Biblical Archaeology 1 (Bonfire of the Inanities)

[mechanicmike69]

All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is proof of evolution.

[DavidNeff2011]

what piece isplayong? I love classical music

[SuperDESTROYER71]

Another historical inaccuracy in the bible? What a big fucking surprise! Haha, love your video.

[Mriknowimcool]

Please never use this font again... its very hard to read.

[falchion49]

@Mriknowimcool Makes it all the more satisfying when you've read it though :-)

[wildwhippet]

enjoyed the music

[falchion49]

@wildwhippet It was a choice between that or Bombalurina's Itsy Witsy, Teeny Weeny...........

[emancoy]

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

they can not even get their bullshit right!

[MarkRyanNZ]

WOWWWWWW, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST VIDEO I'VE EVER SEEN !!! Thanx for the info, love the slap on the forehead at the end.

[Thayer79]

Archaeology FTW!!!!

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

As a friend of Falchion and a fellow archaeologist, I am not going to get into a discussion with you regarding what are lies. I have seen from your previous posts that you will not be swayed from your views and I will not be swayed from mine which, in case there was doubt, are in agreement with Falchon so I won't waste my time although, FYI Falchion is a v.well educated man and to state that he doesn't understand anything is pure comedy gold, thank you for making me laugh

[TheCountrySquire]

@wanderingape

> "As a friend of Falchion and a fellow archaeologist, I am not going to get into a discussion with you regarding what are lies."

Wise move. Since I don't lie, falchion cannot honestly or rationally refute the facts I present.

> "Falchion is a v.well educated man and to state that he doesn't understand anything is pure comedy gold"

Hid ignorant comments tells me all i need to know about his lack of understanding.

He is well educated in false theories and conjectures.

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

I am just intrigued by what counts as an ignorant comment, is it one that merely disagrees with your own opinion

[TheCountrySquire]

@wanderingape

> "I am just intrigued by what counts as an ignorant comment, is it one that merely disagrees with your own opinion"

Keep telling yourself that.

I suggest you don't read my replies to falchion. Unlike falchion's comments, mine are filled with verifiable facts that refute his comments and bigotry.

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

I am not telling myself anything, it was not a statement, it was a question to you which you have chosen to avoid.

Dont worry, I have read your replies to Falchion and read the same old "research" and spiel that I can find all over youtube, so I returned to dealing with current and peer-reviewed research.

I find it interesting that you use the term bigotry when defending religion, the irony of that statement is sumptious.

[TheCountrySquire]

@wanderingape

> "I am not telling myself anything, it was not a statement, it was a question to you which you have chosen to avoid."

If you would simply add a question mark to your sentences, they would be taken as questions.

> " I have read your replies to Falchion and read the same old "research" ... so I returned to dealing with current and peer-reviewed research."

Old or new, all material purporting to support evolution are made from guesswork and biased interpretations.

[TheCountrySquire]

2

> "I find it interesting that you use the term bigotry when defending religion, the irony of that statement is sumptious."

Typical evolutionist. Be vague in everything you say.

Your belief and faith in the religion of evolution is no different from the worship of Zeus. It is a construct of men. It took a notorious compulsive liar like Darwin to come up with it.

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

How am I being vague, I am calling you a hypocrite! You call other people bigots yet your church has actively encouraged racism, misogyny, homopobia and mass murder, is that still too vague?!

God is also a construct of men , no different to Zeus or any other pagan god, simply created to allay fears and to act as figure to hide behind when people cant take responsibility for their own actions

[TheCountrySquire]

@wanderingape

> "How am I being vague, I am calling you a hypocrite!"

You atheists aren't very bright, that's for sure.

> "You call other people bigots"

Because they are. Their comments say it all.

> "yet your church has actively encouraged racism, misogyny, homopobia and mass murder, is that still too vague?"

That is merely more ignorance on your part. For starters, I do not attend any church. Knowing God exists is not equivalent to following Him or obeying Him.

[TheCountrySquire]

2

Jesus and the apostles warned against false religious leaders and false Christians who would introduce heresies and deceive many (Matt 7:15; 24:11; 2Cor 11:13, 26).

Jesus also told His followers to be harmless as doves (Matt 10:16).

If charlatans do wrong while claiming they are doing it in the name God, they are no different from atheists who do their wrongs for whatever reason.

[TheCountrySquire]

3

> "God is also a construct of men"

That is a mere assumption by blind atheists.

