Never considered checking interpretation

Some time ago I sent e-mail to about 16 Creationist websites asking a simple question. To date I have received replies, in one form or another, from about half.The question : "How much effort and time have you devoted to the possibility that the story of creation in Genesis is discribing Evolution and that there is no controversy?"The typical answer : "We never even considered it, why it is so obvious."Do you get the feeling that the controversy between Evolution and Creationism is the product of arrogance?

Hi,The controversy is because of fear and ignorance. It is the same between 'biblical archaeology' and real archaeology, the biblical guys cannot approach tried and tested archaeological data because deep down they know that real archaeological data destroys their fantasies.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 01-04-2004][This message has been edited by Brian, 01-04-2004]

"The ocntroversy is because of fear and ignorance. It is the same between 'biblical archaeology' and real archaeology, the biblical guys cannot approach archaeological data in a tried and tested archaeological because deep down they know that real archaeological data destroys their fantasies."
--Or because they 'know' that the 'real archeological data' will not be detrimental to 'biblical archaeology' and would be a waist of time.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

TCYou make this statement. Please explain your position here.

Hi, This would be covered by the 'ignorance' category.I understand what you are saying TC, but to 'know' something without examining it, whether you think there is any point in checking the data or not, is to base your conclusions on ignorance of the subject.I personally wouldn't dream of rejecting an archaeological hypothesis from a Bible believer just because it comes from a Bible believer, I would reject or accept it on its own merits.People seem to forget that when 'biblical archaeology' began in Palestine in the late 19th century, the 'archaeologists' were all bible believing Christians and Jews, they saw their finds as confirming the Bible's version of historical events of the ancient near east.However, one at a time these people changed their opinions because of the data that they recovered. William Albright is the all time giant of Biblical archaeology, he was so disturbed by the archaeological data whilst trying to support the Bible's version of the Exodus and Conquest that he ended up claiming that there were in fact two Exoduses, it was the ONLY way that he could harmonise the contradictory evidence in the archaeological data.What gets me is that these pro-bible archaeologists, great experts in their field had to change their minds when faced with the data that they themselves uncovered and interpreted.I am not even asking a Bible believer to read the minimalists interpretation of the data, read the maximalists as well, they have all concluded that the Bible's version of these epic events needs to be reinterpreted.Anyne who thinks that archaeology fully supports the Bible is certainly ignorant of the available information.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 01-04-2004]

Given the quote marks he used, it's possible that he's not espousing the position; he may just be reporting it.

Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

Without the fall" of man there is no reason for the death and resurrection of Jesus. Apart from that ...who cares?IOW the origin meaning and destiny of man is seen in terms of the fall and subsequent events

quote:

---

You make this statement.

quote:

---

--Or because they 'know' that the 'real archeological data' will not be detrimental to 'biblical archaeology' and would be a waist of time.

---

Please explain your position here.

---

--Ultimately, they feel it is unnecessary to do further research, because they already know what the conclusions will be, in their minds. Willful credulity, ignorance, and arrogance. Of course they don't see it this way and really have no problem in such a flawed methodology because of the pre-conceived premise--their world view is already correct and anything that seems to contradict it must be wrong.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2004]

TCAm I correct in asuming that the "biblical archeologist"knows that 'real archeological data' would be a waste of time since This is how I read the response you gave in relation to the context.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-06-2004]

quote:

---

This is how I read the response you gave in relation to the context.

---

--I'm pretty sure your reading me correctly.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

Sorry formy confusion I somehow got the impression that you were defending the 'biblical archaeology'.[Slinks away to massage ego]

quote:

---

Sorry formy confusion I somehow got the impression that you were defending the 'biblical archaeology'.[Slinks away to massage ego]

---

--lol, no problem at all.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI