Dean Anderson

The problem is not simply that archaeologists have not looked everywhere - so there may be evidence that has not been found "yet".

The problem is that archaeologists have looked in the places that the Bible talks about, and have found evidence of what was there at the times the Bible stories refer to.

And such evidence contradicts those Bible stories.

This is particularly true in the case of the Exodus and the Conquest. We have strong evidence from archaeology in the regions that these events simply did not happen. Remember - this is not simply a lack of evidence for them happening, this is actual evidence that different events happened (e.g. the Hebrews slowly developed out of the native Canaanite culture, rather than having arrived suddenly with a military force and taken over).

If you want to discuss this in more detail, then I suggest starting a thread in BC&H - since it would be a serious derail for this thread...

notapadawan

That is irrelevant. The Bible doesn't state an age of the world. Processes to determine age are not finite. We can not determine the actual age of the Earth without major guesswork. 6,000; 10,000; 1,000,000; 10,000,000,000 are all relative when you figure aging. The Earth's age can never be determined.

On what basis can you prove that is an axiom?

SAme question as above.

Most every society shares a common story of a worldwide flood. How do you account for that?

I don't know. I believe the Earth is round.

Avatar

Most every society shares a story involving the earth shaking too. And storms in the sky. And the occassional fmaine or plague.

None of these events are unique to any particular culture. They were real world threats that happened to people on occassion. It's only natural that they got worked into their mythology.

Further, not every culture/society agrees at all on the nature of said flood, number of survivors, how long it lasted, or why it occurred. If there were more commonalities in said flood stories, you might have a point. But there aren't.Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#r10Isaak

Occam's Aftershave

We also had a lot of fun when Dave was caught claiming to be a scientist. When called on it, he said he qualified as a scientist because his degree said Bachelors of Science, Electrical Engineering.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Of course, Dave also told us that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by Aryan non-Egyptians (supposedly because the black Egyptians were too stupid) as an astronomical observatory and repository of advanced scientific knowledge. And he told us that the Portuguese language was created when some folks decided to mix Spanish and French.

You can't make sh*t this good up folks, you just can't.

ericmurphy

We can determine the age of the earth within a few percent. If you want to know which day of the week the earth was formed, we'll never know that. But no estimate of the earth's age based on information in Genesis derives an age of more than ten thousand years. No possible interpretation of genesis allows an estimate of as much as a million years. Therefore, the Genesis account is false.

It's not an axiom. An axiom is a statement that is self-evidently true. The age of the earth is not axiomatic. However, it has been established empirically beyond rational doubt to be more than four billion years.



Some do, many don't. What's your explanation for that? And in the meantime, most ancient human societies were located near bodies of water. Such bodies of water often flood.

Dave's belief in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is tantamount to a belief that the earth is flat.

ericmurphy

Prediction about Dave's first post (a week from now): he'll spend virtually the entire post arguing that written records are the preferred means of determining historical records, and the rest of the post arguing that the Documentary Hypothesis has been "discredited" because Israelites at the time of Moses were literate.

Dave doesn't "debate." He lectures.

ericmurphy

Missed this earlier:

How am I going to prove that archaeological evidence isn't going to have anything to say about a geological/paleontological matter? I would think it really would be axiomatic that archeology has nothing to say about events that pre-date the existence of humans on the planet. Is there some sort of "non-human archaeology" out there?

Genesis most assuredly makes the claim that all life was created by God at the time of the Garden of Eden, and it necessarily follows that everything alive today is descended from those organisms. The geological and paleontological evidence conclusively demonstrates the falsity of this claim. Therefore, the Genesis account is false, and archaeological evidence cannot, even in principle, change this fact.

Lixma

Yep....I trawled through the first of Dave's God Hypothesis threads and his general attitude was "So we've covered geology, next week we'll look at the flud". Very condescending, very typical and very embarrassing.

Constant Mews, I don't envy you one iota. Don't expect a shred of evidence for such gems as Hydroplate Theory, but do prepare yourself for assertion piled upon assertion with a copious helping of AIG references.

Occam's Aftershave

One thing we've learned from AFDave over the last year is that he is completely unembarrassable. He's been caught in blatant lie after blatant lie, caught quote-mining, caught fabricating and adding his own 'data' to legitimate scientific papers via Photoshop, caught going back after the fact and editing his old posts to produce his own "retro-history". And every time this dishonesty has been pointed out to him, his response has always been along the lines of "well, I'm doing God's work and have done nothing wrong in His eyes." It's the Liar-For-Jesus "the ends justify the means" credo to the Nth degree.

notapadawan

That is sad. If this is true, it is no wonder Christians are laughed at and scorned.