- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Archeological Evidence
It would be extremely difficult for the honest skeptic to dispute the overwhelming archeological support for the historical accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments. Numerous items discussed in the Bible such as nations, important people, customary practices, etc. have been verified by archeological evidence. Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few. The noted Jewish archeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:
It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible1.
When compared against secular accounts of history, the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument, and sometimes required other evidence to extrapolate the reference2.
I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for the New Testament is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
I began with a mind unfavorable to it…but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4.
The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5.
Discoveries ranging from evidence for the Tower of Babel, to Exodus, to the Walls of Jericho, all the way to the tombs of contemporaries of St. Paul, have greatly enhanced the believability of the Bible. Though this vast archeological evidence does not prove God wrote the Bible, it surely must compel the honest skeptic to at least acknowledge its historical veracity. For the believer its yet another reassuring testimony to the reliability of the Bible. In the words of the University of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows:
…Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine6.http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/bibleevidences/archeology.htm
Seeking
Stuu: is no eyewitness account of Jesus.
Quote You can deny them, as I said, but that does NOT invalidate them.
Does not invalidate what? There is nothing to invalidate! None of the writings of the gospels or of Paul are eyewitness accounts. What was the impression you were under? Did you think the disciples or some other contemporaries of Jesus who saw him in action wrote the NT? Not one of them can be reasonably said to have seen it for himself. Even the existence of Jesus is not a settled question. Just look at the effort Paul went to in trying to convince the Greeks he was not just a spirit!Quote 1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.Call Paul a liar or a lunatic, but don't deny what he said.
None of those alleged ‘five hundred’ wrote down anything about their experience that we know of. Maybe they did but it did not survive. Nevertheless, strange, don’t you think? As you know, Paul was not an eyewitness. He is going on hearsay and his own imagination. I don’t think Paul was a liar or a lunatic, although his writing is pretty unpleasant, but he was certainly deluded.Stuu: No good reason to believe it. Lots of reasons to reject it.
Quote Equally true of Evolution theory.
Give me one reason to reject evolution by natural selection that is not just religious special pleading. And tell me what it has to do with the historicity of the bible?! I suppose it does show that the bible is wrong / allegorical about human origins.Stuart
It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference.
But there are biblical claims for which there is no evidence. That fact invalidates the article, which is lying about the nature of archeological findings.
The key point is this one: Though this vast archeological evidence does not prove God wrote the Bible, it surely must compel the honest skeptic to at least acknowledge its historical veracity.
Firstly it begs the question of the existence of celestial Imaginary Friends under the guise of being an article about objective archeology, which is dishonest. Then it commits the logical fallacy of composition, that because there are some historical facts that are correct that therefore the whole lot is correct.
That is just dishonest.
Stuart
Stu,June wrote:[/quote]
Quote Give me one reason to reject evolution by natural selection that is not just religious special pleading. And tell me what it has to do with the historicity of the bible?! I suppose it does show that the bible is wrong / allegorical about human origins. Stuart
As I have said before, our bias influences us. You deny bias but your rhetoric denies your claim. You stick as tenaciously to a theroy as any of us do and are no less duped. Darwin's Theory has always been presented as just that, THEORY.Some would presume to present it as fact.
Quote None of the writings of the gospels or of Paul are eyewitness accounts. What was the impression you were under? Did you think the disciples or some other contemporaries of Jesus who saw him in action wrote the NT? Yes, it is claimed that contemporaries of Jesus wrote the Bible. It has not been disproven. Argued perhaps, but not disproven.
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Act 4:20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
You state, in error, “As you know, Paul was not an eyewitness. He is going on hearsay and his own imagination”
Hear Paul, 1Co 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. That is post resurrection.
You state, in error, “None of those alleged ‘five hundred’ wrote down anything about their experience that we know of.”
Hear them,
oh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
Matthew 28
As Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” were running from the empty tomb to inform the disciples that he is alive, Jesus tells the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee ahead of him to greet him (Matthew 28:10).
To the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galilee where Jesus had directed them. See Great Commission.Mark 16
See also: Mark 16
To Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome.
