archaeology and evolution

Why?

Ambiguous at best.Still, that's more than there is for the rest of his gibble.

Well, hold on a minute.You claim that the ancients had electricity without leaving any written records of it, that they had the germ theory of disease without leaving any written records of it, that they knew where South America was without leaving any written records of it, that they knew about Neptune without leaving any written records of it, that they had telescopes without leaving any written records of it, that they had microscopes without leaving any written records of it ...So on what basis can you then claim that they didn't have knowledge of evolution? Because there are no written records of them having done so?You seem to have vitiated your own point, such as it ever was.And it's not much of a point. It's no good test of a scientific theory to see if the ancient world knew about it, as we can see by looking at the written records that did survive. Look at Aristotle's notions about gravity and planetary motion, for example. All the information we do have suggests that while they knew some things they were hopelessly wrong about others.

We don't know about it. That's why you were obliged to make it up.This is why there are no written records supporting your fantasies.This is why you can produce no written records supporting your fantasies.Which leads us to the interesting question of where you got this nonsense from in the first place. Which you are unable to produce. And you claim this is evidence for the knowledge of the germ theory of disease?The Elizabethans had flush toilets. This wasn't because they knew about germs, it's because they knew that shit smells bad. Natural selection according to Lucretius: Here's Aristotle on the evolutionary ideas of Empedocles and others: There you have it --- random variation and natural selection.Incidentally, you notice how these are real quotations of actual things that people in the ancient world really wrote down? Rather than stuff you've made up? Or nuclear physics.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, you're still not going to produce any documentary evidence that supports your claims?I guess that's because there isn't any.But in that case it is stupid and hypocritical of you to complain that I "simply apply [my] own meaning to history", when you are simply making up your own history.You have claimed that there are written records substantiating your fantasies. I would tell you to put up or shut up, except that being a creationist you have a third option, which is to continue to drivel out falsehoods without ever providing a shred of a shard of a scrap of a scintilla of substantiating evidence.

Leaving aside the fact that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery or interpolation, something that you may wish to debate, it is absolutely indisputable that Josephus was born around 37 AD (after the date usually assigned to the crucifixion) and that the Antiquities of the Jews was written in the thirteenth year of Domitian, i.e. 93/94 AD.So even if Josephus did write the Testimonium Flavianum, which he didn't, Jumped Up Chimpanzee would still be correct in saying that it was several decades later.

The Testimonium Flavianum is the longer of the two "Jesus bits" in the Antiquities of the Jews, it isn't a separate work.

As a matter of fact, if some copies of Josephus contained a couple of sentences in which Josephus casually mentioned that Plato was the promised Messiah of the Jews, before equally casually abandoning the subject and moving on to the next topic, then we would be equally suspicious.The difference is that in that case so would you. We have more than a shred. First there is the fact that this supposed comment by Josephus went unnoticed by such Christian writers as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Arnobius, and is nowhere attested 'til the fourth century.The second and more conclusive is that Josephus was not a Christian, and that historians generally do not write things that they do not believe.---Now, about those Minoan microscopes ... any evidence yet?

In message #13 of this thread archaeologist writes: And here archaeologist writes: This belief must surely strain even his own capacity for credulity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you're not even going to try to supply the evidence you've repeatedly been asked for in support of your absurd claims ...... then you might be a creationist!

These particular falsehoods are off-topic. You're meant to be telling untruths about archaeology and evolution, not just about evolution in general.Now, do you have any evidence to support your inane claims about archaeology?Perhaps you could start with the one about the ancient Minoans having telescopes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.