The Co-existence of Science and Theology

01/09/2008 04:07:52 PM · #1251

He also seems to think that those believing in creation are a minority. Vastly different than the presentation whereby the atheists are quick to claim in the other thread on Athsiem in a Christian Society, that the theologists are ruling the world. So either he is not accurate here, or the atheists are not accurate there.

"Question: What is your impression of groups, such as exist in the US, that deny evolution in favor of the Biblical theory of creation?

Dr. Richard Leakey: I have been raised to believe in freedom of thought and speech. If a minority wishes to accept that position it's their right. What I fear is that this minority may seem to be larger than it truly is. What is strange is that there are still people who believe the world is not a globe. "

Actually if you link to the article by Sitman, there is one link that presents a matrix on who believes what. I'll post it in a minute.

I can't locate the matrix I was looking for, however Here are many quotes from other scientists regarding evolution.

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 16:17:00.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/09/2008 04:22:04 PM · #1252

Originally posted by Flash:

Creationists, fundamentalist Christians and proponents of intelligent design are in a minority. Doesn't mean Christians are.

01/09/2008 04:33:03 PM · #1253

Originally posted by Gordon:

Creationists, fundamentalist Christians and proponents of intelligent design are in a minority. Doesn't mean Christians are.

I actually see your point. I (for one) do not refute the potential for some evolution, and find questions with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, yet I would consider myself a christian. Actually I wish I could find that matrix, as it broke down 3 categories: pure evolution, hybred of creation and evolution, and pure creationism. Further breaking it down by groups of scientists vs all the rest of us, with the hybred being the most "believed" in. I'll keep looking for it.

01/09/2008 05:09:24 PM · #1254

Originally posted by Flash:

Actually I wish I could find that matrix, as it broke down 3 categories: pure evolution, hybred of creation and evolution, and pure creationism.

Here ya go. Another relevant poll is here.

01/10/2008 05:11:01 AM · #1255

Originally posted by Flash:

1. There is a bit of self serving believing on both sides.

Not really. Religious fundamentalists treat creationism as a cornerstone of their belief. There is no evidence for it, but an inherent and compelling self-interest on the part of fundamentalists to believe in it.

Science treats evolution as being the only answer to the physical evidence that we see. We believe it to be true because *all* the evidence points towards it. In this matter it is like gravity â�� we believe that it exists because *all* the evidence that we see points towards it (even if the fine detail on how it works is still being figured out and there are accordingly violent disagreements within the scientific community).

Originally posted by Flash:

3. For Leakey to be forced to admit that the evidence suggests that man arrived abrubtly, is remarkable indeed.

Not really. There is a lot of debate over the speed with which evolution operates â�� is it a long gradual flow, or does it work in fits and starts? Leakey is promoting one view on the fine detail of how evolution operates - not questioning that it undoubtedly does operate.

Originally posted by Flash:

4. If man arrived abrubtly (as Leakey says is supported by the "current" EVIDENCE), then how does that dispute the creationists claim that man arrived abrubtly?

Nothing can dispute the creationist claim other than the sheer improbability of it. Creationism can explain absolutely everything: it is that way â��because god made it soâ��. With this one abhorrent claim it explains absolutely everything and precisely nothing.

Originally posted by Flash:

Therefore, the almighty infallibility of "science" is not as infallible as was previously presented.

No-one would ever claim science to be infallible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all scientific understanding is incorrect â�� it is all wrong, in billions of tiny ways. This is because science is constantly refined â�� it is a case of finding out more and more, and constantly refining it to better explain the universe. But in its general direction, it tends to be accurate.

The converse is that religions rely on a single explanation of the universe and stick to it for thousands of years, ignoring the evidence to the contrary or re-interpreting their texts to try to avoid their obvious fallacies.

Originally posted by Flash:

your claimâ�¦ implies that theology has no concrete or factual evidence, and my position is that in many cases, the evidence is at least as concrete as a small piece of ape skull found within 20 meters of a human forearm. Meaning that, this merely shows how each side can take liberties with the data.