To two of Jesus's followers as they were walking in the countryside (Jesus appeared to them in “another form”).
To the eleven while they were dining.
All of these occur in the so-called “longer ending of Mark”, which most scholars believe was not part of the original text. In the shorter ending of Mark, Jesus is not explicitly seen, but the tomb is empty. See Mark 16 for a full discussion.Luke 24
To Cleopas and one other disciple as they walked to Emmaus. At first “their eyes were holden” so that they could not recognize him. Later while having supper at Emmaus “their eyes were opened” and they recognized him.
To “Simon.” This appearance is not described directly by Luke but it is reported by the other apostles. It is not clear whether it happened before, after or contemporaneously with the appearance at Emmaus.
To the eleven, together with some others (including Cleopas and his companion), in Jerusalem.Bottom line is, “NO ONE is an EYE WITNESS of the resurrection. Jesus was seen alive AFTER He died and arose.
Quote I don’t think Paul was a liar or a lunatic, although his writing is pretty unpleasant, but he was certainly deluded. Piltdown Skull Debunked(1953). This piece of skull and separate jaw was the only clear evidence that man was descended from an apelike creature. In 1953, *Kenneth Oakley (British Museum geologist), *Joseph Weiner (Oxford University anthropologist), and *Le Gros Clark (anatomy professor at Oxford) managed to get their hands on the Piltdown skull and jaw—and proved it to be a total forgery. The newly developed fluorine test revealed the bones to be quite recent. Additional research showed the bones had been stained with bichromate, to make them appear aged. Drillings into the bone produced shavings instead of ancient powder. The canine tooth was found to have been filed and stained. Weiner published a book about the Piltdown forgery in 1955 (*William L. Straus, Jr., “The Great Piltdown Hoax,” Science, February 26, 1954; *Robert Silverberg, Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes, 1965).
Amino Acid Synthesis(1953). When *Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
Source: Evolution Handbook
The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274).
Nebraska Man, George M. Price and Oliver W. Holmes
Nebraska Man Debunked (1922, 1928). In 1922 a single molar tooth was found and named Hesperopithecus, or “Nebraska Man.” An artist was told to make an “apeman” picture based on the tooth, which went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925. (The evolutionists had little else to offer!) *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in 1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.George McCready Price(1870-1963) had a master’s level degree, but not in science. Yet he was the staunchest opponent of evolution in the first half of the 20th century. He produced 38 books and numerous articles to various journals. Price was the first person to carefully research into the accumulated findings of geologists; and he discovered that they had no evidence supporting their claims about strata and fossils. Since his time, the situation has not changed(*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 194).Along with mutations, the study of fossils and strata ranks as the leading potential evidences supporting evolutionary claims. But no transitional species have been found.Ancient species (aside from the extinct ones) were like those today, except larger, and strata are generally missing and at times switched—with “younger” strata below “older.” Because there is no fossil/strata evidence supporting evolution, the museums display dinosaurs and other extinct animals as proof that evolution has occurred. But extinction is not an evidence of evolution. Much more on this in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
So you say Paul was deluded. And you?
I say again, you will prove nothing to me and I will prove nothing to you. Both of us believe in UNPROVEABLE theories. Mine is Creation/Christianity – yours is Evolution/Atheism.
I am at peace with mine, you
are at peace with yours.Seeking
Seeking
Quote As I have said before, our bias influences us. You deny bias but your rhetoric denies your claim. You stick as tenaciously to a theroy as any of us do and are no less duped. Darwin's Theory has always been presented as just that, THEORY.Some would presume to present it as fact.
And as I have said before your bias is that which stops you from questioning your own beliefs.Actually evolution is the fact and natural selection is the theory part of it. I would have to reject Darwin’s theory if you could provide evidence that disproves it. As you have not, I shall carry on in my understanding that there is only one explanation of our origins, plus a load of religious hot air that seems to want to accompany it. You need to learn the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in a scientific context. It might help your understanding of the nature of your creationist beliefs. Assuming you are true to your username!
Quote
Yes, it is claimed that contemporaries of Jesus wrote the Bible. It has not been disproven. Argued perhaps, but not disproven.
That is not good enough. You are making a claim without providing evidence. Justice says I can reject your claim, also without evidence. As it happens, I am just going on what those who have done the detailed, unbiased research seem to think: no eyewitness statements exist of Jesus.Quote Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Act 4:20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
You state, in error, “As you know, Paul was not an eyewitness. He is going on hearsay and his own imagination”
Hear Paul, 1Co 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. That is post resurrection.
Post WHAT? Are we talking about credible historical investigation with corroborating evidence, or the dreams of a early christian zealot here? I stand by my statement that Saul of Tarsus was not an eyewitness of Jesus. You reject my bias, why are you not even-handed with the extreme bias shown by Paul. How is his testimony not completely corrupted by his blindness to all but what he preached?
[quoteYou state, in error, “None of those alleged ‘five hundred’ wrote down anything about their experience that we know of.”
[/quote]
None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus.Quote Bottom line is, “NO ONE is an EYE WITNESS of the resurrection. Jesus was seen alive AFTER He died and arose.
No one who saw it wrote about it. None of the Roman diarists paid any attention to any claims about it, if indeed it happened. Even as an activity of the bothersome Jews, it would have been something worth recording. But nothing!Quote Piltdown Skull Debunked(1953). This piece of skull and separate jaw was the only clear evidence that man was descended from an apelike creature. In 1953, *Kenneth Oakley (British Museum geologist), *Joseph Weiner (Oxford University anthropologist), and *Le Gros Clark (anatomy professor at Oxford) managed to get their hands on the Piltdown skull and jaw—and proved it to be a total forgery. The newly developed fluorine test revealed the bones to be quite recent. Additional research showed the bones had been stained with bichromate, to make them appear aged. Drillings into the bone produced shavings instead of ancient powder. The canine tooth was found to have been filed and stained. Weiner published a book about the Piltdown forgery in 1955 (*William L. Straus, Jr., “The Great Piltdown Hoax,” Science, February 26, 1954; *Robert Silverberg, Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes, 1965). Amino Acid Synthesis(1953). When *Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
Source: Evolution Handbook
The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274).
Nebraska Man, George M. Price and Oliver W. Holmes
Nebraska Man Debunked (1922, 1928). In 1922 a single molar tooth was found and named Hesperopithecus, or “Nebraska Man.” An artist was told to make an “apeman” picture based on the tooth, which went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925. (The evolutionists had little else to offer!) *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in 1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.George McCready Price(1870-1963) had a master’s level degree, but not in science. Yet he was the staunchest opponent of evolution in the first half of the 20th century. He produced 38 books and numerous articles to various journals. Price was the first person to carefully research into the accumulated findings of geologists; and he discovered that they had no evidence supporting their claims about strata and fossils. Since his time, the situation has not changed(*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 194).Along with mutations, the study of fossils and strata ranks as the leading potential evidences supporting evolutionary claims. But no transitional species have been found.Ancient species (aside from the extinct ones) were like those today, except larger, and strata are generally missing and at times switched—with “younger” strata below “older.” Because there is no fossil/strata evidence supporting evolution, the museums display dinosaurs and other extinct animals as proof that evolution has occurred. But extinction is not an evidence of evolution. Much more on this in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.
Sorry, your point being what?Quote I say again, you will prove nothing to me and I will prove nothing to you. Both of us believe in UNPROVEABLE theories. Mine is Creation/Christianity – yours is Evolution/Atheism.
No theory is provable. There is NO theory of creation. The ONLY theory we have about the diversity of life is evolution by natural selection. There isn’t anything else to explain it.Quote I am at peace with mine, you are at peace with yours.
I am not at peace with what I believe. That would be a terrible thing to happen, intellectual death!Stuart
Stu,June wrote:[/quote]
Take your pick –the⋅o⋅ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.You stick with your Extinct pig, canine tooth, disproved
forgeries. I'll move to something more realistic.The canine tooth was found to have been filed and stained. Weiner published a book about the Piltdown forgery in 1955 (*William L. Straus, Jr., “The Great Piltdown Hoax,” Science, February 26, 1954; *Robert Silverberg, Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes, 1965).
Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925. (The evolutionists had little else to offer!) *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in 1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.
Amino Acid Synthesis(1953). When *Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
What audacity to challenge the evidencde of another as credible and cite hoaxes and hidden truth as YOUR credible evidence.
Seeking
Seeking
Quote
Take your pick –the⋅o⋅ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.Most creationists try to lie about science by claiming it is no.7. Actually it is no.1 in your list (did you spot the name of a scientist in no.1?!) The ‘propositions’ of which it speaks are coherent because at the time of forming the theory the evidence supports it and there is no contradictory evidence. A scientific theory makes predictions that, if they turn out not to be right, falsifies that theory.
Quote You stick with your Extinct pig, canine tooth, disproved
forgeries. I'll move to something more realistic.
…you mean like your Imaginary Sky Friends?Quote The canine tooth was found to have been filed and stained. Weiner published a book about the Piltdown forgery in 1955 (*William L. Straus, Jr., “The Great Piltdown Hoax,” Science, February 26, 1954; *Robert Silverberg, Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes, 1965).
The Piltdown forgery was a hoax. So what? Do you think it forms part of evolutionary theory? Actually at the time of its discovery there were scientists who used the theory of evolution to predict that it would be shown as a forgery. See ‘theory’, above!Quote Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925. (The evolutionists had little else to offer!) *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in 1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.
Like all good lying creationists you forget to mention that the classification of ‘Nebraska Man’ as any kind of ape species was retracted in the journal Science in 1927. That is just five years after its ‘discovery’. Science has mechanisms for correcting its mistakes (in this case exposing the forgery). The bible has always been wrong about the flood and human origins. You are stuck with a goat-herder myth of how we got here, and it is just wrong, as you should expect it would be. It is still wrong after several thousands of years. Is pig-headedness a prized quality in the christian world? Of course I don’t actually think it is you who is lying. You are just copying and pasting from creationist websites and actually you don’t really know anything about it. That is no crime.Quote Amino Acid Synthesis(1953). When *Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
Huh? That’s like claiming that because giraffes can’t jump we should conclude that pigs can fly. I certainly hope you have not succumbed to the fevers of swine flu!Quote What audacity to challenge the evidencde of another as credible and cite hoaxes and hidden truth as YOUR credible evidence.
Indeed there would be no credibility in claiming these hoaxes as evidence for evolution by natural selection. Of course there is no credibility in choosing only hoaxes to try and refute it. Do you genuinely believe these are the only pieces of ‘evidence’ that have ever been presented? As for Stanley and Miller, who were NOT hoaxters, all they showed was that complex organic molecules can arise by purely chemical processes. Since their experiment we have discovered complex organic molecules in space.If you think that Nebraska Man and Piltdown have anything to do with the coherent, evidence-based, falsifiable proposition of evolution by natural selection then you are missing out on the astonishing truth of the explanation for our origins. There is no other theory of how we came to be here.
Stuart
Stu,
Do you also believe in the big bang theory?Hi Stu,
I just want to make sure I understand this theory. Everything in the universe was compressed into a singularity and the singularity exploded and the universe was born. And afterword somehow one or more single celled organism came into existence and all life as we know it today evolved from that/those single celled organism(s). Am I following your theory correctly so far?
And can we also agree that facts proven by science are correct and that the laws of physics apply to everything within the universe?Quote (TechJoe @ June 25 2009,04:51) Hi Stu,
I just want to make sure I understand this theory. Everything in the universe was compressed into a singularity and the singularity exploded and the universe was born. And afterword somehow one or more single celled organism came into existence and all life as we know it today evolved from that/those single celled organism(s). Am I following your theory correctly so far?
And can we also agree that facts proven by science are correct and that the laws of physics apply to everything within the universe?
There is no such thing as “facts proven by science”, if you want to be precise.You have mentioned two different scientific theories, by the way. They are both part of what is called the standard model.
Stuart
So, Stu: If there is no such thing as “facts proven by science” then all the scientific data that you believe is by faith! Right? TK
Quote (Tim Kraft @ June 25 2009,22:28) So, Stu: If there is no such thing as “facts proven by science” then all the scientific data that you believe is by faith! Right? TK
In your strawman, I suppose it is.In real life, no.
Stuart
Quote (Tim Kraft @ June 25 2009,03:28) So, Stu: If there is no such thing as “facts proven by science” then all the scientific data that you believe is by faith! Right? TK
Excellent observation Tim. Stu will state “there is but one correct theory” and then spreak of multiple theroies. He pits his religion against Christianity claiming his is scientifically proven and Creationisn is ignorant fantasy.You have him pegged!
Quote Quote Stu 6/12/09
If you think that Nebraska Man and Piltdown have anything to do with the coherent, evidence-based, falsifiable proposition of evolution by natural selection then you are missing out on the astonishing truth of the explanation for our origins. There is no other theory of how we came to be here.Stuart
Quote Quote Stu 6/24/09
There is no such thing as “facts proven by science”, if you want to be precise.You have mentioned two different scientific theories, by the way. They are both part of what is called the standard model.
Stuart
So there we have it in his words. There is more than one theory and they are ALL theories. Finally admitted is, “There is no such thing as “facts proven by science”, if you want to be precise.” Ah yes, let's be precise.
Seeking
Well duh! What is inconsistent about that?
There is ONE theory that explains how we (humans) came to be here. There is ANOTHER theory that explains how the universe came about. They are BOTH part of what is called the standard model. There is NO such thing as proof in science. All you can do is disprove.
I will be 'pegged', and happy to admit it, when you can provide a single scrap of evidence that disproves any of the theories that make up the standard model.
A lot of typing and cutting and pasting on your part, and Darwin, Einstein and Lemaître have still not been pegged by you.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 25 2009,05:01) Stuart Quote There is NO such thing as proof in science. All you can do is disprove. There you go. Thus, the “Standard Model” becomes the accepted alternative to the Creation Theory. It does NOT disprove the Creation Theory nor does the “Standard Model” prove anything.
Quote I will be 'pegged', and happy to admit it, when you can provide a single scrap of evidence that disproves any of the theories that make up the standard model. Nonsense! You would not admit to any amount of disproof and/or its validity. Piltown was a forgery and your “pigs tooth a mistake.” Many challenges are about regarding the “Standard Model” by scientists who are not Creation oriented. Likewise, Darwin's theory has been equally challenged.
You would claim, “unsuccessfully.” But that is the extent of your challenge to Creationism also.
Quote A lot of typing and cutting and pasting on your part, and Darwin, Einstein and Lemaître have still not been pegged by you. Cutting and pasting, as you call it, of scientifically validated facts that you refuse to accept does not refute, YOU HAVE BEEN PEGGED. You have a theory (as it turns out theories) no more valid or invalid than mine. They are believed on faith based on ones acceptance of the evidence presented.
To deny the Bible accounts accuracy regarding historical events is just plain dishonest. Names, dates, places, events are recorded therein which have been validated later as completely true and accurate. To deny what the writers state they witnessed is to simply reject with bias.
Can you name a mutation that has not proved harmful?
Seeking
Hello again Stu,
I am well aware that I was referring to both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution and that both theories fall under what you call the standard model. They are both tied into one model because the universe had to exist before life could begin within it. The question was “Am I following your theory (or theories) correctly so far?”Noun1.scientific fact – an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+factScientific
AdjectiveEtymology:
Medieval Latin scientificus producing knowledge, from Latin scient-, sciens + -i- + -ficus -fic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientificfact
Noun:
1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b.A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c.Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3.A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4.Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/factI dare say that facts proven by science do exist. Archeology is a form of science. If you do not trust the facts proven by archeology than you do not believe in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution clearly portrays a lineup of non-human creatures that humans are to have evolved from, minus any links to tie the creatures to one another or to humans. So if there are no facts proven by science than there is no evidence of any pre-human that humans could have evolved from.
