Yes, for them to arrive at Jericho (with the bones of Moses in tow) proves that to be logical and consistent, because so many would have starved in the desert for so long. You cannot deny this w/o being inconsistent or presenting another fallacy. Reading the Bible means believing in God, unless you're here to obfuscate and deny and fabricate OPINIONS, in which case you can stop reading. You will get nothing positive out of this false endeavor.
For manna to fall from the sky or any of the other signs and wonders found in the Bible are child's play to a being with the knowledge and power to create the heavens and the earth and so there is no logical inconsistency.
Archeologists have confirmed every aspect and detail of the Jericho story that can be derived from such a dig by three different international teams over four decades. The city was sacked and burned with everything still in it, just as God ordered, and all the walls were down except for the North wall, probably where Rahab lived.
So what is your next question about the Bible you think there is no evidence for? Yet you can't refute one verse of Genesis? Or have an alternative to Creation? What do you think life would be like if you had been given oxygen at birth?
Hazen says "life produced an oxygen-rich atmosphere". But if you assume life just popped into existence for no reason or cause, and therefore assume evolution, you also assume the early earth was anoxic because biochemical building blocks of life could not form while exposed to oxygen.
Yet in order for life to then evolve, they must assume that photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacteria) evolved and produced an oxygen supply to support life.
Circular? Well, yes, but isn't everything about evolution and atheism circular reasoning of opinion? Find something that isn't.
Nelson Glueck a Jewish scientist, and universally esteemed as one of the greatest archaeologists, said that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible.