This was interesting when it was shown the first time, maybe even the second. It's internet archeology now guys.

I think the idea is the scientific method will, over time, after a complete loss of the knowledge gained, come to the same main theories we have today. Religion, on the other hand has little chance to be remotely similar to its present form without humans brute-forcing its tenets and stories. Much like the religion of the Mayans won't spontaneously evolve again without (the science of) archeology.

Well and of course we know #1 actually can be continued as for some reason there seemed to already be people there.

So in fact they probably found it first a LONG time ago up by Alaska's volcanic chain via the Russia/Alaska land-bridge that would have existed there for a time; plus someone would have to fill me in but I'm not entirely sure where the Polynesians "may" fit into all of this--as I know they were also known to be GREAT seamen and went very far on extremely small vessels (the ones I'm thinking of you actually have your legs in the water and it carries about six people and is designed sort of like an odd Catamaran)--Hawaii for example was settled into by 300-500 CE. Then the Vikings in Greenland, Canada, and North America (I think just Maine and a few points in Newfoundland--they also didn't stick around for long in these areas as they left these "western" camps to go back to Greenland for the winter). Finally, Columbus made it who sailed around The Caribbean a bit (basically Cuba then Haiti I think; if I remembered right--after coming from the Canary Islands).

There may even be more history to it as unfortunately we know how history is written AND if you don't have that much of a language and worse no paper or way to reference or keep track of old material, telling your story becomes VERY hard as it was never recorded in the first place. All we have left is archeology to help guide us to these newer, more exact figures and finders.

BUT, Columbus did find the first real trade route for 15th century Europe to a "New World", one that had its own spices and plenty of bounty, and THAT is what meant everything. THIS is what people should remember, not that he found it first or the round Earth garbage--that is just bad teachers and even worse (as I READ THEM) terrible history books!

Damn dude! I used to think I knew how to search the net. Nice work, and I thank you for the info.

These were submitted in the hope of finding just such info, more than any hope they'd get sifted. So I owe you one now. LOL
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Electronic Pop Indie band from Lisbon, Portugal.

They have a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/bangguru and their website is accessible using the archive.org internet wayback machine (it has been defunct since 2007) -
<a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bangguru.com/">http://www.bangguru.com/">http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/http://www.bangguru.com/

From the bio on that archived site:

The Portuguese musician João Pico formed BANGGURU in December 2003. Featuring J.Pico (guitar, programming) , Marisa Fortes (voice, lyrics), Pedro Henriques (voice, lyrics), João Hora (programming) and José Dias (guitar). The group presents a multi-oriented electronic pop music and is working on their second album.

João Pico was born in the early '70s. He attended the Hot Clube de Portugal and several musical projects sprang up from this invariable interest in music. He is presently working as an image editor in a TV network.

Marisa Fortes was born in the late '70s. she had singing lessons in Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa. She has a degree in Portuguese and English Literature and is presently working as a teacher.

Pedro Henriques was born in the early ‘70s, he attended the Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa and studied Archeology. He is presently working as a technician in a TV network.

João Hora was born in the late ‘70s, he has a degree in Physics and he is a music composer since the early ‘90s. He is presently working as an audio technician.

José Dias was born in the early ‘70s, he has a degree in Portuguese Literature, he is a musician as well as a composer. He is a teacher and he also works in a Portuguese dance music magazine as a jazz reviewer.

Electronic Pop Indie band from Lisbon, Portugal.

They have a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/bangguru and their website is accessible using the archive.org internet wayback machine (it has been defunct since 2007) -
http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/http://www.bangguru.com/

From the bio on that archived site:

The Portuguese musician João Pico formed BANGGURU in December 2003. Featuring J.Pico (guitar, programming) , Marisa Fortes (voice, lyrics), Pedro Henriques (voice, lyrics), João Hora (programming) and José Dias (guitar). The group presents a multi-oriented electronic pop music and is working on their second album.

João Pico was born in the early '70s. He attended the Hot Clube de Portugal and several musical projects sprang up from this invariable interest in music. He is presently working as an image editor in a TV network.

Marisa Fortes was born in the late '70s. she had singing lessons in Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa. She has a degree in Portuguese and English Literature and is presently working as a teacher.

Pedro Henriques was born in the early ‘70s, he attended the Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa and studied Archeology. He is presently working as a technician in a TV network.

João Hora was born in the late ‘70s, he has a degree in Physics and he is a music composer since the early ‘90s. He is presently working as an audio technician.

José Dias was born in the early ‘70s, he has a degree in Portuguese Literature, he is a musician as well as a composer. He is a teacher and he also works in a Portuguese dance music magazine as a jazz reviewer.

Here I go w/o even going to his site: There's these air vents in the pyramids and they said they were the last unexplored parts of the pyramids in this documentary I watched once. Some archeological team built this moronically expensive robot from scratch, (designed and built for some 300k or so), when a simple remote control kids toy could have done the same job. Their robot even got stuck a few times and they yanked it out and they billed a few more g's to fix it. They eventually found nothing remotely interesting and all drowned their sorrows in some new Porsche's with all the extra grant money.

