"Also, lrn2burdenofproof."

Reason shepherds can't write, gogo.

It's too late and I'm too tired. I did a simple google search for "egyptian archeological evidence for exodus" and found several non-religious sites that ring it out. Is it word for word? No. But again I point out that the stories of the old testament (and especially the Pentatuch) are just that, stories. I don't claim they have historical accuracy and I don't believe the entire world was flooded and I don't believe we are all descended from one man and one woman. Please quit citing the old testament for your definition of God. If we didn't have a new testament, I would be a Deist, not a Christian, because the God described in the old testament was described as such to provide power to the leaders of the Jewish faith through fear of reprisal from on hi.

If you care to dig up evidence of historically high rural levels of literacy in 3000 BC go ahead, i've got better things to do with my time.

Hi!

lol hypocrisy is fun

I've got better things to do with my time than argue with you (not true but if I say it, I can cop out of anything!).

Geez you take things literally don't you... It is pretty well established that the tales were orally passed down from generation to generation until they were finally written down in Hebrew, but even then only the scribes and scholars of the day could read and write. Look at the Catholic church in the 15th century. The services were done in Latin and the general populace didn't understand a word of it. Don't be such a pedant hung up on the word "written."

it's fine, we all know history is only a few hundred years old anyway

The above was directed at Acosmist, btw.

Draugnar: So... You approve of the guy who "[came] not to destroy the law [of the old testament] . . . but to fulfill"? I'm sorry, but Christianity is foundationally inextricable from Judaism, and if you don't accept the Old Testament, what's the point of believing in Jesus? I mean, it was the source of all the "prophecies" that he was supposed to have fulfilled.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is bullshit. God doesn't interfere, he watches all, knows all and sees all. Evolution is easily demonstrated and long proven true. There are no "flaws" in evolution just lack of education.

To answer your first question (I only read the first page) - a quick google search is all you needed to make.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802159.html

"Question: What do you do with half an ear?

Answer: You breathe through it.

That's the conclusion reached by a pair of researchers who say they have found a fossil "snapshot" of the ear partway through its evolution to its current form.

The structure that became the sound-conducting middle ear of land animals began as a tube that permitted ancient shallow-water fish to take an occasional breath of air out of the top of their heads -- at least according to Martin D. Brazeau and Per E. Ahlberg of Uppsala University, in Sweden.

Their conclusion is controversial, as it amounts to a radical reinterpretation of how the ear developed in land-based animals. If it withstands scientific scrutiny, the fossil will be a rare example of an organ glimpsed partway along its evolutionary path, at a point when its function was very different from that of its final form.

Opponents of evolution say such "intermediate forms" should rarely, if ever, exist. They contend that many anatomical structures are too complicated to have evolved step by step. Instead, they had to have been created in their final form.
ad_icon

"This is another nail in the coffin of the creationist view, in my opinion," said Mark W. Westneat, an associate curator of zoology at the Field Museum of natural history in Chicago. "It is a great fill-in-the-gap story that shows a nice transition stage at an important point in evolution." "

Creationism? Whoa, wait, now God didn't even create the world? It seems difficult for science to disprove that.

and

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action

But it has been a mystery how this delicate system evolved from the cruder listening organs of our reptilian ancestors. Paleontologists have scoured fossil records in search of signs of how the jawbones of reptiles migrated and became the middle ear of mammals. Now Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh and his colleagues have found one: Yanoconodon allini, an intermediate between modern mammals and their distant ancestors. "It helps to show a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears," Luo says.

...

More importantly, the nearly complete fossil shows a separation between the jawbones and the inner-ear bones, but one that is incomplete. Yanoconodon's stirrup, anvil and hammer bones are still connected to the jaw by another bone—gone from adult modern mammals. In fact, they display the same layout as mammal embryos do today, before the cartilage precursors of the jaw and ear bones separate during gestation. "Reptiles have [a] jaw full of ear bones from mammals and mammals have an ear full of jawbones of reptiles," Luo notes. "Proportion of the ear bones [is] already like those of modern mammals [in this animal] but the reptilian connection to the jaw is retained."

@Acosmist: Sorry if I was not clear but I was referring to the fake science movement fellow believers cling to like retards. If you believe that God physically created the world in an actual 7 days that's fine, I believe it is symbolism.

Also USOnu - you're not really comparing apples to apples here. Moses was farther removed from Julius Caesar than you are from Jesus Christ in terms of time. It would be more appropriate to compare Moses to an Egyptian prince whose name had been erased from monuments. That is essentially what would have happened to him if he really did forsake his station and instigate the Exodus. How much archaeological evidence would we have for such a historical figure? Most likely less than we have for Moses.