I hope that this is a joke. Billions of fossils demonstrating a 100% consistency of evidence for evolutionary theory, the 100% consistency of later revolutionary discoveries such as DNA and genetic inheritance etc etc, versus ermâ�¦ â�� what concrete or factual evidence for the existence of god exactly?

01/10/2008 06:49:20 AM · #1256

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. There is a bit of self serving believing on both sides.

Not really. Religious fundamentalists treat creationism as a cornerstone of their belief. There is no evidence for it, but an inherent and compelling self-interest on the part of fundamentalists to believe in it.

Science treats evolution as being the only answer to the physical evidence that we see. We believe it to be true because *all* the evidence points towards it. In this matter it is like gravity â�� we believe that it exists because *all* the evidence that we see points towards it (even if the fine detail on how it works is still being figured out and there are accordingly violent disagreements within the scientific community).

Originally posted by Flash:
3. For Leakey to be forced to admit that the evidence suggests that man arrived abrubtly, is remarkable indeed.

Not really. There is a lot of debate over the speed with which evolution operates â�� is it a long gradual flow, or does it work in fits and starts? Leakey is promoting one view on the fine detail of how evolution operates - not questioning that it undoubtedly does operate.

Originally posted by Flash:
4. If man arrived abrubtly (as Leakey says is supported by the "current" EVIDENCE), then how does that dispute the creationists claim that man arrived abrubtly?

Nothing can dispute the creationist claim other than the sheer improbability of it. Creationism can explain absolutely everything: it is that way â��because god made it soâ��. With this one abhorrent claim it explains absolutely everything and precisely nothing.

Originally posted by Flash:
Therefore, the almighty infallibility of "science" is not as infallible as was previously presented.

No-one would ever claim science to be infallible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all scientific understanding is incorrect â�� it is all wrong, in billions of tiny ways. This is because science is constantly refined â�� it is a case of finding out more and more, and constantly refining it to better explain the universe. But in its general direction, it tends to be accurate.

The converse is that religions rely on a single explanation of the universe and stick to it for thousands of years, ignoring the evidence to the contrary or re-interpreting their texts to try to avoid their obvious fallacies.

Originally posted by Flash:
your claimâ�¦ implies that theology has no concrete or factual evidence, and my position is that in many cases, the evidence is at least as concrete as a small piece of ape skull found within 20 meters of a human forearm. Meaning that, this merely shows how each side can take liberties with the data.

I hope that this is a joke. Billions of fossils demonstrating a 100% consistency of evidence for evolutionary theory, the 100% consistency of later revolutionary discoveries such as DNA and genetic inheritance etc etc, versus ermâ�¦ â�� what concrete or factual evidence for the existence of god exactly?

Matthew - did you get a chance to read the article Here? If not, please do. I doubt you will agree with it, however, it will at least explain my positions much better than I apparently can.

edit to add: There are many other articles linked at the bottom of that article. I am quickly becoming a fan of this author (Sean Pitman). Much like I am a fan of Professor John Lott - although on a completely different subject. They both seem to have done solid research/homework. Here is a dialogue between 2 opposing views. I favor Sean's.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 07:03:32.

01/10/2008 09:25:04 AM · #1257

Originally posted by Flash:

Matthew - did you get a chance to read the article Here? If not, please do. I doubt you will agree with it, however, it will at least explain my positions much better than I apparently can.

Why would you doubt that I agree with it? I am not really qualified to carry out an analysis of the research that the author has carried out and to determine the extent to which he accurately represents the debate within the subject of human evolution. However, there are some points that seem very reasonable to me, and some that I wholly agree with.

