Hey my friends and I are having a sort of debate on religion at this ubb I frequent. And someone posted this:
"Archeologists have been to where jericho is supposed to be and could not find anything that had to do with a wall. People said it was proof of the Bible being wrong. Not too long ago they started digging there and found that the walls fell strait down. The walls weren’t pushed over at all, like someone would expect for a large group of people knocking a wall down. They fell strait down into the ground.
granite. When u open granite up and examine it, u will find rings of prolonium218. Now prolonium218 could not have been found in granite unless they were made at exactly the same time. Due to the short half-life of prolonium218, scientists can tell by the rings that the granite had to have been made in about the time of a half an hour…not millions of years."
First i have never heard of prolonium218, but I really don’t know. So i came to were the really smart people are, to ask you guys and gals. So can someone tell me if he is just talking out of his ass or what? BTW I am taking the atheists side.
It doesn’t matter what side you take. What matters is how gullible you are.
The problem with religious zealots is that when the evidence is against them they simply invent something else. Why lying and murder are supposedly valid means of witnessing for God is beyond me. Someone is pushing the limit to define ‘fell down’ as ‘fell straight down into the ground’.
Prolonium 218? Rings of Prolonium in granite? These people are smoking crack. Give me a break.
Aren’t we always taking religious sayings and writings too literally. For example the “Berlin Wall” came down not so long ago, and it’s physical destruction was symbolic… but in fact the important factor was the wall was “Down” because the gates would have been open and nobody would have been guarding it. Much of what is in these religious books seems to me to be hypothetical, wishful thinking or dramatisation to make a point. Thus, searching for hard physical evidence will neither prove nor disprove anything because we should not take the text too seriously. For the same reason timescales are relatively useless. Remember the last thing that you had to relate to someone… say what happened in an accident you witnessed. It’s very easy to let what you think “Should have happened” to influence your view of what actually did happen. You have to allow some flexibility to writers 100s of years ago who themselves may not have understood exactly what they were seeing.
“Repeated excavations by various expeditions at
Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very
disappointing. Despite the excavators’ efforts, it emerged that
in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late
Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.”