1. But is that particular find conclusive? The suspicion that could be aroused is that if there are a number of inclusive finds, adding them up wouldn't make them conclusive. And adding an inconclusive find to a number of conclusive finds wouldn't make the conclusive finds 'more' conclusive.1. <quoted text>
I think all of the fossil evidence, geological evidence and genetic evidence that existed before this new discovery was conclusive and that this new piece of evidence merely ads to it.
Scientists begin with hypotheses (assumptions) and then gather evidence which either supports or contradicts the hypothesis. The fact that the fossil evidence supports the theory of evolution and not the biblical story of creation is not an assumption it is a rational conclusion based on the evidence.
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..." - Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2. How did you find out that there were 500 independent witnesses to the resurrection?
3. How did you find out that Jesus was buried by joseph of Arimathea?
4. How did you find that Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
5. The answer to all of those questions is the four gospels of the New Testament. The four gospels cannot be considered absolute factual history for many reasons not the least of which is that they are not independent sources and there is no relevant evidence outside the gospels to corroborate their fantastic stories.
The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.- Catherine M. Murphy, PH.D. Associate Professor of New Testament at Santa Clara University, she worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team. She has traveled frequently to Israel, Greece, Turkey, and Europe
Although there is no factual evidence to support the authorship of any of the four gospels only two of the four are even alleged to have been written by eye witnesses to any of the events described.
2. F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
3. The various letters from the apostle Paul, independent of the 4 Gospels as well as the Gospel of Peter, which of course is independent of the Bible.
4. 1 Corinthians, independent of the 4 Gospels.
5. I wouldn't put much trust in someone who wrote a book for the ".....for dummies" series ("Historical Jesus For Dummies").