Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Qualified "yes"... maybe not all but some do.

archaeologist-uses-clues-from-bible-to-discover-famous-city-destroyed-by-fire-from-heaven

You should vet your sources. This is a case where it appears that scare quotes are needed. The "archaeologist" in that article is the Dean of Archaeology at Trinity Southwest University. Sounds impressive. But not really. You see Trinity University shares far more in common with Kent Hovind's alma mater than it does with even the lowliest of universities. It is unaccredited. That means calling itself a "university" makes it a scam. Any degree from there will be worthless. A good sign is that when you look at their web site there are no external pictures of the "campus". In fact it appears to be in a shopping mall. At least that is where Google put it, but I cannot find it:

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x87189fd9594699ad%3A0x4340490ded8f3dd3!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2FTrinity%2BSouthwest%2BUniversity%2F%4035.1657296%2C-106.5907464%2C3a%2C75y%2C241.04h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sGTLhWKTPP-cDYw8bJ-OR_w*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x87189fd9594699ad%3A0x4340490ded8f3dd3%3Fsa%3DX%26ved%3D2ahUKEwiW3vP6tvGBAxUGCTQIHYrrAwsQpx96BAhTEAA!5sTrinity%20Southwest%20University%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e2!2sGTLhWKTPP-cDYw8bJ-OR_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW3vP6tvGBAxUGCTQIHYrrAwsQpx96BAhjEA0

Perhaps they are at that site that says "Space available"

Oh!! Further searching shows that he was on the team that published the now refuted Sodom and Gomorrah were hit by a meteorite burst claim. Okay, stick a fork in him, he is done:

Trinity Southwest University - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT: I found it, I found it! It is in between "Sticky Rice Grilled Chicken" and "Flashy Nails". It has its own TSU sign.

I am going to see if I changed the URL of my link:

Rats, no. It did not work. But if you look to the right in my link you can see the TSU logo. If you are familiar with Google maps you can move your point of view so that you are right in front of it.

 

[Brian2]

I've only just come across this. Are you really suggesting the historians are disagreeing with the archaeologists? Why would they do that?

I did not realise I was saying that.
Archaeologists disagree with archaeologists in their analysis of the evidence.
Historians disagree with historians in their analysis of what happened in history.
The divide seems to be between those who accept the Bible as a historical document and those who don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not realise I was saying that.
Archaeologists disagree with archaeologists in their analysis of the evidence.
Historians disagree with historians in their analysis of what happened in history.
The divide seems to be between those who accept the Bible as a historical document and those who don't.

You do not seem to understand the flaw of believers. It should not matter what the Bible says. If the Bible is correct it will agree with history. If it is not it won't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure. There have been medical breakthroughs as we understand how aging works wothin cells, so that might be extended - though I don't think you or I would benefit too much from those breakthroughs within our lifetimes since we are both past our primes, biologically speaking



sure, but it's still going to happen. Better to accept that fact then to live in denial

On a personal note, have you had a near death experience Or a personal experience with the fragile nature of your own mortality? I've had a couple. What I took away from those is that life is precious, and it's limited. We are tiny beings within the scope of all that is. I'm not owed life, but I simply get to borrow some time and enjoy it for only a limited time



No. Evolution is just a process



It doesn't require a mind behind the process, but it isn't aimless, either. It, like many other processes, utilizes a path of least resistance

Since we can observe mutations in all living things all the time, it stands to reason that there would be good mutations and bad mutations, no? The mutations themselves are random, but the outcomes can either hurt or help an organism. If that organism procreates, those mutations are passed on to the offspring. This happens over and over again for eons and eons. Don't you think that over time, all those little mutations would make a difference in offspring further down the line?

There's no more thought behind it than a volcanic island forming in the pacific ocean in the middle of nowhere. The event has no moral values, no ideas on why it forms, and has no end goals to attain. It's simply just another manifestation of nature. It is what it is

I'm going back to birds and gorillas. I don't think they think their lives might be scientifically, biologically extended some day by science technicians. Some would question that as if to say, "How would you know? You're not a bird or gorilla and besides which, they're not talking to you...and you don't know what they think about this." Right? Maybe? So -- that's where I leave that right now. Have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained how with the next paragraph

Environmental pressures favor certain mutations over others. If two deer have to run from a cougar, the slower one will be caught, and the faster one gets to survive and procreate. Countless scenerios like that play out over and over continuously for eons and eons between all these different organisms, and all those tiny mutations that happen each generation never stop. If enough time goes by all those tiny mutations have added up to something bigger, and given enough time, have added up to the point where it no longer resembles where it started

It's not just completely random and chaotic. Those environmental pressures will hone organisms into evolving in more specific ways. Convergent evolution is a good way to convey this fact, imo

I understand about environmental pressures. But there is more than that. It's called life. And it will not get out of control.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did not realise I was saying that.
Archaeologists disagree with archaeologists in their analysis of the evidence.
Historians disagree with historians in their analysis of what happened in history.
The divide seems to be between those who accept the Bible as a historical document and those who don't.