> "no different to Zeus or any other pagan god, simply created to allay fears and to act as figure to hide behind when people cant take responsibility for their own actions"

Speculations and conjectures based on your ignorance.

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

Go on then, evidence please?

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

Dont quote scripture, its like quoting a menu from a restaurant, it holds no weight in a debate!

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

Any evidence for me not being bright?! Ah just the same as your invisible deity, you can not produce any palpable evidence to support your point.

Ignorance is that I do not know what you get up to on a weekend? I would believe ignorance is denying something like The Crusades which was merely religiously endorsed mass murder!

I couldn't give a monkey's if you attend a church, I am asking you to give me proof of the difference between your god and any other pagan deity.

[wanderingape]

@TheCountrySquire

If it helps you answer the question then please tell me what counts as an ignorant comment, is it one that merely disagrees with your own opinion?

Who said I was talking about evolution?! I am talking about palynology, geology and archaeology.

[wanderingape]

As always, excellent work mate. Have fun playing with CountrySquire : )

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire (Prophets, Idols and Diggers, 1960, p. 16). 1960. OK.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "Archaeology began in the 19th century but came to full force in the 20th" wrong. Archaeology is there until we find it. Techniques change which is why biblical archaeology is now being shoved into a corner, being studied, laughed at and then laughed at again. We use techniques that have even spawned such disciplines as forensic science. I've just used archaeology to refute the bible, enequivocally. You can't use it to support your fairy tales though can you?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "wrong. Archaeology is there until we find it."

You are not making any sense.

All I said was that, "Archaeology began in the 19th century but came to full force in the 20th. Critics of the historical accuracy of the Bible were confronted with physical evidence attesting to the truthfulness of certain accounts."

[TheCountrySquire]

2

> "Techniques change which is why biblical archaeology is now being shoved into a corner, being studied, laughed at and then laughed at again."

Maybe you and your classmates were at the bottom of your class, so your knowledge and understanding of archaeology is extremely limited.

However, they used to say none of the people, places and events in the Bible ever existed.

Archaeology has proven them wrong.

[TheCountrySquire]

3

Sir William Ramsay, an English historian and prolific writer, was a product of a mid-19th-century education and of this pervasive ant biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the book of Acts had been written not in the time of the apostolic Church, but considerably later—in the mid-second century. If this were true, the biblical book of Acts could not have been written by Luke, the traveling companion of the apostle Paul, and could only be a fabricated history.

[TheCountrySquire]

4

Luke claimed to have been with Paul as the two men trudged over the cobblestoned roads of the Roman Empire. He wrote as one who watched as Paul was used by God to bring a young convert back to life after a fatal fall (Acts 20:8-12). Ramsay was skeptical of the historicity of Luke and the historical record of Acts and set out to disprove it.

[TheCountrySquire]

5

After many years of detailed study of the archaeological evidence, Ramsay came to a disconcerting conclusion: The historical and archaeological evidence came down solidly in favor of Luke's having written the book of Acts in the first century, during the time of the apostles. Rather than Luke being a historical fraud, Ramsay concluded that there are "reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank" (St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1925, p. 4).

[TheCountrySquire]

6

Ramsay became convinced of Luke's reliability because Luke wrote about the work of the early Church as it was intertwined with secular events and personalities of the day. In Luke's Gospel account we are introduced to Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Augustus and other political players. In Acts we meet an even larger assemblage, including Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa I and II.

[TheCountrySquire]

7

Luke not only writes about these people, but he mentions details, sometimes relatively minute facts, about them. "One of the most remarkable tokens of [Luke's] accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned ... Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until 22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul.

[TheCountrySquire]

8

And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paulus whom they met " (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 1981, pp. 82-83).

Luke mentions other particulars about the offices and titles of officials of the Roman Empire. In every case he gets it right, as confirmed by archaeological discoveries many centuries later.

[TheCountrySquire]

9

As Ramsay discovered, to show such accuracy required that the author be well versed at the time in the intricacies of politics of the day over a wide region—with no readily accessible reference works to check. Few of us could do as well if quizzed about the exact official titles of national and international political figures today.

Such fine details of the historical setting make the Bible interesting, but they also put an author, such as Luke, to the test - and the Bible along with him.

[TheCountrySquire]

10

If he makes a mistake in his reporting, then his work loses credibility.

F.F. Bruce, professor of biblical studies, says of Luke's work: "A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably" (p. 82).

[TheCountrySquire]

11

Some scholars maintain that Luke was wrong in his report of a Roman census around the time of the birth of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:1-3). They argued that Quirinius was not governor at this time because he was given this position several years later. Critics also argued that there was no census then and that Joseph and Mary were therefore not required to return to their native Bethlehem at the time.

[TheCountrySquire]

12

Later archaeological evidence, however, showed that Quirinius served two terms as an important Roman administrator in the region and that the events described by Luke were indeed possible (Bruce, pp. 86-87). Indeed, Luke tells us that Jesus was born at the time of the "first census" under Quirinius (verse 2, NIV), strongly indicating that Quirinius conducted a census in both his first and second administrations in the area.

[TheCountrySquire]

13

It turned out that those who had challenged the biblical account had done so without all the facts.

Professor Bruce goes on to observe that, when we see Luke's habitual accuracy demonstrated in details that have been historically verified, there is ample reason to accept his credibility in general. And indeed, archaeological discoveries have repeatedly supported Luke's accuracy and attention to detail.

[TheCountrySquire]

> "I've just used archaeology to refute the bible, enequivocally."

I hardly doubt that. Lying and manipulating evidence does not count.

> "You can't use it to support your fairy tales though can you?"

I do not subscribe to any fairy tales related to evolution.

However, take a look at all the biblical facts that have been proven by more competent archaeologists than you have.

[TheCountrySquire]

15

As archaeologists have excavated the ancient lands of the Bible, they have uncovered inscriptions and other evidence that prove the existence of dozens of persons mentioned in the Bible. Historians poring over ancient records have found still more.

Among biblical figures whose existence has been attested by archaeology or other preserved ancient records are the following:

[TheCountrySquire]

16 OLD TESTAMENT Ahab, king of Israel; Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah; Artaxerxes, king of Persia; Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria; Azaliah, scribe; Azariah, grandfather of Ezra; Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah; Balaam, Moabite prophet; Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon; Benhadad, king of Aram; Cyrus II, king of Persia; Darius I, king of Persia; David, king of Israel; Esarhaddon, king of Assyria; Evil-merodach, king of Babylon;

[TheCountrySquire]

17 Gedaliah, governor of Judah; Gemariah, scribe; Geshem, Nabatean dignitary; Hazael, king of Aram; Hezekiah, king of Judah; Hilkiah, high priest; Hophra (Apries), pharaoh of Egypt; Hoshea, king of Israel; Jehoiachin, king of Judah; Jehu, king of Israel; Jehucal (Jucal), court official; Jerahmeel, prince of Judah; Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel; Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib; Josiah, king of Judah; Jotham, king of Judah;

[TheCountrySquire]

18 Manasseh, king of Judah; Menahem, king of Israel; Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon; Mesha, king of Moab; Meshullam, father of Azaliah the scribe; Nebo-Sarsekim, Babylonian official; Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon; Necho II, pharaoh of Egypt; Nergal-sharezer, king of Babylon; Neriah, father of Baruch the scribe; Omri, king of Israel; Pekah, king of Israel; Rezin, king of Aram; Sanballat, governor of Samaria; Sargon II, king of Assyria;

[TheCountrySquire]

19 Sennacherib, king of Assyria; Seraiah, court official of Zedekiah; Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria; Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria; Shaphan, father of Gemariah the scribe; Sharezer, son of Sennacherib; Shebna, royal steward of Hezekiah; Shelemiah, father of Jehucal (Jucal); Shishak, pharaoh of Egypt; Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria; Uzziah, king of Judah; Taharqa (Tirhakah), pharaoh of Egypt; Xerxes I, king of Persia; Zedekiah, king of Judah;

[TheCountrySquire]

20 NEW TESTAMENT Annas, high priest; Aretas IV, king of Nabateans; Augustus Caesar, emperor of Rome; Caiaphas, high priest; Claudius Caesar, emperor of Rome; Erastus, public official in Corinth; Gallio, proconsul of Achaia; Herod the Great; Herod Antipas; Herod Agrippa I; Herod Agrippa II; James, half-brother of Jesus; Jesus Christ; John the Baptist; Nero Caesar, emperor of Rome; Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea; Quirinius, governor of Syria;

[TheCountrySquire]

4

Seals made use of some of the most ancient forms of writing. They were used to certify documents, to show authority and, on occasion, as amulets. The earliest seals were made of clay impressed with markings or writing, and some of them became hardened with time or were baked when fires swept through a city. Since they are made of clay, they have survived much longer than records written on papyrus or parchment.

[TheCountrySquire]

5

Archaeologists' dating of some seals has found them to be more than 5,000 years old. They are among the few surviving materials that provide firm evidence of people's beliefs at the dawn of civilization. Seals have been uncovered that confirm several biblical accounts, including some in Genesis.

One of the most questioned accounts of the Bible is the flood of Noah's time. A century ago liberal critics considered it one of the most fanciful biblical myths.

[TheCountrySquire]

6

Yet more than a century of archaeological digging has revealed accounts of the flood in the earliest of civilizations.

One of the most astounding finds is the Gilgamesh Epic, recorded on clay tablets that were translated in 1872 by George Smith of the British Museum. The tablets narrate the flood account from the perspective of the ancient Babylonians. A similar account was found on Sumerian tablets, which are the earliest writings yet discovered.

[TheCountrySquire]

7

Professor Gleason Archer notes that the differences in the Gilgamesh and Genesis narratives are too great to allow one to have been borrowed from the other. "The stark contrast between the passion-driven, quarrelsome, greedy gods of the Babylonian pantheon and the majestic holiness of Jehovah is most striking and significant," he writes. "Likewise the utter implausibility of a cube-shaped ark and an inundation of the entire world by a mere fourteen-day downpour [of the Gilgamesh Epic] ...

[TheCountrySquire]

8

... stand in opposition to the seaworthy dimensions and the gradual sinking of the waters in the Biblical record" (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, p. 211).

Clearly, the Gilgamesh Epic shows evidence of corruption.

These ancient tablets are by no means the only external corroboration of the biblical flood narrative. An enterprising historian, Aaron Smith, is said to have patiently tallied all the flood stories he could find.

[TheCountrySquire]

9

He came across 80,000 works in 72 languages about the deluge (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, 1980, p. 38).

Certainly if Noah's flood were just a local event affecting people in a limited geographic region, its impact would not have been etched indelibly into the minds of so many far-flung peoples.

One historian notes: "The Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians of Mesopotamia might well be expected to cherish a similar tradition to that of the Hebrews, since they lived so close ...

[TheCountrySquire]

10

to the presumed seat of antediluvian civilization . . . But what shall we say of the legend of Manu preserved among the Hindus . . . or of Fah-he among the Chinese . . . or of Nu-u among the Hawaiians; or of Tezpi among the Mexican Indians; or of Manabozho among the Algonquins? . . . All of these agree that all mankind was destroyed by a great flood (usually represented as worldwide) as a result of divine displeasure at human sin, and that a single man with his family or a ...

[TheCountrySquire]

11

... very few friends survived the catastrophe by means of a ship or raft or large canoe of some sort" (Archer, p. 209).

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire What flood?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "What flood? - neither of which holds any water in face of the mountains of evidence that there was no Noachian flood at the date claimed by the bible or at any other time."

Misled or confused by the scientific community, many readers of Genesis have given in to the concept of a regional or local flood. The Bible, however, is very clear about the magnitude and scope of Noah's Flood.

[TheCountrySquire]

2

The biblical story, both in Old and New Testaments, firmly tells us that planet Earth was indeed covered by a universal flood.

The very need for the ark is a strong indication of the magnitude of the Flood.

One of the most fascinating scientific discoveries in recent times regarding a universal flood came from some scientists who were not searching for any evidence of the Flood.

[TheCountrySquire]

3

It came from oceanographers in the Gulf of Mexico who were doing some rather routine research on coral and sediments of the ocean floor.

Their two oceanographic vessels had pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender core samples of the sediment, which includes the fossil shells of one-celled plankton called foraminifera. While still alive, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water.

[TheCountrySquire]

4

When they reproduce, the shells fall away and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that ocean bed carries a record of climates that the oceanographers say go back more than 100 million years.

The cores were analyzed in two different investigations - by Cesar Emiliani of the University of Miami, and by James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shack of Cambridge University.

[TheCountrySquire]

5 Both analyses pointed to a dramatic drop in the salinity of the water, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico thousands of years ago.

Cesar Emiliani explains the results: "A huge amount of ice-melt water rushed into the Gulf of Mexico and produced a sea-level rise that spread around the world with the speed of a tidal wave.

[TheCountrySquire]

6

" He adds, "We know this because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, with a peak about 11,600 years ago. There is no question that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a universal flood" ("Noah, the Flood, the Facts," Reader's Digest, U.S. edition, September 1977, p. 133).

