How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[shunyadragon]

First of all I'm not necessarily talking about Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion. I am speaking primarily of my understanding and comprehension according to my conscience and ability. Remember though that the Babylonians or Assyrians did not have the same type of worship that the Israelites had. That means their children were indoctrinated according to the prevailing teachings of their nation.

I believe your belief in being a "Witness of Jehovah," and you stated "I'll go with what the Bible says about many things. Makes more sense at this point." On the basis of your posts "at this point" is your bottom line and there is no indication from your posts it will ever change..

It is obvious the human religion evolved over time., and is still evolving.

 

[gnostic]

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't add up to me. Obviously it does to others. I'll go with what the Bible says about many things. Makes more sense at this point.

You have previously said that the Bible isn’t a book of science.

That’s the only thing I agree with you.

Because the Bible never explain anything about life, not about anatomy or physiology of animals, including humans. It never explain anything about as to how there are so many different species of genus, family, order, class, etc.

That Genesis talk of god creating kinds, isn’t an explanation. The use of “kind” is so vague that it is useless to us, today, with our current knowledge. All the kinds just created, popping into existence, is nothing more than primitive superstition and fairytale.

That the Bible “makes more sense” to you, showed that you have no interests in understanding biology - not just Evolution - you have no desire to learn anything about biology.

I admired your complete devotion to your belief and to the Bible, but isn’t that idolatry?

The Bible isn’t God, it isn’t infallible, and they were written by humans, humans who make mistakes and don’t have any understanding about nature, not about Earth, sun and stars, not about any plant or any animal. Genesis wasn’t even written by Moses, as no version of Genesis exist in the Late Bronze Age.

And yet, you preferred to ignore every evidence, because of the Genesis Creation makes more sense to you. That’s circular reasoning, and that’s confirmation bias.

 

[gnostic]

Remember though that the Babylonians or Assyrians did not have the same type of worship that the Israelites had. That means their children were indoctrinated according to the prevailing teachings of their nation.

Except that other than mention of Israel being conquered along with Canaan, inscribed on the stele commemorating Merneptah’s victory in Syria (Merneptah - reign 1213 -1203 BCE - being the 4th king of 19th dynasty), not only there are no other mention of Israel, archaeologists cannot distinguish the the Israelite culture from Canaanite culture, during the later half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

Meaning there are no evidence to support that the Israelites worship only one god, and as there are no contemporary Hebrew texts such as the Genesis or the Exodus in the 2nd millennium BCE, then you really have no contemporary views as to what life were like for the Israelites. And there are no evidence that the Israelites have their own versions of the Creation and Flood during this millennium; neither stories existed until their arrival in Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

The only evidence supporting the early monotheism among the Israelites, was during the reign of Josiah of Judah (late 7th century BCE), and afterwards, during the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE).

If anything, the Jews had borrowed and adapted the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians. So if there are any indoctrination, it is by done by Jewish priests in that period.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have previously said that the Bible isn’t a book of science.

That’s the only thing I agree with you.

Because the Bible never explain anything about life, not about anatomy or physiology of animals, including humans. It never explain anything about as to how there are so many different species of genus, family, order, class, etc.

That Genesis talk of god creating kinds, isn’t an explanation. The use of “kind” is so vague that it is useless to us, today, with our current knowledge. All the kinds just created, popping into existence, is nothing more than primitive superstition and fairytale.

That the Bible “makes more sense” to you, showed that you have no interests in understanding biology - not just Evolution - you have no desire to learn anything about biology.

I admired your complete devotion to your belief and to the Bible, but isn’t that idolatry?

The Bible isn’t God, it isn’t infallible, and they were written by humans, humans who make mistakes and don’t have any understanding about nature, not about Earth, sun and stars, not about any plant or any animal. Genesis wasn’t even written by Moses, as no version of Genesis exist in the Late Bronze Age.

And yet, you preferred to ignore every evidence, because of the Genesis Creation makes more sense to you. That’s circular reasoning, and that’s confirmation bias.

