I like archeology. I think it’s cool to take a look at the finds of archaeologists who spend time digging up stuff from the past; dusty, gritty broken items and weathered bones that either confirm or refute the oral and written stories of the world’s ancestors. This 10-best article from 2013 covered things from cannibalism at Jamestown to the earliest port in Egypt. History can be fascinating…and when new facts about history change the way it’s viewed, that is even cooler!
Today, I read something that truly annoyed me. I hate it when I get mad at something I read online—or a video I view—and then realize I’m talking to my computer. I’m hoping I’m not the only one who does that…I know other people yell at televisions so surely I’m not alone in yelling at my computer but still…
Thoughts like “I’m a crazy cat lady in the making!” pop into my head when I catch myself talking to either inanimate objects (computer) or myself.
So what statement caused my crazy-cat-lady-yelling-at-the-computer type of behavior? This one:
No archaeological evidence has been found that confirms the crossing of the Red Sea ever took place. Zahi Hawass, an Egyptian archaeologist and formerly Egypt’s Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, said of the Exodus and Passover story, the Israelite’s’ biblical flight from Egypt and the 40 years of wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land, “Really, it’s a myth. Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence…” >>source
Okay, so ummmmm, that means, by his reasoning, that archaeological evidence is the only historical evidence that counts. Written records don’t count as history unless there is a corresponding find of OBJECTS. Gee, wouldn’t that negate a huge portion of his native Egypt’s history? ALL world history for that matter…?
By this reasoning ALL the sunken boats that sank within the last 300 years or so didn’t exist because we haven’t found the wreckage yet. (And just forget 2,000-year-old ships…)
We have written evidence that ships sailed, and sank, in the last 300 years though (passenger & crew lists, cargo, etc.) but that wouldn’t be good enough for Zahi Hawass…until you find the wreckage, the written accounts are just fiction.
I have no idea if the Bible stories are true but just because someone can’t find “proof” by digging in the sand doesn’t mean events never happened! Has anyone ever looked? Have there been exhaustive archeological digs searching for the truth? Somehow, I doubt it.
As an aside, I also seriously doubt modern-day Israel would put up with such horror in their daily lives if they did NOT believe God had given them the land. People don’t fight that hard—and that long—for a myth. Just ask those involved in scandals and cover-ups. Or the disciples of Jesus Christ. Most of them were murdered in horrific ways yet never wavered.
Wonder what Zahi would think of the 2016 National Geographic article about Bible Scenes Uncovered (including scenes of the parting of the Red Sea.) Would that mean he is now a believer in what he called a “myth” simply because archeological objects have been found? Somehow, I doubt it…and that annoys me too! 😀
And another annoying statement I read on the same day; different subject, different archeologist. This article was about archeologists finding a human middle finger bone in an area that has not ever seen much archaeological activity.
The article was cool, great find, had the scientists scrambling for an explanation about the previous “Out of Africa” timeline, and spending over a year studying the finger bone (which, by the way, is indistinguishable from a MODERN human finger bone…)
The following is from an article about the Al Wusta dig in Saudi Arabia.
“Archaeologists spent a decade sifting through the sands in this now dry and grossly understudied region of the world.
“Among a rich collection of primitive tools and animals bones found there, the researchers discovered a single bone from a modern human’s middle finger. The 90,000-year-old specimen, an inch and quarter in length (3.2 centimeters), is now the oldest-known human fossil outside of Africa and The Levant (the biblical area around the eastern Mediterranean, which includes modern-day Israel and Jordan).
But when asked why there weren’t more human bones found we get this statement:
“It is odd that we found only one fossil,” said Oxford’s Hew Groucutt. “But it’s very rare for things to fossilize,” he said, noting that anything dead has to be buried quickly. And even if that occurs, a whole host of things have to go right for a bone to be naturally preserved. “The rest of the body must have just weathered away,” he said.”
Weathered away? The whole body…and only the middle finger survived? The discovery ALREADY had everyone scrambling because it changes the “out of Africa” timeline (this single fossil puts us in Arabia around 85,000 years ago, some 20,000 years earlier than previously thought.)
Since this is fresh news, there are other articles and now the age of the fossil is fluctuating ( below is the link to the original article I read):
Article: “Fossil Find Gives Middle Finger to Previous Understanding of Human Exodus from Africa” >> source
Am I the only one that thinks this find might be…ummmmm…suspect? Ten years of digging and only one finger bone? I dunno if I’d be scrambling to re-write the history just yet…but that’s just me. And the dark humor part of me keeps chuckling at the “middle finger.” (Yes, I know, juvenile but hey…ya can’t help but laugh!)
Nope, turns out I’m not the only doubter. This article I found quotes an anthropologist as saying it’s not definitively human. Another detail not mentioned in the first article…the bone was just laying there in the sand…on the surface. Uhhhhhhh…not dug up? Hmmmmm. So I’m not alone in doubting: >> source
Not that everyone believes the Out of Africa theory anyway but the scramble scientists go through when the theories are wrong, or new evidence skews long-held belief systems, is kinda fun to watch. Dancing as fast as they can while whistling in the dark.