[TheCountrySquire]

7

It is also worth mentioning that the radiocarbon dating used to establish the number of years is imprecise after 4,000 years, so the time of this universal deluge could be closer to the 4,300 years described in the Bible as the time of the biblical Flood.

[TheCountrySquire]

8

Another recent discovery that could have a relation to the inundation of the Gulf of Mexico is the finding by geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the sudden flooding of the Black Sea basin around 6,000 to 7,000 years ago (according to their dating).

[TheCountrySquire]

9

"The salt water," says Smithsonian magazine, "poured through the deepening channel, creating a waterfall 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls. In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth two times the height of the [former] World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away" ("Evidence for a Flood," April 2000, electronic version).

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire What about the Jomon? Who lived on an island.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "What about the Jomon? Who lived on an island."

They are irrelevant.

False claims using faulty dating methods do not change to truth and accuracy of the biblical account.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire So which biblical text are we on about here? The J or P texts?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "So which biblical text are we on about here? The J or P texts?"

You are referring to the baseless speculation and HYPOTHESIS - "The Documentary Hypothesis" - by atheist scholars who falsely claim that Moses had nothing to do with the first five books of the Bible, let alone any God.

In the scientific community, baseless and unproven HYPOTHESES are indistinguishable from hard proven facts. They are used by atheists who want to suppress the truth of the Bible.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "Professor Gleason Archer notes that the differences in the Gilgamesh and Genesis narratives are too great to allow one to have been borrowed from the other" Hmmmmmmmmm two floods both starting in Mesopotamia. Bound to be different aren't they?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> " Hmmmmmmmmm two floods both starting in Mesopotamia. Bound to be different aren't they?"

Don't ignore the other 80,000 flood stories from around the world.

Noah's children and grandchildren did not easily forget such cataclysmic event.

As they spread across the world, they recounted the event to subsequent generations.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "Yet more than a century of archaeological digging has revealed accounts of the flood in the earliest of civilizations." until one looks at hill settlements. I once pulled out a 12000 year old flingt spread on a hill under continuous occupation layers. No flood layers though. So a world twice as old as the bible claims and no flood.. Damn, not looking too good is it?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "until one looks at hill settlements. I once pulled out a 12000 year old flingt spread on a hill under continuous occupation layers. No flood layers though."

How convenient for you to be vague regarding which hill settlements you are talking about.

So far, all I could find are past hypotheses with re-evaluated and new theories constructed [sounds better than admitting their guesses were wrong].

[TheCountrySquire]

2

You people may not understand the difference between a hypothesis based on faulty dating methods and hard proven facts. However, I do. Therefore, your response goes back in the same sewer you crawled out of.

[TheCountrySquire]

3

> "So a world twice as old as the bible claims and no flood."

You are wrong in both points.

The Bible nowhere states WHEN God created the universe and the earth.

That shows your ignorance of the Bible.

The second point I have already posted regarding proof of a worldwide flood.

There are more proofs, but considering your psychotic reaction to my previous posts, I did not want you running around shooting people.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "Archaeologists' dating of some seals has found them to be more than 5,000 years old." How did they survive your flood?

[falchion49]

Wel, speaking as an archaeologist, it's hard at times not to find artefacts that don't predate or even sit in contexts contiguous with the biblical flood. Egypt's full of them. Also, if you look at a simple dating methodology, Dendrochronology, we have tied dating back 11000 years. Semi-tied, which means debatable for dating purposes goes back 23000 years. In botany we also have creosote bushes that go back ten millenia and we don't even use thse fr dating. They're also conspicuously undrowned.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "Dendrochronology ... dating back 11000 years. Semi-tied, means debatable [another word for erroneous guessing] for dating purposes goes back 23000 years. creosote bushes that go back ten millenia"

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer THAN ANY OTHER TREE.

Pando has been estimated to be 80,000 to a million years old, although tree ring samples determine individual, above-ground, trees to only average 130 years.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Excellent, you've now demonstrated that you don't understand dendrochronology.

[lambchopxoxo]

Excellent! This was something I was looking for actually. Just a single artifact that was dated at or around the time of the flood. I knew there had to be one. :) At LEAST one.

[TheCountrySquire]

Answers in Genesis' calculation for the year of the Flood and Christian Answers' estimated date of a clay tablet do not agree.

Isn't it the same in the scientific community?