It seems wholly reasonable (and conforms to my limited knowledge of the subject) that the study of human evolution is high-glamour work fraught with difficulty. Of course there are a tiny number of imperfect fossils of human ancestry â�� the race has not been around long, nor been populous or widespread in the grand scheme of things. Of course it is the most prized knowledge, bearing the promise of fame and wealth because it is sensational and newsworthy. It would be odd if scientists (who are human after all) were not affected so. Of course this compromises some of the research that has been carried out in this tiny branch of the subject.

I wholly agree with the author that a very great problem with any research is the preconceptions and commercial needs of the people conducting any analysis. This is one of the reasons why science uses where practicable the process of double-blind testing (not often practical for fossil analysis).

However, it is also the case that human evolution is not scientifically important to demonstrate the principle â�� from a fragmented fossil record and through observation today it is possible to establish the theory of evolution as a general principle for all life (for which the fossil record is extensive if incomplete) beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

You appear to be revelling in the disagreements between scientists over the precise workings of evolution and the meaning of discovered evidence without realising that none of it contradicts the underlying theory, which is that evolution is at work in one fashion or another. The arguments are a feature of the way in which the theory may be refined â�� not examples of errors in the theory itself.

I would highlight the point with which I agreed wholeheartedly: that it is critical to consider the underlying motives of an author of analysis to identify any preconceptions or bias that might be affecting his judgement. While it does not discredit the work, it is a factor to be taken into account. I assume that you will also apply the same level of cynicism when looking at Mr Pitmanâ��s work. Please remember that proponents of ID (a theory that has been utterly discredited and laughed out of court as unscientific) are usually driven by a religious desire to discredit evolutionary theory and evidence creationism â�� so while Mr Pitman may make some valid points about the lack of certainty or consensus within the field of study of human evolution and the nature of people who may seek publicity rather than the truth, he may himself be consciously or unconsciously presenting a view that seeks to prove a preconception rather than understand the evidence.

It is also worth bearing in mind that criticism of one theory is not evidence for another â�� while these may be valid criticisms that push us to re-evaluate the current theories around a small element of evolutionary theory (as I say â�� I donâ��t know enough to make the judgment myself), they most emphatically do not provide evidence for the theory of ID (for which there is no credible evidence).

01/10/2008 03:24:13 PM · #1258

Matthew -

The above post of yours is one of your more refreshing posts. There may be hope for us afterall.

You state that I "revel" in the apparent inconsistencies of science, and I would caution that if that is the case, it is only as it applies to the pummeling I have received for the various positions I have put forth and that were met with attack on the very grounds that is evident in the scientific field (many exemplified in the article by Sean Pitman on Early Man). So yes, in that instant application, it is rewarding for me to see first hand that science has its own share of problems and that you recognize them or at least agree with those who identify them.

I have posted elsewhere that the Bible is 3 books in one. 1. Literature 2. History 3. Philosophy - further that it can be read as any one of those or in multiples. Thus, when one claims that the bible is "wrong", then unless they are specific in which context they mean, I would argue that it is not. For example, as a history record, many locations, people and events recorded in the Bible have been substantiated through other works of the period and through archeology. I submit, that the evidence of finding the name Goliath on a piece of potterey, dated to the period referenced in the Bible, holds a similar claim as evidence as some of the evolution evidence portrayed in Pitman's piece on Early Man. Likewise, evidence of a Great Flood or even the chracter of Jesus as historical events/people have both archeological as well as period literature as evidence. Each of these points were vehemently attacked as absolute lies, and addressed with mockery and ridicule by some posters. That fact that ANYONE would believe such historical events/persons from the Bible was evidence of their stupidity and gullibleness. Yet we see evidenced in the Pitman article on Early Man, several examples of scientists having no more evidence than what I submitted and being heralded as champions of truth. This is my point.

edit to add: here are two examples of my claim;

"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non- scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

Lipson, H.S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138.

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 15:37:02.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/10/2008 05:17:22 PM · #1259

Originally posted by Flash:

So yes, in that instant application, it is rewarding for me to see first hand that science has its own share of problems and that you recognize them or at least agree with those who identify them.

