Archaeology

[NicoChristian]

The topic I wanted to discuss was archaeology. It recently came to my attention while reading a book that some archaeologists say that not all archaeology is conclusive. I believe that archaeology in the Middle East and elsewhere confirms most if not all of the sacred Biblical writings. That's beside the point, the point I want to make is that if a whole village, arrowheads, coins, temple walls, weapons, etc are not conclusive archaeological evidence, then how the hell is one skeleton, one tooth or one bone enough to prove thousands of years of evolution? Most evolutionary 'proof' consists of minimal finds, such as one bone, a tooth, or an incomplete skeleton. If Biblical archaeological evidence is criticized and rightly so as mistakes have been made, then how can archaeologists build up millions of years of so-called evolutionary history on one find?

There is much more archaeological evidence to prove the Scriptures than there is to prove evolution. Yet Biblical archaeology is scrutinized and evolution is accepted by many as absolute, undeniable truth. Professional 'experts' and archaeologists need to get a grip. If somebody like me can point out things like this then they should have corrected it years ago.

[Kentucky]

If somebody like me can point out things like this then they should have corrected it years ago.

But, it's not politically correct lol.

Mark

[bahr]

You have found one more skeleton in their closet.

[Joe]

Evolution has a skeleton of a transitional form? (darwinist evolution between two kinds), I didn't think they even had one tooth.
There are some good videos on this in an evolution thread somewhere 'round here. All of the so-called non-human human ancestors were simply apes. In bahr's doco there are interviews with paleontologist and bio-chemists who affirm that there is no evidence of such a case, the bio-chemist goes further ...saying that it is impossible.

Lastly, at the foundation of evolution, is the requirement that life comes from non-life. That living things somehow 'evolved' from non-living chemicals/matter. I remember a few years ago I watched a doco in which the scientist were claiming that very primitive creatures were the 'transitional forms' between living and non-living ...they used the thrombolites (Living Rocks) as one example, other micro-organisms can have similar effects and they were asserting that such creatures are between living and non-living.

[wmfinck]

The secret ingredient is time. I used to trounce a former Navy Physicist (and PhD) on this topic in our daily conversations with regularity, and he always resorted to the time argument, as if that were his only solution when in fact he had no secular solutions to explain the existence of life. He still loaned me a lot of his science journals however, LOL. Maybe he was hoping they would convert me.

Which leads to another facet of Nico's first statements.

When I read articles in archaeology journals, I take the same approach as I do when I read articles in science journals. Separate the spin, which is the mainstream academic interpretations of data, from the cold hard facts, which is what was actually dug out of the ground, along with peripheral data such as the condition and environment (i.e. depth, soil character, etc.) it was found in.

Once I can reduce such an article to cold hard facts, being an avid student of the Bible and history I will attempt to interpret those findings for myself, within my own historical paradigm, because the paradigm of the academics is strictly a Jewish one, and perverted for the purpose of Jewish political ends.

[Kentucky]

Christian Identity is fortunate to have a bona fide archaeologist with accreditation: the late E. Raymond Capt. I met him on several occasions and Ray was always the consummate Christian gentlemen. Unfortunately, the last couple years of his life he succumbed to the influence of Barley, Weiland and Peters universalism. Nonetheless, he wrote over a dozen books that contributed to the Identity message from an archaeological viewpoint.

Mark

[bahr]

There is also another way to prove the fallacy of evolutionism: if you can prove that ONE particular life form cannot be the result of any "evolution", then the entire evolutionist paradigm is dead.

I have read the works of a great man, a french 19th century entomologist called Jean Henri Fabre (I don't think his works have been translated in english, unfortunately). He proved beyond all doubts, by thousands of his own observations and experiences, very ingenious and well described, that insects cannot "evolve" in any way; that is just an absolute impossibility. It would be too long to explain here, but suffice to say that these insects have no possibility of doing the incredible things they do today thanks to any "essay and error" process in the past, especially during the egg-laying procedure (generally, they dispose their egg on a living prey which must be anaesthetized to serve as food for the future baby), which demands ultra-precision in blind actions (with their sting) and the perfect "knowledge" of the invisible nervous system of the prey, because any tiny error, in time or in space, would mean the dead of their offspring and thus no progeny to "learn" anything. So these insects MUST "know" these things from the beginning of times, no doubt about that.

I obtained these books at my local library maybe three years ago but, since, they have all disappeared. Now, you can find only evolutionary books on these shelves. And guess what? I can't find one single book on parasites or parasitism either. I guess the subject is too dangerous.

[Fenwick]

I spent a lot of time in my school days studying archaeology, even participated in a few digs.

As far as I'm concerned, all the archaeological evidence whose nature is proven beyond all doubt, corroborates the scriptural history. It's like the secular historians recognise all the individual facets that make up our history, but refuse to accept the completed jigsaw.

For example:

We know that the white race became apparent about 8000 years ago in the near east.

We know that there are mummies in Tarim who look and are dressed practically like celts.

We know that the earliest Egyptians, and many of the surrounding peoples, were white.

We know that the European alphabets are evolutions (lol) of the old phonecian-Hebrew script.

We know that those whites of the ancient world spread out along the Mediterranean and north through the Caucasus.

We know that the northern European peoples traveled from the region of the Caucasus.

We know there are frequent similarities with the languages of Europe and that of Hebrew.


In the big picture, the archaeological record supports the word of God. Only the prejudice of men prevents them from seeing that.