Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The False Burden of Absolute Proof
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Steve
(new)
May 12, 2015 08:15PM
So ... you are discounting all the evidence for evolution and the work of 99.9 percent of scientists working in relevant fields over the last several decades because T.Rex and kangaroos have similar skeletal structures? Or am I misunderstanding something?
reply
|
flag
there's more to it than that of course. I am just being a bit flippant I suppose.Evolutionary theory has problems. Horizontal gene transfer is now a big thing as we realise that traits are more easily passed between species than they are developed within it. To be nice to our moderators I'm trying to avoid a lengthy discussion but of course my comments require some justification.
In my opinion traditional evolutionary biology in fact a western form of Pantheism. The Evolutionist believes that the universe did in fact form itself from nothing. What's more the universe continues to develop and create new creatures in accordance with it's own purposes and design. We fondly call her "mother nature".
How in fact the world we have came to be is an open discussion for me. But it is fascinating how easily western people accept pantheism under the auspices of science.
Last time I checked the existence of anything at all makes no sense to our rational mind. Yet we venerate reason as the ultimate truth.
I think the conversation is far from over and we have much to learn.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do whatsoever to do with the origin of the universe. The TOE simply describes something that happens to life. The Big Bang is not a part of evolution theory. And evolution theory, as described by biology, does not pursue a purpose -- although, in my opinion, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that would force a person to dismiss a divine purpose.
It is interesting that evolution is endlessly brought up by atheists and liberals in theological matters. Hmmmm...? They seem to claim it shuts down the need for a god.
Actually Steve is Buddhist. So he would be very comfortable with evolution.For me I look at the world and I see brilliant design everywhere. The intelligence behind this environment is beyond our comprehension. For the Buddhist, I understand, God is in it all. And I quite agree. Yet I only differ in that God who fills all things has expressed his character through the person of Christ.
rather I should say comfortable with evolution and God in the same sentence, I think..
Personally I am still waiting for some FACTUAL proof (or even good science) of Macro-evolution. I'm even reading a book right now by Greg Graffin (bad religion rockstar) and PHD Evolutionary teacher at University of California. Books called Anarchy Evolution - Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a world without God.
So far just endless assumptions and maybe's/possibly's/perhaps... Just comical. And people call this crap science. The stuff atheists dream of (and a few confused church goers applaud).
Sorry, please continue... Just laying a foundation.
Joshua: Yes, I am quite comfortable with the idea of the divine and solid science existing in the same reality.
yeah so in the western mindset that would be called intelligent design.
I must say, while on the topic, I have never seen anyone present "proof" for macroevolution. It all looks like inference to me.
Joshua: I am not opposed to the notion of intelligent design, but so far I have not seen a solid scientific case for it ... so I consider it a religious notion, not a scientific one. If someone makes a solid scientific case, I will change my mind.As far as I can tell, the divine remains outside what anyone so far has been able to prove or demonstrate. I think belief in God requires a leap of faith beyond logic, reason and science. Which is fine with me.
Joshua wrote: "I must say, while on the topic, I have never seen anyone present "proof" for macroevolution. It all looks like inference to me."The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time. The theory of evolution is as well supported as anything in science.
hmmI know a biologist who would say otherwise. But I have an open mind. If the theories are proven please do enlighten me.
Rod wrote: "THanks Stewie:
"How honest you are with yourself and others, I will leave up to Rod to judge."
Not interested - I just assume everyone lies. :C("
Yeah OK - I just thought you had the milk of human kindness flowing in your Heaven-bound veins.
"How honest you are with yourself and others, I will leave up to Rod to judge."
Not interested - I just assume everyone lies. :C("
Yeah OK - I just thought you had the milk of human kindness flowing in your Heaven-bound veins.
Steve wrote: "Joshua wrote: "fascinating little creature that mouse.
your logic looks backwards to me.
The kangaroo, being off on quite another lineage of creatures
does not the remarkable similarities raise ..."
Hi Steve, I'm the current resident fun-loving atheist (which you probably guessed). The topic seems to have strayed off into the usual EvC, but what the hey.
Evolution does not sit well with certain members - like Robert, who has written a scientific book (which has God's own imprimatur) called Creation Fights Back.
