Creationists

[Montrovant]

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.

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?

 

[daws101]

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.

That is true many cities are still in existence. Some cities have been discovered within a city.

But some cities have been unearthed by using the bible,example Jericho,Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities.

Some time if you get a chance watch the naked archaeologist.

I did went it was on ..once again you are spining the facts ..National Geographic - The Lost Cities Of Bible - For years Biblical scholars have been on a scavenger hunt for the "Lost Cities" of Sodom and Gomorrah. Centuries after these sinful cities, God conquers another misbehaving city: Jericho. What do we know about these cities or are they simply moral fables? According to the Bible, God destroyed the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone. Before destroying the cities, Abraham convinced God to save Abraham's nephew, Lot, from the destruction. God sent angels to Sodom to warn Lot's family to leave and not look back. As they left the city, Lot's wife, not heeding the warning of the angels, looked back at Sodom and was turned into a pillar of salt. The earthquake that some believe could have destroyed the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is thought to have been at least a magnitude of 6.8. Earthquakes of this magnitude can cause fires, and in those days perhaps uncontrollable fires that destroyed the cities. Some scholars place the Biblical cities in current-day Iraq, at Mashkin-Shapir; others posit that the cities were buried under the Dead Sea. The remains of these cities have never been found, though some believe the strongest candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the archaeological remains of the Early Bronze Age cities of Babe Edh-Dhra and Numeira, to the East of the Dead Sea. Archaeologist and Biblical Scholar William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University put Bab edh-Dhra on the map in 1924, identifying it as a Bronze Age site with a possible connection to Sodom. The site of Bab edh-Dhra was occupied for a period of 1300 years, beginning with camp site activity and progressing to village life and a walled town culture before returning to an open village in the last stages. According to the Bible, Joshua and the Israelites conquered the heavily fortified city of Jericho. The Book of Joshua notes that Jericho was strongly fortified, that the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring, that the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs, that the siege was short, that the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake, and that the city was not plundered or burned. Many of these points have been corroborated by the archaeological record during excavations at Jericho.




The remains of these cities have never been found, though some believe the strongest candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the archaeological remains of the Early Bronze Age cities of Babe Edh-Dhra and Numeira, to the East of the Dead Sea. Archaeologist and Biblical Scholar William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University put Bab edh-Dhra on the map in 1924, identifying it as a Bronze Age site with a possible connection to Sodom.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

 

[daws101]

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.

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.

what the bible say is irrelevant.
it's one of your famous non earth shattering non answers.
genetics, the reliability of DNA mapping have fuck all to do with my questions.
animal sexual behavior is no proof of god, neither is the observation of that behavior.
YOUR ASSSUPTION LIES IN YOUR BELIFE THAT GOD DID IT AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT...
please answer this question directly and truthfully with no biblical deflections:"WHY is it you treat every statement of fact as an admission some wrong doing that has been covered up...?
when in fact it's right there for everyone to see..

 

[daws101]

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.

bump!

 

[daws101]

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .
it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
and it still has roaches......

Google downwinders,people in Arizona,Utah,California,Nevada are still dying from that underground testing. That was just from the dust it created. It has cause cancer and many genetic disorders.

Over time one area is it hit with radiation from testing or war I guess the contamination would be diluted from weather over time and things could move back in. The earth was designed to clean up after man it happens all the time. With an all out nuclear war you would not be able to escape the contamination.

Eventually everything that survived the war which I don't think anything would survive it. would have to come out of their hiding for many reasons food primarily. Then they to would be contaminated.

completely missing the point!

 

[daws101]

Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.

that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible are still occupied today ..

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

Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

 

[daws101]

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.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

I see nothing to rebut.

You never do.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

That's a nonsense claim. ...
The science of evolution that you despise makes no such claim as yours.

Back it up! In your own words of course. No cutting and pasting or plagiarizing.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

For everything to evolve according to their theory,it would have taken much longer then they believe the universe is.

Genetics are predictable and there is a reason for it.

But also these mutant genes have mechanisms working to correct errors which make odds even higher for it to happen the way they say. I believe most variations within a family are merely different lineages cross breeding. The gene pool is very vast in most populations except for the ones that we consider as purebreeds.

When a population becomes isolated and they reproduce with only their own kind they breed out information that could have been there from previous generations,that is why a purebred only has the genetic information to reproduce what they are.

That is what happens through selective breeding,it might take several different breeds to make up a certain kind dog, cattle,or horse, but over time you breed that animal with the same breeding to another the other breeds that it took to make that breed will not show up in the population.

Not sure how many generations it would take but eventually the DNA information of the other breeds will be gone unless reintroduced to the population.

I just about fell off my chair the other day when I was reading a Darwinist article about crossbreeding and they used the mule as example!! I wondered if anyone has told them that crossbreed ends with the mule??

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?

Not at that level of complexity. But supposedly at lower levels of complexity.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.

 

[UltimateReality]

that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible are still occupied today ..

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

Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

Well, praise Darwin!! At least you caught the sarcasm this time. I was starting to wonder about you.

 

[daws101]

Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

Well, praise Darwin!! At least you caught the sarcasm this time. I was starting to wonder about you.

oh! that's what you're calling it...

 

[Montrovant]

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.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.

I'm sorry, doesn't bear what out? I'm not certain what point you are responding to.

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?

Not at that level of complexity. But supposedly at lower levels of complexity.

Well are we talking about sexual or asexual reproduction? Is it parents giving birth to a completely different child, or a change after mitosis? YWC made a point about parents giving birth, if that isn't the manner of reproduction at the level of complexity you are speaking of it might not be completely relevant.

However, I'm willing to accept that my response may have been in error, at least to that extent. I've said before, I'm a layman when it comes to evolutionary theory, so take all of my responses with a grain of salt.

 

[daws101]

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

HEY UR!
got a link for that quote

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible are still occupied today ..

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

Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim

Some parts of science books are to.