actually the evidence that that was not in Baal worship bu tin the initial Yahweh worship.
No, there's not.
The idea human sacrifice was practiced by the non Hebrews, and not practiced by Hebrews is simply not supported by the Archeology.
There is no evidence the Hebrews practiced killing their babies. I have, on the other hand, seen pictures of statues to Baal with outstretch hands that were obviously used with fire. At least according to the Bible, babies were placed upon these hands and seered alive.
The old testament is full of blood libels against "others". Indeed that is the point of monotheism to condemn those outside. This is why polytheistic cultures had much less religious violence and more tolerance.
The polytheism of Greece meant that each city state had its own diety, such as Athena with Athens, and fought among themselves. Indeed in the tale of Troy, it is discussed how the different gods chose sides and waged the war for their pleasure -- hardly non-violent or tolerant. Going on to Rome they passed laws that no new religions were allowed (part of the reason it was a death sentence to be Christian) and of course they weren't known for their peaceful ways.
It is more likely you are simply repeating a false blood libel with your claims on the Baal worship. we know now the stories of the sacrifice of the first born are false, not shown in any of the many writings by contemporaries on Baal worship but only come from one source: the Israelis who \wished to displace teh Baal worshipers from tehir land.
We know nothing of the sort. We do not have any works on specific Canaanite religious rites, so how would we know they are false?
The fact is the Old testament god exhorts the Israelite to genocide against innocents, condones incest (the old testament is FULL of incest, child marriage, kidnapping and rape, by the very patriarchs celebrates).
Nowhere does God say, "kill the innocents." Admonitions against certain people were made for very specific reasons, such as killing their firstborn and making sure that practice would not spread to Jewish culture. Throwing around words like incest, child marriage, etc is for sensationalism. For instance none of the patriarchs are said to have taken child brides nor was any direct marriage between brothers and sisters allowed (unlike polytheistic Egypt) by the time the Israelites came into Canaan.
The pagans tended to be the least violent and most tolerant of ancient peoples.
See the Greeks and Romans above. If you want more let's try the Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians, or any ancient empire that conquered by the sword -- and that was the norm if they had the power to do so. The Israelites were out of the ordinary in being given set boundaries and not trying to see how much land they could take.
Lots of scholars think the Abraham sacrifice supposed stopped by god may not have been stopped.
I love the throwing out of the word "scholars." So, since the only evidence of the story of Abraham and Isaac is in the Bible itself and the Bible clearly records it did not occur, how do these "scholars" then conclude "nah ha" it happened anyway.