What is the evidence to support the Bible

Great Debates
61

As I said, if God did create me, then he made me a scientist who wants evidence.

Again, nobody is questioning your devout belief in God.
But He hasn’t revealed Himself to some others of us here.

So we try to see if there is any other evidence that would help us.

And unfortunately there is no evidence for a global flood that covered the Earth to a depth of 5 miles and lasted a year.

Similarly there is no evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old - it all points to an age of billions.

Well you haven’t disappointed me yet, but you will if you give up now.
I think you are very wrong to say that I (and others here) won’t believe anything. Learning is really the point of this message board.
But we can’t experience your deep personal conviction in God. However we can look at evidence - and why your religious belief makes you say the Bible is literally true.

I hope you’ll come back and continue posting.
I know it must seem lonely that you appear to be the only fundamentalist here.
But that is the very reason why you should continue. How else can we get your point of view?

62

The problem is that though there may be physical evidence out there, I don’t know where it is and I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at sites, books, reviewing scripture etc, only to get told everything I post is pretty much BS.

Don’t get me wrong I want to continue debating with you guys, but my “point of view” doesn’t come from evidence. It comes from life experience. So what do you want me to do?

And what about the things I posted on from the talkorigins site? Is not anyone going to explain their points of view to me?

It just seems like a one way street and it’s not so much fun for me. Is that understandable?

63

And yet there are others who would claim that they have experienced such a revelation.

But I would be interested, Dreamer, to know why you feel (if indeed you do) that this would be dependent on a strictly literal view of scripture.

64

I’m not sure I understand your question Mangetout. Are you asking if I think you have to believe the whole bible is literal to believe in God?

65

Mmmm, perhaps, but perhaps only whether you feel it’s necessary to believe the Bible is literal for any reason.

66

I think so. Obviously not every believer is going to *understand *all things in the bible. I sure don’t. But the things I do understand, I believe. Even without physical evidence. IMO there would be no reason God would ask the ones he spoke to to put those things in a book and call it “His Word”, if they were things that were made up and not true. Even if some scripture is written in parables, examples, and symbolism.

67

Okay, dreamer, I’ll tackle your talkorigin questions.

dreamer wrote:

Yes. All fossils are found under rapid sedimentation. If a dead animal is not covered over quickly with sand or silt, it will not fossilize. It will decompose due to the action of bacteria. (In a hundred years, even the bones will have decomposed.)

In other words, fossils only form under rare circumstances, and most of the creatures that have roamed the Earth since life first arose have not had so much as the imprints of their bodies preserved.

Indeed there isn’t – and, in fact, I’ll bet there are many young paleontologists eager to find fossil-bearing strata in Asia, Africa, South America, Australia, or even Antarctica. Eventually, these continents will be surveyed and more fossil-bearing strata will be found. When that happens, our picture of life’s history on Earth will be that much more enriched.

It is even possible that one of these as-yet-undiscovered fossil-bearing strata will have some bizarre combination of fossils in it that will undermine every current theory of evolution and common-descent. But until that happens, a good scientist still says, “The best evidence we currently have supports a very very old Earth and the common descent of all species from the ‘trunk’ of a branching ‘tree’ of evolution.”

(And even if some new discovery did undermine modern evolutionary theory, you would still have to explain things like why unexpressed pseudogenes and introns show more variance within a population than expressed genes do, and protein homology.)

Heh. Actually, it’s not “breaks” or “gaps” in the “Bible record” that people typically jump on, it’s contradictions with observable reality.

There’s a “gap” of unspecified duration, for instance, between the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and the “fall” of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 3. Eve might have been around for only a couple of hours after her Creation before she ate the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge – or it might have taken her billions of years to get around to it, since at the time Adam and Eve were immortal.

The existence of this gap is not used by anyone as a reason to say that the story of Genesis does not match reality. What does undermine the Genesis account are the notion that all the “kinds” of animals and plants were created separately (which contradicts the evidence of protein homology, as well as the evidence of “poor design” in things like the human backbone and the inefficiency of chloroplasts in an oxygen-rich environment), and the notion that all of these “kinds” were created within a few days of each other (rather than spaced millions of years apart).

The gaps in the fossil record mean that we will, sadly, never have a complete picture of the history of life on Earth. However, the limited picture we do have speaks very strongly of (A) an Earth approximately 4.6 billion years old, and (B) the arising of new species (and extinction of existing species) at irregular intervals throughout this ~4.6 billion year history.

