There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

So...the evidence found regarding dinosaurs existing millions of years ago shows that the Bible is accurate when it shows through geneologies that the Earth is around 6000 years old?And of course the evidence found regardign the formation of stars, planets, and cosmology in general showed that the Bible was accurate in a literal 6-day Creation week, right?Modern geology showing that the Earth has never had a global Flood (not an absence of evidence, but mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) surely showed that the Biblical deluge story was accurate, right? And the lack of a genetic bottleneck at the same time for all species on Earth as would be required by that level of mass-dieoff (again, not an absence of evidence, but rather mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) showed that the Flood happened as told in the Bible, right?Right.And absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I don't see a fly on my monitor, that is evidence that there is no fly on my monitor. It's simply not proof of absence...but then, actual proof is difficult to come by for just about everything. When evidence should be present if an event occurred (ie, a dead body must exist for a murder to have occurred), the absence of that evidence (in this case the "victim" walking around alive) is evidence of falsification. Not all evidence is like a fingerprint, where the presence or absence alone means little. Some evidence ismutually exclusive.You're approaching this like a gullible fool. You assume that the Bible is accurate until it's proven otherwise (and apparently even then), instead of approaching all claims with skepticism until they are supported by evidence. By that standard, Harry Potter should be regarded as true - all of the evidence that has been found (ie, the existence of London) demonstrates the accuracy of the book, and the abence of any evidence surrounding magic is not actually evidence of its absence.So do you treat all historical claims and myths this way, or only the Bible?

Just because one thing is real doesn't make it all real. All mythology contains some truth.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

[quote]Just because one thing is real doesn't make it all real. All mythology contains some truth.[\quote]That is true, however, my statement was that where historical evidence has been found, it always proves the Bible accurate. In other words, it has proven to be reliable, and claims reliablity. It is up to the skeptic to prove otherwise.

And where related historical evidence has been found, it proves the Iliad and the Odyssey accurate. Why, just this summer it was found that the goings-on surrounding Odysseus' return home include a real total solar eclipse that crossed Greece in 1178 BCE! So that proves that Athena, Hermes, Zeus, and Poseidon Earthshaker are actual gods, right? And if not right, why not?Just a moment... has the details.

quote:

---

where historical evidence has been found, it always proves the Bible accurate.

---

Where evidence is found however, more often than not it proves the Bible to be inaccurate.Here is one example.The Israelites camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 of the 40 years in the desert immediately after the Exodus.The Bible claims the Exodus happened in 1446 BCE.Kadesh-barnea was ecavated to bedrock by Cohen, who found no evidence of any occupation before the 11th century BCE.Therefore, evidence has been found that has shown the Bible to be inaccurate.There are literally hundreds (perhaps even thousands if we go deep enough)of examples where evidence has shown many factors of biblical accounts inaccurate.But you wont find these on fundy websites, so it is best you educate yourself by going along to a decent library and investigating the bible and near eastern history for yourself.

quote:

---

So...the evidence found regarding dinosaurs existing millions of years ago shows that the Bible is accurate when it shows through geneologies that the Earth is around 6000 years old?

---

Of course there is no evidence that directly says that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Rather, that is an interpretation of the evidence. In fact there is evidence that suggests that dinosaurs existed thousand, instead of millions of years ago.Mummified Brachylophosaurus Holds Secrets Millions Of Years Old

quote:

---

And of course the evidence found regardign the formation of stars, planets, and cosmology in general showed that the Bible was accurate in a literal 6-day Creation week, right?

---

Just what evidence has been found that shows the Bible is inaccurate regarding the stars and planets. In fact accourding to the big bang theory, the further out you go, the older the stars should be, yet we find the opposite to be true according to evolutionary assumptions.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp

quote:

---

Modern geology showing that the Earth has never had a global Flood (not an absence of evidence, but mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) surely showed that the Biblical deluge story was accurate, right?

---

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there could have been a global flood some time in the past.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

quote:

---

And the lack of a genetic bottleneck at the same time for all species on Earth as would be required by that level of mass-dieoff (again, not an absence of evidence, but rather mutually exclusive contradictory evidence) showed that the Flood happened as told in the Bible, right?