When the Bible was written there were no telescopes or microscopes. Nevertheless the directions given to the Israelites were in harmony with proper procedure regarding dead bodies. You might want to check out the account about Dr. Semmelweis. It is most interesting and saddening in a way because of the persecution he received from his scientific contemporaries yet his teachings were life saving. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975161?q=semmelweis&p=par

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the Bible was written there were no telescopes or microscopes. Nevertheless the directions given to the Israelites were in harmony with proper procedure regarding dead bodies. You might want to check out the account about Dr. Semmelweis. It is most interesting and saddening in a way because of the persecution he received from his scientific contemporaries yet his teachings were life saving. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975161?q=semmelweis&p=par

It doesn't take a lot of learning to realize that dead bodies are dangerous. Why would you be impressed by that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that other than mention of Israel being conquered along with Canaan, inscribed on the stele commemorating Merneptah’s victory in Syria (Merneptah - reign 1213 -1203 BCE - being the 4th king of 19th dynasty), not only there are no other mention of Israel, archaeologists cannot distinguish the the Israelite culture from Canaanite culture, during the later half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

Meaning there are no evidence to support that the Israelites worship only one god, and as there are no contemporary Hebrew texts such as the Genesis or the Exodus in the 2nd millennium BCE, then you really have no contemporary views as to what life were like for the Israelites. And there are no evidence that the Israelites have their own versions of the Creation and Flood during this millennium; neither stories existed until their arrival in Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

The only evidence supporting the early monotheism among the Israelites, was during the reign of Josiah of Judah (late 7th century BCE), and afterwards, during the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE).

If anything, the Jews had borrowed and adapted the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians. So if there are any indoctrination, it is by done by Jewish priests in that period.

The Bible s testimony supports the fact that the Israelites themselves would go to other gods of the nations around them. Dagon, for instance.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that other than mention of Israel being conquered along with Canaan, inscribed on the stele commemorating Merneptah’s victory in Syria (Merneptah - reign 1213 -1203 BCE - being the 4th king of 19th dynasty), not only there are no other mention of Israel, archaeologists cannot distinguish the the Israelite culture from Canaanite culture, during the later half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

Meaning there are no evidence to support that the Israelites worship only one god, and as there are no contemporary Hebrew texts such as the Genesis or the Exodus in the 2nd millennium BCE, then you really have no contemporary views as to what life were like for the Israelites. And there are no evidence that the Israelites have their own versions of the Creation and Flood during this millennium; neither stories existed until their arrival in Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

The only evidence supporting the early monotheism among the Israelites, was during the reign of Josiah of Judah (late 7th century BCE), and afterwards, during the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE).

If anything, the Jews had borrowed and adapted the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians. So if there are any indoctrination, it is by done by Jewish priests in that period.

The Bible itself is full of references about the Israelites worshipping other gods -- early on with the worship of the golden calf in the wilderness. I believe they got the idea of a calf from somewhere, can't remember now -- but really the point that comes to mind is that according to scholarly sources these early 'gods' came into view during the first organized civilizations -- which, interestingly enough is said by scholars to not be that long ago, like maybe 6,000 years ago -- but although there are references to gods like Dagon, Astarte, Ishtar and more, I wonder if these gods moved their worshippers to write the thoughts that the gods transmitted to them. Any ideas?

 

[F1fan]

When the Bible was written there were no telescopes or microscopes.

Then you can't argue that the writers had any divine inspiration that WOULD know everything. You seem to acknowledge the writers of the Bible had no more information than any other mortal in that era.

Frankly if the Bible were divinely inspired I would expect some knowledge that only a God would know, and tell the writers. It didn't. At face value the Bible is written by humans wthout any divine inspiration.

Nevertheless the directions given to the Israelites were in harmony with proper procedure regarding dead bodies.

Yeah, learned by many thousands of years of trial and error.

You might want to check out the account about Dr. Semmelweis. It is most interesting and saddening in a way because of the persecution he received from his scientific contemporaries yet his teachings were life saving. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975161?q=semmelweis&p=par

This is a quibble between proper and professional medial treatment and religious belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand how a person would arrive at that conclusion.

Especially when you consistently insist on doubling down on strawmen.
I bet you even know which ones I'm talking about.

You may say otherwise, we have that right, don't we, so far right now, to disagree. It's like saiying I know there are oceans but I don't know exactly how they got there. Or I know there are planets, but I don't know really how they got there except by conjecture using what some may think are infallible restrictions.

The only people here who profess their "truths" as if they are infallible, are those who are reciting it from an ancient myth.

 

[dwb001]

I would say that an eye witness testimony would be better than a pile of old bones.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say that an eye witness testimony would be better than a pile of old bones.

Eye witness testimony to what?

 

[dwb001]

Eye witness testimony to what?

Of the event in question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of the event in question.

There is no eyewitness testimony of the fossilization of the flora and fauna of the biological and geological past history of the Earth. The rock record is what we have in this instance. It isn't the only evidence, but certainly not one with testimonials associated with the formation.

 

[dwb001]

There is no eyewitness testimony of the fossilization of the flora and fauna of the biological and geological past history of the Earth. The rock record is what we have in this instance. It isn't the only evidence, but certainly not one with testimonials associated with the formation.

I disagree. Noah was around at that time period.

Historical evidence is greater then suppositions based on static data.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I disagree. Noah was around at that time period.

Do you have evidence of Noah outside of the claims of the Bible and that he was around billions and millions of years ago?

Historical evidence is greater then suppositions based on static data.

Evidence claimed as historical fact needs the evidence to show that it is. Tested hypotheses and conclusions on evidence are not supposition.

 

[dwb001]

Do you have evidence of Noah outside of the claims of the Bible and that he was around billions and millions of years ago?

I need to see your evidence of millions and billions of years first.

And Genesis does not claim millions of years.

Evidence claimed as historical needs the evidence to show that it is. Tested hypotheses and conclusions on evidence are not supposition.

And it is... but not if you slant the interpretation of the data to one conclusion over the other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I need to see your evidence of millions and billions of years first.

This evidence is widely available and not feeling the need to present what is easily obtainable by the average person doesn't mean it does not exist.

And Genesis does not claim millions of years.

Of course not. It isn't a science text.

And it is... but not if you slant the interpretation of the data to one conclusion over the other.

I have never seen the evidence that shows that the accounts provided in Genesis are historical fact. No slant is needed to demonstrate that or that the evidence does not support the claims of Genesis as historical or factual.

If you claim they are, then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I need to see your evidence of millions and billions of years first.

And Genesis does not claim millions of years.

And it is... but not if you slant the interpretation of the data to one conclusion over the other.

I would also mention that all that Genesis seems to claim is a week for creation, a year for a global flood and 100's of years for lifespans. It does not claim an age for the Earth or the Universe or say when these events are to have taken place. Any claim of when this took place or how old the Earth from the Bible are the extrapolations of people that are clearly incomplete since the evidence of the rocks show the Earth is much older than six to ten thousand years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I need to see your evidence of millions and billions of years first.

And Genesis does not claim millions of years.

And it is... but not if you slant the interpretation of the data to one conclusion over the other.

The point of this thread is that fossils are evidence of evolution, but are not required to support the theory, since so much other evidence does just that.

 

[dwb001]

This evidence is widely available and not feeling the need to present what is easily obtainable by the average person doesn't mean it does not exist.

And that evidence can equally be interpreted as the result of a cataclysmic world flood. The evidence is the same but conclusions can be different.

Of course not. It isn't a science text.

The why did you bring it up?

I have never seen the evidence that shows that the accounts provided in Genesis are historical fact. No slant is needed to demonstrate that or that the evidence does not support the claims of Genesis as historical or factual.

The words of the text are the evidence that they are a historical account... you can argue against the account... but it stands as a historical account.

You are arguing against the form of the text, not me.

If you claim they are, then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that.