Some believe in evolution and others don't.

Some scientists only accept evidence and facts, while others are happy with baseless, unfounded guesses, speculations, conjectures and biased interpretations.

Some scientists say there are millions of transitional fossils, while others say there aren't any.

[TheCountrySquire]

2

Some scientists say there are millions of transitional fossils, while others say there aren't any.

Some admit that the constructs of the theory of evolution are patently absurd, but accept them and teach them anyway. Others insist it makes perfect sense.

You people can't even get your bullshit together.

That must be why you need to resort to insult, condescending remarks, ad hominem attacks. You have nothing of substance.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Wrong, anyone who understands even the basics of evolutionary theory recognises that every fossil is a transitional. Love to see which 'scientists' don't recognise that simple fact.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "Wrong, anyone who understands even the basics of evolutionary theory recognises that every fossil is a transitional."

I am talking about reality, not wishful thinking or philosophy.

Some people claim that from conception to birth is an example of evolution.

Others have said birth to old age is also evolution.

There are different definitions of the word EVOLUTION.

The fact that dishonesty and multiple definitions are used, only proves confusion and error.

[TheCountrySquire]

> "every fossil is a transitional. Love to see which 'scientists' don't recognise that simple fact.

Charles Darwin

Darwin struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

[TheCountrySquire]

3

(The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).

[TheCountrySquire]

4

David Raup

David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized, stating: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is.

[TheCountrySquire]

5

This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found— yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, July 1981, p. 289).

[TheCountrySquire]

6

Niles Eldredge

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support the traditional evolutionary view.

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," he writes. "It seems never to happen.

[TheCountrySquire]

7

Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

"When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else.

[TheCountrySquire]

8

Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95).

[TheCountrySquire]

9

Stephen Jay Gould

The late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today's best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognized that the fossil record fundamentally conflicted with Darwin's idea of gradualism.

[TheCountrySquire]

10

"The history of most fossil species," he wrote, "includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one species to another]:

"Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional [evolutionary] change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical or structural] change is usually limited and directionless.

[TheCountrySquire]

11

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and 'fully formed'" ("Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14).

To compensate the fossil record disproving evolution, Gould fabricated the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. He was able to make it fit his biased and preconceived BELIEF in evolution, since objectivity had already debunked evolution.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Now let's look at your claim reference ad hominems. There weren't any, at no point was anyone attacked, only the two contradictory claims made, neither of which holds any water in face of the mountains of evidence that there was no Noachian flood at the date claimed by the bible or at any other time. The claim that I have nothing of substance is also demonstrably wrong as you point out the evidentiary dichotomy in your first sentence, thus showing I do.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "Now let's look at your claim reference ad hominems. There weren't any, at no point was anyone attacked"

Most YT channels that attack the Bible and push evolution repeatedly or constantly insult or make condescending remarks at theists and creationists.

Even though only 10% of creationists believe in a young earth, you people lump in all of them, including the scientists who believe in ID.

Your BULLSHIT remark and face palm shows the same attitude.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "Even though only 10% of creationists believe in a young earth, you people lump in all of them, including the scientists who believe in ID.

Your BULLSHIT remark and face palm shows the same attitude."

Facepalm time. Fuck off and read some bloody textbooks. Real ones, not the Duane Gish or Behe ones that have been refuted too many times to mention. Until then, yep you're spouting bullshit and yep you're demonstrably stupid.

[gooddarkjedi]

@TheCountrySquire more then 99% of scientist exept evoltion. there is universal agreement among scientists that evolution really happens. i debunked you with simple google search.

[TheCountrySquire]

@gooddarkjedi

> "more then 99% of scientist exept evoltion."

When Darwin introduced his hypothesis of evolution with THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, he had no proof or evidence for evolution.

Not only that, his book did not discuss the origin of species, only the variety of species. He got the idea by observing pigeon and dog breeders at work.

Nevertheless, the scientific community ACCEPTED and EMBRACED it anyway.

Only mathematicians rejected it because they realized it was impossible.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire And in the mean time we've managed to base entire industries on it. Bit like starting coal mining if you don't believe in hydrocarbons really. You're a prat.

[gooddarkjedi]

@TheCountrySquire majority of scientists exept evolution, it has allso gone trouhg peer review and is the most exepted soported theory in science. get your facts right. any scientist that does not make falce negatives exepts evolution. meaby you shuld get your facts from non-apoligetics sources. just google evidence for evoltion. scientist agree that evoltion really happen. only ones that dont are in denial.