How about the laws of physics? Do you believe that the laws of physics are true?Seeking
Quote There you go. Thus, the “Standard Model” becomes the accepted alternative to the Creation Theory. It does NOT disprove the Creation Theory nor does the “Standard Model” prove anything.
I have never read the “Creation Theory”. How does that go? What evidence supports it, what falsifies it and what predictions does it make?Quote You would not admit to any amount of disproof and/or its validity. Piltown was a forgery and your “pigs tooth a mistake.”
You have not explained how Piltdown disproves Darwin. Your problem is that it actually demonstrates that Darwin was right, as I have already outlined to you.Quote Many challenges are about regarding the “Standard Model” by scientists who are not Creation oriented. Likewise, Darwin's theory has been equally challenged.
If you have read enough Wikipedia editor’s additions you will know that your sentence is best described as Weasel Words. Many idiot creationists have ‘challenged’ science. They have always been disproved. If that was not true then you should be able to give me an actual disproof of science. You have not.Quote You would claim, “unsuccessfully.” But that is the extent of your challenge to Creationism also.
Creationism has not stated a theory, so it is the standard model versus NOTHING, unless you can outline the “Theory of Creation” in as much detail as science gives for its model. Then there might be something to challenge.Stu: A lot of typing and cutting and pasting on your part, and Darwin, Einstein and Lemaître have still not been pegged by you.
Quote Cutting and pasting, as you call it, of scientifically validated facts that you refuse to accept does not refute, YOU HAVE BEEN PEGGED. You have a theory (as it turns out theories) no more valid or invalid than mine. They are believed on faith based on ones acceptance of the evidence presented.
You have not presented any theories yet, so how could they be ‘valid’?How about you get back to us when you know something about it. These might be somewhere to start your journey of discovery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvolutionQuote To deny the Bible accounts accuracy regarding historical events is just plain dishonest. Names, dates, places, events are recorded therein which have been validated later as completely true and accurate. To deny what the writers state they witnessed is to simply reject with bias. The bible is historical fiction. Just like a novel set in the time of Elizabeth I, it is true that that queen, and London, and the Fire of London all really existed. The goblins living in Hampstead Heath did not.
Science could be wrong. Scientists freely admit that and it is an important part of refining models of how the universe works. If your model refuses to change in the light of contradictory evidence, then it is a pretty useless model. What error correction is there in sticking to the same story and denying that it can be questioned? That one point “pegs” any religion first off. The bible has always been wrong about a global flood. You would seem to have to defend that story for your bible to be literally true. How absurd is that?
Quote Can you name a mutation that has not proved harmful?
Your genome and mine are full of mutations of previous alleles that are neutral, ie they have caused neither a harmful nor a beneficial effect. So yes, there are many thousands of them. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to go through and name them though.Stuart
Quote (TechJoe @ June 26 2009,06:00) Noun1.scientific fact – an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+factScientific
AdjectiveEtymology:
Medieval Latin scientificus producing knowledge, from Latin scient-, sciens + -i- + -ficus -fic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientificfact
Noun:
1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b.A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c.Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3.A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4.Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/factI dare say that facts proven by science do exist. Archeology is a form of science. If you do not trust the facts proven by archeology than you do not believe in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution clearly portrays a lineup of non-human creatures that humans are to have evolved from, minus any links to tie the creatures to one another or to humans. So if there are no facts proven by science than there is no evidence of any pre-human that humans could have evolved from.
How about the laws of physics? Do you believe that the laws of physics are true?
TechJoeYou have forgotten to give us the definition of “proof” and its philosophical implications as they apply to science.
Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. The process involved making an hypothesis based on the evidence, then collecting evidence. You reach a point where all the evidence you have agrees with your model, and then you propose a theory which makes a universal statement. After that, the world-wide community of scientists have the challenge of disproving your theory. So long as the model is not contradicted by evidence it remains the best explanation.
You can only prove things in mathematics. Strictly you cannot even prove that you exist.
This is not the same use of the word 'prove' as you will see in other threads here, eg: “proof texts”: they are not proof in the scientific sense, and I don't think those who quote them even understand the philosophy of the use of that word.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