Actually, academic archaeologists and historians may disagree, but when there is objective archaeological and historical evidence they do not disagree on the major issues.

Nonetheless, TSU passes out degrees in 6-inch rolls of perforated paper.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Much as I love truth in the abstract, my hope of immortality still more; and if the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow's wing up on the lake give... me then, I pray, no more science. Let me live on, in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me, and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

I could never choose self delusion over the persuit of truth - even if the truth I uncovered was unpleasant. Honestly, growing so attached to the ego feels unhealthy to me. We all gotta die some time - savor the moment

By the way, although his thought barriers against science in terms of seeing actuality about eternal life, he does not have to be wrong about the future life that God promises.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just like every other force of nature

As I was thinking about this, obviously humans and others have some intelligence. Which is different perhaps than gravity, would you say? Or would you say gravity and time, let's say, have intelligence?

 

[Brian2]

1. No, but I do have "The Bible Unearthed" on the shelf behind me. (I assume that you have not read it.)
2. Bringing the Bible to life is a worthless criteria, but let's get back to this later.*
3. The author, Titus Kennedy, is adjunct professor at Biola University and research fellow at Discovery Institute.
4. It is true that there are different opinions on interpretation. It is also true that not all opinions are created equal.
5. You agree with those which show the Bible to be true, no matter how flimsy.

But, perhaps I'm wrong.

* Let me suggest that you pick your top three of these "101 Archaeological Discoveries that bring the Bible to life" -- whatever that might mean -- and we can discuss them one by one. Yes?

Sticking with the Exodus theme, here is an interview with Dr Titus Kennedy on that subject. Is there anything in it that you would disagree with?

 

[Brian2]

1. No, but I do have "The Bible Unearthed" on the shelf behind me. (I assume that you have not read it.)
2. Bringing the Bible to life is a worthless criteria, but let's get back to this later.*
3. The author, Titus Kennedy, is adjunct professor at Biola University and research fellow at Discovery Institute.
4. It is true that there are different opinions on interpretation. It is also true that not all opinions are created equal.
5. You agree with those which show the Bible to be true, no matter how flimsy.

But, perhaps I'm wrong.

* Let me suggest that you pick your top three of these "101 Archaeological Discoveries that bring the Bible to life" -- whatever that might mean -- and we can discuss them one by one. Yes?

Here also is an interview with Titus Kennedy about Jericho if you are interested.

Examining the Evidence for the Destruction of Jericho | with Dr. Titus Kennedy

Dr. Titus Kennedy joins Frank to discuss his new eye-opening research article entitled 'The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua', where he analyzes the currently existing evidence for the historical destruction of Jericho.

crossexamined.org

 

[Brian2]

You do not seem to understand the flaw of believers. It should not matter what the Bible says. If the Bible is correct it will agree with history. If it is not it won't.

I know that skeptics like to say that the Bible does not agree with history, while at the same time saying that whether the Bible agrees with history or not does not matter, as that doesn't make the supernatural parts true.
But anyway why do you think that what "history" says or what historians who disagree with the Bible say, is true and the Bible is not true?
Oh yes I remember, it is because any historian who agrees with the Bible is a lying apologist and not a true historian.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, academic archaeologists and historians may disagree, but when there is objective archaeological and historical evidence they do not disagree on the major issues.

They disagree on the Exodus.

Nonetheless, TSU passes out degrees in 6-inch rolls of perforated paper.

What is that about?

 

[exchemist]

I did not realise I was saying that.
Archaeologists disagree with archaeologists in their analysis of the evidence.
Historians disagree with historians in their analysis of what happened in history.
The divide seems to be between those who accept the Bible as a historical document and those who don't.

I don't think any competent historian or archaeologist would treat the what the bible says as historically accurate, if that's what you mean. But obviously it is a historical document in that it purports, in places, to be a historical account. As with all such historical documents, a historian will see it as one source, the veracity of which requires corroboration. So I doubt the "divide" you refer to really exists.