Humans did nor evolve from apes (good grief!) unspecified numbers of male and female humans were created by the Elohim, in the image of the Elohim, as a Special Creation on Day 6 of a very busy creation week, after everything else had been created - in precisely 4004 BCE. The nice people at Answers in Genesis have helpfully confirmed the calculations of earlier biblical scholars.
Unless you read the second biblical creation myth that is: when Yahweh Elohim re-created everything in only 1 Day, and the very first thing he created was the planet's very first male Homo sapiens from mud. Then the very last thing he created was the planet's very first female Homo sapiens from one of Adam's ribs. Adam is the mud-man's name - even though Adam was what both the male and female humans from the first creation myth were called - but none of this is contradiction, or mythology, of course - you just need lots of faith for your mind to accept it as even remotely plausible.
And you do, I'm afraid, have to sweep the details of Genesis under the altar with all the other stuff that isn't selling anymore, if you want to pretend biblical mythology is even remotely compatible with science.
your logic looks backwards to me.
The kangaroo, being off on quite another lineage of creatures
does not the remarkable similarities raise ..."
Hi Steve, I'm the current resident fun-loving atheist (which you probably guessed). The topic seems to have strayed off into the usual EvC, but what the hey.
Evolution does not sit well with certain members - like Robert, who has written a scientific book (which has God's own imprimatur) called Creation Fights Back.
Humans did nor evolve from apes (good grief!) unspecified numbers of male and female humans were created by the Elohim, in the image of the Elohim, as a Special Creation on Day 6 of a very busy creation week, after everything else had been created - in precisely 4004 BCE. The nice people at Answers in Genesis have helpfully confirmed the calculations of earlier biblical scholars.
Unless you read the second biblical creation myth that is: when Yahweh Elohim re-created everything in only 1 Day, and the very first thing he created was the planet's very first male Homo sapiens from mud. Then the very last thing he created was the planet's very first female Homo sapiens from one of Adam's ribs. Adam is the mud-man's name - even though Adam was what both the male and female humans from the first creation myth were called - but none of this is contradiction, or mythology, of course - you just need lots of faith for your mind to accept it as even remotely plausible.
And you do, I'm afraid, have to sweep the details of Genesis under the altar with all the other stuff that isn't selling anymore, if you want to pretend biblical mythology is even remotely compatible with science.
Joshua wrote: "Well the skeletal structure is almost identical. Like a terrier skeleton would be similar to a Labrador. Primary school teaching of evolution is usually based on the development of birds from thera..."
Birds didn't evolve at all - let alone from mammals. Birds were created on Day 5, along with fishes and biblical leviathan monsters.
Certain godless scientists have conspired though to try and counter biblical truth by suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs - which is not what Genesis Chapter One says, of course.
Birds didn't evolve at all - let alone from mammals. Birds were created on Day 5, along with fishes and biblical leviathan monsters.
Certain godless scientists have conspired though to try and counter biblical truth by suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs - which is not what Genesis Chapter One says, of course.
Joshua wrote: "hmmI know a biologist who would say otherwise. But I have an open mind. If the theories are proven please do enlighten me."
Your biologist friend is greatly outnumbered by nearly all of the other biologists. If you are interested in the case for evolution, I would recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, or "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. They are scientists, and I am not.
In any case, I did not weigh in here to get into a long protracted argument over evolution; I have endured far too many of those and it never leads anywhere. I jumped into this one just to make sure I understood your point about T. Rex and kangaroos, as I had never seen that particular point made.
Stuart wrote: "Steve wrote: "Joshua wrote: "fascinating little creature that mouse.your logic looks backwards to me.
The kangaroo, being off on quite another lineage of creatures
does not the remarkable simil..."
Stewart: Hello. Yes, I am aware many people scoff at evolution because it does not square with their religious beliefs. I prefer talking to people over sneering at them, though, so please don't drag me into that.
Stewie, the milk of human kindness shouldn't be so gullible as to assume all chatter is truth.
Joshua, you've actually broken into my favourite topic right now, which is the matter of how some symplesiomorphies (shared ancestral-type characteristics) can become stabilized through otherwise wildly divergent pathways of evolution.
The popular assumption would be that if the kangaroo was very far over on a different lineage from the therapods, having evolved fur and mammary glands and live birth with a pouch, and so on, that the skeletal structure would be equally radically altered.