Think about what you are suggesting. It's fishy that a band of lightly equipped nomads left no archaeological evidence in a desert that can be directly tied to them five thousand years later? No it really isn't fishy at all, yet still. There are places in Sinai where early Jews wrote on cave walls that would be consistent with the Exodus. That little bit alone (combined with the facts that the Jews did come from somewhere, the Egyptians did enslave people, and the Old Testament is generally shown to be a pretty good historical record when lined up with archaeology) should be enough to put hte idea that Moses or the Exodus were just fictional accounts.

Here's a short youTube video. It's certainly not conclusive, but does place doubt on the idea that it was all just fiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIiuvVxkI8k

Creationism just means believing God created the world. How is science going to disprove that, exactly?

Acosmist: Science doesn't have to disprove it. On the contrary, you get to show that the whole of modern astronomy is entirely and hopelessly wrong. Have fun.

P.S. Naturalistic explanations only, no circular reasoning either.

I was referring to this:

"'This is another nail in the coffin of the creationist view, in my opinion,' said Mark W. Westneat, an associate curator of zoology at the Field Museum of natural history in Chicago."

That's peculiar; how could evolution prove or disprove that God made the universe exist in the first place? That happened long before evolution :confused:

"On the contrary, you get to show that the whole of modern astronomy is entirely and hopelessly wrong."

What does modern astronomy say existed before the universe? :doubleconfused:

"P.S. Naturalistic explanations only, no circular reasoning either."

Prove naturalism! Naturalistic explanations only, of course.

One doesn't have to believe that current astronomy is wring in order to believe that God caused the Universe to come into being. There is no theory that states God did not make the Universe. Hence the two are not exclusive.

"Hey, this metaphysical theory and that metaphysical theory are metaphysical theories, so neither can be proved or disproved by science"

Right, CA? That's what I believe but SOME PEOPLE...

@Acosmist: Once again, I said Creationism/Intelligent Design not Creationism in general. I am referring to the Intelligent Design movement (which was renamed from the Creationism movement), specifically the push to have it taught alongside evolution in school.

In case that still isn't clear. I am specifically speaking of people of my faith and other faiths that prop up pseudo-sciences as alternatives to actual science like evolution instead of accepting it for what it is.

I read that quote from my point of view and it made sense to me that way. If he meant it in a broader scope he's a dick but who cares about one quote.

oh ok

people should be more clear that they mean

like, in an article in the Washington Post, some editor would be like WHOA THAT AIN'T RIGHT AT ALL, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S AFTER ALL OUR JOB TO NOT SAY LIES

Although I guess it was a quote? Well, if someone you quote says something dumb, maybe a little clarification would help

If it makes you feel better I'm sure Mark W. Westneat the *associate* curator got a lot of hate mail, in 2006 after the article was published, for the quote. :P Newspapers just report on what people say or do and they're usually horrible at it anyway.

for a minute I thought he was a zoologist, not curator of zoology or whatever

I actually knew a girl who's a zoologist in Chicago, isn't that weird?

They can say that the ear evolved from a gill of a fish but it doesn't explain how it evolved. The scientist could say it evolved from a lot of things but can't always prove it. Likewise, creationists can't disprove it. At least, in this community. Someone said it earlier that a debate would be worthless and it proves to be so. We don't have any experts in here just googling. Sorry, but I created a worthless flame thread. :D

So how do you limit history to afew hundred years. I've see nothing in the definition that would restrict it so. Of course I'm sure you will come up with some twist of reasoning in an attempt justify your statement. You still have not come up with a line of research for all the physicists you plan put out of work.

"One doesn't have to believe that current astronomy is wring in order to believe that God caused the Universe to come into being."

To paraphrase Laplace, astronomy has no need for that hypothesis.

"What does modern astronomy say existed before the universe?"

Astronomy doesn't say much definitive about it. Don't take it as a concession that "godidit," but science errs on the side of caution.

"Prove naturalism! Naturalistic explanations only, of course."

Please troll harder.

I don't; Fomenko does.

I don't have a clue what you're on about with the rest of it.

"To paraphrase Laplace, astronomy has no need for that hypothesis."

Astronomy also doesn't have to posit the existence of candy canes. CANDY CANES REFUTED

"Astronomy doesn't say much definitive about it."

Well, it sort of can't say much, can it? There weren't any stars before there were stars, so it'd be rather difficult for astronomy to have an opinion.

"Don't take it as a concession that 'godidit,' but science errs on the side of caution."

o...k

"Please troll harder."

I guess naturalism is just one of those things we're supposed to take on faith <_<

Sorry, gentlemen, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have to respond to this.

@ Draugnar:

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not hyperconservative. My constitutionalism actually forces me to be a moderate on almost all of the hot topics in order to avoid hypocrisy. For example, gay marriage. Obama's got a point, according to the Constitution, it's the states' call. You're not going to get an amendment passed either way anytime soon, so it's a fair compromise until one side takes over 2/3rds of the federal government. Even then, it would be difficult.

Really, the only issues I won't budge on is big government and abortion.

Also, I'll support whomever I damn well please. If you've got a valid point that I support, I'm going to say so. And no one can stop me from doing so. =D