gregor

WT

I cannot tell if you are more or less unhinged than Velikovsky.

The evidence for human evolution fits in the collections of hundreds of museums and libraries around the world.

Let me know the next time a planet's going to strike the Earth, I want to get to the impact point first.

WILLOWTREE

Hi Brian:

The Hydarnes/Bimson quote.

PLUS it is far from any stretch to imagine that a non-Biblical text and its claims believed without archaeological support.

This whole episode concerning the Hydarnes quote and your experiment is about why I believe him and not you.

YOU never addressed the quote nor took a position until now. As it sits you still have not given a preponderance of evidence to make me change views.

It seems you are upset that I wouldn't accept what you say (knowing your vast expertise) unlike Hydarnes or Dr. Scott.

Dr. Scott ALWAYS and INCESSANTLY demands that everyone "check out for themselves" everything he teaches.

Funny thing is Dr. Scott always provides opponents views and evidence then systematically decimates them.

I accepted the Hydarnes quote because the generic point is not a matter of opinion - it is just common sense. Subsequent comments by other opponents have confirmed that the Bible is being held to a different standard WHICH CONFIRMS THE GENERIC PORTION OF HYDARNES QUOTE !

And I was quick to embrace Hydarnes because we both know the Exodus happened in the mid-15th century.

You may not agree but you do understand ?


Just plain untrue.

My mind, like everyone else's, doubts everything naturally.

I didn't need to UNTIL someone challenged it.

NOW you have.

THEN I provided the Bimson material/link, which is where Hydarnes probably got it.

Once again, why is Bimson wrong and you are right ?

The above question is not rhetorical.

Yes I know.

How does that make him wrong ?

Charles Darwin was a racist and a thief, not to mention much of what he argued has long been abandoned by neo-Darwinists. Are you/they still reliable ?

How does this make you wrong ?

If Einstein raped little girls does that negate the validity of his scientific achievements ?


"most likely" is not terminology to make somebody switch their view/support.

Brutus/British has and secular still ignores the truth only because they won't allow the truth that descendants of 10 tribe Israel migrated to the Isles.

Is what you argued enough to change views ?

This implies that you do.

Where ?

I do not criticize my sources because they are right.

I have at EvC conceded more points than you, Ned, Jar, Paulk, and Percy combined.

As you know CAH is a conglomeration of sources that contribute to each volume.

This means that a different scholar produced the differences.

The main point about my CAH evidence was to refute your contention that "no archaelogical evidence exists" to support a 13th century final destruction of Hazor by D/B.

An archaeologist wrote that report and it is evidence.

I was banned before I had a chance to.

Just a bare assertion.

Why should "no credit be given to this figure" ?

Sounds like Edwards is a Low Date theorist just like you.

Do you agree with everything any given source of yours argues ?

CAH and the evidence Rutherford supplied, a different editor in the same volume said, "there is no evidence in existence supporting the Biblical narrative of the Exodus."

Of course these quotes were witten long after "Ages in Chaos" was released.

Brian:

When was the Hazor of Judges 4:2 destroyed ?

Velikovsky and unpublicized archaeology evidence supporting the Bible won't either.

I have discovered that the vocal mainstream/secular buries everything that contradicts what they have already spoken up for.

The world has been deceived by the anti-Bible secular establishment who also controls media outlets that the masses must receive their information from.

If it wasn't for Dr. Scott, libraries, and the Internet I would be like the secular masses.

WT

WILLOWTREE

That "evidence" is plaster cast/rubber reproductions of what they hope to find someday.

"In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life" by Henry Gee [1999] (chief science writer, "Nature" magazine)

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate....the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

Concerning the fragmentary fossil record sprinkled across millions of years:

"an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."

"between about 10 and 5 million years ago - several thousand generations of living creatures can be fitted into a small box."

Comment on the conventional picture of human evolution:

"a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices."

"To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive but not scientific."

"The Myths of Human Evolution" by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall [1982]

"myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery."....if true...."one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything the opposite has occurred."

"Through the Glass Darkly: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research" by A.S.U. anthropologist Geoffrey Clark [1997]

"paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

IOW, paleoanthropologists are storytellers who insert a paucity of disputed fossil evidence into "preexisting narrative structures."



