding in kind for the way you all talk to me.

Like you think your the patient monk on "Kung Fu" and we're all "grasshopper".

never thought of that, i just try to present me side and let you think it through and make your own choice.

Keep your religion to yourself. I want no part of it or you.

this is a religion based topic, i don't think you can avoid it

As a matter of fact, Current Biblical Archaeology has virtually nothing to do with religion. That's your problem with it.

As a matter of fact, Current Biblical Archaeology has virtually nothing to do with religion

no. the problem comes when the non-believers think they get to make the rules when it comes to the Bible and its contents

The bible is a bunch of geopolitical horseshit devised to control a bunch of first millenium BC goatherders.

What is amazing is that otherwise intelligent people are so willing to believe such outright nonsense in the 21st century.

archaeologist wrote:
no. the problem comes when the non-believers think they get to make the rules when it comes to the Bible and its contents

No, the point is we stick to the rules regardless.

If there is evidence for an event occurring or person existing, as descroibed in the Bible or any other ancient text, then we accept it as accurate (to a lesser of greater decree).

When there is no evidence we question it's veracity.

The rules applied to the Bible are identical to those rules applied to all other texts - religious or otherwise.

I really don;t see what your problem is, other than an inability to accept anything other than the Bible as being fact.

No, the point is we stick to the rules regardless.

no you don't. you have a double standard and an unequal playing field when you get honest then come and talk to me.

When there is no evidence we question it's veracity.

no you don't especially when it comes to fossils

The rules applied to the Bible are identical to those rules applied to all other texts - religious or otherwise

hahaha--i think you have been drinking some of minimalist's koolaid

**i am officially on vacation now have fun mocking soemone else for a change

I'm not mocking you Arch I just think you get overly defensive - paranoid almost - when your strict religious interpretations get threatened by physical reality

Anyway, have a nice holiday

Okay..with that moron gone, get a load of this article. I love the bit about the red heifer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... -headlines

Then there is Clyde Lott, a Mississippi revivalist preacher and cattle rancher. He is trying to raise a unique herd of red heifers to satisfy an obscure injunction in the Book of Numbers: the sacrifice of a blemish-free red heifer for purification rituals needed to pave the way for the messiah.

So far, only one of his cows has been verified by rabbis as worthy, meaning they failed to turn up even three white or black hairs on the animal's body.

Somehow, the idea of going over a friggin' cow with a magnifying glass it just too funny!

An interview with Neil Asher Silberman, Finkelstein's co-author.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... b0d2c.html

I have to say that we've gotten the most hostile responses from some American readers. People start accusing us of all kinds of hidden agendas and an intention to debunk for the sake of debunking.

Sound like anyone we know?