Scientists are only human (though a good experiment is one that minimises known human shortcomings). However, please don't confuse the inconsistencies within the scientific community for problems - the inconsistencies are critical to the scientific process and are a sign that it is working properly. The scrutiny of competing theories is what makes knowledge gained through the scientific process so reliable.

Originally posted by Flash:

I have posted elsewhere that the Bible is 3 books in one. 1. Literature 2. History 3. Philosophy - further that it can be read as any one of those or in multiples.

Not in itself a problematic statement.

Originally posted by Flash:

Thus, when one claims that the bible is "wrong", then unless they are specific in which context they mean, I would argue that it is not.

This is where we start to hit issues. A lot of claims are made for the bible. As a historical record it must be read in the context of the time and purpose for which it was written. As a philosophical tract its sophistication pales in comparison to the deep analytical thinking of the last three centuries. As literature, it records the stories and beliefs of a people, but that does not of course validate those stories or beliefs.

Originally posted by Flash:

Evidence perhaps that there was an equivalent myth 2,000-4,000 years ago - but not evidence that the story is more than a parable, and certainly not evidence that god in some way actually helped David kill the bigger man. When we talk about the fossil history, we are talking about items that directly evidence the stages of evolution.

Originally posted by Flash:

Likewise, evidence of a Great Flood or even the chracter of Jesus as historical events/people have both archeological as well as period literature as evidence.

Yes - there is some evidence that there have been widespread floods within human consciousness. And there is a reasonable amount of evidence as to the existence of a religious leader called Jesus. But not more than that.

Originally posted by Flash:

Each of these points were vehemently attacked as absolute lies, and addressed with mockery and ridicule by some posters. That fact that ANYONE would believe such historical events/persons from the Bible was evidence of their stupidity and gullibleness.

It does take a certain credulity to believe in those stories literally and without applying a degree of critical analysis.

Originally posted by Flash:

...examples of scientists having no more evidence than what I submitted and being heralded as champions of truth. This is my point.

I'll give you an analogy. If I invited you round to my house and told you (1) that from the architecture and carving it appears to date from 1790; or (2) that in my house there is a large invisible fire breathing dragon (agile enough to avoid your sense of touch), would you require more evidence of (1) or (2)? Would it make a difference if I told you that some historians thought that my house might date to 1780 and that one person had suggested it might be a replica?

Originally posted by Flash:

here are two examples of my claim;

"many [scientists] are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with [the theory of evolution]." Lipson, H.S.

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling." Erasmus Darwin,

Is this evidence that the theory is inaccurate, or that scientific method doesn't work, or just that some people are human?

Louis

Nikon D800

01/10/2008 07:00:18 PM · #1260

Originally posted by Flash:

I submit, that the evidence of finding the name Goliath on a piece of potterey, dated to the period referenced in the Bible, holds a similar claim as evidence as some of the evolution evidence portrayed in Pitman's piece on Early Man....Each of these points were vehemently attacked as absolute lies, and addressed with mockery and ridicule by some posters.

Your use of that sherd bearing the name "Goliath" on it as proof of a historical Goliath's existence was thoroughly discredited here, by the very article you cited, and by the very words of the director of the excavation where the sherd was found. If you mean to continue to use this "find" as de facto "historical evidence" of that particular bible story, you are not only wasting everyone's time, you are completely discrediting yourself.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 19:00:42.

01/11/2008 07:11:37 AM · #1261

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I submit, that the evidence of finding the name Goliath on a piece of potterey, dated to the period referenced in the Bible, holds a similar claim as evidence as some of the evolution evidence portrayed in Pitman's piece on Early Man....Each of these points were vehemently attacked as absolute lies, and addressed with mockery and ridicule by some posters.

