I’m not sure why that title came to my mind. I suppose it’s just another one of my tributes to the downright stiff-necked mankind’s attempts at knowledge continuing to pale in contrast to the Bible. Not everybody realizes that faith can be reasonable and sometimes “reason” is really blind faith. I still have yet to see any archaeological or paleontological evidence of macroevolution that hasn’t been revealed to be a hoax.
First they “discovered” that the Hebrews spoke Hebrew before they were captives in Babylon (imagine that). Now they’re surprised that Israel might have been powerful enough during the reign of Solomon to build impressive fortifications. Though I’m surprised these things were still publicly in question, I give archaeologists credit for admitting the evidence, and Yahoo credit for letting it make the homepage news.
“JERUSALEM – An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.
If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C. That’s a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible’s account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.
While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history — including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar — others posit that David’s monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era…”
Click here to continue.
Some unabashedly think that “David’s monarchy was largely mythical”? Are they related to the people who thought that Piltdown man wasn’t mythical? Now for my favorite quote:
“‘There’s a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David,’ [Aren Maeir] said.”
As Brad Scott says to researchers, keep on looking. Keep on studying. All that is there to be found is more evidence for the existence of YAHWEH (the God of the Bible, in case you don’t know Him). Before long they will be staring Him in the face. Maybe in response you will try to be all smart-alecky and say that the accuracy of the Bible doesn’t directly correlate to the existence of the God of the Bible. Keep on dreaming, people! If you argue like that, I’ll write an article that will make you cry.
go girl! I love it. You are finding your unique voice. Very well written, satire was just enough to make me smile, and the length will please the most casual reader.
Amanda wrote “I still have yet to see any archaeological or paleontological evidence of macroevolution that hasn’t been revealed to be a hoax.”
Really? Where have you been? Try this site:
Amanda quoted “An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.”
Good archaeologists do NOT claim that anything comes from the time of Solomon [for whom there isn’t one scap of evidence outside the bible]. A good archaeologist would declare that we have found evidence of occupation of Jerusalem from Era X.
See the difference? So either the archaeologist is reading something into the evidence or the quote came from a reporter trying to jazz up a story by reporting a claim the archaeologist did NOT make.
Oh and as regards biblical archaeology here’s a thread you might be interested in:
“Not everybody realizes that faith can be reasonable and sometimes “reason” is really blind faith. ”
Lolwut? You’re one kooky lady.
Congrats, you are featured on fundies say the darndest things.
Haha, what an honor. Here is an updated quote you might want to use:
“I once said that I have yet to see any archaeological or paleontological evidence of macroevolution that hasn’t been proved to be a hoax. Allow me to rephrase that: Maybe not all the supposed transitional fossils that I’ve learned of have turned out to be hoaxes, per se. But many have turned out to be jokes. I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time being convinced by a portrait of my supposed ancient ancestor when I know that it was based upon the tooth of a pig (Nebraska man) or a tiny jawbone fragment (Ramapithecus). Neither am I convinced of a supposed transitional ape-to-human fossil when the crucial piece of evidence is a knee joint found a mile and a half away from the rest of the skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy”). Nor am I encouraged to believe such fanciful interpretations of fossils when I learn that a medical illustrator was ordered to alter his artist’s impression in order to make it look convincingly transitional.”
Well, THERE’S your problem. You’ve only been looking at apologetic websties. Seriously. Who the hell brings up the hoaxes anymore OTHER than other fundies?
And of course, the very idea of macro and micro evolution being independent from each other is like saying you believe in an inch buy not a mile.
THEY’RE THE SAME THING. Just over different periods of time.
“Archaeological or paleontological evidence for macro evolution”? Like what? A pot? How are cultural details gonna prove or disprove evolution?
One of the reasons why Australopithecus was accepted as a transitional link between ape and man was that there were tiny pieces of stone found next to the bones that researchers thought could possibly be tools.
“I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time being convinced by a portrait of my supposed ancient ancestor when I know that it was based upon the tooth of a pig (Nebraska man)”
The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.
Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.
Amanda said: “or a tiny jawbone fragment (Ramapithecus)”
Ramapithecus was considered a hominid for a while, before more complete fossils showed it to be very similar to orang-utans. Again, this is another example of scientists being critical of each others findings and science thus correcting itself.
Amanda said: “Neither am I convinced of a supposed transitional ape-to-human fossil when the crucial piece of evidence is a knee joint found a mile and a half away from the rest of the skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy”)”
The claim is false. The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee. A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim. Far from indicating evolutionist dishonesty, this claim shows how creationists fail to check their claims (Lippard 1999).
Amanda said: “One of the reasons why Australopithecus was accepted as a transitional link between ape and man was that there were tiny pieces of stone found next to the bones that researchers thought could possibly be tools.”
Incorrect. A good summary of why austrolapithecines are considered transitional can be read here:
I also don’t know why you only focus on those few hominid fossils when there are so many more of them without any “controverse”:
Besides, there’s also tons of fossil evidence of evolution of other species, and fossil evidence isn’t even the best evidence for evolution anyway. Why don’t you check out the overwhelming molecular evidence for instance?