The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.

You made a sweeping claim .
Can you demontrate why hisory and archeology do not suppprt the Bible? I believe you are not saying taht hostorians and archeloists made false claims. But if you are, you imply that many of them are unreliable? what make your words better than theirs?

 

[roman2819]

@roman2819 said:

"There are three levels i based my faith on:"

And line item B was:
"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled".

Meaning that part of his faith is based on historicity of scripture.

@Bungle_Bear said in response:
"B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.".

Meaning that, in his opinion, scripture was not supported in any significant way with relation to history or even archaeology. In response, I made post 1550, stating the following:

On point number 2, as far as I can tell, many scholars, if not most, who study the history of Christianity, recognize that locations in which Jesus was said to speak at, were real places. Many scholars, if not most, also recognize that Jesus was likely a real person as well.

Here is an example of a historian from 60CE who writes of Jesus as a real person:

Josephus - Wikipedia

He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus (found only in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War).[47] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

It also references other figures of the New Testament as well.

"Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]"


The point of the above being that according to many scholars, the Bible is historically supported in significant ways relating to the life of Jesus and the resurrection, as well as Jesus's journey etc.

Yes, these places and people certainly exist without a doubt.

Why people ignore that history and archealogical confirmations add up to support the Bible, is something I dpn't understand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Today’s labour day holiday give me time to view the entire video, it is an informative and interesting findings, and even though I don’t have the technical knowledge to understand all the terms and implications, it is still possible to follow what he was getting what, ie the lecture material was not rocket sciene.

Some questions and my beliefs:

If evolution is happening on a large scale, then we should see many more fossil evidence of such in-between creatures. After T, if evolution continued, then we would see more fossils of amphibians-mammals on land. But we hardly see any. So far there are only bits and pieces, nothing conclusive. I cannot say findings support evolution because it is just one specie.

Second, I always maintain that a limited kind of changes is possible. Horses living on different terrain have different traits to adapt to the needs. There was a report of a giant insect almost two feet and there are many findings of giant mammoth skeletons. And there are even dinosaur skeletons in various continents. But All these could mean that there is a Creator who made them. It is also possible God made the T too.

In this thread, most evolutionists do not say how life begin . They try to explain how life evolve. But no one explain how life begins (though I notice a few deviations last month).

How life begins is still the fundamental question. If life starts by itself and change, it wouldn’t turn out so well, with millions of lifeforms so perfectly formed.

I think that it is great that you acknowledge the simplicity of the subject matter. A lot of people make science out to be as you put it rocket science, but most of the time it really is just as simple as the video made it out to be. So thank you for taking the time to watch the video to see that.

To continue on with your comments, You mentioned that it was only one species and therefore wasn't convincing enough essentially. And usually the response you hear is a question of how many fossils would be sufficient for someone to believe? Five fossils 10, 20, 50 or 1,000 or a million?

But what should be noted is that literally every single fossil that we have ever discovered, particularly those that involve multiple specimen so that there is no question about where precisely they came from, has fit into the very same logical pattern that Neil Schubin and his team used to discover tiktaalik.

As a matter of fact, shubin and his team have discovered a succession of fossils and not just The one described in the video.

Google Image Result for http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vZI2W5J5X_I/TiWdbfsIIVI/AAAAAAAAAPo/B0qnTjXhfXQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg

There are more fossils that link fish to amphibians, There are fossils that link amphibians to reptiles, There are fossils that link reptiles to birds, There are fossils that like reptiles to mammals. And these fossils are found right where you would expect them to be found just as Tiktaalik was found right where it was expected to be found.

And so the question becomes, What is the best explanation for this? What does it mean? and the theory of evolution actually answers that question with very fine precision.

 

[roman2819]

None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.

try reading #1560 to see how @KomatiiteBIF expalins the existence of towns, cities and people.

Or think about this: What if the Bible talk about places and towns that couldn't be found? or about governors and caesar that history does not support.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Overwhelming circumstantial evidences are the millions of likeforms, ecosystem and universe we see arond us. They pointed to a creatot if we don't deny such truth.

I agree with the many thousands of biologists (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) who have studied the evidence and concluded that the evidence we see implies the origin and development of life much better matches theories without a creator than they do match theories with a creator.

Similar for physicists, geologists, cosmologists. The evidence much better fits theories without a creator than they do theories with a creator.