[TheCountrySquire]

@gooddarkjedi

> "majority of scientists exept evolution"

Yes, I know. That is because they used to be students in schools and universities who, like you, mindlessly swallowed everything they were told without thought or reason.

At your age, vanity and ego play a major part in your reasoning process.

Going along with fools who are highly regarded by society is par for the course.

[TheCountrySquire]

2

> "it has allso gone trouhg peer review and is the most exepted soported theory in science."

I know it is an accepted theory, but it simply is not a factually proven theory.

As I previously stated. Darwin’s hypothesis was accepted without evidence or proof. It was peer-reviewed and accepted without evidence or proof anyway by most of the scientific community, except for the mathematicians who understood that it was mathematically impossible.

[TheCountrySquire]

3

All of evolution’s absurd constructs came through guesses, conjectures, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions and biased, preconceived INTERPRETATIONS. But no facts, evidence or proof.

As for the PEER-REVIEW process, I suggest you Google: PEER REVIEW.

Select the first result from Wikipedia and go down half way to CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW.

I'll just give you a sample of what peer-reviewed papers are worth.

[TheCountrySquire]

4

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association, remarked:

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature TOO BIASED or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results TOO INACCURATE, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument TOO CIRCULAR, no conclusions too trifling or TOO UNJUSTIFIED, and no grammar and syntax too offensive ...

[TheCountrySquire]

5

... for a paper to end up in print.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that,

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - NOT THE VALIDITY - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller.

[TheCountrySquire]

6

But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, USUALLY IGNORANT, occasionally foolish, and FREEQUENTLY WRONG.

[TheCountrySquire]

7

> "get your facts right."

I did! That is why I reject evolution.

I debunked you with simple google search.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Try going through a fact check to get anyting peer reviewed. Go on, dare you.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Come on. Get me some peer reviewed and aggresively fact checked papers supporting creationism. Papers that are accepted regardless of religious bias, that will not only incorporate science but bring every religion into ane acceptable theory of YEC. You want to prove magic, prove it.

Until then, I'll just take you to be a quote mining idiot. And a bad one at that. Mean time me and my ilk will teach the facts. You know, that stuff you ignore.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> " Get me some peer reviewed and aggresively fact checked papers supporting creationism. ... but bring every religion into ane acceptable theory of YEC."

This is more deception and lies on your part.

I already stated that the Bible does not say when the earth was created.

I never said I believed in a YEC.

I said only 10% of creationists believe in a YEC. But you insist on lumping in all Christians with them, if they don't accept evolution.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire I did! That is why I reject evolution.

I debunked you with simple google search.

Nope, you failed to even come close. You did demonstrate a very profound ignorance of the peer review process though. Do you know Nephilimfree?

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

> "You did demonstrate a very profound ignorance of the peer review process though."

Actually, it is you who has demonstrated a very profound ignorance of the peer review process though.

The criticism of the peer review process was made by the scientists themselves.

All I did was copy and paste their criticism, which you appear to be oblivious of.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Peer review is about getting something acceted buy people who actually have a vested interest in keeping their field unadulterated by bullshit.

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, USUALLY IGNORANT, occasionally foolish, and FREEQUENTLY WRONG"

Show a single example of a peer reviewed article that if proven wrong will demonsrate the existance of a supernatural creator as opposed to another peer reviewed process. ) Clue, to get something 'proven' wrong you have to get the new theory peer reviewed too. So which review doesn't work?

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire You really haven't got a clue  what you're yawp about have you?ing

[falchion49]

@TheCountrySquire Ever get the feeling you're being snowed under? It's called reality. By the way, you're not a country squire, you're not a Mr Darcy type, (a wannabe maybe but guaranteed to fail) and you're certainly not capable of sitting in on any kind of argument regarding evolution or archaeology. If I was as demonstrably as stupid as you I'd just keep my mouth shut. Safer.

[TheCountrySquire]

@falchion49

You can't pretend you don't use ad hominem attacks to conceal your ignorance and inability to face reality.

Ever get the feeling you're being snowed under?

[MidnightHustler75]

@falchion49

> "Ever get the feeling you're being snowed under? It's called reality."

Never Have! I have always faced reality.

You atheists are the ones who keep fabricating hypotheses, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, speculations, conjectures, and biased preconceived INTERPRETATIONS to avoid reality.

