Lets keep the matter of Evidence and Faith between us at the debate forum now. 'It's on'.

EvF

(September 2, 2009 at 11:16 am)Minimalist Wrote: You are insane. IF you are going to pay attention to anything involving Ron Wyatt then you simply need to be locked up in a padded cell. The man was a complete clown.

Real archaeology has trashed the fucking bible.

200 years of digging in Egypt has not revealed ANY evidence of any Hebrew slaves. What it has shown is that a semitic group, known as the Hyksos, established a dynasty there in the Second Intermediate Period...they were rulers not slaves.

150 years of digging in Jerusalem has not revealed any evidence of any great capital city. Jerusalem, until the 7th century BC, was a tiny little shithole of perhaps 1,000 people.

A real archaeologist (as opposed to the bible-thumping fools you apparently believe) Ze'ev Herzog, wrote the following in 1999. Read it and weep. Or more likely run back to your bible and shove your head up your ass like your kind usually do.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

Quote:This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

Actually, diggigs in Egypt have confirmed the biblical story. And the Hyksos as well of course. Ancitent Egyptian manuscripts even contain the confirmation of the river Nile turnign to blood. (Probably some freak red tide or something, I don't know too much about those things). And why the hell does it not talk about a war in egypt when the Hyksos invaded? (Biblical archaeologists claim that that happened straigt after the exodus) Because the Egyptian army had drowned in the red sea.

And why, minimalist, do you think that the archaeologists that support your theories only are valid, and those that do not are not? I strongly suggest that you take YOUR head outta your ass and have a look around at the vast world outside your rectum.

(September 3, 2009 at 4:14 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote:

(September 2, 2009 at 11:16 am)Minimalist Wrote: You are insane. IF you are going to pay attention to anything involving Ron Wyatt then you simply need to be locked up in a padded cell. The man was a complete clown.

Real archaeology has trashed the fucking bible.

200 years of digging in Egypt has not revealed ANY evidence of any Hebrew slaves. What it has shown is that a semitic group, known as the Hyksos, established a dynasty there in the Second Intermediate Period...they were rulers not slaves.

150 years of digging in Jerusalem has not revealed any evidence of any great capital city. Jerusalem, until the 7th century BC, was a tiny little shithole of perhaps 1,000 people.

A real archaeologist (as opposed to the bible-thumping fools you apparently believe) Ze'ev Herzog, wrote the following in 1999. Read it and weep. Or more likely run back to your bible and shove your head up your ass like your kind usually do.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

Quote:This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

Actually, diggigs in Egypt have confirmed the biblical story. And the Hyksos as well of course. Ancitent Egyptian manuscripts even contain the confirmation of the river Nile turnign to blood. (Probably some freak red tide or something, I don't know too much about those things). And why the hell does it not talk about a war in egypt when the Hyksos invaded? (Biblical archaeologists claim that that happened straigt after the exodus) Because the Egyptian army had drowned in the red sea.

Have you got a single source for that? Where is the evidence that supports your statement?

I'll tell you now to save you getting shut down in the future: If you make a factual statement about something on these boards if you do not have a source(s) to back it up you are going to be either ignored/ridiculed or insulted.

Quote:And why, minimalist, do you think that the archaeologists that support your theories only are valid, and those that do not are not? I strongly suggest that you take YOUR head outta your ass and have a look around at the vast world outside your rectum.

It's called scientific consensus and demonstrable evidence. If you can present evidence or sources for your claims we may take you seriously, provided they don't come from the first apologist website you stumble upon.

Check this out for a short briefing of the problem history has with biblical versions of events.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9823.htm

(September 2, 2009 at 10:40 am)I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ Wrote: Mostly the archaeological proofs of the Bible. And also the miracles happening today. Don't write me off as a madman yet. If you want to read the books that I have read to find all of this out then ask, I'll tell you about them. And I also seriously disliked the fact that evolution does not explain how first life started. The experiment that created the amino acids has been absolutely blown out of the water and the creator of that experiment hmself later denied that it was valid.