Your use of that sherd bearing the name "Goliath" on it as proof of a historical Goliath's existence was thoroughly discredited here, by the very article you cited, and by the very words of the director of the excavation where the sherd was found. If you mean to continue to use this "find" as de facto "historical evidence" of that particular bible story, you are not only wasting everyone's time, you are completely discrediting yourself.

No Louis. If you have not read the article to which Matthew and I are discussing, then please do so. In it you will find numerous examples of scientists who purport and support the theory of evolution and their many misguided attempts to "fudge" the evidence. Likewise above, I posted 2 examples of scientists claims whereby in their own words they stated that the facts were expendable if they contradicted the theory of evolution. I also posted a link to an entire article devoted to this.

So the infallibility from which you make your stance regarding the "proof" of evolution seems to have its own problems, as Matthew has correctly pointed out is only "human". You and others have repeatedly criticized ANY evidence that supports ANY part of biblical accuracy, typically with mockery and ridicule. The same types of evidence presented in your scientific community as proof positive of evolution. Thus, my problem with your stance. I'll admit to "believing" in my evidence and "wanting" it to fit and using it as circumstantial evidence to be accumulated with other circumstantial evidence to make a whole. But you refuse to admit the same occurs in your backyard, even though the evidence (Sean Pitman's article Early Man) clearly shows it. Thus, if my use of the very same "limited" evidence is to be mocked and ridiculed and my intelligence equated with stupidity and gullibleness, then what does that say about you and yours who have no more than a few shards of skull that can't even be constructed correctly, keep being reconstruted so that they support the theory, have to redate it several times as it doesn't fit, and ultimately result in a reknowned scientist (Leakey) stating that there is NO evidence of a gradual and linear evolution - rather the evidence supports an abrupt arrival of man.

If I am trying your patience, then you can be assured that your are trying mine.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 07:14:04.

01/11/2008 07:50:05 AM · #1262

Originally posted by Flash:

Flash, with respect, you are misrepresenting my comments to you. I quite clearly stated that I am not skilled to evaluate the technical content of the article. In the article you do *not* find â��numerous examples of scientists [who are misguided]â��, instead you find numerous examples of *the authorâ��s assertions* that scientists are misguided or fudge results. As the author is a proponent of ID he has an agenda that probably distorts his representation of the facts â�� indeed his views are incredibly one sided. Despite this, I suspect that in some cases he may be right, but since he is presenting only one side of the argument it is not possible for me to make a judgement call.

Originally posted by Flash:

So the infallibility from which you make your stance regarding the "proof" of evolution seems to have its own problems, as Matthew has correctly pointed out is only "human".

No. My point is that some scientists can be subject to human failings but this does not invalidate the evidence or the theory. This is not the same as saying that the â��proofâ�� has problems â�� the theory is overwhelmingly proven (regardless of whether there are some high profile cases of news-hunting taking precedence over scientific accuracy).

Originally posted by Flash:

The same types of evidence presented in your scientific community as proof positive of evolution.

They self evidently are not the same quality of evidence. Arguing exactly how a piece of physical evidence fits into an overwhelmingly proven theory is quite different to arguing how evidence of historic belief might be evidence of the underlying beliefs themselves â�� the supernaturalism is totally without evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Flash:

Thus, if my use of the very same "limited" evidence is to be mocked and ridiculed and my intelligence equated with stupidity and gullibleness, then what does that say about you and yours who have no more than a few shards of skull that can't even be constructed correctly, keep being reconstruted so that they support the theory, have to redate it several times as it doesn't fit, and ultimately result in a reknowned scientist (Leakey) stating that there is NO evidence of a gradual and linear evolution - rather the evidence supports an abrupt arrival of man.

Flash â�� have you comprehended any of the elements of my posts other than the bits you want to read/read into them?