There are two religions that most likely do NOT get specific funding or tax-exempt status…because no one will admit they’re religions. One is anti-big-bang and believes God created the universe and everything in it. The Church of Creation.
The other is the Church of Evolution; Darwinism all the way no matter how many times new evidence points to some flaw or another in the theory. Pesky things like an archaeological dig having the layers of geological ages of dirt upside down so that “older” dirt was on top of “newer dirt.” (By a few million years kind of difference…) Oops.
I watched some speaker perhaps 20 years ago; he was about the amazing design of a giraffe (which I won’t discuss here) and of a woodpecker. The woodpecker has a super-reinforced skull and beak. Basically, the guy said if the beak had come first, the back of the head would’ve blown out. If the thick skull had come first, the beak would’ve shattered…they would have had to “evolve together” at precisely the same rate which he said was highly unlikely.
Interesting article I found today when looking up my decades-old memory about the reinforced skull/beak. To me, a woodpecker’s spongy brain padding and protective eyeballs simply adds to the intelligent design argument. Loud and showy with that red hair…I think God was in a good mood that day!
“A woodpecker’s brain is protected by a spongy elastic material between their bill and their skull that holds their brain snugly and provides a cushion. This keeps their brains from getting injured while they bang away at a tree at a remarkable rate and force. For instance, the pileated woodpecker can strike a tree trunk at around 20 times per second, with around the same force as if you would hit your face against a wall at around 16 miles per hour. They do this around 12,000 times a day on average.
“Woodpeckers also have a special membrane over their eyes that closes each time their beak strikes the wood. This membrane, combined with a portion of their eyelid which will swell with blood to increase pressure on the eye, is thought to help hold the eye in place and possibly keep it from popping out as they peck away. Just as practically, the membrane also protects the eye from debris.” >>source
I believe in a loving God so I do believe in creation…but probably not the way that the Church of Creation teaches it. I don’t believe in the Church of Evolution at all for a myriad of reasons. One reason is that I’ve always doubted the dating methods. I’ve been studying climate change and it has changed REALLY rapidly over a few decades so I’ve long doubted that the “estimates” of what the earth’s climate was like 10,000+ years ago are accurate.
I see specific, careful design (like the woodpecker) in this world, not randomness. I see adaptation within a species but I’ve yet to see fossil proof of something halfway in between being one species and changing into another.
That’s because no such fossil exists…anywhere. Darwin himself said something along the lines of “if the fossil record does not prove my theory within 100 years then I’m wrong.” He lays out his own doubts about his own theory IN “The Origin of Species”. But the Darwinism train had rolled on out of the station; a belief train without brakes on it’s way to becoming a world religion.
I think data gets skewed to fit pre-conceived notions (on both sides, calm down…I like to look at both sides of an argument because I like forming opinions based on extensive research.) It’s human nature to present things in such a way that reflect OUR beliefs in the best light. Why should scientists be any different?
But I’m not a scientist so I don’t know…I DO know that science can be a religion though…and it’s followers are every bit as rabid as zealots from any of the world’s existing faith religions. Just watch the Jihad on scientists who stand against the “current norm” and say they disagree. They get slaughtered by their own peers.
I recently read somewhere that a lot of the skull fossils found that “prove evolution” have, in fact, been disproved, have disappeared, or actually belonged to an ape, etc. That long-held claims have apparently been disproven scientifically…yet people keep making the claims. Again, this happens on both sides (creationists vs evolutionists…and we all know THAT argument won’t be ending any time soon.)
If you wonder why, as a Christian, I make a few pointed barbs at the creationist side it’s because the Creation Science Institute put forth some pretty outrageous claims themselves years ago. I’m not a fan of making outrageous claims…or worse, skewing truth and/or archaeological evidence. Makes the unsaved think we’re all cave dwellers and hinders intelligent conversation about intelligent design.
Did we evolve from apes? When I first grasped the concept of evolution my first question was this: “If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” And just recently, I read that people like me with RH Negative blood did not descend from apes and our blood cannot be duplicated. Yippy skippy…I’m not descended from apes. Except the alternate theory of where blood like mine comes from ranges from aliens to Nephilim so that’s not comforting. Makes me want to run out and buy some tinfoil…
All the theories about ancient man say the various forms of them died off. Well, so if the ape led to the first species of man which led to Neandertal…which died off and was totally replaced by modern man. So why are there still apes? Shouldn’t they all have died off like Neandertals?
I’d look it up but then I’d probably get annoyed all over again because I would most likely find two polar opposite opinions anyway…for and against…and everyone else somewhere in the middle dismissed as a quack whacko.
Getting the truth today in the age of fake news can be…well…annoying.