68

Dreamer,

Perhaps you don’t realise how much effort scientists have put into gathering evidence on all sorts of topics.
The theory of evolution and the estimated age of the Earth have masses of evidence behind them.

Alas, no-one so far has come up with any evidence to support the literal interpretation of the Bible.

But scientists will always consider new evidence - that’s what the scientific method stands for.

To take one example, you posted evidence of a flood in the Black Sea area. Fine - but the Bible says it was global (and 5 miles deep). So we agree there was a local flood - but clearly not the one described in the Bible.

As for your questions on talkorigins - yes you deserve answers!
I did suggest you start a new thread.
If you put something like ‘Please answer my questions on the talkorigins material’, I think you’ll have to beat off SDMB posters with a stick. :smiley:

69

Do you understand our point that the existence of ruins under water doesn’t necessarily mean that they came from a worldwide flood? I didn’t see any post that implied “everything I post is pretty much BS” only that they didn’t support your point.

Well, if you don’t have “evidence” but do have “experience,” what was it?

tracer undertook this task, and did well.

A cite from talkorigins like this one:

quote:

**I read this at the talkorigins site

quote:

To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation.

So the transitional fossils that were found were buried under “constant, rapid sedimentation”. ?**

immediately raises a flag because it reads like an attempt to make standard paleontology support creationism. That all geologic features are a result of rapid sedimentation during the Flood of Noah is one of the pillars of the geology of The Institute for Creation Research, so when this is quoted some hackles can raise.

However, as tracer said, if an animal corpse isn’t buried pretty quickly scavangers will rapidly dispose of it. Also, the burial has to be sort of special because the ground and the body itself are also filled with bacteria and the remains will decay to the point that fossilization is impossible.

But, once again, the rapid sedimentation that preserved a fossil in a particular area doesn’t in any way support the creationist position that there was a global flood that created all of the fossils more or less all at once.

70

Evaluate the evidence with an open mind and draw conclusions accordingly. Nothing spectacular, really. :slight_smile:

71

So, if we all agree that there’s no evidence, what is it you’re debating? Your hunch to the contrary?

72

This is sort of a hijack to this thread, but you asked.

I think I can answer this one easier than any others. But you’ll have to take my word for it :smiley: .

This may be a little long and perhaps I may repeat some things I may have said in another thread, but I’ll try to explain the best I can. I just hope you weren’t looking for a “simple” answer :).

My first experience with a “Christian” church was when a good friend of mine invited me to come along one Sunday and I agreed. The only reason I agreed to go was because this woman was so nice to me and had helped me out when I was in need many times, so I wanted to make her happy. I also had an interest to see what her “GOD” thing was all about. She was quite a joyous person who had lots of crap thrown her way throughout life, so I wanted to know how she could be so happy and I guess in a way I wanted to be happy too.

I went to her church over a period of a couple months, sometimes hung over from partying the night before, and sometimes only going because she bought me breakfast afterwards. (yes, I was sort of a loser :wink: ). Anyway I listened when I went, enjoyed the music, and had many upon many conversations with my friend about God, Jesus, what she saw in him and why. She explained to me and showed me in her own life, that God loves us unconditionally and we are to love others that same way, which she did. I didn’t comprehend any of that but I tried to listen and understand what was being taught. I closed my eyes and prayed for God to show himself to me. I cried sometimes, mostly because I was feeling sorry for myself, but also because I really truly wanted someone to love me the way my friend said God loved her.

For a long time I was embarrassed that I was going to church and I wouldn’t stand during their worship time or clap. I guess I felt kinda stupid doing that. But I did listen and I did try to worship in whatever way I knew how at the time. I was always asking questions about what I was doing and what God would think of it, and when I got an answer that there was something I should change, I tried too. Not always successfully, but I did try. A lot of the times it was one step forward and three steps back, but I prayed that God would help me see my faults and help me to become a better person. I took bible study classes, went to night time church where they turned the lights off, played worship music and everyone just spent their own personal time alone with God. It was those times that I felt God was really there and I was beginning to understand.
There were also answered prayers and other people’s testimony that helped me along the way as well. It may not be relevant to you but to me they were gifts to my blind faith. I started to talk to my friends about God and ask them what they thought. Over the years I witnessed answered prayer for them as well and saw them give their lives to Christ too. A few of them said I was no fun anymore because I was “changing”. But that was what I asked God to do and he was doing it and I was willing to allow him to do it.