The 10,000 years thing is mostly derived from discerning the described geneology from Adam and Eve down. I'm not suggesting the Bible can't be a source for truth. I'm saying it's one source of many, and just like other information sources, some information is not valid, and all facts presented in the book should be read as such with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Translation: I have no problem if people use the Bible as sources of truth, but it must be balanced with other sources. Statements like "the Bible is 100% historically accurate" is an absurd lie, and the attitude is downright dangerous because it encourages blind acceptance of everything in the Bible, often taken literally. There likely has never been an actually history book ever written that's been unquestionably 100% accurate, either. I don't read the bible or any nonfiction book for that matter and assume everything in it is true.

That was my entire point of the post. It was not intended as an attack against Christians, or the Bible as a source of fact. It's an attack on the infallibility of the Bible as a source of knowledge, and those who make ridiculous statements like "nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong", when the above is an obvious example.

I do want to point out there's a difference between "Young Earth" arguments and arguments about how long human beings have been on the planet. I would agree with you the Bible doesn't actually say how long the earth or universe has been in existence. But it can be derived using biblical stories roughly how long humans have been on the earth. So, when those stories are taken literally, there have been numerous archeological finds that prove something in the Bible is false. That doesn't invalidate the entire Bible either, though.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^heropsycho:
You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remain
s-found-in-israel/
Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...
Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!
>> ^shinyblurry:
On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman


mind if i butt in? this claim you speak of, the one that says the world is less than 10000 years old...........appears no where in the bible. not a single instance, reference, or even an allusion to it. Young Earth theory (or, crap, as i like to call it) was created by some church dudes back in the day and came about because they took all the "begets" in the old testament and did math presuming, of course, that these were the only people to ever beget in the history of begetting on top of this taking the genesis creation story to be a literal word for word historical event (which is fine for some people, just not for me) and came up with 10 grand.
and truth be told, while not 100% historically accurate, for obvious reasons, the bible as a written work is, generally speaking, pretty reliable. the ancient hebrew, as with most cultures in those times, took their writings and history very seriously and took great care to preserve their history as accurately as possible. because of the more supernatural elements tho (the creation story for example) critics would completely disregard the body of archived history the bible encompasses all because of some fantastical stories that are woven throughout. that, by definition, is intellectually irresponsible

>> ^shinyblurry:

Actually my claim was that the bible has been proven historically accurate by numerous archaelogical finds, thousands of them.

Find me one, just one from the Pentateuch, that is not referenced in extra biblical sources. If the bible is a sufficient source, on its own, find me just one thing for which it is the only written source for which there is clear archeological evidence, take your time, I'll wait.

>> ^shinyblurry:

lol..off the top of your head..now you're just full of shit..those are popular atheist talking points. pathetic.

The fact that they came readily to mind is suspect because...and I love this part...they are sited so often.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You utterly failed to prove your case; apparently the bible is historically accurate, and you admit this but only for the things you want to prove.


My case: there is such a dearth of archeological evidence for events portrayed in the bible, that the bible can be assumed to be false.

Your Response: Here are a few links that, if you don't read them might look like they contain the evidence that does not appear to exist.

My counter: So you really have no evidence do you?

Your counter: I'm right by default, you loose HAHA!

>> ^shinyblurry:

like your contention about the freed slaves.


You have already admitted that Josephus constitutes an extra biblical source for this.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's obvious im arguing with a search engine, a dishonest, disingenuous search engine at that. you don't actually know anything about the bible, or history..what's been discredited here is your testimony.

Is this one of those situation where you think by accusing me of doing what you are doing people will assume that you just can't be so hypocritical as to do it yourself? It's a classic christian apologist move, but it's pretty weak, I honestly expected better.

lol..off the top of your head..now you're just full of shit..those are popular atheist talking points. pathetic. You utterly failed to prove your case; apparently the bible is historically accurate, and you admit this but only for the things you want to prove. like your contention about the freed slaves. It's obvious im arguing with a search engine, a dishonest, disingenuous search engine at that. you don't actually know anything about the bible, or history..what's been discredited here is your testimony. >> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate
Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?
In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html

Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate

Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?

In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?

>> ^shinyblurry:

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html



Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.

>> ^shinyblurry:



evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

I don't know if you're being deliberately stupid, or what..I never claimed everything recorded in the bible has been proven archaelogically as of yet..what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate..ever..on the contrary, thousands of discoveries have confirmed its 100 historical reliability. Pretty good track record for a bunch of myths, huh? This contridicts your claim that it is historically unreliable, which just shows that you don't know anything about history. The bible has been *the* source for historical information up until more recently..a large part of what we know about ancient history came from the bible.

I'll endulge you in your challenge though..

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusalem-artifacts.html

evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

evidence of red sea parting is inconclusive..someone found chariot wheels but it hasnt been accurately verified and eygpt wont let anyone in there




>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":
1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.
If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.
>> ^kceaton1:
Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.

I'm inclined to agree.
P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?


Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":

1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.

If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.

>> ^kceaton1:

Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.


I'm inclined to agree.

P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..