In fact, this need not be the case in any way whatsoever. But it's not as if there was some constant set of evolutionary strictures that rigorously maintained the system where there were, for example, three metatarsal bones, and a big tibia supported by a little bow-shaped fibula. There's no major physical reason why a lineage couldn't evolve four metatarsals, or two, or (as the birds ultimately did) one.
It's actually very similar to a question I just asked a PhD student who was graduating with a thesis on a little grey mould fungus that is surprisingly closely related to mushrooms. Why would it retain the same septal pore structure (complicated structure of the cross-wall between cells) as the mushrooms when all its other features were so drastically altered?
The real reason is that complex processes of development themselves apply enough internal stricture to make deviating developmental patterns unlikely to become established, unless there is some significant external direct natural selection going on that influences that character. Complex internal developmental characters have a momentum of their own that tends to make them persistent. They have the character that Hennig would have called 'bradytely,' relatively decelerated evolution.
My academic-level thoughts on this topic are included in a chapter that has been submitted for a microbiological book. However, my sci-fi novel weaves in a certain amount of this topic, and there's a comparison between an evolutionary system and what a sales representative needs to do to succeed in selling things to the customer.
The popular assumption would be that if the kangaroo was very far over on a different lineage from the therapods, having evolved fur and mammary glands and live birth with a pouch, and so on, that the skeletal structure would be equally radically altered.
In fact, this need not be the case in any way whatsoever. But it's not as if there was some constant set of evolutionary strictures that rigorously maintained the system where there were, for example, three metatarsal bones, and a big tibia supported by a little bow-shaped fibula. There's no major physical reason why a lineage couldn't evolve four metatarsals, or two, or (as the birds ultimately did) one.
It's actually very similar to a question I just asked a PhD student who was graduating with a thesis on a little grey mould fungus that is surprisingly closely related to mushrooms. Why would it retain the same septal pore structure (complicated structure of the cross-wall between cells) as the mushrooms when all its other features were so drastically altered?
The real reason is that complex processes of development themselves apply enough internal stricture to make deviating developmental patterns unlikely to become established, unless there is some significant external direct natural selection going on that influences that character. Complex internal developmental characters have a momentum of their own that tends to make them persistent. They have the character that Hennig would have called 'bradytely,' relatively decelerated evolution.
My academic-level thoughts on this topic are included in a chapter that has been submitted for a microbiological book. However, my sci-fi novel weaves in a certain amount of this topic, and there's a comparison between an evolutionary system and what a sales representative needs to do to succeed in selling things to the customer.
I did not weigh in here to get into a long protracted argument over evolution; I have endured far too many of those and it never leads anywhereI agree.
What I will say in response to Mark's comment here is the crux of my position. In every discussion of evolutionary forces there is incredibly complex design issues. It is the greatest show on earth.
However we now know that the primary mechanism for bacterial resistance etc is horizontal gene transfer which is modifying creatures, not necessarily creating new ones.
If you believe that creatures developed over a long period etc etc ok. But the designs involved are infinitely beyond the capacity that human intelligence has for design, so I don't believe it's chance, even if the design was the inbuilt capacity to develop.
Whatever it is that is behind the reality we can't fathom is what most of us call God and the evolutionists call "mother nature". For me God is slightly more personal. I embrace His all encompassing presence, but also His incomprehensible intelligence.
I look at human history and I see civilisation appear all over the world about 4500 years ago in China, India, Mesopotamis, Africa etc almost simultaneously and all with memories of a great flood.
So I think to myself, we are still learning.
For me I believe that God does have a personal side and he relates to people spiritually. In Jesus mission he directed us to connect to God spiritually and taught us love. That's my God.
Some "evolutionists" believe in God, Joshua. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.
some, yes. that's becoming more and more common these days.
@ Markcomplex processes of development themselves apply enough internal stricture to make deviating developmental patterns unlikely to become established, unless there is some significant external direct natural selection going on that influences that character
I was thinking about what you said and it's a very valid point. However this commonality would assume ancestry that contains the same biological structures.
Since the T-rex has been assumed to be reptile and the kangaroo is in fact mammalian this would logically would lead to the conclusion that the common ancestor of mammalian and reptilian evolutionary trees had this skeletal structure.
Perhaps we could call it the kangarex.
