What constitutes evidence?

Post Reply New Topic

I've created this thread because the OP, thinkinginpictures, had deleted his own thread of the same title while I was composing this reply!! !! !! !! !! !! !

Ideally evidence is something that other people can also examine and evaluate for themselves. Evidence varies in reliability though. At the weaker end you have things like hearsay, which is not accepted as proof within a court of law. Even if several people claim that someone said something, they might all be lying. Stronger evidence would be a recording of the person saying something. Strong evidence would consist of something physical, such as an object that anyone could examine and provided they were sufficiently knowledgeable and skilful, would reach the same conclusion. So here particular fossils buried in particular layers of rock constitute strong evidence in support of evolution.

An idea is just that, it is the starting point towards making sense of something. Ideas may subsequently be easily proved to be incorrect or they may be developed and more detail added and made into a hypothesis. If the hypothesis can be applied reliably to explain various phenomenon and can be formulated e.g. in mathematical terms, then it may be considered a theory, or even proved.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN2Kc6NZOsw[/youtube]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

There's three categories I'd think of off the top of my head:

1) locked down and peer-reviewed which is generally quite easy to sell and there generally isn't much dispute over it because it's been vetted as well as it has. Usually in this case the variables in such discoveries and knowledge are friendly to processes we would use in laboratory testing in order to peer-review a result in an expedient manner. It can of course turn out to be wrong in its causal assertions and corrections given later but the do X, Y results type outcomes are pretty consistent.

2) Constructive - where you have evidence in such a manner as would be admitted to court but the matter isn't as testable as in the case of 1). In this case scattered hearsay of experiences and the conformity of such experiences is strong enough to suggest that there's something to it and nothing concretely outlaws the possibility (ie. no incontrovertible facts are in direct opposition). This kind of proof however generally doesn't translate well outside of the person whose done that particular fuzzy math and come to the conclusion they have, largely because it's so intertwined with the weights of their subjective processes and quite often what they have or haven't experienced can cause significant bias depending on personality type. That doesn't mean that you won't have large swaths of people believing theory X, just that those who see it and those who don't will largely be at a stalemate.

3) Direct experience - this is in the direction of being either the first or one of a small number where something happens that's inexplicable or just not widely discussed. This is purely subjective proof and it's the kind of thing however that's better served for leading one's own further inquiry rather than beating it over the head of the person next to you.


In all of the above cases I think objectivity is incredibly important and, occasionally, that includes method-acting around objectivity to reclaim it at a later time if one should find that they need to do so in order to perhaps open their sorting mechanisms past their own biases in order to test-drive a particular theory.

You cannot, in person, in RL, have a conversation like this with a Christian. They will end up in the parking lot keying the side of your Rambler with an ice pick. I have seen it. Even a Christian family member, might well disown you rather than to engage in this conversation. Forty years ago people were taught never to engage in discussions about politics or religion with people you care about. I think it is still good advice.

There are just as many dogmatic loons who exists on the far left. This false concept that only right wing christains refuse to believe science or reality is such hogwash.

Start at 22:45 for a good explanation of historical evidence

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ[/youtube]

What far left would that be? Far left of what?

The reason I deleted it was because I found the answer myself, shortly after writing the post. I didn't want to bother people asking that question then.

I'm sorry you were already composing an answer.

There are loony Christians on the left and right. And loony believers in crystal healing magic, or whatever, on the left and right. Statistically you have more loony Christians (e.g. creationists) on the right but some are also on the left.



I read Ehrman's latest one recently. His argument against burial was pretty good. Historically crucifixion wasn't just a method of execution, it was a means of humiliating someone. You were left to rot. I also liked his argument (quoting other scholars iirc) that Paul believed Jesus was the Angel of the Lord and that he was then exalted to a higher state as a reward for his good service. A mix of incarnation and exaltation theologies.

In the video above Ehrman makes the excellent point that WLC is an evangelist disguising himself as a historian. Just as he disguises himself as a cosmologist at other times. Experts in these fields can point out his errors but he doesn't care and he will continue to repeat his claims.

I was going to respond as well.

I think you were just taking the wrong approach, that's all. If you set out to prove the Bible wrong, you have to present evidence that the Bible is wrong, i.e. evidence we don't really have. You CAN prove the Bible wrong in one sense or another...the fossil record seems to indicate events that predate the events of Genesis. The problem is that doesn't disprove a different interpretation. I think a preexisting heaven and earth prior to Gen. 1:2 harmonizes the fossil records with the creation account, and I think "gap theory" is an idea that goes back to late 19th century and remains well-supported by evidence.

In other words, ultimately you can't possibly disprove the Bible at this point in time. You might debunk some ideas commonly held in traditional interpretation, but all that really does is clarify what the Bible actually meant. Traditionally, the creation account was never about science or evidence but rather that the universe was created by God for God, it belongs to Him alone, and He can do with it what He likes. You can disprove SOME interpretations, but you can't kill the spirit of the text.

You can't prove everything about the Bible either, though. But that's ultimately meaningless, anyway. At one point the Bible was considered dead and buried based on the fact that certain locales couldn't be found. It was concluded that since they were lost, they never existed in the first place. Archeology has caught back up with the Bible, so scholars have largely abandoned that approach. The lesson to learn here is just because we don't have evidence TODAY doesn't mean it never happened or couldn't possibly have happened. It just means we haven't gotten there...yet. Some have argued against David/Solomon even being real kings in Israel, which ignores archeological finds that reference prominent figures in the Davidic line, referring to them as such. So even if you cannot prove everything about the Bible, it's still pretty naive to hand wave the evidence we do have and say "nope, didn't happen".

Ultimately the Bible isn't about evidence but about faith. It is the record of those who have experienced God for themselves, and it is up to us as to whether we want to believe it or not.

Mainstream archeology has abandoned many of the bible's claims. The Exodus as described or the conquest of Canaan come to mind. They've been looking for this stuff for 150 years and it just didn't work out. What they have found regarding early Canaan shows no evidence of a mass conquest. Of ~30 sites only a couple show any sign of sacking. Some were abandoned earlier. Instead scholars today think the Israelites were locals.

The idea of ~2 million people walking out of Egypt, the majority of the population, and leaving no record or evidence is just not taken seriously at all. Then ~2 million people living in a desert on magical food and magical water for 40 years and leaving no evidence? Not taken seriously at this point. You can even find a much older Egyptian story of a wizard named Zazamankh parting the waters. Egypt had an influence on Canaan and ruled them for awhile.



The creation in Genesis is a restating and alteration of Mesopotamian mythology. It's a religious polemic not a science course. Even some Christians and Jews admit that today. The Israelites would have known that because they lived alongside these people and the average reader today has lost the context.

I wouldn't say it's wrong. I would say it's not even wrong because it may never have even been intended to be taken as literally true by the priests who wrote it.

MAY never have been. Where is the evidence? Looks to me like you have more faith than I do!

There has been ~150 years of archeology. These are the current conclusions. You are free to believe what you like but I'll stick with the evidence.

As for Genesis, well, hopefully you don't think those are scientific claims. There are Christians who accept that the bible is not literally true.

The CURRENT conclusions? So…it could yet be that evidence may later surface that confirms more claims of the Bible?

That's exactly what creationists say about the evidence for evolution. Yet it never goes away. The historical evidence that the biblical account isn't correct isn't just based what they haven't found but on what they have found that does not support the biblical account. Anyone can believe whatever they like but I just think it's fair to note that mainstream archeologists are not impressed with the deep time biblical histories. But there is still some truth to the history here and there.