How archaeology lies

[MitzaLizalor]

Once again we face a challenge to God's inerrant explanation concerning origins. Once again the archaeologists reinforce what they said yesterday by setting up what they're about to say tomorrow. Now I try to be an accommodating person and am prepared in this case to accept that they don't know what they're doing. Perhaps they're being deliberately deceptive and sure, some of them will be—that's called pseudoarchaeology—but when the subjects they study are taught they're more-or-less blank slates upon which their tutors can scratch just about any crazy idea and sure enough that's exactly what we've got. So I'll take them at their word and sure enough out pops something ridiculous.

From one of the more heathen nations we get a nice picture but it merely serves to entice the gullible into a very dangerous place. A place where God is declared ignorant of His creation and where Jesus, His son, a complete waste of space at best or more likely an outright fraud. "Humans," we are informed "lived here 49,000 years ago."

The Bible is very clear on this topic. Jesus was the Son of God, born to recompense the stain of sin introduced by Eve's disobedience and transmitted to us all through Adam, the first man. In the passage from Luke notice that Adam was not the son of a bonobo or other species evolved through numerous generations and sharing genetic information with large tribes of individuals. God could have included that if it were so or not said anything at all. But He didn't. He told us about the origin of species and Adam was created as a unique individual from the dust of the ground and Adam had children. We know what age he was when he reproduced with Eve. Very few people have children when aged over 100 years so if we allow a century for each generation leading to Jesus the maximum available is 7,700 years. This is how archaeologists lie.

The chance discovery of a rock shelter in the Flinders Ranges has unearthed one of the most important prehistoric sites in Australia.

Key points:

• Dating of artefacts and fossils from Warratyi indicates human settlement between 49,000 and 46,000 years ago

• Timing shows people moved through central Australia and used key technologies such as stone axes and ochre much earlier than previously thought

• Archaeological evidence also shows humans lived alongside, and hunted megafauna

MORE HERE

LUKE 3 . KJV . look up
21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23-38 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There were no people alive 49,000 years ago as the evidence I've presented makes plain.

.

[Phil Ander]

Re: How archaeology lies

Once again we face a challenge to God's inerrant explanation concerning origins. Once again the archaeologists reinforce what they said yesterday by setting up what they're about to say tomorrow. Now I try to be an accommodating person and am prepared in this case to accept that they don't know what they're doing. Perhaps they're being deliberately deceptive and sure, some of them will be—that's called pseudoarchaeology—but when the subjects they study are taught they're more-or-less blank slates upon which their tutors can scratch just about any crazy idea and sure enough that's exactly what we've got. So I'll take them at their word and sure enough out pops something ridiculous.

From one of the more heathen nations we get a nice picture but it merely serves to entice the gullible into a very dangerous place. A place where God is declared ignorant of His creation and where Jesus, His son, a complete waste of space at best or more likely an outright fraud. "Humans," we are informed "lived here 49,000 years ago."

The Bible is very clear on this topic. Jesus was the Son of God, born to recompense the stain of sin introduced by Eve's disobedience and transmitted to us all through Adam, the first man. In the passage from Luke notice that Adam was not the son of a bonobo or other species evolved through numerous generations and sharing genetic information with large tribes of individuals. God could have included that if it were so or not said anything at all. But He didn't. He told us about the origin of species and Adam was created as a unique individual from the dust of the ground and Adam had children. We know what age he was when he reproduced with Eve. Very few people have children when aged over 100 years so if we allow a century for each generation leading to Jesus the maximum available is 7,700 years. This is how archaeologists lie.

LUKE 3 . KJV . look up
21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23-38 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There were no people alive 49,000 years ago as the evidence I've presented makes plain.

.

Archaeologists are just a joke. It's no wonder that most end up being burger flippers or Uber drivers. They cannot just do the math from the Biblical generations which shows the world is less than 8000 years old. They cherry pick invalidated tools like carbon dating to "prove" their point. The Bible is very consistent about the age of the earth. The carbon dating faddists will say (for some event) 100,000 years old plus or minus 20,000 years. Since the Earth is less than 8000 years old it is ridiculous to even put up this proposition. These idiots would say that a car I bought 8 years ago could have been made 20,008 years ago or not even made yet!


Phil

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: How archaeology lies

Yes, secularists must have a world without God and are quite happy to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. They say that God's Law is not just, that it conflicts with "human decency" on virtually every subject and that the only reason we have medicine, food, equality before the law and all the other stuff they go on about is because secular nations have overthrown the tyranny of superstitious belief systems!

In their millions-of-years scenario gigantic animals—mega fauna—never coexisted with humans, despite what The Bible teaches us. And in the very next breath announce that we were hunting the things for food or at least the Australian aborigines were and I quote with a skeleton for reference:

“The site, known as Warratyi, shows Aboriginal Australians settled the arid interior of the country around 49,000 years ago — some 10,000 years earlier than previously thought.

The shelter, about 550 kilometres north of Adelaide, also contains the first reliably dated evidence of human interaction with megafauna.”

same as above

more claims about 1,600,000 years and Diprotodon here

I know these claims have been around for some time but did humans hunt megafauna or not? And for the secularist apparently the answer is..

Why, both of course!

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: How archaeology lies

]The site, known as Warratyi, shows Aboriginal Australians settled the arid interior of the country around 49,000 years ago — some 10,000 years earlier than previously thought.

Is this just because aboriginal Australians look much older than they are? I mean, they all look around 80 years old, all desiccated and wrinkled, by the time they're 8. 80 is 10 times 8. So if you extrapolate from that, it would explain why the archaeologists got it wrong (bad math, or wrong assumptions based on their appearance and drawings they made and so on) and mean they settled in Australia around 4,900 years ago.

That would make it stupidity rather than a deliberate lie, so it's just a suggestion. But 4,900 years makes more sense.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: How archaeology lies

Is this just because aboriginal Australians look much older than they are? I mean, they all look around 80 years old, all desiccated and wrinkled, by the time they're 8. 80 is 10 times 8. So if you extrapolate from that, it would explain why the archaeologists got it wrong (bad math, or wrong assumptions based on their appearance and drawings they made and so on) and mean they settled in Australia around 4,900 years ago.

That would make it stupidity rather than a deliberate lie, so it's just a suggestion. But 4,900 years makes more sense.

Yes that would agree with Scripture

2016+2345=4361 (approximate date for Noah)

4361 .– .1 = 4360 (there is no year 0)

4360+500 =.4860 (depending on the age when Noah's sons reset the clocks from whom we're all descended)

Genesis 5:28-32 Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. kjv