The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.

This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a purported lack of the same type of physical evidence.

Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.

What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist. Hence human evolution is a necessity because the only other alternative (God) is not an option.

WT

gregor2

WT

What are you smoking?

I don't know what crazy quote mine project you are working on. Without a web-link to the first two cites, I cannot respond to your skreed at present. However, the cite to your third link is a conventional summary of what appears to be accepted results of research in paleoanthropology. For example, let me quote from the content of that link:

"Homo habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. Evidence of tools found with habilis earned it the name, which means 'toolmaker.' H. habilis is similar to australopithecines but the back teeth are smaller, though still relatively large. Brain size, at between 500 and 800 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines and brain shape is more human like. One feature, the bulge of Broca's area visible in one habilis brain cast, suggests a possible capability of rudimentary speech (Foley). . ."

I don't know what kind of parallel you are attempting to draw between the volume of fossils of hominids spread over the globe dating from between 500,000 and 5 MYA to evidence regarding 2 million mythical people living in a 150 by 200 square mile peninsula some 4,000 years ago - but it makes no sense.

Banned from EvC? Huh - who'd of thunk it.

Amaleq13

If you want to debate evolution, we have a forum for that subject. Please stick to BC&H material here.

Hydarnes

The author of this post has written a revised version here

(surprise!)

Hello Brian. I’m here because of an email that my brother obtained containing notification of a statement originally made by myself (at the, dare I say, infamous EVC), and which is now being used as a source of reference by our respected friend here, Willowtree, presumably to reiterate a point relating to the scarcity for directly affirmative evidence establishing an Israelite presence in the Delta.

Because I disagree significantly with Velikovsky’s chronology, and also with your blind persistence in a 13th century Exodus, I’m not going to necessarily take sides on that specific controversy. And seeing that it is hardly possible to address in abundant measure your endless revenue of Exodus-related subterfuge, I will attempt to address, at this juncture, that which seems reasonably deserving of my time.


And your evidence and sources ARE? Baseless Brian and nothing but the Brian.

Even if you wanted to, you simply can’t make that assertion and still expect to be taken seriously, because NOBODY KNOWS 100% FOR SURE WHICH SITE IN EGYPT IS BIBLICAL SUCCOTH. But we do know is that there exists a very compelling amount of data that seems to suggest Tell-el Maskhouta as being that site. How’s that for an ending to your impetuous conclusions? It doesn’t feel very good does it, to go so high above yourself and then realize you don’t even have enough to sustain your own words?

And since you have blatantly made an assertion that directly contradicts a referenced source by J.J. Bimson (quoted by WT) which essentially corroborates my statement iterating the same conclusion, you are hardly in a position to be giving us this utter manure about your “evidence� being “superior�r—especially when you haven’t even given us sufficient reason to believe that it exists at all, apart from your wildly prolific imagination!



EVIDENCE AND SOURCES FOR ESTABLISHING TELL-EL MASKHOUTA AS BIBLICAL SUCCOTH:

Now, if I might vindicate my original quote and expose your pretenses for what they are when it comes archaeological “locations�.

Even Touregypt, which seems to accept a 13th century Exodus concurs that Tell-el Maskhuta is Succoth:

“It should also be noted that the route chosen by the escaping Israelites, from Piramesse to Tjeku (biblical Succoth: Exodus 12:37) and eastwards, was precisely the same that was used by two escaping slaves of the late 13th century BC, as reported in Papyrus Anastasi V.�-- http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm

And more compelling evidence suggesting Tell-El Maskhouta is biblical Succoth:

