Archaeological Evidence Supporting The Bible vs. Fossil Evidence Supporting Evolution

[Kahalachan]

Is there a difference between the two?

I'm curious why fossilized evidence supporting evolution is misinterpreted whereas, archaeological evidence supporting the Bible is accurately interpretted? Or vice versa

I personally think both support their respective disciplines and both can suffer from misinterpretation.

I wonder why there is bias against both the Bible and evolution though.

 

[madarab]

There is clear archaeological evidence for the Bible. You can find complete Bibles that date back to the 8th century. There is also clear archaological evidence for evolution that has been reported here hundreds if not thousands of times. Did I clear that up for you?

 

[Kahalachan]

There is clear archaeological evidence for the Bible. You can find complete Bibles that date back to the 8th century. There is also clear archaological evidence for evolution that has been reported here hundreds if not thousands of times. Did I clear that up for you?

I'm hoping the people that dismiss either, would speak up and say why they dismiss some of the evidence.

I see you as rational and accepting both pieces of evidence.

 

[USincognito]

Ugh, I see another 18 page thread with a lot of ad hocery and Bible verses rather than any actual archaeology and fossil evidence coming - and a lot of people taking the bait.

I'd like to think I invented these talking points, but I doubt it. They're two of my favorites in terms of the apologetical angle regarding archeology, both are anti-supernatural in nature.

The first is regarding the argument that Biblical archaeology "proves the Bible." That's problematic in that is does in many cases validate the mundane claims,but doesn't support the supernatural claims. The example I cite is Heinrich Schliemann using a copy of the Iliad to find the supposedly legendary city of Troy. He followed Homer's words, dug and actually found it. Does that somehow translate into the Golden Apple being true or Achilles actually having been dipped into the river Styx?

Of course not. Accurate archaeology from a legendary text only evidences people from said text actually existing (the mundane) but not supernatural claims about the them.

The second was something I saw on a message board about how archaeologists assumed the Hittites never existed since they were mentioned in the Bible. I'm not sure if that assertion is true or not since it's immediately problematic for anyone who knows anything about history and archaeology. The evidence that the Hittites existed was all around us in the carvings on Rameses II's temples - but we couldn't read it because it was in heiroglypics. The unearthing of Hattusas was rather yesterdays news compared to 3,000 year old obelisks and steles in Egypt.

The fact that the Hittites did exist neither validates that Ra or Amun or Amun-Ra or whomever looked kindly on Rameses II at Kadesh. It only is a record of his claims about his victory there. More importantly, validating that the Hittites did exist doesn't mean Noah's flood happened or that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale. It just means that the Hittites, like the Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. actually existed.

I'm sorry this is so long winded, but my point is that just because archaeology evidences a mundane claim doesn't mean that the supernatural claims have any validity. But Creationists don't seem to have that discernment. For them, just because people grew grapes in the Middle East means the Noachian narrative is true to the last detail.

 

[llDayo]

It's easy, anything that supports your beliefs is true. Everything that doesn't is false. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[SimplyNothing]

Anyone that doesn't want to believe something... no matter how amiably you present it... still won't believe it.

 

[JohnR7]

Is there a difference between the two?

The fossil evidence does not support evolution. After 150 years they still have not found the missing link. If they have not found it by now, then they are not going to find it. Some of the various species are more alike and some are less alike, but that does not offer any evidence that one evolved into the another.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Anyone that doesn't want to believe something... no matter how amiably you present it... still won't believe it.

if something is in front of your eyes, say your coffee cup to the right of your computer screen. can you will yourself to not see it? how about see it to the left of your screen and not to the right?

likewise, can you will yourself to believe or disbelieve the evidence for something? for example, i read a book on physics, can i will myself to believe that F=ma^2 or that F=ma is not true?

are things really as flexible as you propose?
can i wake up tomorrow and convince myself simply by the power of my will that i am a bedbug*? does my belief effect or change reality for anyone else? that is, if i am able to convince myself that i am a bedbug, will my wife believe it and see me as a bedbug as well?


notes:
* Kafka's Metamorphosis
could you do this? is your will strong enough to override the sensations of your senses?

if you can, can you teach me how, i have a pink elephant i'd like to make go away?

 

[llDayo]

The fossil evidence does not support evolution. After 150 years they still have not found the missing link. If they have not found it by now, then they are not going to find it. Some of the various species are more alike and some are less alike, but that does not offer any evidence that one evolved into the another.