Yes, I tried to stop doing all the things I thought I should not be doing to please God. But what I really found that that was not completely what he wanted from me. I found that he didn’t stop loving me because I said a few cuss words, continued to get drunk and do drugs, be promiscuous, and all the other things people think a “godly” person should not do.

There were a few times where I gave up on life and God and told him I didn’t want to be a Christian anymore. But I knew deep down inside that I could never do that, I could never deny the truth that his spirit lives inside me and I couldn’t turn my back on that.

It’s been 12 years now since I “gave my life to Christ”. I’ve changed a few things about me, though I still cuss, drink occassionally etc…etc…(no more details for you there ;)) I’ve found my passion in life and I believe God is going to fulfill my “dreams”. I don’t think I’m any better than anyone on this entire earth and I don’t claim to be a good person still. But God is real to me.

I again apologize for that being so incredibly long and for hijacking this thread. That being said I hope that explains my “experience” and why I am so sure of my beliefs.

73

Let me just add that the “evidence” of God (to me)is in the sun, the moon, the stars, the colors of the rainbow, the feel of a drop of rain on your skin, the thousands of tastes we can experience, the emotions our minds can feel, the extraordinary intellect we have, pro-creation, music and it’s emotional value, love, how out of the millions of people on this earth we are all different and unique, the wonders of the earth itself - volcanoes, rivers, oceans, mountains, the changes in the weather all over the earth, etc…etc…etc…

So as minty green says -

74

Well, actually you said you didn’t have evidence but your belief in the Bible was based on experience.

Actually this is a fairly straightforward answer and one that isn’t all that rare. You had a personal revelation and that’s OK. Your revelation has apparently given you a goal and a reason to change. Any goal whatever that isn’t a nuisance or a threat to society is better than aimless drift. Keep it up and good luck to you from here on.

75

Please don’t take this wrongly, but does this mean that even despite the possible lack of physical evidence for the Bible, that following the Christian God involves making oneself believe that the Bible is wholly true without benefit of physical evidence?

(Again, I’m not trying to attack; on the contrary, I am quite baffled.)

76

Absolutely no need to apologise.

It takes courage to change the direction of your life, especially if you have some ‘friends’ like the ones I highlighted above, who make unjustified snide remarks.

As for my second highlight, I don’t know if it will interest you to know that I have always been teetotal (OK, I drank champagne at my sister’s wedding :cool: ), have never done any other drugs either (including tea and coffee, which may be overdoing it!), try to mind my language and have not been promiscuous (sob!).

My point and I am ** not** trying to get at you is that I don’t need religion to behave well. (In my case, it’s simply following my parent’s example and living up to their expectations. My parents don’t mind what my sexual orientation is, but would be horrified if I ever committed a crime.)

I’d better quickly add that my friends tell me that, although I’m basically pleasant, I can sometimes treat them like school pupils :eek: . I have other faults too (don’t we all :slight_smile: ), but am still pretty satisfied with my behaviour.

So here we are, two decent members of society. Yet we have entirely different views on religion.

Must be worth discussing further…

77

Same to you David :slight_smile:

78

I understand that. In my case though, it is a miracle that I am where I am and who I am today. No more life stories but I wasn’t a very well behaved child or young adult and my parents gave me no examples and had little expectation.

The balls in your court :slight_smile:

79

thanks for the info on the “natural” reactor. i notice the people that discovered it were quite surprised themselves. its existence was dependent on the fact that the ratio of radioactive elements was quite different 3 BILLION years ago. so there have been no natural reactors on this planet during the existence of man or the dinosaurs. but the information is interesting.

i looked up wormwood in my encyclopedia britannica and it said the plant tasted bitter. since there are many plants it wouldn’t surprise me if the greeks used that word for the plant. wormwood has been used to remove intestinal worms for 3500 years so presumably some people noticed the bitter taste.

theology means study of god. i don’t see how you can study what you haven’t caught yet. i think the study of ancient texts which people claim to be “sacred” should be called “religious anthropology.” considering how languages change over time the study of linguistics would have to be a part of it.

if god created the universe then the study of physics, astronomy and chemistry might be as close as we can get to theology. that can’t be tampered with by human liars.

Dal Timgar

80

I’m sorry that your parents didn’t encourage you more. I think I was very lucky with mine.

So, from what you say, religion has helped you become a better person and you have the support of friends in your Church.
Excellent. :slight_smile:

But I do wonder why your belief in the literalness of Genesis and Noah’s Ark overcomes the masses of scientific evidence pointing the other way.
Is it an official position of your Church?
If so, when did it become so?