Which evidence are you referring to?  And do you mean evidence that supports that the bible is the divinely inspired literal word of God?

Like everything else, cafeterians (what I call them for obvious reasons) pick and choose what they want to pay attention to.

You can find plenty of corroboration between the bible and reality. Whether it is consistent -- well that's another matter. And that's the point. Religious people come up with a conclusion, and then seek out only the evidence that backs up the conclusion, ignoring all the rest, which in most cases is exponentially more substantive than the evidence they cite to prove their foregone conclusion.

So the bible says there's a flood? And look, right here, there's archeological evidence of a flood.... yea, fine, but what about the thousands of other contrary pieces of archeological evidence that indicate the flood was localized and more similar to normal weather patterns than what is characterized in the bible? Oh, that stuff doesn't matter? I see....

A good example of this is the theist claim that carbon dating is inaccurate. They'll cite an example where some sample revealed an obviously erroneous dating result, ignoring the fact that there are reasons why a portion of a fossilized sample might give different date results... contamination being a most obvious reason, which is why scientists take multiple readings using multiple methods, but when you find a theist who claims to have references showing, for example, that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate, again you have people picking-and-choosing specific examples from a larger body of work, that exclusively justify their foregone conclusion. It proves nothing except that theists have no real desire to find the "truth" which doesn't coincide specifically with their own pre-planned agenda.

What this all comes down to is this:  Show me "archeological evidence" that backs up the bible, specifically any reference to supernatural-inspired events, and I'll show you some cafeterians who have picked and chosen specific data, while ignoring overwhelmingly more contrary data.  Just like someone going down the line in a cafeteria picking just want they want, and not buying the rest.

Here's one atheist's response:

Whenever I challenge a theist to present his evidence for God I'm told that he doesn't need any because God isn't of this world and the only route to proper belief is faith.

So I wonder why any Christian would give a rats ass what anyone digs up in the Middle East. Being merely evidence and oh-so inferior to the holy power of faith, it can't have any effect on their rock-solid belief in God anyway.

Can it?

And if their intention is to persuade unbelievers, well, they are still wasting their time according to their own paradigm, since unbelievers will never arrive at belief through rational examination of evidence. Faith is the only route to belief.

Yet we still get this constant stream of theists eager to shove the latest "evidence" for the existence of God under our noses. Why?

Answer: cognitive dissonance.

You see, theists are mostly reasonable people in their daily lives. They know 2+2=4 and they won't buy a slightly used car sight-unseen. Yet they have to cling to this fallacious nonsense called faith because they bought it once and faith is the kind of thing that, once you've bought it, you feel really stupid if you have to return it.

The problem is that this conflict between their rational minds and the big steaming pile of irrationality at the centre of their lives causes pain and mental distress. It is hard to hold two contradictory thoughts at once. Hard, but not impossible. So they face a daily internal struggle that must cause headaches, at least.

Torn between these two imperatives, they lunge at anything that might resolve their dilemma. Enter "evidence" for the literal truth of the Bible. This is like a shining beacon of relief from their inner stress. If they can just make a rational case that the Bible is fact in the same way that the TV Guide is fact, they won't have to torture themselves with faith any more! What a glorious prospect!

That's what I think of archeological evidence for Biblical stories. 

Welcome.

This might be best discussed in Atheist vs Theist, with specific claims, so we can have a debate with theists defending things the best they can. It's hard to address this without getting into specific claims, but in most cases, in my experience, theist claims attempting to support the Bible with archaeology range from unimpressive to fraudulent (e.g. the work of Ron Wyatt).