"Tell el-Maskhuta located 15 km W of modern Ismailia and Lake Timsah in Wadi Tumilat has been suggested by a number of scholars as a possible location for Succoth. The name Succoth may be an adaption of Egyptian Tjeku (tkw), a region and perhaps a city proposed to be located at Tell el-Maskhuta. Brugsch has offered an explanation of the derivation of Hebrew Succoth from Egyptian Tjeku (tkw) correlating Egyptian t with Hebrew s, Egyptian k with Hebrew k, and noting that the Egyptian w is a plural suffix while the Hebrew wt represents the femine plural suffix (Bleiberg 1983:21)...Papyrus Anastasi VI dating to about 1230 BCE preserves a message sent from a frontier official to his superior that certain Edomite bedouin had been allowed to pass the fortress in the district of Tjeku (Succoth ?) to pasture their cattle near Pithom (ANET, 259), locating both places in the same area." (p. 217. Vol. 6. Jo Ann Seely. "Succoth." David Noel Freedman, editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 1992. New York. Doubleday)-- http://www.bibleorigins.net/SuccothTjekuSinai.html

“The site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been made. It may be the fortress town of Tjeku mentioned in Egyptian sources. In these we learn, for example, of a chief of the archers sent to Tjeku to prevent certain slaves from running away, but arriving too late. They had been seen crossing the north wall of the fortress town of Seti-Merenptah. Another mentions some Libyan mercenaries who had tried to flee but were brought back to Tjeku. Thus Tjeku was on the route taken by fugitives.�-- http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/exodus3.html

“Hoffmeier suggests that Papyrus Anastasi 6 indicates that Tjeku was a location possessing horses and possibly chariots, which might have been used in pursuit of Israel at Pi-ha-Hiroth :

‘Here Tjeku is described as a place where horses and their grooms were stationed, and the city determinative is written with Tjeku, suggesting a particular location, not a general region, was intended. Kitchen suggests that the 'three waters of Pharaoh' may be one and the same as the 'pools (brkt) of Pithom of Merneptah which is [in] Tjeku' of Papyrus Anastasi 6 (54-61)...It is from such a fortress that we might expect the Egyptian chariotry, which would be stationed to defend Egypt, to have been dispatched in pursuit of the Israelites (Exod 14:6-8).

Further support for Tjeku being a militarized zone is found in military titles associated with officers assigned to defend that area. The earliest reference to Tjeku is found in the 18th Dynasty. This text from Sinai is dated the 7th year of Thutmose IV (ca. 1393 BC). It names one Amenemhet who was 'troop commander (hry pdt) of Tjeku." (p. 180. Hoffmeier)�--- http://www.bibleorigins.net/YamSuphT...mAyunMusa.html

Well, it looks like you’re really going to have to come up with some good counter-evidence that disagrees with the identification of Succoth at Tell-el Maskhuta, and also that it wasn’t an Egyptian Military base.

So, in your haste to discredit my statement it looks like you missed the point altogether: that the absence for hard archeological evidence of an Israelite occupation of Egypt isn’t any more decisive than the conspicuous paucity for archaeological evidence of military proportions at a site that Egyptian records testify as having had. But you won’t find many scholars arguing that Egypt’s records on the matter were fictitious, despite having no real proof for the fact.

[quote]The experiment isn't finished yet.

Which of the two claims, Hydarnes and mine, would you say is the more accurate?[ quote]

I think we have yet to see your claim graduate from anything more than a hollow “I’m right, you’re wrong�.

Just admit it, you’ve tried and failed, now offer us something sound besides this utter puerility.

And might it be accurate for me to assume that YOU have done your research on this? If so, you might as well concede to your dishonesty.
You know something Brian, I truly admire your zealous desire to possess all the answers when it comes to deciphering these archaeological matters and what they entail with regard to the Exodus—endless fodder for hypothetical ingenuity--but I honestly cannot in good conscience extend the same commendation for your, at times (forgive me) hilarious, credulity in matters of [tentative] published “data� to which tend to appear particularly congenial to your ideological fancies and over-indulged [mis]conceptions on issues of antiquity—not to elaborate extensively on your dangerously self-delusive habits for highly selective sourcing of both authors as well as purported “evidences� that seemingly fit your unwavering anti-biblical mentality. It also cannot be ignored that this inevitably betrays a deficit in realistic equilibrium on your part, more so when one is aware that even the most acclaimed scholars, archaeologists and researchers constantly dispute over matters (dating, locations, etc) which a very loose majority pass off to the gullible public as unequivocal historical fact, depending on the source.

That you are a victim of these commercialized “fact� gimmicks is palpable, but I still cannot overlook your inexcusable negligence as a factor---considering the years of research and experience under your belt, not only as a teacher and a mature adult, but in your painstaking study of these topics---archaeology and the likes—which you, if I might add, spare no effort in utilizing (reasonably or not) for your unrelenting anti-biblical agendas.

You know, I really like to think that I know a relatively decent amount when it comes to ancient Egypt and some of the Ancient Middle East—I’ve been deeply in love with Ancient Egypt since I was 4 yrs old, even before I could read. I am also quite aware that I haven’t been around nearly as long as you to be granted the opportunity of filling my gray matter with a comparable amount of pertinent literature, but it is your debating tactics in generally that greatly disturb me. Why? Because they unmistakably exhibit an arrogance and over-confidence about them that either leaves your opponent apt to blindly concede to your aggrandized bluffs on issues, or causes them to realize that you’re relying heavily on presuppositions to gain an imagined “edge�.

And there seriously isn’t anything wrong with using data to support a point, and I wholeheartedly don’t object to you doing this, but it is when you use information that hasn’t been categorically established to feign this sophomoric certainty about locations and timeframes, which you in turn use to baselessly disparage other propositions that don’t agree with the one you espouse. Needless to say, this makes it downright misleading and injurious to your credibility. And it certainly is your prerogative to believe the sources that favor your paradigm, just refrain from touting them at the exclusion of others demanding at least equal, if not more, evidential legitimacy.

But I for one can’t help but notice how rife your posts are with this cheap mediocrity, and how you constantly allude to complete uncertainties as compelling basis for your categorical assertions and/or rejections about matters. I trust that any unbiased person who has read even a handful of your debates will know exactly what I mean

And if you need to be refreshed on a few of your past pretenses to “facts�:

Pithom---You claim to know it’s location for a “fact,� when the naked truth is, there are more than a few sites that have been proposed and nobody knows for sure---EXCEPT BRIAN WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING, including more than those officially qualified to be disclosing the data!!!!!! It’s also interesting how you so adamantly reject Tell-El Maskhuta as Succoth even though it has so much evidence to support it, but then you decide to believe that you know exactly where Pithom is when its location is one of the most disputed of all!!! Your positions are so untenable it’s alarming.

Raameses---You insist that the biblical reference to this city corresponds to Pi-Rammesse built by Rameses II, but this is based on hardly more than the similarity in the names and multiple assumptions---which you use to erroneously connect with the king Rameses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus. The site for biblical Raameses is still under heavy dispute and many scholars point out the sensitivity of the prefix “Pi� when considering the site. And EVEN if Pi-Rammesse WAS the location, there is abundant alternative evidence to suggest that it was in reality occupied much earlier and even during the 18th dynasty. So if I were you, I’d give up on this futile foolishness for acting like you’ve fortified with good reasons for a 13th century.

The Amarna Letters---You claim that they completely negate the possibility of an Israelite Conquest in ca. 1400 because, according to you, some of the correspondences contained in the letters do not reflect in specific nature a massive-scale Israelite invasion. But there are several problems with this, and you take WAY TOO much for granted here.

You might find it interesting to know that the commonly proposed dates for when the Amarna letters were written are strictly CONTINGENT on the dates of the reigning monarchs under whom the letters were composed, which are in turn tragically subject to MASSIVE UNCERTAINTY (something you loathe to acknowledge). Egyptian chronology vacillates significantly depending on which author or proposed chronology you’re sourcing. But BECAUSE scholars have tentatively put the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten during the exact period that corresponds with an Israelite invasion (counting forward from 1450bc.), YOU persistently and ridiculously PRETEND THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW TANTAMOUNT to some fantasized evidential rejection of a ca. 1400 invasion. Your claims are even more ludicrous when we remember that the conquest only lasted several years according to Josephus, and that our dates are far from precise, but you act as if there is no room for a dating compromise, when there is in fact plentiful room for such.