Could you please provide 1 example of archaeological evidence and 1 example of miracle?

Also, you misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not have to explain how life first started, that's not what the theory is. Evolution simply explains how one species evolves into another, nothing more. For the start of life you have to refer to Abiogenesis, that is the field of study that attempts to explain how life came from non-life. It's important to make that distinction.

And if you are referring to the Urey-Miller Experiments, it's not a complete failure. While it does not replicate the conditions of earth, it shows conclusively that life can come from non-life, which means we know it's possible. Just because we don't know specifically the conditions and circumstances in which our common ancestor existed, does not mean God did it. An unknown is an unknown, it doesn't mean "God did it".

There is are no ark remains on Mount Ararat (Talk Origins, CH502.1) and I never believe ANYTHING contentious a creationist says UNLESS actual evidence is supplied so I absolutely reject your claim that the US or CIA has in nay way been involved in taking pictures of the region let alone that they provide positive evidence for the existence of the so-called ark (especially since the thing could never have sailed in the first place or have held the required species).

Likewise with your claim of Sodom and Gomorrah at the bottom of the Dead Sea ... a brief search on the internet indicates that it is ONLY Christian/Creationism sites promoting this crap so, as far as I am concerned, it is bollocks unless it gets published in a reputable journal of archaeology and so far, to my knowledge, it hasn't!

Obviously, if a god of the power claimed actually existed, it could perhaps do such a thing but there's a problem ... there's no more evidence for your god than there is for any other god that has ever been claimed in the history of the human race. Given what we know about human conception it's far more likely (if it actually did happen) that Mary was that's time's equivalent of a cheap slapper who had a dalliance with some lad of the time and didn't want her Dad to know.

Kyu

(September 3, 2009 at 9:37 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: And if you are referring to the Urey-Miller Experiments, it's not a complete failure. While it does not replicate the conditions of earth, it shows conclusively that life can come from non-life, which means we know it's possible.

Small correction on this one. The Miller-Urey experiments didn't create life; they created several amino acids that are the building blocks of life. Further experiments have created more amino acids, and researchers are still working on creating true "life" in a lab.

Doesn't mean it can't be done of course

How is "life" defined then? Where's the cut-off point between "life" and "not life" exactly? Since we are apparently living and yet we are made up of entirely non-living things.

EvF

Dr. Frankenstine made it work, so i guess it is only a matter of time before we figure it out

---

(September 3, 2009 at 5:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is "life" defined then? Where's the cut-off point between "life" and "not life" exactly? Since we are apparently living and yet we are made up of entirely non-living things.

EvF

Also this: when does a simulation, become a reality? I Robot asks some very intriguing questions... ones that i to this day do not know the answer to...

I've noticed he failed to answer the question I posed before. If god is non-temporal and is outside this physical existence then how comes god was in physical form who you know as jesus? If he is jesus, then he is physical and temporal. Explain how he is both and please bring evidence. Now if a virgin can give birth thanks to a sky daddy, then can you explain how he did that? I'm only interested in what you put for the first question.

Also, god supposedly created us in his image but doesn't that mean god has a physical image and yet he is outside physics?

I've also noticed that the bible speaks of god doing all the things he did and yet has absolutely no details about it. You know...how it was done!

Also how comes christians always say we are taking things out of context from the bible when it speaks of something horrific or contradictory? And that it's not out of context when it's something you happen to agree with?

How comes it took 4-5 days (I think) to create earth and only one day to create the rest of the universe?

I just want to see your response to those questions. Also, evidence would be appreciated.

Quote:Actually, diggigs in Egypt have confirmed the biblical story.

You are WRONG, shithead.

There is no evidence in Egyptian archaeology for any part of that whole fucking story.

Stop listening to bible-thumping morons and learn something lest you go through life by continuing to be a shithead.

The Bible Unearthed

Start with that, if you dare (which I doubt)[/quote]. It should be in the library...unless you live somewhere where xtian thugs have burned them to the ground.