However if such a creature did exist you would have to assume the biomechanics matched the example we did know (the kangaroo), rather than the example we have made assumption about (the trex) and therefore conclude that therapods were bouncy.
Perhaps we could call it the kangarex.
However if such a creature did exist you would have to assume the biomechanics matched the example we did know (the kangaroo), rather than the example we have made assumption about (the trex) and therefore conclude that therapods were bouncy.
If I were a zoologist rather than a fungus person, I'd probably be able to tell you off the top of my head what the scientific fossil name for the real avatar of 'kangarex' is, since the kangaroo and the therapod do have a common ancestor. I'm cooking dinner right now, though, so pardon me not searching for it.
You need not make any assumptions about its nature other than it would probably have three metatarsals, a tibia and a fibula. No particular constraint on how they would be oriented or what their relative length would be. Rappellative traits like extended bones in coordination with some mode of locomotion are easy enough to evolve convergently and divergently. It's the basics of construction that tend to move in slow motion.
Personally I am still waiting for some FACTUAL proof (or even good science) of Macro-evolution.
This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you want? What is the most readily accessible piece of evidence that will suffice to demonstrate macro-evolution?
However if such a creature did exist you would have to assume the biomechanics matched the example we did know (the kangaroo), rather than the example we have made assumption about (the trex) and therefore conclude that therapods were bouncy.
If I were a zoologist rather than a fungus person, I'd probably be able to tell you off the top of my head what the scientific fossil name for the real avatar of 'kangarex' is, since the kangaroo and the therapod do have a common ancestor. I'm cooking dinner right now, though, so pardon me not searching for it.
You need not make any assumptions about its nature other than it would probably have three metatarsals, a tibia and a fibula. No particular constraint on how they would be oriented or what their relative length would be. Rappellative traits like extended bones in coordination with some mode of locomotion are easy enough to evolve convergently and divergently. It's the basics of construction that tend to move in slow motion.
Personally I am still waiting for some FACTUAL proof (or even good science) of Macro-evolution.
This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you want? What is the most readily accessible piece of evidence that will suffice to demonstrate macro-evolution?
This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you want? quite right, it is indeed a matter of faith in both regards. To me the evidence for evolution doesn't stack and Stuart would say the say thing about YHWH.
Just like Stuart if I wanted to believe it I could find the evidence. But I am biased so the flaws stick out like beacons.
There are many scientists who do believe in creation etc and make a very convincing case for it. Things like irreducible complexity etc.
For me, seeing Kangaroos regularly, the proposition that creatures were able to "walk" on the kind of legs Kangaroos have is bizarre. The lack of an ankle (or a wrist) makes walking practically impossible. Just watch any dog try it. And these are supposed to be the most primitive creatures. Anyway.. everyone has a right to their opinion.
Joshua wrote: "This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you want? quite right, it is in..."
Well, no, it is not "a matter of faith in both regards." The objective evidence for evolution is quite strong, and has been piling up for decades, and keeps growing every day, to the point that the vast majority of scientists working in relevant fields are convinced and strong predictions regarding future fossil finds and genetics have been made and then have been proven correct.
The evidence for God's existence is far more slippery. On the side of objective evidence, there is virtually none -- the major arguments generally put forth for God's existence tend to fail the test of Occam's Razor, or to be built upon unfounded premises. And I am simply talking about evidence for God's existence; when you start to talk about the nature of God, the evidence is even worse and we end up with a world full of various religions, none of which are built on objective evidence.
In sum, evolution is a matter of evidence and science, not faith. God is a matter of experience and faith, not objective evidence and science.
I hasten to add once more that the facts of evolution theory do not prove there is no God. So often people think it is an either-or situation. It is not.
Joshua wrote: "@ Markcomplex processes of development themselves apply enough internal stricture to make deviating developmental patterns unlikely to become established, unless there is some significant externa..."
I don't think we need to conclude that "theropods were bouncy" because their foot skeletal structure is similar to that of a kangaroo. I think you need to look at the rest of the skeleton to make deductions regarding theropod locomotion.
Steve wrote: "Joshua wrote: "This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you want? quite ..."
Quite true, Josh. Evolution is in the fields of biology, and the soft sciences. The existence of God is in the realm of philosophy of religion. These two categories, albeit they both serve to advance knowledge, are different fields. As Wittgenstein said, they serve different ends and we would be foolish to reduce philosophy to, let us say, the scientific method, which unfortunately most scientists do when they ridicule philosophy.
As you said before, we need to move past this understanding that evolution disproves something its field cant touch, namely, philosophy. Philosophy has stretched our knowledge in numerous ways the past century, especially in phenomenology and the study of the brain. Scientists need to recognize this.
It is precisely because of people like Stuart that discussion is halted. His understanding of science and philosophy is so utterly naive, dogmatic, and bigoted. This type of mentality on both sides, either religious fundamentalism or dogmatic evidentialism (scientism) needs to be halted if discussion is to move forward.
Brent wrote: "Steve wrote: "Joshua wrote: "This is actually a replica of Stuart's question about proving Yahweh is God, and therefore I ask the same question I asked him: How will you know when you get what you ..."Hear, hear. Amen for nuanced thought.
When discussions drift off into the old chestnut of EvC, they almost invariably turn into protracted and detailed critiques of science.
Almost never do they turn into even the most cursory critique of either of the two contradictory biblical creation myths.
Ducking and dodging to avoid admitting you don't have a shred of anything outside the writings of Iron Age priests from the Middle East - or not referencing the mythology at all - is dishonest.
No amount of so-called "philosophy" will establish mud-men, rib-women, talking serpents, magic fruit trees, virgin-born god-men, zombies rising from the dead or any of the other religious fantasies. It's more delusory, smoke and mirrors, deflection and distraction.
The existence of "God" is in the realms of mythology and anthropology.
The biblical Yahweh is not "God" - but the Jewish writings are fascinating studies when you move beyond the obligations of belief.
Almost never do they turn into even the most cursory critique of either of the two contradictory biblical creation myths.
Ducking and dodging to avoid admitting you don't have a shred of anything outside the writings of Iron Age priests from the Middle East - or not referencing the mythology at all - is dishonest.
No amount of so-called "philosophy" will establish mud-men, rib-women, talking serpents, magic fruit trees, virgin-born god-men, zombies rising from the dead or any of the other religious fantasies. It's more delusory, smoke and mirrors, deflection and distraction.
The existence of "God" is in the realms of mythology and anthropology.
The biblical Yahweh is not "God" - but the Jewish writings are fascinating studies when you move beyond the obligations of belief.
You are very good at passing wind, Stuart.
Actually, I have seen plenty of critiques of Biblical creation myths lobbed during evolution vs. Bible debates. Happens all the time.
Brent wrote: "You are very good at passing wind, Stuart."
What was that about a Masters degree ...?
What was that about a Masters degree ...?
Steve wrote: "Actually, I have seen plenty of critiques of Biblical creation myths lobbed during evolution vs. Bible debates. Happens all the time."
Must admit I haven't bothered with EvC for quite a while - except for here just recently.
If people are holding biblical creation myths up to the same scrutiny as for science a) I am pleased, and b) I'd love to poke my nose into a few sites if you can direct me.
I've found in the past that evolutionists don't want to know about biblical details (and I have been criticised for raising them: "What, is this a fucking Bible class now?" and even accused of not really being an Atheist (yes, fundamentalists are everywhere).
And I've always found - as I have here in spades - that Christians who believe the universe was created by Jesus avoid discussing the details because they know, if they are honest, they cannot back up a single one of them with anything other than 2,000 year-old mythology.
Must admit I haven't bothered with EvC for quite a while - except for here just recently.
If people are holding biblical creation myths up to the same scrutiny as for science a) I am pleased, and b) I'd love to poke my nose into a few sites if you can direct me.
I've found in the past that evolutionists don't want to know about biblical details (and I have been criticised for raising them: "What, is this a fucking Bible class now?" and even accused of not really being an Atheist (yes, fundamentalists are everywhere).
And I've always found - as I have here in spades - that Christians who believe the universe was created by Jesus avoid discussing the details because they know, if they are honest, they cannot back up a single one of them with anything other than 2,000 year-old mythology.
Stuart wrote: "Steve wrote: "Actually, I have seen plenty of critiques of Biblical creation myths lobbed during evolution vs. Bible debates. Happens all the time."Must admit I haven't bothered with EvC for quit..."
