Hey Everyone.

[Minimalist]

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

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.

[Violet]

There are zero archeological proofs for the bible. Evolution is not a theory of how life began... but of how life got to where it is from that beginning. How life began is a matter of chemistry... not so much of biology.

[Cyphern]

And I also seriously disliked the fact that evolution does not explain how first life started.

Why should it? It is completely unrelated. Evolution is not dependant on the origins of life. Whether life began via abiogenesis, via spontaneous generation, via directed panspermia, or via invisible sky daddy has no bearing on the fact that evolution occurs.

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.

You mean the Miller/urey experiment? The one that they reinvestigated in 2008 and determined that it had actually created more amino acids than they previously thought?

[Godlesspanther]

OK sure Adrian. But you cant write something off because of its name. I mean if someone's name is "Stupid" that doesn't mean the person is stupid...

UH, if a person were given the name, "Stupid," and did nothing to get their name changed I would have to say that person would be...

[Tiberius]

I didn't actually ask a question here Adrian... But OK I'll fish around for those sites.

No, you made some claims that you have failed to back up. You are new here, but when someone makes a positive claim, we ask for evidence. If they do not provide evidence, we do not consider their claim worthy of discussion.

[fr0d0]

when someone makes a positive claim, we ask for evidence. If they do not provide evidence, we do not consider their claim worthy of discussion.

Anyone would think the topic of discussion here is science!!! WTF

[Tiberius]

when someone makes a positive claim, we ask for evidence. If they do not provide evidence, we do not consider their claim worthy of discussion.

Anyone would think the topic of discussion here is science!!! WTF

No, we're talking about burden of proof. He has it, and has not provided any evidence for any of his claims.

[fr0d0]

I was being flippant But then a better requirement would be reasoning to cover all potential proofs.

[Minimalist]

Why should it?

Because without their little straw man they have nothing.

And neither does their sky-daddy.

[Edwardo Piet]

I was being flippant But then a better requirement would be reasoning to cover all potential proofs.

If the reasoning is valid, if it gives credence to the belief, it's evidence by definition! So it's better to just say: evidence! It's one word and it's technically correct!

EvF