 

[Brian2]

I don't think any competent historian or archaeologist would treat the what the bible says as historically accurate, if that's what you mean. But obviously it is a historical document in that it purports, in places, to be a historical account. As with all such historical documents, a historian will see it as one source, the veracity of which requires corroboration. So I doubt the "divide" you refer to really exists.

I hear that although it is a historical document that it is not treated like others at this time in our history. Many are biases against it's reliability and treat it as untrue if not confirmed.
This is definitely the case amongst skeptics.

 

[shunyadragon]

They disagree on the Exodus.

Please be specific on how the independent academic sources disagree on Exodus. Yes, evangelicals disagree based on the Biblical text only without evidence for exodus or the invasion of Canaan. The evidence cited for Joshua's destroying Jericho is only evidence for a battle of Jericho at the wrong dates, and no evidence of a Jericho army or a large migration into the Judah region.

What is that about?

Quality of references

 

[exchemist]

I hear that although it is a historical document that it is not treated like others at this time in our history. Many are biases against it's reliability and treat it as untrue if not confirmed.
This is definitely the case amongst skeptics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sceptics" here. There is no class of "sceptic" historians.

Historians study the past largely from documentary descriptions. They are always aware of the bias likely to be present, of accounts that are partial, or written with a purpose in mind, and so on. They are also aware that documents may often contain invention. The bible is a collection of writings of widely varying age, some of which are clearly ancient theological myth (e.g. Genesis), some are largely fabrication, written to create a tribal myth (e.g. the Exodus from Egypt) and some seem to accord more or less with historical events e.g. the Babylonian Captivity.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure what you mean by "sceptics" here. There is no class of "sceptic" historians.

Since the "Enlightenment" I am told that historians can use the naturalistic methodology of science in their historical analyses. This is a sceptical way to view history from the start.

Historians study the past largely from documentary descriptions. They are always aware of the bias likely to be present, of accounts that are partial, or written with a purpose in mind, and so on. They are also aware that documents may often contain invention. The bible is a collection of writings of widely varying age, some of which are clearly ancient theological myth (e.g. Genesis), some are largely fabrication, written to create a tribal myth (e.g. the Exodus from Egypt) and some seem to accord more or less with historical events e.g. the Babylonian Captivity.

IMO Genesis is more than theological myth and the Exodus from Egypt and Conquest is real and the evidence points to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that skeptics like to say that the Bible does not agree with history, while at the same time saying that whether the Bible agrees with history or not does not matter, as that doesn't make the supernatural parts true.

You do not understand why rational people point out that history does not agree with the Bible. The problem is that when people ask believers why they believe they quite frequently say "Because the Bible is historic". Well it isn't. And the fact that it got some things right does not mean that it got other parts wrong. The reason that the Bible being right sometimes does not help them is because no one ever said that it is 100% wrong. Nor is there any reason to expect it to be. Your questions indicate that you are grasping for straws.

But anyway why do you think that what "history" says or what historians who disagree with the Bible say, is true and the Bible is not true?
Oh yes I remember, it is because any historian who agrees with the Bible is a lying apologist and not a true historian.

When there is an explanation for an event without magic it is going to be the preferred explanation. You do that automatically when it involves claims from other religions. To be consistent you should do the same with yours.

 

[shunyadragon]

I hear that although it is a historical document that it is not treated like others at this time in our history. Many are biases against it's reliability and treat it as untrue if not confirmed.
This is definitely the case amongst skeptics.

Which documents are treated as more factual than the Bible of a similar age? The only thing I can possibly think of is the Roman government records.

 

[Brian2]

Please be specific on how the independent academic sources disagree on Exodus. Yes, evangelicals disagree based on the Biblical text only without evidence for exodus or the invasion of Canaan. The evidence cited for Joshua's destroying Jericho is only evidence for a battle of Jericho at the wrong dates, and no evidence of a Jericho army or a large migration into the Judah region.

IMO the evidence which everyone has to look at,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that includes the Bible,,,,,,,,,,, points to archaeological agreement with the Biblical record.
The evidence cited for the destruction of Jericho is actually at the correct date,,,,,,,,, the Biblical date,,,,,,,,, and shows exactly what the Biblical destription is.
How is it that the evidence for Jericho has to show a large army marching into the Judah region? It does not have to do that. All it need do is agree with the Bible.

Maybe you think that those who believe the Bible are not independant and not worth listening to in relation to their analysis of the evidence............ but looking at the actual evidence in relation to what the Bible says should be enough, and in fact is enough to show the accuracy of the Biblical account of what happened.