archaeology and evolution

please put this in a non-scientific forum so that i can continue to participate in its discussion.
-------------------------------------------------i am involved in another forum who has a thread titled like this, unfortunately the people responding to it are not very educated and do not know what they are talking about. so i will make an initial post in notation forum to get things started.abstract: archaeology proves the Bible not evolution true and accurate.reasons:1. the amarna, ugarite and other ancient tablets provide the names of the patriarchs (though not speaking of the patriarchs themselves) were in use at the time the Bible records them.2. the price of selling joseph as a slave in Gen. 37 (20 shekals) was the correct price of that time. proven true by KA Kitchen a well respected egyptologist by both christian andnon-christian scholars and archaeologist.3. every nation has a flood or creation story. if creation and the flood did not happen then they would not have such stories nor would most of them be similar to the Genesis flood or creation.if evolution were true we would be finding evolutionary tales, bedtime stories, myths in the ancient records along with tales of intermediary species, and so on. there are NONE anywhere in the world. the earliest recorded evolutionary idea was found in 6th century BC china (after the flood by bill cooper) long after the very ancient civilizations died out or were in the process of changing.4. {Albright, p. 1, The Biblical period from Abraham to Ezra}5. the moabite stone, the merneptah stele and other monuments, mss. and historical evidence that places the israelites as a nation in the historical reference at the time the Bible records. {Lost treasures of the Bible by Fant and reddish and other sources by different authors}6. the non-Israeli nations, with their correct rulers in their correct times are accurate as recorded in the Bible and proven true by archaeological discoveries and exploration. (see the magazines:Bible and Spade, BAR, Archaeological Odyssey, Bibilical Archaeologist and Bible Review; and many, many books on the subject for details)7. the historical Jesus is not disputed by any reputable scholar and we have extra-biblical references to Him and His followers from ancient historians. (Habermas- The Historical Jesus and other sources by different authors)8. NO eyewitness accounts from Jesus and His disciples contemporary eneimes providing evidence that what they disciples wrote in the Bible is false.9. no record form the soldeirs standing guard that the ressurrection did not take place as recorded in the Bible.10 no pharisaical work from that time disputes the NT acounts nor the OT for that matter.11. NO ancient record disputing one thing about the OT and its interactions with other nations. Silence is not refutation nor disputing. the Egyptians are well known to alter their own history (RK Harriosn in Old Testament Times and other sources by different authors) tomake themselves look good.12. no proof that the Israelites copied from other nations though the Old Babylonians were known to do that (Mesopotamia and the Bible ed. by Chavalas and Younger pg. 163)and so much more. YET in all of the discoveries and in all of the research, digging, and investigation not one word about evolution or its existence is found.now the argument that the ancients could not discover evolution because it did not have the tools, or the intellect or whatever, just doesn't hold water. these are people who accomplished much in their life times, constructing buildings that lasted 4,000 or more years, without modern tools made them exactly square, had the Pythagorium Theorum 2,000 years before Pythagorius, did excellent dental work, had flush toilets, hot and cold running water and much much more. (Return to Sodom and Gomorrah by Pelligrino andother sources by different authors).you would think that with that kind of intelligence they would know how to figure out if creation was true or not then leave written documentation to record their findings for future generations (babylonians were known to leave time capsules for future generations- Ibid Pelligrino)and guess what not one ancient civilization questioned creation or the flood.let's hear your well reasoned and fact filled responses.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