[MidnightHustler75]

God's anger is revealed from heaven against every ungodly and immoral thing people do as they try to suppress the truth. What can be known about God is clear to them because God has made it clear to them. From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed and studied in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse. While claiming to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18-22).

[falchion49]

@MidnightHustler75 Bet you can't prove it.

[johnnypopstar]

@MidnightHustler75 Evidence that any of this is true? Thought not.

[wanderingape]

@johnnypopstar

Of course they havent got evidence, we just have to "believe" like they do ; )

[falchion49]

@johnnypopstar If they have evidence it means they don't need faith. Even their bible isn't evidence, it's testimony, heavily plagiarised and edited testimony. Thecountrysquire even makes the mistake of questioning that testimony himself by claimng that it doesn't have a true chronology back to the creation date in that testimony. In other words, it's wrong. Then they expect us to believe it even when they don't. If they do that, why worry about being called stupid?

[falchion49]

@MidnightHustler75 Unlike the Bible, that fount of all scientific knowledge and incontravertable truth? How mant interpretations of your book of fairy tales are there?You're an idiot.

[Thayer79]

@MidnightHustler75 Right! There's a worldwide mass conspiracy within the science community to PISS OFF Jesus! Just cause he seemed like suck a prick. Tin foil sales just went up.

[jssherrard]

Falchion49... I think I love you! Great videos!!! :)

[nothingUnrealExists]

Beautiful vid, but the script is hard to read.

[Brianswers]

Not to mention the Chinese, Indian and Egyptian civilizations that ignored being drowned completely, and went on living. :)

[rationalmuscle]

Falchion, I looked for your video series (or I could have SWORN it was yours) re: Nephie and archaeology. I'd love to see you bitch-slap this loon if you haven't already, but alas, I could not locate them on your channel. Whazup?

Note: The possibility that I was on drugs at the time cannot be discounted.

[falchion49]

@rationalmuscle I delivered a rectal reaming to the Idiot in Chief on one of 43Alley's vids, An Atheist Reads the Bible 1. It's when he had to have the basics of grammar publicly explained to him ans we firmly established that my Bordr Collies each have more archaeological experience and indeed talent, than him. I seem to recall you tearing Sarabellum a new too in there.

[rationalmuscle]

@falchion49 Cool... I'll check it out. But I'd love to see some vids!

[HConstantine]

@rationalmuscle

That series is by RhymeMaiden

[rationalmuscle]

@HConstantine Thanks H... I have seen one or two of those vids, but she's pretty damn obnoxious with the accent so it's hard to watch.

Oh, I kid her... ; )

[AuntieDiluvian]

Not drowning -- transcribing! And waving!

[AfroMageman]

Haha end is pure genius :D

[falchion49]

@AfroMageman Thanks but now the onus is on me to vary the endings to reflect the latest inanity. It'll stop me getting bored lol.

[savageecho]

And their answer....You're not taking it in context! Hahahahaha, nice vid, it gave me a nice early morning laugh.

[falchion49]

@savageecho The irony is that context is the archaeological term for archaeology in the same feature that's of a similar date. For example an occupation layer is the same context. This means that for them to argue solid archaeological evidence for their flood, they have to take all archaeology post 2300 BCE out of context otherwise they can't get the dates to fit. Also anything pre 4004 BCE is right out of context. Honestly, it's a waste of neurons.

[savageecho]

@falchion49 Maybe Nephilimfree could look at the archaeological context, but that would definately be a waste of neurons.

[falchion49]

@savageecho Tried him on that one. We actually established that my three Border Collies have more actual archaeological experience that he does. Plus a better appreciation of dating methodolgy, stratigraphy, interpretation etc. They all actually have more time on site than he does and the youngest is only 18 months.

[43alley]

@savageecho - Early morning? Falchion49 released this in the afternoon! I know it was the afternoon because I was just leaving work. I don't leave work in the morning, I GO to work.

What ... you going to tell me that mornings occur at different times across the world? You gonna tell me that Earth is just a big ball that spins?

Pshaw ... the world is flat. The Bible says it has four corners.

Morning ... haha.

Atheist.

[savageecho]

@43alley I know its a really weird concept, you know movement on the surface and the simultaneous rotation of that surface, the xians don't quite have it yet. Glad to see you are on board, just like the Greeks about 400 years before christ. Ha. By the way, still waiting, quite impatiently, on that JW vid. (gonna send my JW co-worker to your site when its up, Mua Hahahahaha)