Occam's Aftershave

Don't miss AFDave's other little logical gem:

Since archaeology shows that some places mentioned in the Bible actually exist, then everything writen in the Bible should be considered literally true.

We even coined a term for such "logic":

QED: Quod Erat Davemonstrandum

There's also a term for Dave's little semantic games:

Davinition: When Dave redefines a word to mean something completely different that the standard usage.

notapadawan

Not to be rude, but when everyone states there is no archeological evidence that the Israelites lived in Egypt, it could be that the evidence hasn't been found yet. I mean they've discovered more new sites using satellites that were previously unknown. Could the missing evidence be discovered this way?

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...te_egypt2.html

perfessor

Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence. :Cheeky:

You know, we had LarsGuy47 spending many pages worth of posts, explaining how the lack of archeological evidence of the Israelites wandering 40 years, was an indication of how clean, neat, and tidy they were to have picked up after themselves all that time.

Evidence can be substantive, or it could even be inferential, but it can't be imaginary.

notapadawan

I am only stating that we don't have a complete picture. The evidence COULD be there. It may not have been found yet. AS the linked article suggested, there are many places that haven't been discovered yet that could provide the evidence.

For you and others to dismiss the Bible accounts due to no discovered evidence, shows a clear bias. What if, after a satellite image picks up a forgotten city, it provides the missing data of the Israelites in Egypt, and there subsequent journey to Palestine, would you give the Bible more credence to its historical narrative?

Gliptic

Dismissing the biblical story after searching all over for evidence and finding none shows a clear bias? I think you show a clear bias.

notapadawan

:banghead:

There is much evidence that validates the biblical narrative. Lack of evidence in certain areas, doesn't negate that passage. The linked article shows there is still much more archeological areas yet to uncover.

ericmurphy

Archaeological evidence is not going to show that the earth is 6,000 (or even 10,000) years old. Hence, Genesis is false.

Archaeological evidence is not going to show that all humans are descended from a single mating pair that existed 6,000 (or even 10,000) years ago. Hence, Genesis is false.

Archaeological evidence is not going to show that all living organisms today are descended from specially-created "kinds" 6,000 (or even 10,000) years ago. Hence, Genesis is false.

Archaeological evidence is not going to show that there was a Noachian flood. Hence, Genesis is false.

This argument really is like arguing over whether the earth is flat. Dave seems to think it's a slam-dunk to prove the earth is flat. Given his previous efforts, I can only say he's being optimistic.

gregor

Clearly the Greek pantheon exists and Homer is historical, because they've found Troy, for gosh sakes.

Chuck Rightmire

The debate hasn't begun yet and there are all these posts about what is going to be said? I thought we waited for the evidence here. And all kinds of ad hominem remarks?

someotherguy

Ah, but the evidence is already in. AFDave has left a metaphorical heap of wreckage behind him at every site he has participated in. There is an enormous written record of the kinds of "arguments" he makes (see here for what may be the biggest creationism train wreck the internet has ever known) and they are. . .*ahem*. . .less than pretty. As far as I'm concerned, there is every reason to believe Dave's postings here will be no different.