responding to common objections to bible part 7

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry to bail mid-discussion but I have had to switch to Firefox to get this forum working.

I don't know enough to answer your questions.

If you will forgive my selective quoting here, this for me is the crux of the matter. It is one thing for the scientific establishment to hold their hands up and say "we don't know", but it is another to allow huge apparent contradictions to exist between different disciplines and maintain them both to be compatible and true. Anthropology doesn't match up with biology for me, because 99.9999999% of evidence for the the former shows about 10-15,000 years of human presence on the planet, whereas the latter claims hundreds of thousands. There is no evolutionary, social, demographic, environmental (etc) explanation as to why humans left mountains of evidence of their existence for the last 10-15,000 years, and not the hundreds of thousands of years before that.

Also, if I may stick up for TotalRelism on the Egyptian dating point, I also have noticed this and bookmarked a BBC article from a few months back. I don't understand how people can be so confident that archeology disproves the Bible, when they can so flippantly change their whole analysis of something like that by half a millenia. Evidently, their own understanding isn't that well consolidated and is highly prone to wild changes, as I noted earlier.