Given that you self-admittedly have no clue in relation to how evolution works, please accept from me that Leakeyâ��s statement is fully consistent with the theory of evolution (and does not presuppose some creation event â�� you are being encouraged to misread the statement by people with an interest in creationism). Please do not believe that the only evidence for evolution is a few shards of human skull. Please remember that it is the cornerstone of modern biology â�� it is constantly relied upon, trillions of dollars spent in reliance upon it, and it constantly works and fits in with everything we understand about the world.

Please, just for a moment, consider the reasons why people like Pitman might be presenting the arguments that they do â�� and apply a slight degree of critical analysis (think for yourself) rather than taking it fully at face value. If you keep on in this vein, the accusations of gullibility and credulousness will not abate.

01/11/2008 09:16:04 AM · #1263

Matthew -

I have ernestly read your latest posts. I sincerly take your points to heart. I do recognize the generalness of of some past positions (mine), and am trying to gain a more competent understanding of evolution. I do not take Pitman's positions as "gospel". Rather, I see them as another view of the same data. Something I believe should be done in all matters. My argument is not with scientific method(s), rather with those who employ what to me seems like hypocritical positions - meaning specifically that limited archeological evidence when applied to the bible is worthless while limited archeological evidence when applied to a progressive linear human evolution is proff positive. These simply don't mesh with me.

As I have done previously, if the community deems my reasoning unsound (as occured with the discussion on reproduction), then I must exit as it is futile to continue. I would hope that the community sees a value in my posts, as that is the intent. However, that may not be the perception. It does seem quite hypocritical to me, that biblical archeology is mocked while evolution archeology is held as the almighty truth.

At least you Matthew recognize the use of supporting evidence as it applies to the Great Flood being an event recorded in the Bible and the person Jesus being an actual person refrenced in scripture. Others here went so far as to question whether Jesus even existed at all and mocked the name by saying that "lots of people are called Jesus". This is the specific detail that I am addressing when I reference the errors in evolution theory. This blind defense (by some) of a process riddled with assumptions, and claiming superiority over the same methods (scientific archeology) used in biblical research.

I liken it to the prosecution of OJ Simpson where DNA was ridiculed by the defense as unreliable, resulted in OJ's acquital, and yet these very same attorneys who argued for its unreliability are advocates for wrongly accused incarcerated rapists using DNA to prove their innocence - and winning - rightfully imo. Thus, please pardon me, if my zeal for some circumstantial evidences is less than absolute, it is my choice to believe it - until it is proven wrong. edit to add: just like some evolutionsists choose to believe in some of their circumstantial evidence - until it is proven wrong.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 09:23:04.

01/11/2008 09:43:31 AM · #1264

Originally posted by Flash:

limited archeological evidence when applied to the bible is worthless while limited archeological evidence when applied to a progressive linear human evolution is proff positive. These simply don't mesh with me.

The "archeological evidence" you refer to is not evidence of anything supernatural, while fossils are direct evidence of the "story" itself. We have many fossils of various stages of human development (evolution is not linear, nor necessarily progressive). While scientists may not agree on exactly which forms led to which (and where or when), they DO agree very overwhelmingly that humans evolved from earlier primates. By contrast, there is NO evidence of any of the miraculous stories of the Bible. None. Great floods happen all the time, and every culture has stories of them. Noting that a big flood occurred does not provide any evidence for an ark, thousands of inches of rain per hour or magical migrations of animals from distant continents. Likewise, Jesus is just a name, and finding that name in historical records is not evidence that he was anything but a regular person, just as knowing there was a real Davy Crockett isn't evidence for any of the tall tales associated with him.

01/11/2008 10:58:50 AM · #1265

Originally posted by Flash:

My argument is not with scientific method(s), rather with those who employ what to me seems like hypocritical positions - meaning specifically that limited archeological evidence when applied to the bible is worthless while limited archeological evidence when applied to a progressive linear human evolution is proff positive. These simply don't mesh with me.

Think of the context. Human evolution in the context of overwhelming proof for the concept of evolution as a whole (and, incidentally, evidenced in several ways other than the fossil record). This, versus reinterpreting archaeology to fit with a biblical story to try to suggest that the supernatural exists. There is a magnitude of difference.

