Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

Which of these cities were inhabited for thousands of years and left nothing but stone foundations? The only groups discussed so far were small tribes that nonetheless left tools and pottery along with those stone structures.

I provided a link to a natgo artical that pointed to 60 different period cities in that region all found by using 1960's satalite imagery...
All that is left are their foundations!

Which "cities?" Small tribes establishing villages or towns would definitely have had to find ways to deal with the relatively small amounts of waste they produced, whereas you have a group of millions of people and livestock producing massive amounts of waste every day after consuming even more massive amounts of food and water.

Inorder to be concidered a 'city' there was a urban size requirement and/or an estimated population requirment, a building height reqirement, as well as several factors. The artical clearly identifies ancient cities found by satalite imagery.
http://www.ancient.eu/city/

And, of course, re-purposing every last tool and utensil they had.

Again do you think when they entered the promise land they just dropped everything and went in? Or do you think it is realistic that they took all of their possessions in with them? If they took them in with them then why would you be looking for them in the sinai? why not where they ultimatly settled?

All without a even a single crude forge or altar

An alter is a crude pile of rocks... and they would have only needed the one when they stopped... If you don't think it is plausible for someone to have knocked it down or it just fell over after 4000 years then i am speaking to the wrong person.

Even if it survived, what makes you think someone now would be able to identify it as anything more than a pile of rocks??

or any kind of contraptions for keeping the livestock together

So youre not familiar with the term 'shepard?' google it then google how it is a shepard of that region tended a flock. pay close attention on how they managed them.

or anything other than small campfires (tens of thousands, every night!), apparently.

Again only modern white people build a camp fires that do not consume every last scrap of fuel/wood. In an area where wood is scarce like say the sinai desert with hundreds of thousands of other people even the little black bits of unburnt wood are thrown back into the next fire.

Even now white people do this, but it took Henry Ford to package it in such a way as to make it finally make sense to them. ( 'charrcoal briquettes')

Ask yourself now after you let your charrcoal grill burn completely out what is left? Now put what is left (Ash and tiny little burn crusties) in the middle of the desert and fast forward 4000 years. What would be left?

If you want to continue this conversation you willl need to directly answer my questions. why? because everything I have said here I have now said to you specifically two or three times. Show me your reading and processing what I have to say.[/quote]

---

It shows those who point to a lack of evidence as 'proof it did not happen' that their's is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The lack of evidence in the desert is far from the only factor that makes the exodus seem all but impossible. It's not even one of the more compelling factors-- the sheer numbers being put forth by the account are much more so, which is one point I keep making. There is no archaeological record of a group that large being held in Egypt, or a group of that size conquering the area supposedly promised to the Israelites.

The fact that you are explaining away the complete lack of evidence by saying that they didn't use stone and reused everything until it either turned to dust or was used in the conquest of the promised land (again, no evidence of that either) doesn't mean that the story is plausible.

this is not my arguement. At this point you need to completly outline my side of the arguement. Because nothing of what you said here even closly resembles what I have been saying.

---

Hell even most Jewish historians and archaeologists don't bother claiming the exodus as true "due to the complete lack of direct evidence for its historicity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ient_times

Pointing to the Lack of evidence as evidence for anything is a logical fallacy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance