Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Hope]

Well, as I said, creationist websites are notorious liars, and IMO it is irresponsible to disseminate them. As I also said, I will click on any one of your creationist links and find lies, nonsense, and , if any scientists are quoted, dishonest quote mines.

On what grounds do you make the sweeping accusation that creationist websites are notorious liars? If you are going to make such an accusation, you could at least back it up. And with specifics, please.

And why are the creationist scientists automatically liars? Isn't this a bit unfair? Couldn't some non-creationist scientists be liars as well? You are just throwing out accusations left and right without any shred of proof. You seem pretty defensive to me for some reason. Not sure why. Joeboonda has been nothing but graceful and humble in his presentation of possible evidence supporting the Bible. The least you could do is refute specific claims, one by one, in a gracious manner, providing other "more qualified" scientists' opinions, rather than make grandiose, sweeping accusations. That is how a civil debate is handled, is it not?

Stop hiding behind your obvious disdain for creationists, do your homework, and then show us specifically why creationists shouldn't be trusted.

 

[Autodidact]

On what grounds do you make the sweeping accusation that creationist websites are notorious liars? If you are going to make such an accusation, you could at least back it up. And with specifics, please.

I base this on the many hours I have spent at these sites. I did offer to take any random site and demonstrate this--it was a challenge. Joe declined to accept it, but nominated Answers in Genesis as what he thought was an informative and accurate website. And he's right, of creationist websites, it's the best of the lot. So I will show you inaccurate, unscientific and misleading information from AiG.

We start with their "Statement of Faith":
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." (from AIG-USA)

So we see immediately that they have already determined their conclusions, and will disregard or throw out any evidence that, to them, appears to contradict scripture. In doing this, they have declared that they are not doing science, as fundamental to any scientific enterprise is the commitment to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, whether it affirms scripture or refutes it.

It is easy to find examples of outright falsehoods at AiG. For example, YECs were quite discombulated by the fabulous discovery of Tiktaalik Rosae, a species intermediate between fish and amphibians, because they constantly assert that there never were any such creatures. Therefore they went to work to try to say that is isn't what it is. In their article, by a non-paleontologist, they said, [/FONT]

The lobe-fin fish have bones similar to other vertebrates. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as "coelacanth" fish, also have them. Evolutionists say the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago.

This is simply false. There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. They people they are refuting are called paleontologists. No paleontologiest says that lobe-fin fish are extinct, because they're not. Had they found a paleontologist to write their article, they would have known this. They can't, because there are no creationist paleontologists. Anyone who spends his or her life studying fossils knows that the theory of evolution is the only logical explanation for them. Then, regarding the coelancth, the author says, "it didn't evolve; it didn't change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record." This is false. Modern coelancths have evolved tremendously from extinct, ancient species, as any paleontologist knows.

Then he spends a lot of time arguing that Tiktaalik could not have walked on land. Is he stupid, ignorant or dishonest? It's hard to tell. The people who discovered Tiktaalik never claimed that it could walk on land. This dishonest form of argumentation is called "straw man."

Well, I could go on and on ripping AiG apart, since none of its article are written by qualified scientists who know what they're talking about. AiG is basically the brainchid of Ken Ham. Ken Ham is not a science. He has a Bachelors in "Applied Science" and a Diploma (Australian equivalent to Master's) in Education. He has never done any scientific research in any field or published any scientific article in any scientific journal. Ever. In his life. Because he's not a scientist. The other honcho there is Monty White, a chemist. You will also find articles by Jonathan Sarfati, another Chemist, and Michael Oard, a metereologist. What is missing from this list? Biologists. And, of course, evolution is a biological theory. They're just happy to get anyone who works in science at all. It doesn't bother them that these guys are completely unqualified to write on the subjects they try to address. They're not doing science; they're doing public relations.[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]
[/FONT]

And why are the creationist scientists automatically liars? Isn't this a bit unfair?

No, and I'll tell you why. There is no such thing as a creationist scientist. There are thousands of scientists who are Christians. But doing science means following the evidence where it leads, not presuming the answer and then looking for evidence to confirm it. Creationism rejects the scientific method itself, then clothes itself in the appearance and (when it can) the fake credentials of science. By rejecting science while trying to persuade people they are doing science, they are inherently dishonest.

Couldn't some non-creationist scientists be liars as well?

I'm sure there are. The difference is that science has a mechanism for discovering falsehood and exposing it. Creationism does not, which is why you see the same old lies: dinosaur footprints next to human, polystyrate fossils, dinosaur soft tissue, head-first ichtysaurs, etc. etc.

Stop hiding behind your obvious disdain for creationists, do your homework, and then show us specifically why creationists shouldn't be trusted.[/quote]

 

[Hope]

I base this on the many hours I have spent at these sites. I did offer to take any random site and demonstrate this--it was a challenge. Joe declined to accept it, but nominated Answers in Genesis as what he thought was an informative and accurate website. And he's right, of creationist websites, it's the best of the lot. So I will show you inaccurate, unscientific and misleading information from AiG.

We start with their "Statement of Faith":
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." (from AIG-USA)

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]So we see immediately that they have already determined their conclusions, and will disregard or throw out any evidence that, to them, appears to contradict scripture. In doing this, they have declared that they are not doing science, as fundamental to any scientific enterprise is the commitment to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, whether it affirms scripture or refutes it.

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]It is easy to find examples of outright falsehoods at AiG. For example, YECs were quite discombulated by the fabulous discovery of Tiktaalik Rosae, a species intermediate between fish and amphibians, because they constantly assert that there never were any such creatures. Therefore they went to work to try to say that is isn't what it is. In their article, by a non-paleontologist, they said, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]This is simply false. There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. They people they are refuting are called paleontologists. No paleontologiest says that lobe-fin fish are extinct, because they're not. Had they found a paleontologist to write their article, they would have known this. They can't, because there are no creationist paleontologists. Anyone who spends his or her life studying fossils knows that the theory of evolution is the only logical explanation for them. Then, regarding the coelancth, the author says, "it didn't evolve; it didn't change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record." This is false. Modern coelancths have evolved tremendously from extinct, ancient species, as any paleontologist knows.

Then he spends a lot of time arguing that Tiktaalik could not have walked on land. Is he stupid, ignorant or dishonest? It's hard to tell. The people who discovered Tiktaalik never claimed that it could walk on land. This dishonest form of argumentation is called "straw man."

Well, I could go on and on ripping AiG apart, since none of its article are written by qualified scientists who know what they're talking about. AiG is basically the brainchid of Ken Ham. Ken Ham is not a science. He has a Bachelors in "Applied Science" and a Diploma (Australian equivalent to Master's) in Education. He has never done any scientific research in any field or published any scientific article in any scientific journal. Ever. In his life. Because he's not a scientist. The other honcho there is Monty White, a chemist. You will also find articles by Jonathan Sarfati, another Chemist, and Michael Oard, a metereologist. What is missing from this list? Biologists. And, of course, evolution is a biological theory. They're just happy to get anyone who works in science at all. It doesn't bother them that these guys are completely unqualified to write on the subjects they try to address. They're not doing science; they're doing public relations.[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]
[/FONT]No, and I'll tell you why. There is no such thing as a creationist scientist. There are thousands of scientists who are Christians. But doing science means following the evidence where it leads, not presuming the answer and then looking for evidence to confirm it. Creationism rejects the scientific method itself, then clothes itself in the appearance and (when it can) the fake credentials of science. By rejecting science while trying to persuade people they are doing science, they are inherently dishonest. I'm sure there are. The difference is that science has a mechanism for discovering falsehood and exposing it. Creationism does not, which is why you see the same old lies: dinosaur footprints next to human, polystyrate fossils, dinosaur soft tissue, head-first ichtysaurs, etc. etc.

Thank you. I stand corrected. :foot: I appreciate your view much better now.

However, I still believe that creationists aren't the only ones who dismiss or misinterpret data.

I am still learning when it comes to archeaology and the like, but I do try to keep an open mind. If some of these creationists are overlooking and misinterpreting data all for the sake of proving a young earth and disproving evolution, then I agree that they are being dishonest. I am not a strict creationist myself---I don't think that belief in God as the Creator automatically precludes belief in an old earth or certain forms of evolution. I instead see both sides----creationists and qualified scientists----as each having bits of the truth, and when you put the right bits together, they form the whole picture. The difficult part is deciphering which bits are the right bits.

 

[gnostic]

However, I still believe that creationists aren't the only ones who dismiss or misinterpret data.

Of course, there are always possibilities that data can be misrepresented, even by scientists.

That's why there are other scientists who can prove or disprove the theories, doing the same work to ensure that either the data have integrity or the data have been compromised.

I have not read all the posts here, Hope, but I am sure that someone have pointed out to you, that even in science that there are no 100% certainty in any given theory. Also that science are not based on presupposition.

Creationism on the other hand is based on blind faith and based solely on presupposition that their Bible is right about creation. If they don't have the evidence that suit their biblical passages, they have the tendency to fake evidence so that they would seem credible.

I don't think can prove (or disprove) the existence of God to anyone's total satisfaction, but at least we can either prove or disprove what is written in the Bible to be either true or false. As for me, the example that I have not seen any divine manipulation or intervention is proof that any deity (not just Abrahamic god) don't exist. Until he (or she make an appearance) to prove his/her existence and power, then I will go on with believing that he/she doesn't exist.

Since I have not posted regularly to this topic, I would like to ask you some questions, Hope?

Do you believe the earth is only 5700 years old? (13,000 years if you follow FFH's Young Earth theory)

Or do you believe that the earth is millions (or billions) of years old? Geologists have found evidences of rocks being 3 billion years old in several parts of the world.

 

[Hope]

Since I have not posted regularly to this topic, I would like to ask you some questions, Hope?

Do you believe the earth is only 5700 years old? (13,000 years if you follow FFH's Young Earth theory)

Or do you believe that the earth is millions (or billions) of years old? Geologists have found evidences of rocks being 3 billion years old in several parts of the world.

I honestly don't know. I am so confused over conflicting reports I read. To me, in all honesty, as I've stated, it doesn't matter one way or another if the earth is old or young. There are so many ways you can interpret the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[wednesday]

^ Carbon dating can find rocks billions of years old, the joys of Science, reliable and accurate

 

[gnostic]

There are so many ways you can interpret the first chapter of Genesis.

There lays the problem of the Bible. If it can't be interpret literally, then it open to all sorts of interpretations in which no one can agree on. That's why the Bible, particularly the Genesis on the Creation and the Flood, can't seriously be called "scientific".

I have no problem if Creationists would accept that their creation or their ideas of creation are nothing more than "theology" or "religious truth" or "myth", but I do object when they call their Creationism (or Intelligent Design) to be science. Until they use real data and evidences that can be observed, tested, verified and validated to support their theories or dogma, then they have no scientific right to present their creationism as "fact".

 

[wednesday]

^ I cant see how the bible is related to science at all, if anything, science just consistently disproves religious things such as the spear of destiny.

Science is Primarily the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge

 

[Hope]

There lays the problem of the Bible. If it can't be interpret literally, then it open to all sorts of interpretations in which no one can agree on. That's why the Bible, particularly the Genesis on the Creation and the Flood, can't seriously be called "scientific".

I have no problem if Creationists would accept that their creation or their ideas of creation are nothing more than "theology" or "religious truth" or "myth", but I do object when they call their Creationism (or Intelligent Design) to be science. Until they use real data and evidences that can be observed, tested, verified and validated to support their theories or dogma, then they have no scientific right to present their creationism as "fact".

You are absolutely right. The Bible should never be considered scientific. That's not its purpose.

However, whether a Christian thinks all of the Bible is literal or not (I'm still on the fence there), it is still considered accurate, inerrant, and with a strong historical basis. Therefore, it shouldn't be wondered at the desire of so many Christians to delve into archeaology and other scientific fields----not to use the Bible itself as science, but to corroborate its claims.

 

[joeboonda]

I, for one, believe the Bible. I believe science only proves it true. I enjoy reading the many places where people are able to trace their family line to Adam. Even Jesus' line is traced all the way back to Adam. Let me ask this concerning science. How old were you taught that stalactites are? (they have been found in mines and under buildings all over the place quite long--much faster than the rate of growth we were 'taught'. Also this so called intermediate fish spoken of above does not in any way fill in the many, many missing links of evolution. If we examine fossils, a rabbit is still a rabbit, etc. These were formed by the Flood and are dispersed across the earth accordingly. The evidence for Creation and the Flood is overwhelming to any who would honestly go over the evidence. I am simply telling you the Bible is true, Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, and those who trust him for salvation will miss Hell. Believe it or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I, for one, believe the Bible. I believe science only proves it true.

And you never seem to tire of demonstrating just how baseless that belief is. This thread is about "Archeaological evidence for the Bible". I'm waiting ...

 

[joeboonda]

And you never seem to tire of demonstrating just how baseless that belief is. This thread is about "Archeaological evidence for the Bible". I'm waiting ...

I put links and pics (I think most were deleted) of all kinds of artifacts and their links that show the historical reliabilty of the Bible. Artifacts with names of kings and cities and events, etc. You can go and walk through Hezekiah's Tunnel if you like. He had it built to bring water into Jerusalem from the spring of Gihon by cutting through 1700 feet of rock, when the Assyrians under King Sannacherib were moving toward Jerusalem to lay seige to it. (2 Chronicles 32:1-4) Tours are still available today.

 

[Autodidact]

I, for one, believe the Bible. I believe science only proves it true.

Interesting that all the scientists disagree with you, though. So I guess you know more about geology than geologists, more about biology than biologists, more about cosmology that cosmologiests, and so forth?

I enjoy reading the many places where people are able to trace their family line to Adam. Even Jesus' line is traced all the way back to Adam. Let me ask this concerning science. How old were you taught that stalactites are? (they have been found in mines and under buildings all over the place quite long--much faster than the rate of growth we were 'taught'.

Depends on their chemical composition. Calcium carbonate stlaactites are much older than gypsum or concrete stalactites. What's your point?

Also this so called intermediate fish spoken of above does not in any way fill in the many, many missing links of evolution.

Of course not! How can one species fill more than one hole? That makes no sense!

If we examine fossils, a rabbit is still a rabbit, etc.

Yes, of course. Each species is what it is. The point is that there are many species of hares and rabbits, all related to each other, that descended from a common rabbit-like ancestor.

These were formed by the Flood and are dispersed across the earth accordingly.

The actual fossil record says the opposite.

The evidence for Creation and the Flood is overwhelming to any who would honestly go over the evidence.

No, the opposite is true. Do you honestly believe that all of the world's geologists, paleontologists, biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, anthropologists and archeologists are either lying or sharing in some atheistic plot?

I am simply telling you the Bible is true, Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, and those who trust him for salvation will miss Hell. Believe it or not.

I won't argue theology with you, but obviously all of this can be true without the need for the OT myths, such as a global flood that never happened.