John just summed up exactly what I posted. After all this time he still is talking about the missing link. Sometimes, no matter what evidence is provided or explanation given, some people just don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[Kahalachan]

Ugh, I see another 18 page thread with a lot of ad hocery and Bible verses rather than any actual archaeology and fossil evidence coming - and a lot of people taking the bait.

I'd like to think I invented these talking points, but I doubt it. They're two of my favorites in terms of the apologetical angle regarding archeology, both are anti-supernatural in nature.

The first is regarding the argument that Biblical archaeology "proves the Bible." That's problematic in that is does in many cases validate the mundane claims,but doesn't support the supernatural claims. The example I cite is Heinrich Schliemann using a copy of the Iliad to find the supposedly legendary city of Troy. He followed Homer's words, dug and actually found it. Does that somehow translate into the Golden Apple being true or Achilles actually having been dipped into the river Styx?

Of course not. Accurate archaeology from a legendary text only evidences people from said text actually existing (the mundane) but not supernatural claims about the them.

The second was something I saw on a message board about how archaeologists assumed the Hittites never existed since they were mentioned in the Bible. I'm not sure if that assertion is true or not since it's immediately problematic for anyone who knows anything about history and archaeology. The evidence that the Hittites existed was all around us in the carvings on Rameses II's temples - but we couldn't read it because it was in heiroglypics. The unearthing of Hattusas was rather yesterdays news compared to 3,000 year old obelisks and steles in Egypt.

The fact that the Hittites did exist neither validates that Ra or Amun or Amun-Ra or whomever looked kindly on Rameses II at Kadesh. It only is a record of his claims about his victory there. More importantly, validating that the Hittites did exist doesn't mean Noah's flood happened or that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale. It just means that the Hittites, like the Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. actually existed.

I'm sorry this is so long winded, but my point is that just because archaeology evidences a mundane claim doesn't mean that the supernatural claims have any validity. But Creationists don't seem to have that discernment. For them, just because people grew grapes in the Middle East means the Noachian narrative is true to the last detail.

I agree archaeological evidence doesn't support the supernatural claims. I never expected it to. But it does lend the Bible more credibiility than say, Aesop's fables.

 

[Kahalachan]

The fossil evidence does not support evolution. After 150 years they still have not found the missing link. If they have not found it by now, then they are not going to find it. Some of the various species are more alike and some are less alike, but that does not offer any evidence that one evolved into the another.

What constitutes a missing link? Homo habilus? Homo erectus? Homo Neanderthal (although it's debated if they interbred with our ancestors)?

There are quite a few fossils that we've found that are neither human nor ape but share both characteristics.

One could continually regress and ask for the numerous ancestors between the the transition to a modern species and claim they aren't satisfied with the evidence.

What characteristics must this intermediate possess?

And if the fossils we have found do not support evolution what do they support? And why do you not favor this interpretation vs. interpretations gathered from archaeological finds consistent with Biblical stories?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The fossil evidence does not support evolution. After 150 years they still have not found the missing link. If they have not found it by now, then they are not going to find it. Some of the various species are more alike and some are less alike, but that does not offer any evidence that one evolved into the another.

And so in 4 sentences, John has easily and completely debunked the work of thousands, if not millions, of people working in evolutionary biology, anthropology, and any other number of fields--all without doing any fieldwork himself or even offering any type of evidence to support his claims. Well done, sir. Your Nobel prize is waiting for you at the door.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

at the door


above which reads a sign:


All those passing through these doors
bless this place.
some on the way in.
others on the way out.

 

[Gracchus]

I agree archaeological evidence doesn't support the supernatural claims. I never expected it to. But it does lend the Bible more credibiility than say, Aesop's fables.

Of course, archaeology does show that there was no exodus from Egypt, no conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews (1), and no Kingdom of Judah before the destruction of Israel (2).

But that is for another thread in another forum.



(1) Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts", Free Press, (c) 2001
(2) Finkelstein and Silberman, "David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition", Free Press, (c) 2006

 

[USincognito]

I agree archaeological evidence doesn't support the supernatural claims. I never expected it to. But it does lend the Bible more credibiility than say, Aesop's fables.

Sorry if I wasn't more clear, but I was ranting against the posts by Creationists I figured would have filled this thread by now. My post wasn't directed at you, but was inspired by your OP.