Originally posted by Flash:

It does seem quite hypocritical to me, that biblical archeology is mocked while evolution archeology is held as the almighty truth.

Look at what you write: biblical archaeology is unscientific in that it starts with a belief and looks for supporting evidence (and even then, usually and unconvincingly, evidence that archaeology is not inconsistent with biblical tales rather than evidence of them). Evolution as an overarching theory is all but certain â�� theorised, tested, and proven in a number of fundamental ways.

Originally posted by Flash:

At least you Matthew recognize the use of supporting evidence as it applies to the Great Flood being an event recorded in the Bible and the person Jesus being an actual person refrenced in scripture. Others here went so far as to question whether Jesus even existed at all and mocked the name by saying that "lots of people are called Jesus". This is the specific detail that I am addressing when I reference the errors in evolution theory. This blind defense (by some) of a process riddled with assumptions, and claiming superiority over the same methods (scientific archeology) used in biblical research.

No â�� I think that there are very good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the bible never existed, or at least that his life has been substantially embellished and revised for political purposes in 300-400 AD. This is based on a historical analysis of the events of the time â�� history is a question of theories, disputes and debates almost as much as science (but unlike religious faith). The â��great floodâ�� appears to reference â��aâ�� flood â�� similar stories exist in several other cultures located in the same region. One reason could be a cataclysmic but otherwise unrecorded flood at some point in ancient human history. It would be a gargantuan leap to infer that someone called Noah existed at the same time, and a fantastical and credulous leap of the greatest proportions to believe in the literal truth of the Biblical story.

Originally posted by Flash:

I liken it to the prosecution of OJ Simpson where DNA was ridiculed by the defense as unreliable, resulted in OJ's acquital, and yet these very same attorneys who argued for its unreliability are advocates for wrongly accused incarcerated rapists using DNA to prove their innocence - and winning - rightfully imo. Thus, please pardon me, if my zeal for some circumstantial evidences is less than absolute, it is my choice to believe it - until it is proven wrong. edit to add: just like some evolutionsists choose to believe in some of their circumstantial evidence - until it is proven wrong.

It would be a very odd thing to believe in evidence based on its quality, rather than what it evidenced. (PS DNA evidence is not circumstantial).

There is very good, empirical and primary evidence that evolution is the method by which life has advanced on this planet. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence (if that helps here).

Conversely there is no evidence that god exists (hence â��faithâ��) or that the bible speaks any religious truth (notwithstanding that it may be an important historical document, a philosophical tract, and a critical literary reference).

What kind of evidence did you say that you prefer to start with?

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 13:24:23.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

01/11/2008 11:03:51 AM · #1266

Why am keep readin this thread "Co-existing of scientology" tip of my eye ?

01/11/2008 11:12:59 AM · #1267

Originally posted by Flash:

Um... the defense didn't ridicule the veracity of DNA evidence. They claimed that the samples themselves were contaminated by sloppy police collection methods. There would have been no other way for the defense to get around such proof because it IS so reliable. Actually, I think the defense expert even admitted that contamination wouldn't have made a difference in this case, but all the defense really had to do was plant seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 11:32:56.

01/11/2008 11:43:39 AM · #1268

Originally posted by Matthew:

And here I thought we were making progress.

I can understand your points on embelishment and even the use of, for political purposes. But to deny the existence of, is beyond my comprehension - in light of references in both Josephus and Tacitus. Writers who had no dog in that fight.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/11/2008 11:49:46 AM · #1269

Originally posted by scalvert:

There would have been no other way for the defense to get around such proof because it IS so reliable.

Although I am a believer in DNA and its ability to determine forensics - especially for criminal cases, there does appear to be limits on its reliability as applied to evolution.