---

Genetics is a complex field of study and we are still a long way away from mastering it, however, there is evidence out there that shows that we can trace back ancestors of some animals to just a couple or maybe three individuals.BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Origin of dogs traced

quote:

---

Right

---

Of course nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt from either side, but yes there is evidence that suggests it.

quote:

---

And absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

---

An absence of evidence only proves that there is an absence of evidence. The absence of evidence does not prove that something did or did not happen. Ask any law inforcement official. It is still an argument from silence.

quote:

---

If I don't see a fly on my monitor, that is evidence that there is no fly on my monitor.

---

That is true, however, it does not prove that there has never been a fly on your monitor some time in the past. That is difference between origins science and imperical science.

quote:

---

It's simply not proof of absence...but then, actual proof is difficult to come by for just about everything.

---

Absolutely, which is what we are dealing with when it comes to origins science or historical science. Anything that deals with the past where no one living today actually witnessed the event.

quote:

---

When evidence should be present if an event occurred (ie, a dead body must exist for a murder to have occurred), the absence of that evidence (in this case the "victim" walking around alive) is evidence of falsification.

---

That is a logical assumption but an assumption all the same. Not always the case. For instance Natalie Holloway did exist. She did go to the island of Aruba. She cannot be found. While murder cannot be proved, because of lack of body, it does not prove that she wasn't murdered.

quote:

---

Not all evidence is like a fingerprint, where the presence or absence alone means little. Some evidence ismutually exclusive.

---

That is true, however evidence does not speak for it self. It has to be interpreted. Even in a murder trial, the lawyers will argue over what the evidence means, and then the jury has to decide. Sometimes the jury decides correctly and sometimes it does not.

quote:

---

You're approaching this like a gullible fool. You assume that the Bible is accurate until it's proven otherwise (and apparently even then), instead of approaching all claims with skepticism until they are supported by evidence.

---

We all start off with assumptions. You start off with the assumptions of naturalism. I start off with the assumption that the Bible is true. So with your line of logic, we are both gullible fools. You assume from the beginning that evolution is true. You base all your interpretation of the evidenc based on that assumption, and then you are skeptical of any evidence that may suggest otherwise. You and are alike.

quote:

---

By that standard, Harry Potter should be regarded as true - all of the evidence that has been found (ie, the existence of London) demonstrates the accuracy of the book, and the abence of any evidence surrounding magic is not actually evidence of its absence.

---

There are many people who do believe in magic. However, you err in your logic. Harry Potter does not claim to be true. The author is with us today, and can be questioned. It is not the same as a historical piece written long ago.

quote:

---

So do you treat all historical claims and myths this way, or only the Bible?

---

You place the Bible in the same catagory as myth. I do not. I pick up the Bible with the same attitude that I pick up the newspaper. However, I do have a certain amount of skepticim about the newspaper. What about you, do you approach all historical documents with the same attitude that you do the Bible?Edited by Creationist, : Had to get the codes right.

That specimen is more than 70 million years old. That is hardly evidence that dinosaurs existed thousands of years ago.But let's just suppose that dinosaurs did exist thousands of years ago. Where are the bones? We have bones of mammoths and mastodons, and all manner of other late Pleistocene fauna that go back tens of thousands of years, but no dinosaur bones. You would think a few would still be around in archaeological sites, but they're not there.They are imbedded in geological formations where they belong, not in the soils! Sorry, that AiG article is so full of holes its laughable. You don't actually believe that stuff, do you?Just one of the many problems with a global flood: there is no evidence in the archaeological record of such a flood. And that is where you should be looking, not in the geological record! The flood is placed by biblical experts somewhere around 4,350 years ago. If you want evidence of that time period you look to archaeological sites and sedimentology, not geology! And guess what, archaeologists don't find a record of a flood at that time period. Rather, they find continuity of fauna and flora, human cultures, DNA, stratigraphy, etc.Face it, the global flood is a religious belief that is flatly contradicted by science no matter how creationists choose to twist and misinterpret the data.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Good point. We can't question the guys that wrote all those diverse books that the Council of Nicaea collected, and we can't question the bishops that went to the Council. We can't know their motivations. So we need to be especially careful about taking those writings, or any ancient writings, at any of the thousands of "face value" interpretations that exist today. All of those, even including yours, Creationist, could be wrong.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Do you approach all other religious texts with the same attitude that you do the bible? A tested hypothesis verified by prediction and discovery. This is a common misapprehension. It is indeed very true of creationist thinking and I am glad that you can see and accept that. However the whole basis of science is the testing of conclusions such that those which are untrue are eradicated. Prediction and discovery are the gold standard of scientific verification. By these methods objectivity is maximised. The opportunity to simply decide what one subjectively wants to be true and to then seek supporting evidence and ignore opposing evidence is just not viable when combined with such methods. Predictions made from such theories will be quickly refuted.Your AiG links cover various topics for all of which there are threads covered elsewhere on the EvC site. As far as I can see all are well refuted claims but you might want to pick your strongest one and start a new thread or carry on the discussion in an exiting one. Science, historical or otherwise, is founded on the idea of hypotheses. Testing conclusions. Not just providing plausible, or even implausible, potential explanations but actually putting those "explanations" or theories to the test.Prediction, verification and discovery.
Evolutionary theory has made numerous predictions and resulted in numerous discoveries.
Big Bang cosmology has made numerous predictions and resulted in numerous discoveries.Creationism has never ever even once resulted in a single verifiable prediction or resulting discovery. Creationists do not test their conclusions. They just re-interpret the evidence discovered by the meathods of real science and redeply it to their own ideological ends.

quote:

---

And where related historical evidence has been found, it proves the Iliad and the Odyssey accurate. Why, just this summer it was found that the goings-on surrounding Odysseus' return home include a real total solar eclipse that crossed Greece in 1178 BCE! So that proves that Athena, Hermes, Zeus, and Poseidon Earthshaker are actual gods, right? And if not right, why not?

---

Just a moment... has the details.Of course there are many things in the Iliad and the Odyssey that are historically accurate, so your question is one of why do we not accept the gods of Homer? It can be answered better by saying why worship gods that come from nature and not eternal? In other words, they are not the ultimate as the God in the Bible is. The God in the Bible created all things including nature. He is the ultimate and only He is worthy of worship. To answer your question, the Bible says there are is only one true God. And only He should you worship. You must decide.

So we must believe in your God because the bible ays so and we must trust the bible becuase becaue it is written to reflect the wishes and nature of your God?Surely even you can see the circular nature of this argument....?

quote:

---

Where evidence is found however, more often than not it proves the Bible to be inaccurate.
Here is one example.
The Israelites camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 of the 40 years in the desert immediately after the Exodus.
The Bible claims the Exodus happened in 1446 BCE.
Kadesh-barnea was ecavated to bedrock by Cohen, who found no evidence of any occupation before the 11th century BCE.
Therefore, evidence has been found that has shown the Bible to be inaccurate.

---

Ok, to answer this, I need a little more information. How did Cohen conclude that there was no occupation before the 11th century B.C.?

quote:

---

There are literally hundreds (perhaps even thousands if we go deep enough)of examples where evidence has shown many factors of biblical accounts inaccurate.

---

As of yet, that remains to be seen. It depends how conclusions were come by. What methods were they using, etc.

quote:

---

But you wont find these on fundy websites, so it is best you educate yourself by going along to a decent library and investigating the bible and near eastern history for yourself.

---

Actually, I have studied this quite a bit, but I may indeed have to consult a library. Let's wait and see.

Bald assertion, with no support outside the book you use.Zeus might smite you for that, or Poseidon Earthshaker shake you. Did that already. There are no detectable gods.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Just what is "Evidence"????Two people can "VIEW" the same "Evidence" and walk away with two different conclusions.So, is evidence really evidence or a matter of "BELIEF"??????Atheist say there is no God, yet admit that Jesus existed.2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, (Emmanuel, God with us)Scripture tells us that only "Believers" can understand the scriptures.Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.Having a correct interpretation of evidence is "paramount" to arriving at the "TRUTH".Scripture tell us that without (PHYSICAL) "Signs and wonders", Jews won't "Believe".Joh 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign,And much like Israel, today many people are still looking for "physical Evidence" to prove the scriptures.As Atheist admit to the existence of Jesus, yet deny God exist, without "FAITH", man's interpretation of whatever evidence that does exist will never be "Correct".All interpretations of evidence, (for the time being) are based on a "BELIEF",Of course "Judgment day" will be the final "Proof".

Not all atheist, or even agnostics or those of other faiths, accept the existence of Jesus. I've seen nothing but your holy books that assert his existence.This thread is about historical evidence backing the veracity of the Bible. Maybe you have something to bring to the table?Edited by Asgara, : No reason given.