You were saying: People from different religions claim that their religion is special, and distinct from all others.

I do not see people of other religions sharing uch about thwir walk with their gods,, thats the difference
Many people around me has various religions and gods. Today I walk past the shop, and this guy displace images of mang gods at shop wingows: buddha, confucious (who never claimed to be god). chinese goddess of mercy , hindu gods etc He hopea to get all the help he can. From time to time, people mention their god but it is easy to see they are not convinced.
I looked for three levels of proof as i mentioned, not just a relationship based on feeling and secuirty. THere is Bible to back up exitence of Christian God.

I've visited/experienced a number of countries where, for many people living in those countries, their religion is not deeply felt. However, there are certainly many people even in those countries for whom their religion is important to them and they definitely report feeling a very close relationship to God. I also meet Christians who say they sorta believe in God, though they don't think much about it or practice, and maybe they're actually agnostic, they haven't thought about it.

Willing to die per se does not mean their god is true. They could be misled.

My point was not that their religion is true, but that they feel a close relationship to God (or their gods) and strongly believe in their religions.

Believers in other religions also have their own holy books to back up theiir religions. From my point of view I don't see anything special about The Bible. All the religious books have claims of this bit of unknowable science or this bit of prophecy, and it always requires unreasonable interpretation to make it fit.

So, I think my point stands. There isn't anything objectively special about Christianity compared to other religions, and I think you have created your own evidence by viewing things through your own belief.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In this thread, most evolutionists do not say how life begin . They try to explain how life evolve. But no one explain how life begins (though I notice a few deviations last month).

It is because we don't know. We do know with great certainty that evolution happens.

How life begins is still the fundamental question. If life starts by itself and change, it wouldn’t turn out so well, with millions of lifeforms so perfectly formed.

How are life forms so perfectly formed? How do you know if everything started by itself it would turn out differently?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, these places and people certainly exist without a doubt.

Why people ignore that history and archealogical confirmations add up to support the Bible, is something I dpn't understand.

Most people will accept some of the supporting evidence for the history of the bible where there is good evidence. But just because one thing in the bible is correct does not mean that everything is correct. Each claim needs to be supported on its own.

 

[roman2819]

Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.

I was and am not looking for religion based on feeling or feeling of faith. I recognized feelings can be deceiving and are certainly subjective.

I based my faith on the 3 levels I mentioned: Evidence of creation, authenticity of Bible and personal experience.

 

[roman2819]

But just because one thing in the bible is correct does not mean that everything is correct. Each claim needs to be supported on its own.

You really think there is just one cotrect thing in the Bible? You will be surpised that are 100-1000x times more correct statements

 

[roman2819]

.... As far as I can make out, Evangelical Christianity is not based on faith in Christ, but on the objectively demonstrable accuracy of Scripture which compels acceptance of Christ.

What you claimed sound new to me. I thought many people in this thread have said evangelical Christians exercise blind faith , that they don't know their scriptures is true or falso. I don't know if you say the same before.

 

[roman2819]

Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.

Do you recognize that Jesus lived and existed?

Josephus not only said Jesus was there, he said “there was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why would he say that Jesus did miracles? If Jesus didn’t, would Josephus would not write that he did miracles.

@Kylie, this statement by Josephus is more interesting than your “proofs of life” . Josephus was a secular historian of the Roman empire, not a Christian historian, he wrote “There was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why wouldn’t you agree that his statement us credible? Or you believe it is credible?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

By leaving out ice cream, the person isn't saying that I don't like ice cream, nor is the person claiming that it is all that I said.

Let's review.

Person A: I like cookies, ice cream and cake.

Person B: You said "I like cookies". You're crazy, cookies are horrible.

Person A: you're quote mining me! You left out ice cream and cake!

No, it doesn't work like that. The meaning of your quoted words "I like cookies" isn't altered by the removal of "ice cream".

The conversation has not gone like that. It's been:

Topic - food person A likes.
Person A: I like cookies, ice cream, pasta and vegetables.

Person B: Your claim to only like chocolate cookies is ridiculous.

I know you can see how a) removing the ice cream, pasta and vegetables is pertinent in a conversation about food person A likes and b) making a claim that person A never made is a misrepresentation.

And if you wrote three separate sentences: "I like ice cream.", " I like cake." and "I like cookies", your words would still hold the same meaning. It's just that using commas is common when listing individual subjects. So if I quote one of the three, that's not twisting anything, it's just an observation of your words as they truly are. You typed correctly by using good Grammer to combine multiple ideas into one sentence. But by breaking your sentence, the context is not changed, nor is the meaning of the words.

And what you thought in your independent mind, may have been of a different context than what you physically typed, but it isn't my personal mission to translate everyone's thoughts whenever they aren't clear with their words, and I'm not a mind reader. You could have simply chosen better words.

Your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.

 

[Job 33:6]

The conversation has not gone like that. It's been:

Topic - food person A likes.
Person A: I like cookies, ice cream, pasta and vegetables.

Person B: Your claim to only like chocolate cookies is ridiculous.

I know you can see how a) removing the ice cream, pasta and vegetables is pertinent in a conversation about food person A likes and b) making a claim that person A never made is a misrepresentation.


Your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.

But I didn't say that you only liked cookies. I simply quoted the statement saying that you liked cookies.

I focused on your statement with respect to history but that doesn't mean that I accept or reject or have any opinion at all about your thoughts on archeology or prophecies.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's go back to your original statement again:

B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.


So if If I quoted you saying "scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history"

My exclusion of archeology and prophecies doesn't change the meaning of the quoted statement. it is simply a reflection on that particular statement pertaining to history.

And it doesn't state anything nor suggest anything about these other topics nor does it need to. As the subject of my response was with respect to history.

This is not a quote mine it is simply a quote.

And remember that when you use commas youre listing independent subjects. And so it is fair game for a comment to examine those independent subjects listed with your commas.

And again, If you meant something more or beyond what you actually said, I am not a mind reader. when Christians speak of historical accounts and history in support of scripture, 99% of the time they're talking about The historicity of Jesus or the historical backing of jesus's journey or the crucifixion. And this is what was being referred to by Roman. Roman was not referring to historical support for Adam and Eve (for which there is none), he wasn't referring to historical evidence for the breaking of 5,000 loaves, and even when he mentioned archeology right after history he wasn't talking about archaeological evidence for miracles. he was talking about historical and archaeological evidence in support of scripture in regards to the historicity of Jesus. And obviously the question of if Jesus existed and if he was crucified is very meaningful and significant to the discussion of if Christianity is true. As a matter of fact we cannot even begin to discuss if Jesus conducted miracles without first asking the question of if he even existed.

Which means that meaningful historical evidence does in fact exist in support of scripture. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said.

And again, I am not at mind reader. I am sorry that you said something that you didn't literally mean and that I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I think that there's a difference between me removing context from your words, and you simply not clarifying on the context of your words to begin with. And your response to Roman didn't accurately reflect his statement. The context of your response was different than the context of his initial statement.

It would have been better to say that history doesn't provide scientifically objective support for scripture as it pertains to extraordinary claims. Rather than just making a broad and sweeping statement that history doesn't support scripture in any meaningful way.

when discussing history and historical accounts of things, scientific objectivity necessary to demonstrate the existence of miracles, it's not an appropriate criteria for defining "meaning".

Either way it appears that neither of us will admit fault to this and I think we both understand the positions that we each have so I'll leave this discussion to your closing statement.

It was never a quote mine, Your words were simply vague.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Let's go back to your original statement again:

B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.


So if If I quoted you saying "scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history"

My exclusion of archeology and prophecies doesn't change the meaning of the quoted statement. it is simply a reflection on that particular statement pertaining to history.

And it doesn't state anything nor suggest anything about these other topics nor does it need to. As the subject of my response was with respect to history.

This is not a quote mine it is simply a quote.

And remember that when you use commas youre listing independent subjects. And so it is fair game for a comment to examine those independent subjects listed with your commas.

And again, If you meant something more or beyond what you actually said, I am not a mind reader. when Christians speak of historical accounts and history in support of scripture, 99% of the time they're talking about The historicity of Jesus or the historical backing of jesus's journey or the crucifixion. And this is what was being referred to by Roman. Roman was not referring to historical support for Adam and Eve (for which there is none), he wasn't referring to historical evidence for the breaking of 5,000 loaves, and even when he mentioned archeology right after history he wasn't talking about archaeological evidence for miracles. he was talking about historical and archaeological evidence in support of scripture in regards to the historicity of Jesus. And obviously the question of if Jesus existed and if he was crucified is very meaningful and significant to the discussion of if Christianity is true. As a matter of fact we cannot even begin to discuss if Jesus conducted miracles without first asking the question of if he even existed.

