the origins of the bible

drich0150 · #21 3rd November 2009, 01:09 PM

what are the two different conclusions? there is no debate about evolution within the scientific community.

National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being discerned. Scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution

.

The debate here is not whether to believe or have faith in evolution, but to which version to indoctrinate.

ebia · #22 3rd November 2009, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by rainycity

stop with the nonsense.
Is the bible corroborated by external evidence or not?

That's not the question you originally asked - or at least not the question I took you to be asking.

Of course there are stories in the bible that are collaborated.

its not corroborated by other sources or archaeological evidence.

That's true, but it's not unusual in ancient history to lack colaboration.

rainycity · #23 3rd November 2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by drich0150

.

The debate here is not whether to believe or have faith in evolution, but to which version to indoctrinate.

teaching evolution in school is not 'indoctrinating', it's teaching kids science. Creationism is not science so it should not be taught in a science class.

Originally Posted by ebia

That's not the question you originally asked - or at least not the question I took you to be asking.

Of course there are stories in the bible that are collaborated.

I'm not interested in whether its 'of or pertaining to the past', I already know that. I'm interested in whether or not it really happened. Alot of mythology is 'historical' in that it is about the past, in real countries featuring real people etc.

Originally Posted by ebia

That's true, but it's not unusual in ancient history to lack colaboration.

if there's no collaboration at all and no archealogical evidence there's no good reason to believe that it happened. Archaeologists have excavated all around the area and found nothing from the period of exodus. There are no records at all of slaves escaping and a whole army drowning in the red sea.

ebia · #24 3rd November 2009, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by rainycity

I'm not interested in whether its 'of or pertaining to the past', I already know that. I'm interested in whether or not it really happened.

As in "happened exactly the way the story tells it", which (taken to the extreme, isn't how any telling works), or "is based on real events but told in a way to make [theological] points"? Or where between those two?

(In any case, of course, different answers to that would apply to different parts of scripture).

if there's no collaboration at all and no archealogical evidence there's no good reason to believe that it happened.

Well, that depends where you are coming from. If your starting point is "only things collaborated by so-called objective evidence are worth believing" then yes.

There are no records at all of slaves escaping and a whole army drowning in the red sea.

True, but it wouldn't be the first or last time a people choose not to document their own defeat.

rainycity · #25 4th November 2009, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

Well, that depends where you are coming from. If your starting point is "only things collaborated by so-called objective evidence are worth believing" then yes.

do you honestly question there is such a thing as objective evidence? or do you only call it "so-called objective evidence" when it doesn't confirm your religious beliefs?

Originally Posted by ebia

True, but it wouldn't be the first or last time a people choose not to document their own defeat.

the egyptians did actually document lots of defeats and embarassments. If an entire army got swallowed up by a miraculously
parted sea chasing hundreds? thousands? of escaped slaves, it would have made its way into records.

ebia · #26 4th November 2009, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by rainycity

do you honestly question there is such a thing as objective evidence? or do you only call it "so-called objective evidence" when it doesn't confirm your religious beliefs?

We live in a world that is often remarkably naive in the way it thinks about evidence and waves the word 'objective' around with far too little thought. For instance people often talk about 'objective' vs 'subjective' when what they actually mean is 'public' verses 'private'. I find that when people stick the word 'objective' in their sentence it's more often about rhetorical impact than critical thinking.

the egyptians did actually document lots of defeats and embarassments.

They would be quite unique if they documented all of them, though.
Of course, there is no way of telling whether a defeat is not documented for political reasons or because it never happened, but never-the-less one should be especially careful about arguments from silence when the prospective source has an incentive to remain silent. Documents, let alone ancient ones, are nowhere near complete enough to assume 'it wasn't documented therefore it didn't happen'.

If an entire army got swallowed up by a miraculously
parted sea chasing hundreds? thousands? of escaped slaves, it would have made its way into records.

Well, as well as the above, that makes some assumptions about exactly what happened and the numbers involved that may or may not be appropriate.

rainycity · #27 4th November 2009, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

We live in a world that is often remarkably naive in the way it thinks.....

no doubt, thats what science is for

ebia · #28 4th November 2009, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by rainycity

no doubt, thats what science is for

Science is very good at answering some sorts of questions, and utterly hopeless at others, and not all scientists have given a whole heap of thought even to epistimology and are quite capable as being as naive as anyone else about objectivity.

rainycity · #29 4th November 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

Science is very good at answering some sorts of questions, and utterly hopeless at others

science cannot answer metaphysical questions, but why do you suppose religion can?

Originally Posted by ebia

and not all scientists have given a whole heap of thought even to epistimology and are quite capable as being as naive as anyone else about objectivity.

and this is based on what? your opinion? show some examples of how scientists are 'naive about objectivity' whatever that means. If scientists aren't good at being objective then who on earth is? you? science has given us all our objective knowledge.

ebia · #30 4th November 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by rainycity

science cannot answer metaphysical questions, but why do you suppose religion can?

What kind of answer would you hope to see to that question, since a scientific one is ruled out?

and this is based on what? your opinion? show some examples of how scientists are 'naive about objectivity' whatever that means. If scientists aren't good at being objective then who on earth is? you? science has given us all our objective knowledge.

It strikes me that this paragraph is a perfectly good example.