no worries, i just wanted to put tsome thoughts out there to see what discussion would arise. they claoim that archaeology is a sc8ence now but from reading the responses, you wouldn't know it. why not post some links and i would show you some of the similarities but alsoyou need to keep in mind tht even though the details are not the same there is one glaring similarity--there was a creation and a flood.why do you think the sumerians put it in their king's list? also, when people leave God for whatever belief they took up, it stands to reason that they would change the truth to fit their burgeoning religious or cultic beliefs.which is why some myths have flying, fire breathing dragons, not that there were such a creature but that the stories got embellished so the warrior looked braver. the babylonians had batteries thus they had electricity, they (all ancients) had flush toilets thus they knew about germs, bacteria and viruses. they had doctors and dentists thus they had theories of disease. they may not have mentioned the word 'americas' but they traveled to the land, we have roman wrecks off the coast of south america, thus there was a new world. and they had astronomers who charted the stars which means neptune would be included for it is in the heavens as well.as for atoms, who knows, the minoans were known for having telescopes, they could have had microscopes as well but since their civilizatin was destroyed we may never know.your last sentence certainly describes yourself. that is not true but you have never been correct yet. no they haven't. they have theorized or guessed or assumed but have never shown it to be that old. they cannot verify their so-called findings and never will. off topic and ignored. people really think that secularists get to make the rules and determine what is what. just because it doesn't go your way doesn't mean it is wrong. it is a discussion forum and i put up a topic to be discussed and judging buy the answers i am receiving you all have nothing to refute my thesis. not a troll, just wanted to discuss something that was a bit different than the standard fare. this is misleading and false for many. it may be true for some christians because they have no interest in deep academic or scholarly interaction but it is certainly not true for all. one good example would be ravi zacharias, a christian intellectual and philosopher. myself is another as i investigate and find the truth.being religiious doesn't mean that there is no intellectual inquiry, that is just a myth on the part of the secularist. God initiated intelelcetualinquiry when He said 'get wisdom, understanding and knowledge'... and He said it to all of His followers. whether they oey or not is another story. that is exactly what it is, it is an either/or not a both/and situation. Jesus, and God, make this very clear. you cannot have both, you have to make a choice and it doesn't mean mixing the two together. have you ever thought that he may not have any interest in the cosmos and is happy with his engineering knowledge? just because a believer doesn't pursue your line of study doesn't mean they are not intelligent, uneducated or lack intellectual inquiry. their interests lie elsewhere, where they are needed.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

and why would they write about fantasy things? the disciples were going around telling others that their savior rose from the dead. to the romans and the pharisees, this was a group that could rally the people to rebel or cause them to lose their power and control.the issue is quite different and one would expect that the enemies of the disciples would have written and preserved their opposition IF what the disciples said was untrue BUT since it was in jerusalem, there were ROMAN guards on watch, and so on...EVERYONE KNEW about the event and knew it was true.instead f going to the absurd, think a little.as for the rest of the comments, yes there is evidence, and you will have to wait. i am not a troll but discussing a topic that you need to be aware of and it is up to you to acept or reject the truth but that decision doesn't allow you to abuse, or stop me from talking about it.it is not my fault you do not want to listen to the truth and itis not my fault that you chose secular science over the truth but at least be a better representative of your side than you are.

how do you thinkwe know about it? along with writtenrecords we also have the actual toilets, houses with hot and cold running water yet not one piece of evidence for evolution.the ancient world does not support modern secular science in the realm of evolution.

it isn't evolution so try again. and you are wrong. that is all this comment is worth. thats how little you seem to know about the OT and the discoveries that have beenmade. the silver scrolls date to the 6th-7th centuiry BC and they are exactly like the modern day correct translations. no change in 2,400 years. the DSS have shown how accurate the modern correct versions are today and these scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC approx. forgotten the exact centuries, could be older. you have been given all the information you need to use to repent fromyour sins and return to the truth, why do you keep mocking God and Christ? the flood happened. thank you but i ignored him. yet i have not insulted nor treated anybody badly. your asujmptions about what i have said or done are you assumptions only because you ,none of you, have clarified what i have actually said. i have yet to post an insult and i should know, i am the one writing and thinking about what i write.the american ploicy of how it is perceived is wrong for that leads to assumption and existentialism which means the truth is lost because some nut job decided an innocent sentence was an insult.it is how the author intended the words to mean for they are HIS/HER words.judging form your answers, you really do not want a discussion with christians, you just want discussion that tells you what you want to hear.when you all get honest let me know.