Which means that meaningful historical evidence does in fact exist in support of scripture. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said.

And again, I am not at mind reader. I am sorry that you said something that you didn't literally mean and that I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I think that there's a difference between me removing context from your words, and you simply not clarifying on the context of your words to begin with. And your response to Roman didn't accurately reflect his statement. The context of your response was different than the context of his initial statement.

It would have been better to say that history doesn't provide scientifically objective support for scripture as it pertains to extraordinary claims. Rather than just making a broad and sweeping statement that history doesn't support scripture in any meaningful way.

Either way it appears that neither of us will admit fault to this and I think we both understand the positions that we each have so I'll leave this discussion to your closing statement.

I'll repeat myself one last time : your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You really think there is just one cotrect thing in the Bible? You will be surpised that are 100-1000x times more correct statements

I never said there was only one correct thing in the bible. My point was that just because something is correct in the bible does not mean something else is as well. All claims need to be supported on their own, especially the supernatural ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I click of couple of the 5 links you provided, and they led me to previous postings by yourself, you were answering questions from others, giving them your opinion and interpretations of things. There was NOTHING credible from you to try to provide explanation on how life begin.

So as I said, there is still no credible explanation about how life begins. No proof that eons of time ago, a tiny amoeba or cell or whatever started to breathe and very gradually transform to two, then 20, then the millions of diversities we see around us.

The reason I took almost 3 weeks to click on the links is I have other priorities and more importantly, I didn’t expect you to have good theories to offer – because this area is still very much at a work-in-progress stage among scientist and microbiologists, nothing conclusive, far from it.

This is a terribly wrong and terribly ignorant statement. There is endless evidence for evolution, for deep time. For all of the science that you do not understand.

In fact the evidence for evolution is so great that there are only two possibilities for your post (well maybe a third, but that is even worse). At best you are totally ignorant of the sciences and oddly you are afraid to learn even the basics. That makes arguing against evolution by you more than a little hypocritical. Why not take me up on my offer of learning what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence? You would have to face facts and admit that there is endless evidence for evolution, but at least you would get your integrity back.

The second possibility is that you are openly lying. I do not think that this is the case, but there are creationists that do that.

The last and most unlikely is that you could suffere from severe mental illness. To the point that reality is out of your grip. But I do not think that this is the case either. You can and do make lucid posts at times.

So once again, I offer to help you to learn the basics. You cannot honestly say that there is no evidence for evolution. All you can do is to pretend that it does not exist.

 

[Speedwell]

You made a sweeping claim .
Can you demontrate why hisory and archeology do not suppprt the Bible? I believe you are not saying taht hostorians and archeloists made false claims. But if you are, you imply that many of them are unreliable? what make your words better than theirs?

It depends on what you mean by "support the Bible." There is no doubt that the Bible contains historical narratives about real people, places and events; some of it can be supported by archaeological findings as well. No scholar--religious or secular--would seriously dispute such an assertion. Even secular scholars regard biblical texts as important sources of historical information. If that is all you mean by "support the Bible" then of course you are correct. But it seems to me that you have made claims about the biblical texts which go well beyond that, claims which are not supported by history and archaeology.

 

[pitabread]

Why people ignore that history and archealogical confirmations add up to support the Bible, is something I dpn't understand.

It's more about recognizing the difference between the Bible describing a particular place or person as having existed versus the idea that the events described by the Bible are literal history.

For example, New York is a real place, but that doesn't mean the various stories about of Spiderman are real just because they are set in New York.

Most people trying to defend the literal historicity of the Bible usually make that sort of leap, when that leap is completely unwarranted.

 

[Speedwell]

What you claimed sound new to me. I thought many people in this thread have said evangelical Christians exercise blind faith , that they don't know their scriptures is true or falso. I don't know if you say the same before.

What I meant was, that I have some suspicion that Evangelicals don't have faith in Christ, they have faith in their ideas about the Bible from which they deduce belief in Christ. Nothing you have said so far contradicts that suspicion.