biblical archaeology

It doesn't help that the media usually gives some over simplified sensational report. I was visiting some relatives and they were watching the Discovery Channel which was running this long series on dinosaurs which was mostly well rendered computer animations illustrating speculation about how dinosaurs behaved, fought, built nest etc. There was so little palentology in that series I could hardly believe it. No sites were shown to explain why dino nests were being illustrated they way they were for example.The programs weren't science but a kind of best guess science fiction entertainment. I suppose there was a disclaimer buried somewhere. But no wonder people think Ron Wyatt's hoaxes are archeology. Popular media has blurred the distinction to the point that unless someone seeks out college classes in the subject they will assume that science is one big dramatic colorful exciting discovery after another. Just read the headlines!If I were more paranoid I'd be claiming that Christians are running the media and creating stories like this just to make people more gullible and ripe for recruiting, but obviously religious people have their own objections to the media.lfen

I believe that is possible but I still think it should have been tied into those reasons. Without some explanation it isn't educational but merely entertaining. I think making science entertaining is a good thing but ... you have to keep some science in there, some educational focus.Walking in cold all I saw was one unsupported assumption after another without any way to know what the conclusions were based on or how they were arrived at. And much of it is still best guess approximation. Later finds may call some or much of it into question. I've no problem with that but it shouldn't be presented as if that was the way it was.The interesting part should not the King Kong aspect but rather how do you study these things, how do you develop the evidence and the conclusions. Beyond entertainment what did that series accomplish? It's not like dinos are endangered. They don't need friendly press. They're already extinct.lfen

Buz,I recall reading that post but poking around in this thread I've not been able to find it again. IIRC is was a very general definition that mainly gave the subject matter.The problem with Ron Wyatt and others is how they look for old stuff in that they are not being systematic in their studies nor are they subjecting their finds to peer review. As I recall in an old thread a claim was made that Ron said an unidentified archeologist said a wheel that he could not longer produce was egyptian. That is just the kind of thing that is not allowed in rigorous and properly done archeology.Not only does the archeologist need to document the location in the dig but other specialist needs to verify the identification. And having done that, all they would have is an artifact identified as blah blah found at location XYZ. Other artifacts, other features could be added to build up a picture and perhaps support a claim that the site was say the crossing of the Red Sea, or so and so's Palace. All of the evidence and reasoning would be evaluated and debated by experts as well as anyone else interested.If you are primarily a religious student of the Bible you need a Bible and some books and you make your own interpretations. Science is done differently. Even when there is some stunning sweeping insight such as E+MC^2 that insight is based on many many details, observations, mathmatical analysis etc.Popular press focuses on the big conclusions, but theories are the supported by a network of facts, observations, and correlations. It's not just fossils that support ToE. It's genetics, geology, physics. Many fields, many studies. And the same with archeology.Philosophy and religion can be engaged in without having to refer to many studies, complex data etc. Science is a different kind of activity and uses a different approach.So it's not just that archeology studies old things, it's how those old things are studied that makes it valuable.I don't know if this is what Brian would say. This is just my take on your question.lfen