 

[joeboonda]

I am going to try to be humble here. I believe the Bible is true. I believe God created the earth, in the global Flood of Noah, and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I don't believe one need believe in a young earth and can even believe in evolution and still believe God created the earth, and that there was a global flood and that the Bible is true. I have actually been studying (a little as time permits) on a site that has Christians in many scientific fields who actually see how an old earth can fit in with scripture and who actually go point for point with Ken Ham, AiG, and other young earth creationists and I am enjoying comparing the logic and science and arguments quite immensly. Humility is key here as we examine all the evidence. I have found that a young earth may not be so necessary to Christian doctrine as I once thought and many preachers warnnot to be adamant about it, yet still believe Genesis 1 to be true. I am still studying here, so I will see how/if any of my views change. Here is their site and brief description:

Information About the ASA
[SIZE=+1]The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is an organization of Christians who are scientists, and engineers, and scholars in related fields such as history of science, philosophy of science, and science education.[/SIZE]

The website of ASA offers a wealth of interesting, useful information about science and faith and their relationships, and more. This website about Whole-Person Education — is a "website within a larger website." You can explore the entire ASA website beginning with a homepage that includes information about ASA:
What the ASA is and Why
Statement of Faith
How to Join
also, the history of ASA (beginning in 1941) plus A History of the ASA's Journal at 50 Years: Modest Beginnings, Maturing Vision, Continuing Challenges
Within the ASA, there are three affiliations (Christian Biologists, Christian Geologists, Christian Engineers and Scientists in Technology) and eight commissions (Bioethics, Communications, Creation, Global Resources and Environment, History and Philosophy of Science, Physical Sciences, Science Education, and Social Sciences). The website you are now exploring, inside the overall ASA website, is being developed by the ASA Science Education Commission.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I put links and pics (I think most were deleted) of all kinds of artifacts and their links that show the historical reliabilty of the Bible.

You are prolific at peppering your posts with worthless "links and pics", but here we are talking about "Archeaological evidence for the Bible", and the term 'Archeaological' refers to peer-reviewed science.

 

[Hope]

the term 'Archeaological' refers to peer-reviewed science.

Archaeology: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities

Hmmmm....don't see anything in there about "peer-reviewed."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hmmmm....don't see anything in there about "peer-reviewed."

No, you don't, and that is a serious defect.

 

[painted wolf]

Joe... the ASA has no 'offical' position on Creationism... however

The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity. Advocates and foes of evolution alike have often gone far beyond the science of the subject to advance various causes. Despite the claims of those who claim a corner on the Truth, the importance of "beliefs" and "feelings" on all sides reduces the chances for consensus. Too often, would-be authors are not familiar with current research. Scientists, philosophers and theologians are rightly concerned with those who would speak learnedly about fields with which they have only a surface knowledge. A team
approach seems most appropriate for such a multidisciplinary enterprise.

Creation and evolution
*emphasis mine

Belief in a creator doesn't prevent knowledge of science.
This group from what I've read of them is currently strongly against YEC.

wa:do

 

[Hope]

No, you don't, and that is a serious defect.

Why? If the dictionary, a supposedly reliable, objective souce of information, fails to qualify "archaeology" as only truly archaeology if it is "peer-reviewed," then why should I question it?

You are the one making qualifiers here to suit your own purposes. :cover:

 

[rojse]

Why? If the dictionary, a supposedly reliable, objective souce of information, fails to qualify "archaeology" as only truly archaeology if it is "peer-reviewed," then why should I question it?

You are the one making qualifiers here to suit your own purposes. :cover:

If I make any archaelogical claim, it does not automatically make my assertion right. I need to prove my assertion, and prove it to such an extent that it not only convinces me, and any average person that reads it, but also convince someone who is an expert in the field that I am discussing. For any person within a scientific or technical discipline, the way to have a concept peer-reviewed is to submit a paper detailing my claim, and my evidences, to a magazine that specialises in my field. These professional magazines are peer-reviewed by independent journalists within the field.

For achaeology, anyone can go and study old bones. But to make valid hypothesis about how the person with the bones lived, how they died, what they ate and so forth, I need evidence. To be sure that my hypothesis is viable from the evidence I found, I need to submit my paper to be peer-reviewed so that it is "certified" as a credible hypothesis.