DNA 1

DNA 2

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/11/2008 12:04:49 PM · #1270

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:
No â�� I think that there are very good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the bible never existed, or at least that his life has been substantially embellished and revised for political purposes in 300-400 AD.

And here I thought we were making progress.
I can understand your points on embelishment and even the use of, for political purposes. But to deny the existence of, is beyond my comprehension - in light of references in both Josephus and Tacitus. Writers who had no dog in that fight.

Flash,

Reread Matthews statement:

Originally posted by Matthew:

there are very good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible never existed

Now read your response:

Originally posted by Flash:

[for you] to deny the existence of [Jesus], is beyond my comprehension

Do you see the disconnect between Matthew's statement and your response?

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 12:46:33.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/11/2008 12:34:21 PM · #1271

Originally posted by Flash:

But to deny the existence of, is beyond my comprehension - in light of references in both Josephus and Tacitus. Writers who had no dog in that fight.

Show me where anybody denied the existence of a man named Jesus. What we're saying is that there's no evidence to support Jesus as portrayed in the Bible- the son of a god with supernatural abilities. Tacitus et al only mention a man who was nailed to a cross (as many others were)- nothing about virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, water to wine, etc. In fact, Paul doesn't even mention any of these things, and he was the closest we have to a contemporary of Jesus. Any miraculous ability should have been big news, but the historical evidence shows nothing but a regular human with some followers.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/11/2008 12:50:56 PM · #1272

Originally posted by Flash:

You and others have repeatedly criticized ANY evidence that supports ANY part of biblical accuracy, typically with mockery and ridicule.

Reread my post. Also, reread the previous discussion regarding the potsherd you provided as "proof" of the historicity of an actual figure called Goliath. Reread the article you provided.

The article, the director of the excavation, and various posters here quite clearly demonstrated that the potsherd did not offer any - any - proof whatsoever of the historical existence of a person called "Goliath". You persisted. You brought it up again yesterday.

If you steadfastly refuse to move beyond any position you take despite all evidence, despite the plainest of facts, you can hardly fault others for simply pointing that out.

Originally posted by Flash:

Thus, if my use of the very same "limited" evidence is to be mocked and ridiculed and my intelligence equated with stupidity and gullibleness...

I'd like to see where you were personally attacked in this way. You won't be able to find such a personal attack, because it simply does not exist here. Characterizing debate and the challenge of your (mostly untenable) positions as peronality attacks is unfair. As I've repeatedly pointed out, we are discussing ideas here, not personalities. Please finally see the difference. Nobody can help your hurt feelings but you.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 12:51:18.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/11/2008 12:56:18 PM · #1273

Originally posted by scalvert:

Show me where anybody denied the existence of a man named Jesus.

I've done so, several times. Based on the correlation with cultic figures like Mithras and Dionysus (prophetic birth, performance of miracles, sacrificial nailing to a tree, risen from the dead after a period in "hell" or realm of the dead) I personally think there's sufficient room to doubt everything about the historicity of Jesus.

01/11/2008 01:29:12 PM · #1274

1. Louis - Thank you for your reply to scalvert.
2. Regarding the Goliath shard...I completely understood your position originally and I acknowledge the author of the article stated that it did not prove anything. It was I that drew the circumstantial conclusion based upon the "timing" of the shard - meaning that it fit within the historical timeline of the biblical story (just like the approximate timeline of the Bethlahem Star)- thus for me, proving evidence of "some" event. Not "the" event as represented, but something having to do with an event memorable enough to record this name on a piece of pottery. Myth? perhaps. Ancient story? perhaps. But something worthy of documentation. My points on presenting archeology as biblical evidence is not precisely to prove that a literal account as depicted - occured. Rather to prove that archeological evidence proves that "something" occured from which the subsequent references could have evolved. I don't know why person's (such as yourself) cannot acknowledge that this is not only probable but that archeology is the key to determining many things, yet unknown.
3. Milo - you'll have to forgive me, but I do not see your point. Feel free to be more specific.