nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't get this problem when I talk to most children. I understand the very young ones would need time to grow in understanding, but when I ask most to give me an example, I don't have to explain to them what an example is.Its so weird, you started asking for proof of evolution, I gave you some, which you then deny and quote a scientist which you believe support this view. I link you some videos where this very person talk about natural selection and artificial selection as being proof of evolution and you then say that it is irrelevant. Then why did you ask for it in the first place, that is slightly confusing you must admit? but anyway just ignore it then...
I did not ask you for proof of evolution. Why would I do that, to hear you repeat the same thing we hear over and over, and read for ourselves on the internet?
I asked for an example to help me understand what you meant when you said there was no proof of God. I said "say for example evolution". The reason I chose evolution is because I thought that might be easy for you. Little did I know, it proved to be quite a challenge for you, and up till now you failed to give me an example... that's useful anyway.
What did I deny? That natural selection is not breeding? If you think it is, then you disagree with this Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity. See Misconceptions about natural selection , and I won't ask if you do.
Do you feel good saying "that's how science works" where it fails to give the right answer, and comes later with a different answer, for which it is not sure that is the right answer either? Where the scientists say, "we could be wrong". Why are you so proud of that, I'm curious to know?We don't ignore science when it is wrong, we correct it. As I said it is a progress, Darwin didn't get everything correct the first time, that doesn't mean that we throw the whole theory of evolution out the window, others have done work on it as well, they figure out new things and answered or corrected some of the stuff he got wrong, because he didn't knew it at the time or didn't have the equipment to figure it out etc. That is how science works.
What if you got an answer to questions that you later discover are true?
That's how the Bible works. it provides us with the truth, and later, that truth is discovered, or realized. That builds more confidence in it, does it not?
The universe had a beginning. That was stated as a fact, in the Bible. The earth is suspended on nothing. The earth is circular, or round. Jericho was quickly routed, and burnt. Babylon was sacked, and lies uninhabited. Etc.
That's how the Bible works.
If the Bible was like a novel that's authored by one writer, what you say here, might have some merit.Assume you mean evidence, when you say former?
Obviously we are interested in evidence as they can lead to a proof, but in some cases we simply don't have enough evidence or they are not clear enough for us to simply conclude something from them. For instance, we have the bible that talks about Jesus, yes it is evidence for a person named Jesus, but they are not evidence for him actually existing or that he did the things that the bible claim he did. Maybe he did walk on water, but the bible simply stating this, just isn't very convincing evidence for it, because its the book that makes the claim to begin with.
It would be the same if it was a scientific book where a scientist makes a claim and as evidence he reference his own book. No one would consider that good evidence.
However, the Bible is a collection of books or documents, written by different men at different periods in time. So we have corroborating testimony, and there is testimony outside the Bible as well.
So, I have to wonder what your definition of evidence is, and what would be evidence to you, other than what you want to believe or accept.
Jericho is one event. The Bible contains more than one event supported by archaeological evidence, and it confirms many of its historical persons.That is why something like the battle of Jericho is interesting, if there are archaeologic evidence and the dates etc. fits (haven't looked that much into it) then that at least give the bible some validity in regards to that event. Or if we could find the Ark or evidence of a world wide flood etc. Because that would support what the bible is claiming.
But there is still a very long way from that to proof of God, the Ark or a world wide flood would be very good in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There are many things to be taken into account... much of what I cannot present in a short time.Im not saying that all of them were lucky guesses, we know some of the texts are written after the events, which these are exactly, you have to go into a deeper examination of, because there is lots of texts and I can't remember them, and in some cases they suspect that some verses within the texts were added later as well etc. My point is that all these things has to be taken into account, and im not a biblical scholar by any means, but there is a lot of discussions going on about these things by those that are.
However, it's also fair to take into account that there are critics bent on discrediting the Bible, and they will "pull out all stops" to do so.
Yet the Bible has stood the test of time, proving the critics wrong, time and time again.
...and they all come to differing opinions - some for; some against Some interpreting erroneously; some trying to be fair.And listening to them and their arguments simply to understand the structure of the bible and where all these texts, history, time period etc. are connected. It simply ain't as easy as to just read the bible assuming that it is all written as one single book as we see it today. There are lots of contradictions in it, even between the gospels, which is also something these people study and try to figure out how or why that is the case. The people im talking about are educators, scholars or whatever you want to call them, which career it is to study the bible, some might be believers and some might not, but they study the historical evidence of the bible from a scientific point of view rather than a religious point of view.
This too, would take more than just a few posts.