Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:10:45 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leilani7@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Dec 3, 5:48 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:09:57 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:





On Dec 2, 5:49 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:34:52 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Nov 26, 11:44 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:38 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:37 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:19 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Minna Lönnqvist (2008): Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906-1978, A hundred years
after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
3-8 2006, ed. by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez,
Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez, UAM Ediciones: Madrid 2008, Vol. II,
pp. 379-414.

Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
agree with these authors.

Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported

Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
always have, always will. Many also supported the
earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
So what else is new? People that ignore what has
been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
what the evidence should be, top the list of people
who follow wrong things. But there are many who
do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
they are claiming.

So you think that you have to look in the bible and then find evidence
to support it?

This is one of your lies.

Unlike you I never feel the need to lie.

I have not looked in the
Bible to try to make it fit the evidence.

But you claim above that people should "look in the Bible to see what
the evidence should be"

No, what you are meaning is not what I said. I'm saying
that if someone is arguing, and they are saying that the
Bible doesn't say anything about what she found, then
they are arguing in ignorance and are not aware of
what the Bible says. Therefore they should look at what
the Bible says before making such a claim.

The point you seem to keep missing is that the bible is wrong in its
claims about the period.

There have been so many claims in partial archaeology finds that have
been overturned and found to be wrong
when someone would say "The Bible has to be the one
that is wrong," that a person can be reasonably sure
that the people making the claim against the Bible are
the ones that will eventually be shown to be wrong.

If the choice is between the repeatable scientific dating, and
biblical dating, then the scientific one wins hands down.



There was no exodus, there was no invasion of that Canaan area, there
were no battles to control and take over. Jericho was an empty ghost
town at the time the bible claims Joshua laid siege to the town. The
Israelites developed out of the Canaanite population some time later.

Get real.

I am. If only the same could be said for you.



The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.

I hope that with this announcement you won't get
the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
you are denying to believe your claims. You should
seriously stay out of skeptic websites.

I do. I also stay out of the religious ones because they are always
wrong. What I do is look at the scientific sites, the ones where the
real information is to be found. And guess what/ It always disagrees
with you - no matter what you talk about.



Suzanne

--
Bob.

You are not scientific, though. You dismiss what you don't want to be
there and result to insults and attacks.

Suzanne

I accept the finding of science, including the dating obtained by
modern dating methods.

I accept ALL the evidence. If only you would do the same.


--
Bob.

If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon ... Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April ... they did not find the evidence. ... Nobody is dismissing Kenyon's findings except YOU. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon ... Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April ... Bible to try to make it fit the evidence. ... The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon ... Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April ... Bible to try to make it fit the evidence. ... biblical dating, then the scientific one wins hands down. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon ... Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April ... Bible to try to make it fit the evidence. ... Too much has been found in the Holy Land that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Groups 2nd dig at Touro Park supports astronomical claim - or so the reporter said.
    ... basic toools of archaeology, called stratigraphy. ... If the dating, which the authors prefer, is not backed up by archaeological ... than that is exactly the result of the excavation. ... At least they do not blame their lack of evidence on other people stupidity. ...
    (sci.archaeology)