Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
hummm. last time I checked all your "evidence" is assuption.there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....
whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..
He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
hummm. last time I checked all your "evidence" is assuption.He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.
What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
and it still has roaches......
it's a dodge.I can't believe you are still arguing this!
The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism. There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc. The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.
Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.
the only best about humans or why we're the top of the food chain is we kill on an industrial scale that other predators can't match...
hummm. last time I checked all your "evidence" is assuption.
by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
That's not in contention.
The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same. There are differences, if usually extremely minor. However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
That's not in contention.
The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same. There are differences, if usually extremely minor. However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible are still occupied today ..fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!
Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
also:
Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
by Farrell Till
1998 / March-April
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
hummm. last time I checked all your "evidence" is assuption.
by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
That's not in contention.
The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same. There are differences, if usually extremely minor. However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
That's not in contention.
The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same. There are differences, if usually extremely minor. However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort. It's about changes over long periods of time. Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god
No, not with respect to God, but with respect to the TOE. The theory is falling down around you even as I type this, yet you refuse to confront the evidence, lost in your ignorance and holding tight to your materialist beliefs. I predict the theory of evolution as we know it today will have totally ceased to exist 10 years from now. There just won't be any scientific evidence to support it and very intelligent people will ask themselves, "How could we have been so foolish?".
Here is the funny thing. I am the one trying to keep religion out of these scientific discussions but you and Holly keep interjecting it back in with every post. Your post above is quite childish really. You presuppose that you are immune from your beliefs and prejudices and are making untainted, un-influenced and un-biased observations. It is this false belief that you are immune to such things that makes you the most lost of all. Not realizing your own weaknesses or influences, you think everyone else is messed up, but you never turn the light of introspection back on yourself.
I challenged you with questions on the "common ancestor" or "common ancestry". I am not the one always quoting this terminology so therefore, it is not my responsibility to define it. Even though it is YOU who doesn't even know the correct terminology, what you are describing above is the Last Universal Ancestor, not ancestor of two distinct species. What I do find laughable is that major advances in genetics were supposed to support Darwinism, support the tree. So when they didn't, when it was obvious there was no scientific evidence for the tree of life, they come up with a preposterous band aid addition to the theory. Now we have the theory of, and I do mean theory, of horizontal gene transfer. So now individual organisms somehow exchanged genetic material? So let's see the study. Let's see the experiment that shows this occurring in the lab in anything other than viruses(are viruses alive??).
So while you call me blind, do you see how pathetic this is for you? The tree of life is totally shredded by genetic evidence, but it is still in the textbooks, still taught in school, and even you are still referring to the tree!!!! Now we have another un-provable speculation about why the genome of multiple species won't cooperate with Darwin's tree of life. Yeah, gene trading. That's must have been what causes this. Yep, its gene trading. You know its the only logical explanation for why real science doesn't prove this sad materialistic theory I cling to.
I'm sorry but it is you that refuses to look at the scientific evidence.
The fact is they have been onto horizontal gene transfer since 1985 but their religion wouldn't let them give up on the tree, as in your ignorance, calling others ignorant, you haven't either.
Will this link suffice for Holly. Most surely not. She doesn't actually do any reading..
Lateral gene transfer papers on horizontal gene transfer by Michael Syvanen, PhD ( UC Davis, CA)
Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
"Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views
That's not in contention.
The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same. There are differences, if usually extremely minor. However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort. It's about changes over long periods of time. Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Why did you ask about common ancestor if you already knew the answer?
You're assertions about me having a presupposition that is equal to yours is hilarious. I can respond to this simply by pointing out that creationists are leading the evidence to their presuppositions, while evolutionists are following the evidence to where it may lead. Are you insisting that a scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't include god? All I would have to say that is: there is no evidence for god.
For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort. It's about changes over long periods of time. Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
"Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views
Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.
It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.
I see nothing to rebut. You have simply copied and pasted portions of an article you found on the web. It's the typical laziness and ineptitude that defines your attempts at argument.Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
"Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views
Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.
It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.
Once again you have not presented a rebuttal, but an UNFOUNDED ad hollymen attack. Try again homeslice.
That's a nonsense claim. It does, however, define the creationist worldview wherein ignorance of science, revulsion for science and falsehoods are promoted in failed attempts to conform to literal bible tales and fables.What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort. It's about changes over long periods of time. Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort. It's about changes over long periods of time. Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