Sorry, Stewart. I have stayed out of evolution versus Bible debates for a while now, too, because the absurdity makes my gray cells melt. I don't have a lot of links at my fingertips. But I do distinctly recall Biblical mythology being held up to scrutiny in such discussions.
Steve wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Steve wrote: "Actually, I have seen plenty of critiques of Biblical creation myths lobbed during evolution vs. Bible debates. Happens all the time."
Must admit I haven't bothered wi..."
OK - thanx
Must admit I haven't bothered wi..."
OK - thanx
ok, simple solution here.Evolution seems to have happened in an amazing series of perfectly functioning incremental steps, like a line up of old jaguars. Every one similar but they all work in their own way.
The human race appears to have developed in the last 5-6000 years.
Science says this time period was roughly the end of the last ice age. (earth covered in water)
God is actually very creative and enjoys making all kinds of creatures. Apparently He's been at it for a long time.
At the end of the last ice age He decided to make this creature called mankind. about 5-6000 years ago. Which has since populated the planet.
about 4500 years ago there was a massive flood caused by the melting of massive ice sheets which is recorded in the memories of the Indians, Chinese etc etc.
God decided to warn Noah because he was fond of him. The rest of the people were particularly evil so Noah's preaching of impending doom was ignored.
God is still at it, apparently His latest work has taken inspiration from Kermit the frog.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ani...
Joshua wrote: "ok, simple solution here.Evolution seems to have happened in an amazing series of perfectly functioning incremental steps, like a line up of old jaguars. Every one similar but they all work in th..."
1) Evolution is a sloppy process, not an amazing series of perfectly functioning incremental steps. Some steps are good, some are bad, the good ones are selected for and the bad ones are selected against.
2) The earliest humans lived millions of years ago, not 6,000 years ago.
3) The geologic evidence does not support the idea of a global flood, 6,000 years ago.
4) I have no idea where you are going with the Kermit thing.
Ned wrote: "This post will be about the nature of proof and evidence and will serve as a refutation of resident Sophist Stuart’s positions regarding the same. Stuart’s position(s) can be taken as typical of th..."Looking at the original post in this conversation, I do not see where Stuart made himself the "sole arbiter" of what counts as evidence and what does not. I don't recall ever seeing him do that.
Ned wrote: "This post will be about the nature of proof and evidence and will serve as a refutation of resident Sophist Stuart’s positions regarding the same. Stuart’s position(s) can be taken as typical of th..."Again referring to the original post here ... I have seen Stuart ask for evidence, but I do not recall him demanding "absolute proof."
More regarding the original post: The geologic evidence does not support the idea of the Noachic flood. Floods leave behind a chaotic mess, not neat and predictable geologic layers that are consistent worldwide.
Regarding the original post: I agree Israel's survival and continued existence seem miraculous, but have to point out that human beings highly motivated by religious belief actively worked to make that happen ... so it could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy and not so much a miraculous one. As evidence, it flunks the test of Occam's Razor. A more convincing prophecy would be one that could not be made to come true by human effort -- for instance, accurately predicting a meteor strike in a particular time and place. The return of Jesus, if that happens, will be an astounding prophecy, of course, and probably will clinch Ned's case.
Ned wrote: "The Bible is firmly grounded in history.Stuart has been fond of saying that the bible and the biblical God are "imaginations" and "myths." This is an obvious false assertion. Mythology reads as s..."
So, the Bible writers were familiar with their own history and geography. That's evidence of Biblical veracity regarding supernatural matters? No.
Buddhist sutras mention real people and places, but that does not prove any Buddhist supernatural claims. A lot of fiction mentions real people and places, but it is still fiction. The Koran mentions real people and places, but ... I hope you get the point.
Ned wrote: "Dubious historical methodMark W. Foreman provides a humorous anecdote concerning the "parallells" method used by some historians intent on undermining the authority of scripture, as famously pres..."
I am not a huge fan of the mythic prarllels argument (I think many who use it give it more weight than it deserves), but I would say undermining the mythic parallel argument is not the same thing as providing evidence that the God of the Bible is indeed, the one true God.
Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Phylogenetic Systematics (other topics)Principia Mathematica, 3 Vols (other topics)
Kurt Gödel Collected Works Volume I: Publications 1929-1936 (other topics)
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (other topics)