it is still the same and it is the book of Numbers {andi knew that there was only the priestly blessing but still 2400 years and no changes. Silver Scrolls - Crystalinks you really shouldn't question me on these things: {The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pg. 14} and remember i said i wasn't sure. some scholars may think this but they do not understand anything about the Bible and wouldn't know. plus like i said before, scholars do not practice deiscernment and do not take into account all the false teachers who tried to change the Bible to fit their views and accept all mss. regardless of this fact, causing them no end of problems. people did not like it when i used conservipedia, butit was handy. i do not like it when people use wikipedia. that is one of the worst references anyone could use.

no that is not true though many minimalists and secular scholars think that. read pages 33-35 of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. in those pages he is letting Dr. Blomberg speak about the dating of the writings of the NT. I willparaphrase a bit--evenwith the gospels late dated from the 70's -90's that is still within eye witness range. yet acts is part two of a two part series, and it ends with Paul still alive thus that puts the date of that book inn about 62 with luke much earlier-40s or 50's --within7-20 years of the crucifixion and possibly mark and matthew no later than the 60's as well if not earlier, if mark was the so-called source for the other two synoptic gospels.NOW compare to Alexander's biography written by Arrian and Plutarch, that come sin at more than 400 years after his death. quite a difference.---but it doesn't matter when they were written, the disciples and believers were preaching Jesus' life, death and ressurrection right after the last of those three thus all the eye witnesses were still alive and knew what transpired. if the disciples were lying, then christianity would not have made it to the 2nd century WHEN all the opposition to the Bible and christians started to take hold. {after all the eye witnesses were dead} the pharisees and Sadduccees asked for the guard. you do not get it nor do i think you want to. first off the romans would have and did report what happened and they were given their orders, even though those orders meant they would face death for falling asleep on guard., second, it isn't remote for all it would take would be one or two to write that it didn't happen and it would be published because other people would want to stop tthe lie (if it were a lie) but since it was the truth--no reports, no contradictions of the disciples and we have Jesuss, his life and death and ressurrection as true. you all think you think logically but you don't. with all the eye witnesses still alive, there was no need for the disciples to write it down but as the church grew, the need for a written record grew. it is not hard to see why the delay and it was not decades later, you would be lucky if it were 2.

insults gets you no reply except this note.

you simply apply your own meaning to history whether it is inaccurate or very inaccurate. people in the ancient days were not dumb andknew what caused disease, unfortunately, the dark ages left many europeans without this knowledge and they suffered from the plague.

unprovable and mostly an accusation by those who do not believe the Bible. so do almost all historians, what is your point? that modern historians can do it and it is not wrong but it is wrong for the ancients?writing it decades later doesn't mean it didnot happen.

yet it does happen all the time and as the old saing goes, history is in the eye of the historian, which seems to apply to josephus. the only reason unbelievers do not like that comment is because it provides ancient confirmation for Jesus.if josephus had done something similar to plato, then theunbelievers would have been trumpeting it all over and rebuking all those who claimed josephus remarks about plato were wrong.put the shoe on the other foot and compare notes and see how ridiculous unbelievers are. they have not one shred of proof that that comment is a forgery.

how do you know you have josephus' original copy? maybe those greek mss. were changed by copyists? how do you know they didn't? maybe their ocmments about it were edited out? maybe they wrote about it in works we do not have? or maybe they didn't need touse it in their works?do you read long dead minds? not true. i have books written about non-muslims writing about islam/mohammad. church histories written by unbelievers, israeli histories written by non-israelies and non-believers. just wrong and flies in the face of the best biblical scholarship today. as is this.

okay, now you have crossed the line and i am finished discussing with you.

and you see, not one on topic post that carries a real rebuttal supported by evidence...ho hum. nothing new here, i will check back to see if anything new is posted.

they didn't need to, dna sequencing doesn't support evolution. they also knew the truth, evolution did not and does not exist.there is NO evidence archaeologically or scientifically that supports evolution, nor proves it true. it is all inferred, attributed, assumed, credited, conjectured, speculated et al. you cannot prove evolution via fossils, to try to do so requires a suspension of intelligence and a lot of eisigesis.