Iamon lyme:

> There's load of evidence verifying Old Testament people and events as well.

If that were true, we would be hearing it to the four winds. The reality is that there is archelogocal data, as you say, clay tablets, etc. Yet none of them prove conclusively that any of the main people in the Old Testament existed. Scholars can't agree on the interpretation of that data because the data is weak and in many cases not concrete enough.

> It's been convenient to say in the absence of any evidence that something didn't happen or a place didn't exist, until that place or some recorded history is found. And then after evidence is found, ignoring it is what it is... willful ignorance.

But where is the evidence? To me it is not willful ignorance, it is lack of evidence plain and simple.

> By the way, the word "ignorant" is another one of those magic words liberals love to toss out... it's intended to have the same effect as words like "birther" or "conspiracy nut". Personally, I like the term "double standard"... that pretty much says it all.

This has nothing to do with "liberals", it has to do with backing your claims with concrete evidence.

> Life is too short to spend trying to convince someone of something they don't want to know.

But I WANT to know. I want to see the evidence, rather than have you make excuses for presenting none. I love to read the evidence. It is interesting and important. So why say that we don't want to know?

It seems to me that you are making a lot of excuses since you are unable to back up your claims that there is "loads" of evidence out there.