The evidence for evolution
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
A couple of points, especially about Nicea. There were many, perhaps dozens, of gospels pre the decision to make it into a state religion. There were also dozens of christian sects - remember that Jesus was trying to modify the jewish religion, in the same way as Luther didn't want to invent a new religion but modify the current one. The sects continued to an extent after Nicea but a period of persecution soon put paid to that. A number of discarded gospels have since come to light, some in my lifetime.
Yes, lots of Gospels were discarded but these were always regarded as non-canonical. Essentially what was removed was an accumulation of dross. There are a few interesting ones that were left out, not because of Nicea but more because the books didn't make it into the European canon. Thomas and Philip appear in the Indian Bible and Enoch is still in the African version. One I can think of that has recently been discovered, and may not have been included for a number of interesting reasons, is Judas.Derek Smith said:
You've lost me in your argument: If you were going to come up with a text to promote God would you come up with all the stuff in the old testament?
The argument is that it seems very unlikely that anyone keen to talk about God would use the OT to support any NT doctrine. The most likely explanation is that it was a tribal history with key events retrospectively justified by faith. It made no sense as a basis for God and undermines a lot of what is commonly taught about Christianity but no one dared take it all out!Derek Smith said:
You say that science only destroys the faith bit of the bible. Are you suggesting that, like many religionists, we should pick and choose what we believe from the bible?
I think an interpretation that actually works is required for both the faithful and for the scientific. My interpretation works for everyone. The history stands, if you have faith then the justification of events in the text also stands. If you have no faith the justification is simply how the authors saw their world and doesn't undermine the history.Derek Smith said:
Is, for instance, the exodus still standing despite a singular lack of any evidence for it? What about the slavery of the Jews? What about the destruction of the cities of the plains?
Many would disagree with your assertion that there is a lack of evidence for Exodus. It rather depends on what evidence you choose to accept and which theory about the time and route that you are trying to support or undermine. Rohl finds plenty of evidence in his "Test of time". The cities of the plains have long been placed around, or under, the Dead Sea and recently one archaeologist, Steven Collins, claimed to have located Sodom even finding a substantial gate structure which may have been where Lot awaited his visitors. The actual destruction reads as a volcanic event or meteor. Candidates exist for both though the meteor that has recently been suggested is way too early to fit our usual dates.Derek Smith said:
I've had an interest in history for a considerable number of years and many of the books I bought in the 60s have been proved wrong in their conclusions. In January 2014 there were half a dozen books on WWI reviewed in The Times (I think). Some authors directly contradicted others. Most authors were erudite professors in well respected educational institutions but they could not all be right. They had their own reasons for writing what they did.
Why should it have been any different back in pre-history? The many authors of Genesis wrote what they did either as the inspired word of their god, or more likely gods, or for their own reasons. Take away faith and you have the latter.
No one is claiming it would have been different. The fact that a book review of WW1 showed several conflicting views does not change the certainty that WW1 actually happened. I would imagine that the bulk of these opposing views were regarding fairly trivial issues or were genuine mistakes.Why should it have been any different back in pre-history? The many authors of Genesis wrote what they did either as the inspired word of their god, or more likely gods, or for their own reasons. Take away faith and you have the latter.
Derek Smith said:
It is stories. Most of those stories have no supporting evidence and many can be refuted on what has been discovered. The ark is myth, no matter how it is twisted by those who try and make it fit scientific reality.
What supporting evidence do you expect after over two thousand years minimum! The OT has sections going back circa five thousand years, we are lucky to have anything left at all!Regarding the Ark that too probably happened. We have a clear record of a flood covering a vast area of modern Iraq in about 2900BC. This is actually corroborated by Gilgamesh who, in 2700 BC claimed to have lived two hundred years after the flood. The actual event was probably a local leader ordering everyone to get breeding pairs of farm animals onto the boats as the waters rose. There may have been one big barge used for this purpose or possibly a flotilla of smaller vessels which were lashed together to give an overall size as in the Bible.
Derek Smith said:
So why, if people made up these stories to fit their own purposes, should we believe that there was any difference in motive when it came to the rest?
I don't think they did make them up, I think they added the retrospective justification of God being pleased or angry. These addition then got used for the purposes of people who came along much later.Derek Smith said:
Science will always be wrong. Darwin had no concept of DNA so could not explain the mechanics of evolution. The early explanation of DNA in its effects on inheritance of features was wrong. There will be further developments over the years to come. All science can hope to do is restrict the margins of error. The bible has no place in this.
Good. My interpretation of the Biblical text as a history begins in 4000BC with the first people being the tribal founders. Anything before that time is not relevant to my viewpoint.Derek Smith said:
The bible does little more than open a window on how people of the time behaved. As I said, Pride and Prejudice, but even more wordy.
