...

[Feliks]

My degree field is archaeology, geology, history, Greco-Roman art history, and museology. Ivy master's. Toss in a couple other concentrations (medieval studies, etc) as well.

Archaeological evidence is strong to refute the zaniest claims from creationists and 'Bible literalists' on one hand; as well as the wonky revisionism of the post-structuralists and post-modernists.

But like anything else, it is not the only answer. Clinging to it as if it is an absolute authority, is the tell-tale hallmark of the dilettante and the non-academic. Scientism is just as skewed as any other sectarian group; science is hardly free of bias.

Within the university system, 'definitive answers' are far from settled. The public never sees a hint of what really goes on in a field like Religious Studies; (where would they? Certainly not from infantile US media).

But top professors wage interdisciplinary-battles with each other that rage around the globe. Assertions are refuted, those refutations are challenged, calls for "more rigor" are bandied back-and-forth. One set of research trumps another and then that research itself is overturned.

Bottom line: the OP's post is riddled with flags that indicate an agenda. Someone is looking to stifle debate with 'arguments to authority' and Youtube links. Well sorry but 'magic bullet' arguments just don't hold up.

[Suzanne]

Good grief! These are not the kind of helpful discussions that every author hopes for..I meant to inspire- not bring despair..
Suzanne