Creation/evolution3

[Tonus]

What they found under the sand are heavy stone foundations of former buildings.
In thoses cases that's pretty much all they found.

My point is that even those things are being found, because the technology for locating them is getting better and... no exodus.

Your artical shows a city built onto or carved out of a mountain like the city of Petra. Why did they find it? It was all built from stone like the foundations of the city's found under the sands.

That's actually a monastery from the 4th or 5th century. The article speaks of other ruins nearby, where they have found...

Fragments of stone tools, stone circles and lines on the ground, and even evidence of tombs
[...]Mason also saw corral-like stone formations called “desert kites,” which would have been used to trap gazelles and other animals.

The area may have mostly been a place where they dumped their dead, yet they bothered to create and use stone tools and tombs and other structures that held up over time.

Among the items found in the Sahara was a lot of pottery, some metal weapons and a large number of human skeletons.

You are saying that this massive number of people with its massive number of animals and massive number of supplies did not use pottery or stone or metal, or they somehow re-used them to such an efficient degree that not a single scrap of any of it remains. You are saying that they made no stone structures, at all, even though they spent 38 years trekking through a desert. That not a single one of probably hundreds of thousands of people who lived and died out there left a single fragment of bone or any other indicator that they were ever there. You seem to feel as if the extraordinarily large number of people and the very long time they would have spent in the desert are of no consequence, and I disagree. Then again, I don't need to find a way to explain their absence to support the story: I can judge using only what is (or in this case, isn't) there.

[h4ym4n]

Speaking of funny desert stories.

---

[Drich]

@Drich, that is a good point about stone IMO. However, there are other problems besides lack of remains found in the Sinai desert. The Biblical timeline puts the Exodus at 1446 BCE. At that time the Sinai and Palestine were Egyptian territories. Also, the numbers of people are absurd, because the estimated population for all of Egypt was only 3.5 million and the Bible describes a group of 2 million Jews fleeing. The column of people would have been 150 miles long marching 10 abreast (according to wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Most people assume that the Biblical timeline and numbers are symbolic - even if they think there might be a grain of truth to the myth.

Actually this is probably a little more detailed a resource concerning the exodus than wiki:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-arc...ebrews.htm

[FatAndFaithless]

Actually this is probably a little more detailed a resource concerning the exodus than wiki:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-arc...ebrews.htm

Drich, you might want to use a source that isn't so obviously and helplessly biased...or so 1998. Just look at that freaking homepage.
http://www.bible.ca/

[watchamadoodle]

@Drich, that is a good point about stone IMO. However, there are other problems besides lack of remains found in the Sinai desert. The Biblical timeline puts the Exodus at 1446 BCE. At that time the Sinai and Palestine were Egyptian territories. Also, the numbers of people are absurd, because the estimated population for all of Egypt was only 3.5 million and the Bible describes a group of 2 million Jews fleeing. The column of people would have been 150 miles long marching 10 abreast (according to wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Most people assume that the Biblical timeline and numbers are symbolic - even if they think there might be a grain of truth to the myth.

Actually this is probably a little more detailed a resource concerning the exodus than wiki:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-arc...ebrews.htm

Thanks, that looks interesting. Here is another article discussing ancient logistics, that highlights the difficulties for the Exodus. Without miraculous bread from heaven and water from rocks the Jews would have been food for the vultures.

Among the more important requirements of the logistics trains of ancient armies was the need to supply large numbers of men with adequate food and water. The animals required to haul supplies also had to be fed. The hot and dusty climate of the Middle East made the physical maintenance of the soldier's body even more difficult on the march. In this climate a soldier required 3,402 calories a day and 70 grams of protein to sustain him in minimal nutritional condition. In addition, a soldier required nine quarts of water a day. Modern analysis reveals that the standard ration of three pounds of wheat a day produced only 2,025 calories, insufficient to maintain even minimal nutritional requirements for very long. Thus, Alexander's army of 65,000 men required 195,000 pounds of grain and 325,000 pounds of water to sustain it for a single day! The army also required 375,000 pounds of forage per day to sustain cavalry, baggage, and transport animals. The ability of ancient armies to provide these requirements was nothing short of amazing.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabr...br000a.htm

[FatAndFaithless]

Noodle, Drich's link is about as interesting as a Harry Potter fanfic that claims to be reality. It doesn't get much more biased than the source he posted.

[watchamadoodle]

Noodle, Drich's link is about as interesting as a Harry Potter fanfic that claims to be reality. It doesn't get much more biased than the source he posted.

Hmmm. I only glanced at it. I agree that many of the examples I saw were a little silly. For example, 2 million people gathering for Obama's inauguration is not comparable, because the crowd was supported by the logistics of Washington, D.C. and dissipated after a day or so.

[FatAndFaithless]

Noodle, Drich's link is about as interesting as a Harry Potter fanfic that claims to be reality. It doesn't get much more biased than the source he posted.

Hmmm. I only glanced at it. I agree that many of the examples I saw were a little silly. For example, 2 million people gathering for Obama's inauguration is not comparable, because the crowd was supported by the logistics of Washington, D.C. and dissipated after a day or so.

No, I mean his source is straight up horseshit from top to bottom. It's a site specifically dedicated to advancing and justifying the views of its specific Christian sect. Any 'evidence' they might put forward is hopelessly tainted. If Drich wants to give actual information, he should use sources that are peer-reviewed, have actual historical and scientific references, and are not dedicated to advancing an ideology at any cost to intellectual honesty and open discussion.