It is a very interesting historical document, with layers of history and views on why a God would or would not do something. It gives insights into life in the Bronze age and Iron age and has touched other faiths, many cultures and a lot of law and philosophy over thousands of years.It deserves a better summary than being of no greater importance than P&P.
cymtriks said:
Dawkins said:
As for the rest of your post well a great man once said about the bible and religion in general "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
He couldn't be that great if he made such silly statements.Most of great achievements in science and technology started out exactly like that, someone said "What if..." or "why does that..". At that point the same argument could be applied to them. No evidence, dismiss instantly.
Exactly what do you think I've asserted without evidence?
Just to remind you:
The Bible stands as a historical document and deserves to be studied due its immense influence on culture, art, history, politics and philosophy over the centuries since it was written.
Some interpretations give links to key historical events in other fields such as volcanology or metrology.
Bible studies are required for scientists if scientists keep making errors in their scientific appraisal of the Bible.
If you don't get that then your approach to, and true understanding of, science still needs some work.
king legend, so I'm opening it up again.You're misunderstanding what science is. Science is very imaginative and innovative, but it exists within the limits of rational thought. We are not hobbled by this, but rather empowered, as to chase ideas firmly fixed in fantasy is a waste of human resource. Reason grants us both the focus and impartiality to see the world it's true light, however dim.
So we instead explore hypotheses. Ideas which fit observations, grounded in rationality. This is the first evidence you usually get. By contrast we do not make claims like, "yeah that's mental, god did it."
Instead, we take our rational idea, then do something only scientists do. We devote everything we have into proving ourselves wrong. We can spend years working on projects which we then accumulate evidence, only eventually they are destroyed by our own hands. Whilst I do not claim to be of any true significance I have done this for years.
As for the value of the Bible. As a historical artifact it most certainly does deserve some consideration because of it's cultural impact. But its value in terms of truth is negligible, as a source of moral truth it is positively caustic, so I think most scientifically minded people could be forgiven for not being fully au fait with it's content. But I do know from experience that atheists typically have a much great knowledge than their religious counterparts.
There really is nothing more satisfying than watching a bulls
tters argument crumble around him.TwigtheWonderkid said:
As Ricky Gervais once said, if you want to deny something, don't pick evolution or the holocaust. There's way too much evidence, and you'll look very silly.
The problem is that it's too easy these days. Look at the Apollo 11 conspiracy theories (was it just 11 they denied? How about the other missions? I never quite worked that one out). We have rocks we brought back from the moon, a reflector on the moon that we still fire lasers at daily, photographs from orbit (some taken by Eastern countries with every reason to deny America's achievements!), loads of photographs - what more evidence do you want? Not only that, but none of the counter arguments hold any water at all, and are 100% dismissible with very simple Physics. Nevertheless, the internet's lack of peer review and equal standing for all viewpoints combined with some ignorance and willpower makes anything possible 
Creationism, Apollo 11 etc - it's all possible, no matter how crazy. I even saw one the other day that involved the private jet that crashed at Blackbushe airport recently and it being ordered by the British government, who apparently shot it down with a missile 
- all ignoring the fact that the plane simply ran off the end of the runway, but nevertheless the last I saw of that conspiracy theory it was gaining momentum on the internet and received 'likes' from people I know!My sister in law is a creationist and a qualified lawyer - enough said!!
Yes, the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming and diverse, plus it all matches and cross correlates with timelines from other disciplines, such as geology and meteorology. Idiots will deny anything though, and other idiots will believe them.
RizzoTheRat said:
RobM77 said:
but nevertheless the last I saw of that conspiracy theory it was gaining momentum on the internet and received 'likes' from people I know!
Natural selection of Facebook friends has become a thing I had considered it! I've now unfollowed this guy, along with a number of other crazy Facebook friends who post creationist stuff etc. It's a useful feature as I'm still in touch with him, but just don't have to endure all the rubbish that he spouts on a daily basis.I've recently come across claims that the US government is fabricating major incidents for nefarious reasons (mostly they seem to think it's a plan to take their guns away...). Claims that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen. Utterly bizarre tinfoil hattery from people who believe in chemtrails.
otolith said:
I've recently come across claims that the US government is fabricating major incidents for nefarious reasons (mostly they seem to think it's a plan to take their guns away...). Claims that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen. Utterly bizarre tinfoil hattery from people who believe in chemtrails.
Turn a few rocks over on the Internet and the stupid is strong. Not sure what drives all of them but some are thick, some are brainy. Most will outright deny he sun comes up in the morning if that is their bent, that is what they do.
The bin lorry as well. Look in the right places and there are people that see conspiracy everywhere and in every day events. It gets even more woo when numerology is thrown in the mix. The internet is a place where the village idiots can express a view and in a place where they are lauded by like minded.
jmorgan said:
The internet is a place where the village idiots can express a view and in a place where they are lauded by like minded.
And of course these idiotic comments (often posted by people with far too much time on their hands, because unsurprisingly nobody wants to employ them for their useless time!) stand alongside properly researched comments by educated people, often with no differentiation between the two. There was an 'Inside Science' special on Radio 4 a few months ago about Creationism and they reported that it is a reasonably new phenomenon, caused by this very effect.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff