When did you accept God in your life, or realize you did not believe in him?

Ohhh, well i agree with you there, but it is used in evolutuion. You're probably right, I should throw out the mathematics part.

 

What if The Revelations (which could be nothing more than John's dream) was fictional, would you say that is too much?

 

actually, a determinist would say that human intelligence is no different than any other natural process. it's all cause and effect that follow the natural laws of the universe.


even so, the point i'm making is that you seem to be poo-pooing the very intelligence you are now trumpeting. you say stuff like "tosses out guesses" that "fit all the known preconceptions" until "evidence comes along disproving them - which spawns a new rash of guesses". that doesn't sound like you believe there's much intelligence to the process of science.

 

Natural selection doesn't create new species -- it just keeps the species within the ecosystem strong and healthy. It's a maintenance function, not a creation function. Intelligent design is devoted solely to creation.

 

It's going to be hard, if not impossible to provide convincing evidence that Jericho's walls fell due to a horn blast 3,000 years ago. I'll give you that.

But archeologists have found a large number of chariots and other Egyptian military artifacts at the bottom of the Red Sea (note the picture I posted), supporting that particular claim.

The difference is, if you allow for God's influence throughout history, then these things at least become possible, if unproven. Without it, the only conclusion one can draw is that the claim is a myth.

 

The thing about Revelation is that it's not history, it's future. It's a prediction (or prophecy, in churchspeak), so it's impossible to know if it's correct or not until it actually happens.

 

indeed, natural selection doesn't "create" anything. it simply acts as a selection force against those traits that don't give an advantage to an organism's genes perpetuating themselves.

with how little we know of genetics, i don't think it's surprising that a perfect explanation from a to b of man's evolution would be absent. i believe most theories of speciation rely on "extreme" circumstances -- isolation, environmental changes, migration to new areas, etc.

my personal "theory" is that a shallow gene pool is a potential for more radical change. when you consider the nature of gene dominance, having a deep gene pool means dominant genes will generally keep things "normal" but in times of a shallower gene pool, recessive traits will come to the for. look at "pure bred" dogs, for an example of shallow gene pools creating radically different strains. often these shallow gene pools generate illequipped offspring (pure bred dogs often have all sorts of congenital problems) but that's also a sign of "random" variation.

 

""""Modern archaeological techniques are no longer limited to trowels and brushes. Satellite imagery and ground-penetrating radar are just some of the sophisticated equipment utilized enabling archaeologists to trace even the most meager remains of hunter-gathers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological records from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in the 13 century BCE era and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods.

In the case of Israel, the search is not for a "needle in a haystack". The bible documents the locations. The years of archaeological searching only affirms that (especially Christian)archaeologists anticipate being able to find artifacts from 2,000,000 Israelites. Yet, repeated surveys at Kadesh-Barnea where Israel spent 38 of its 40 years have not provided the slightest evidence of an Israelite encampment. Ezion-geber, a camping place of Israel has not produced a trace of evidence. Twenty years of intensive excavations at Tel Arad (Num 21:1-3) where Israel allegedly did battle with King Arad has provided no Late Bronze Age remains. Tel Hesbon, the site of Hesbon (Num21:21-35) where Israel allegedly did battle with the king of the Amorites provides no Bronze Age remains.

In light of modern day archaeological capabilities, the Exodus story has to be highly suspect when after so many years of repeated archaeological surveys using the latest scientifically advanced equipment and techniques in all regions of the peninsula including the mountainous area around Mt. Sinai, provides not a single archaeological artifact, not a single sherd, or not a trace of a campsite from the alleged 2,000,000 Israelites wandering 40 years in the desert."""""

 

and you KNOW that when you bust out a triple-double-quote, it's gotta be serious.

 

Source?

And also, it's not as if the camp was stationary for all those years. It kept moving. There were no permanent structures, so no stone to leave behind. Any refuse they had would've been probably in the order of 99% biological, which should leave bone fragments, I would think, but perhaps not over that much time.