LOL, I love you guys. An Archeologist finds a huge palace that she says is King David's palace, and you pull a strawman about moses' tablets!
Yet when another Archeologist finds a piece of a skull the evolutionary world has collective orgasms and shouts to the mountain top how this little piece of bone will "change the way we think about evolution."
Tal, you're analogy doesn't work.
An archeologist has found a structure that dates to around the supposed time of David. There is no evidence so far that it is a palace, and even if it
is, there is no evidence thus far that it is the palace of the biblical
David.
This would be on the same level as an evolutionist finding a femur and concluding, without first
investigating the find beyond a simple dating, that it obviously belonged to the common ancestor shared by man and ape, with no actual evidence to support such a claim.
The scientific community would react much the same way people in this thread have - once people realize that there is no evidence beyond the existance of a bone of indeterminate origin (like this structure of indeterminate purpose and origin), and the fact that it dates to an appropriate time period, the find will be dismissed until such time as evidence arises in support of the overblown claims.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