(You know way better than this, but you persist ad nauseum, and I’m quite frankly sick of it. This is part of the reason I lost interest in dialoguing with you on EVC)

Moreover, nobody knows for sure when Amenhotep III even reigned, neither Akhenaten, nor ANY EGYPTIAN PHARAOH for that matter—so give up these naïve pretenses of yours—I’ve been into Egyptology long enough to know what a dating holocaust it is. We rely on EXTREMELY dubious dating methods that could easily yield the possibility for year alteration of any of these reigning kings AT LEAST a good 50 years. Of course, we have to remain within certain reasonable bounds that find at least marginal support from generally accepted methodologies for what is considered historically viable vis-ê-vis traditional dating techniques---because they are all that we know. But we cannot flatter ourselves with such certainly, as you so perilously do.

Furthermore, I don’t subscribe to the infallibility of these error-ridden “scientific� methods like you do, and since I predicate my beliefs on the Bible I automatically reject any tentative data that doesn’t agree with a scriptural event and I conversely accept that which does seem corroborative to it—although I can’t pass it off as absolute, unless there is enough evidence to justify it as such. If any solid evidence were truly found to be against the Bible, then I guess I would have to dismiss Scripture as a reliable book, wouldn’t I? But that isn’t going to happen, so if I were you I’d start realizing that you could be accepting an unwarily vast amount of archaeological hooey under the garb of progressive science without even knowing it (actually, archaeological methods don’t even qualify under the scientific heading, because they are so hard to rely on).

I might be less significantly less than half your age Brian, but I am just flabbergasted at how you can possibly think you can get away with this baloney about having such a complete understanding of locations and their precise identifications in general—when even the heavyweights vociferously disagree. If you didn’t know better, I might be more inclined to excuse you. But I entirely refuse to feed into this absurd pabulum of yours urging us to accept phony, half-baked facts that are in actuality the prodigy of innumerable assumptions and conjectures by a few heavyweights professing a godly intuition of the past.

(Too bad I can’t recall all of your similar assertions with direct quotes, as I would definitely be addressing them. But I would have to peruse through almost infinite threads in EVC searching for them.)

I just can’t help but marvel at how you so effortlessly feign this consummate confidence in the identification of these proposed locations when the fact is, even the most reputed and informed scholars admit uncertainty—except you, of course (the only one specially endowed with inimitable insight when it comes to knowing precisely the identity of every location in Egypt and Palestine).

Bah…You’re blowing smoke. Of course anyone can make a mistake, you keep avoiding the issue, and you continue to show yourself unwilling to acknowledge when proven wrong.


Please, spare us this over-obvious sanctimony. You’d be the first here to instantly buy into any claim or allegation that seems even remotely conducive to “proving� your pet beliefs. (You’ve demonstrated this to me brilliantly by your anti-Wyatt stance, even though you know virtually nothing about the issues behind the discoveries or the allegations of fraud before rushing to take a side)

Honestly, that has got to earn you the nobel prize in irony.

You never cease to amaze me, Brian.

I can see you aren’t cognizant of all the data before speaking, as usual.

And btw, where is your conflicting evidence? I’d like to see it! What makes you think it was Pithom? What makes you think that the placement of the site as “Pithom� is superior to the methods used to identify the site as Succoth?

Please tell me this isn’t all about your wishful thinking, because that’s the only vibe I’m getting from you at this point.

GASP!!! And since when do you criticize your own?

And what makes you think that the name “Rameses� did not exist before the Pharaoh called Rameses II? You act completely ignorant of the fact that “Rameses� was even an additional title for pharaohs going all the way back to the Old Kingdom.

How many times do we have to prove to you that there simply is no concrete basis for concluding that Rameses II built the city because of the similarly titled city “Pi-Ramesse�?

I have gone over this with you on EVC how many times???...you refuse to budge. Don’t make me begin to think that you’re hopelessly out of a capacity to admit when you’re wrong; even with overwhelmingly contradictory evidence glaring you straight in the face…

EARLY VS LATE DATE FOR EXODUS

And I’m really sorry to burst your precious bubble, but the 13th century Exodus is being antiquated with the ever augmenting evidence in support of a 15th century date.

Allow me to briefly summarize again why a 13th century Exodus is absolutely impossible, since you have such a knack for forgetting, or eliding it altogether:

You claim that an Exodus event could not have occurred prior to the reign of Rameses II because he was the pharaoh who constructed the cities Pithom and Raamses. But in order for you to believe this, then you must also accept that the Exodus could not have happened during the reign of Rameses II because:

The biblical cities of Pithom and Raamses were constructed at least some time before the birth of Moses, and since Moses was already 80 by the time he confronted Pharaoh for the release of the Israelites, this would not yield enough time for it to happen within Rameses’ 67yr reign, but would instead force an Exodus under the reign of his son Merneptah. But neither could it have happened under Merneptah because of the implications of the stele already alluding to Israel’s presence in Canaan, and the timeframe simply cannot afford enough time for the 40 year wandering in the wilderness. Not to mention that you would have to make the time of the Judges virtually nonexistent because it wouldn’t allow enough time for David to come to the throne at 1000B.C. What part of this are you not willing to understand?

Even KMT magazine has an article entitled “Dating The Exodus� by Omar Zuhdi, which does an EXCELLENT job at demolishing a 13th century and vindicating a 15th century date.

Below is an excerpt from the magazine:

“The mention in Exodus 1:11 of Raamses as one of the cities built with Hebrew forced-labor has convinced many that the Oppression and Exodus occurred during the sixty-four year reign of Rameses II. Specification of the name, they reason, must preclude any date for these events anterior to the rule of that pharaoh. Actually, it precludes the 1290.B.C. date, as well. Chronologically, the building of Raamses took place before the birth of Moses. Since he was eighty when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, the city was at least that old by then. Adding eighty years to 1290 places the construction of the city of Raamses no later than ca. 1370 B.C., towards the end of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (reign of Amenhotep III)—in which period archaeology has proved the absence of Egyptian occupation in the northwestern Delta . However, if one assumes the Exodus took place in 1346., the addition of eighty years to that date yields 1526. It should be noted that 1526 B.C. would not necessarily be the fixed date of construction of the city of Raamses, but rather the latest date, as the interval between initial building activity there and Moses’s birth is not specified. It is in this exact period—the early years of the Eighteenth Dynasty—that Egyptian presence in the northeastern Delta is attested by the archaeological record.

“The Israel Stela, so-called because it lists Israel among a series of Palestinian peoples and places defeated by King Merenptah, sheds much light on the question of Exodus chronology. The relevant portion reads:

‘The princes are prostrate, saying “Mercy!�
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehennu;
Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkalon;
Seized upon is Gezer;
Yenoam is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste,his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified’

The significance of the Israel Stela is not its claim that Merenptah defeated Israel per se, but that the Israelites were in Palestine when his encounter with them took place. The precise date is not given; it obviously fell during his reignt, or between 1224 and 1214 B.C. This reference to Israel provides a terminus ante quem. Israel, if the tradition of forty years wandering in the desert is trustworthy, had departed Egypt four decades before an unspecified date in Merenptah’s ten year reign. Thus, the Exodus could not have occurred under King Merenptah and a 1220 B.C date for the event is completely ruled out.�

…And all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Gullwind

Did I miss something? Doesn't adding eighty to 1346 give you 1426? :huh:

Celsus

Brian,

I really suggest you stop wasting your time. Come back to Ebla where unsupported assertions get binned immediately.

Joel

Vorkosigan

As a forum serving a community with multiple and sometimes conflicting roles, Infidels' policy is to refrain from addressing the quality of content whenever possible, and instead act on insults, spamming, violations of the law, and so forth. Which reminds me. Hydarnes and Brian and WillowTree, please do not import conflicts from other forums into ours. It only makes our moderating jobs more difficult.

Vorkosigan
Moderator

Jack the Bodiless

This is, of course, completely untrue.

Only one of your quotes mentions a "small box":
The whole of human development from Ausralopithecine-like critters (considered "apes" by creationists) occurs in the NEXT 5 million years, and you won't fit all THOSE fossils into a "small box".

Of course, there's all the non-fossil evidence too (especially DNA evidence).

This is all off-topic, but it does demonstrate your tendency to rant about topics you don't understand.

Getting back on topic:
...Where?

Not on this thread, you haven't. And you seem to realize this: hence all the bluster about a LACK of evidence not DISPROVING the Bible.

When you have actual non_biblical supporting evidence FOR the Exodus, then post it.