For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists). None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).
It is true.
I've previously mentioned that if you're going to snip the context of what you are replying to and then reply out of that context that I'll be reciprocating in kind. With that said, the refutations which you'll be snipping should you choose to reply out of context again, follow:
Not every archaeologic find has been proven to be real (ie: "noah's ark", "true cross", etc.) but not all finds have been proven to be fake either.
The suspect evidence purported to be "ark wood" and "true cross wood" have not been validated as what they are claimed to be, (it is a logical fallacy to assert that "...not all finds have been proven to be fake either" since the burden of proof supporting the claims that these are evidence of the 'real things' claimed remains with the claimant).
...they now see scientific evidence that not only would have permitted such an event to happen ...
No, you are confusing hypothetical possibilities with "scientific evidence", (apparently when it suits your own argument and disregarding such when it counters your arguments); the two are not synonymous.
... in line with the Biblical timing of the events. (Which was included in my former posts in this topic as I chose the sources that mentioned scientific evidence along with archaeologic evidence when possible.)
No; once again, the time period _range_ is not equivalent to being "...in line with the Biblical timing of the events", nor does the example from a biased religious 'archeologist' support any purely religious claims about the find, (e.g., chariot wheel does NOT = Red Sea parted).
I never meant to imply that dinosaurs didn't exist (I'm not sure how that was 'implied'), I believe they surely did and they are also mentioned in the Bible (Job). What I meant was evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory.
This is incorrect; secular forensic archeologists who study such bones attempt to reassemble them into whatever critter they once formed, (they aren't trying to make a T-Rex out of hominid bones and thus 'force-fit' them to a pre-concluded theory). On the other hand, we have you attempting to present a religious archeologist's force-fitting a chariot wheel to fit a religious hypothesis about the Red Sea parting.
They believe they can find a fossil and it proves the existence of the bent-over, primitive "half ape/half man caveman".
No, they don't "believe" they can find such, they've found such bones which _do_ form early hominids, (the bones of more than 500 early hominins have been found, such as cro-magnon and australopithecines).
I believe God created Adam & Eve fully-formed, intelligent and upright.
Unfortunately, your superstitious religious belief is contradicted by the solid evidence mentioned above.
You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing. They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.
Time and again, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.
No, the historic authenticity of 'biblical accounts has not been confirmed by the scientific disciplines of biology, geology and astronomy and has in fact, been contradicted by those disciplines time and again. Your simple declaration making these initial claims lacks specifics and evidence to support them. If you'd care to wheel any out into the cross-fire, that can be obliged.
The Bible has never been proven to be in any conflict with any true, established historical facts.
What? That's a pretty outrageous claim, (and I suppose the intent was to get opponents to do the work of providing evidence contrary to such a claim however, the burden of proof remains with the claimant - you - even if the diversion of quoting someone else to palm-off that burden is attempted below).
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical Reference"---Renowned Archaeologist Nelson Gluek
"Nelson Glueck (1900–1971) was an American rabbi, academic and archaeologist. Dr Glueck served as president of Hebrew Union College from 1947 until his death, and his pioneering work in biblical archaeology ..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Glueck
No religiously-biased source is considered valid in this discussion due to inherent vested interest.
There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions. Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period. While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).
That former quote of mine wasn't just my observation--- the same thing has been stated repeatedly in some of the sources I had listed from the "archaeologic finds".
Those biased religious sources are rejected under an inherent conflict of interest in 'justifying' a pre-existing religious belief. Sorry.
I guess it depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you.
An important distinction in the field of evidence is teh difference between some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference. Generally, hard evidence is not open to 'interpretation' in regards to what it directly is, scientifically, (as opposed to interpreting what it _may_ 'represent' - a far more subjective judgement).
When scientists are looking at archaeological finds and validating the dates and their place in history and that information is in line with what is written in the Bible...sure a person can still dispute it, but it doesn't mean they are correct.
The reason that such is disputed is because such finds _Do Not_validate biblical claims, (and in fact are contrary to such biblical claims made by religiously-biased archeologists' pre-existing religious beliefs). The predisposition of those who dispute such religious claims is a perspective of skepticism and requiring reasonable evidence to support outrageous claims. No such evidence having veracity has been presented without stretching credibility to the breaking point.
It just means they have chosen what they are going to believe (or not) in spite of the evidence/and or facts. “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” ---Pascal
If you're talking about religious adherents/fundamentalists there, I fully agree. If you're trying to shift such onto those who are still waiting for valid evidence to support religious adherents'/fundie claims to be presented, (which is not a matter of any pre-existing 'beliefs'), then you're off-base.
If you had started a thread "Archaeology and Grimms' Fairy Tales" then "Grimms' Fairy Tales" would have been the source regardless of how "invalid/inaccurate" one would deem them to be.
There's no reasoning at at behind your assertion; it is completely illogical. If the reference source is fictional/disputed as such, then it is immaterial what you choose to entitle the thread and can/will be disputed despite your objections, (since the disputed source is NOT being taken for granted as accurate). If you want to concede that your source is inaccurate/fictional then the contention about that point would cease. If not, it'll continue regardless of your attempts to characterize your own inherent premise/thread title as "straying from the topic", (especially when the content of the discussion clearly shows that that aspect is directly on-topic). Everytime you quoted the disputed source, it'll be contended.