[watchamadoodle]

Hmmm. I only glanced at it. I agree that many of the examples I saw were a little silly. For example, 2 million people gathering for Obama's inauguration is not comparable, because the crowd was supported by the logistics of Washington, D.C. and dissipated after a day or so.

No, I mean his source is straight up horseshit from top to bottom. It's a site specifically dedicated to advancing and justifying the views of its specific Christian sect. Any 'evidence' they might put forward is hopelessly tainted. If Drich wants to give actual information, he should use sources that are peer-reviewed, have actual historical and scientific references, and are not dedicated to advancing an ideology at any cost to intellectual honesty and open discussion.

That's a good point. I usually try to stick to books and sources from reputable scholars whose views are moderate, because I know I don't have the knowledge to weed-out the propaganda and quackery.

[Drich]

What they found under the sand are heavy stone foundations of former buildings.
In thoses cases that's pretty much all they found.

My point is that even those things are being found, because the technology for locating them is getting better and... no exodus.

Ah, no. They found them because stone is more dense than sand, and the declassified satalites images from the 1960's shows a shadowed perspective of these foundational remains that are later escavated. With out the Stone foundations NOTHING would be found.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...y-science/

That's actually a monastery from the 4th or 5th century. The article speaks of other ruins nearby, where they have found... Fragments of stone tools, stone circles and lines on the ground, and even evidence of tombs
[...]Mason also saw corral-like stone formations called “desert kites,” which would have been used to trap gazelles and other animals.

AGAIN, What was the site made of???? What are the tombs made of? what were the tools made of??
Tent poles and cloth, or STONE?!?!

The area may have mostly been a place where they dumped their dead, yet they bothered to create and use stone tools and tombs and other structures that held up over time.

So where are the bones? or are you saying because bones are biodegradable over 4 or 5 thousand years there aren't any? So again why the double standard with the exodus?

Among the items found in the Sahara was a lot of pottery, some metal weapons and a large number of human skeletons.

lol.. In the second artical I saw rusted remains of a dagger or sword. Bronze does not rust. The bones they fond were sun bleached, meaning they were exposed to the elements. The following link shows that bones break down after 10 to 15 years to the point one would not recognise them as bones.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/24...id=3739256

You are saying that this massive number of people with its massive number of animals and massive number of supplies did not use pottery

As I've told you many times now all of that would be repurposed. Go back and re read what I have already said. Pottery for you in this culture and even to a soldier of that time marching through the desert is useless when broken, but when one is stuck out there for decades broken pottery can be repurposed as a cutting edge tool/knife.

or stone or metal, or they somehow re-used them to such an efficient degree that not a single scrap of any of it remains.

Again, here is a whole ARMY of Men with 'metal' wepons and look what is left. This Army was not concerned with reuse/repurposing items like an entire culture would have been who had spent decades in that region.

You are saying that they made no stone structures, at all, even though they spent 38 years trekking through a desert.

Think about what you just said. If they spent 40 year 'treking' anywhere why would they build stone buildings, lay stone foundations?
Look at the nomads of that region now (if you don't understand the term look it up or i will make fun of you) how much stone is used in their dewellings?
If you weren't aware Stone is very heavy and very hard to work with using bronze age tools. So why would a wandering tribe use it?

That not a single one of probably hundreds of thousands of people who lived and died out there left a single fragment of bone or any other indicator that they were ever there.

Again, Bone has a 15 year exposure shelf life. Everything else of value like Bronze would have been save and smelted back down and repurposed. Why? They were Nomadic and had No renewable sources for these types of raw material. This is evident when the bible records that they made the golden calf doing this very thing.

You seem to feel as if the extraordinarily large number of people and the very long time they would have spent in the desert are of no consequence, and I disagree.

Not after 4000 year no. Again LOOK At The Stone CITIES! Nothing is left of them, except the stone. So why would anything be left of the bio degradable stuff that would have been repurposed when nothing is left of the biodegradable stuff from a city that has not been repurposed?

Then again, I don't need to find a way to explain their absence to support the story: I can judge using only what is (or in this case, isn't) there.

You don't 'feel a need' because you don't understand that you comparing apples and oranges. Even in your BEST examples you only show evidences of past civializations through their stone work, because that is all the desert leaves behind. A resource no used by wandering armies (Which is why no evidence has been found of them)

Only stone survives thousands of years. why? because it is worthless and Heavy. Everything else gets used in a place like that.[/quote]

---

Speaking of funny desert stories.

---

you do understand why they were out there 40 years right? God was killing off a wicked generation, not worthy of the promise land.

---

Actually this is probably a little more detailed a resource concerning the exodus than wiki:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-arc...ebrews.htm

Drich, you might want to use a source that isn't so obviously and helplessly biased...or so 1998. Just look at that freaking homepage.
http://www.bible.ca/

So for you content can be dismissed because one you dont like what it says or 2 because the 'home page' is not current?

You do understand that we are discussing events that happened several thousand years ago right? if so what does a 15 year old home page have to do with anything being discussed?

I love you 'thinkers' youre always giving me different things to 'think' about.

---

Noodle, Drich's link is about as interesting as a Harry Potter fanfic that claims to be reality. It doesn't get much more biased than the source he posted.

Hmmm. I only glanced at it. I agree that many of the examples I saw were a little silly. For example, 2 million people gathering for Obama's inauguration is not comparable, because the crowd was supported by the logistics of Washington, D.C. and dissipated after a day or so.

so the logistics supported by man through infrastructure of a man made city somehow trumps what God The Creator of Everything can do?