Why aren't monkeys evolving now?

[Blackrook]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Usually my thing is Cosmology or particle Physics...

Ok, I have a question for you. Do you think there is a possibility that in the experimental study of particle physics a situation is created, perhaps a black hole, that can quickly destroy the earth? With the energies involved, are we "creating" particles that don't normally exist? Could their creation have unforeseen consequences? Just wondering...

 

[HUGGY]

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

I don't either, it is a daunting task actually. Most people come on and ask these types of questions which are actually traps. There is no answer for them which will be satisfactory, but I do like to try from time to time. Sometimes it seems that science is a language of its own spoken only to a select few. Part of the problem is when people come with types of question they are looking for sort of proof for evolution as if its a riddle that can be solved in so many words. The problem is that learning is not a passive but aggressive act. Knowledge cannot be given so much as it must be taken. and it is out there waiting for those who are willing to move outside comfort zone and find then. I was actually looking for place to discuss science when I landed here. I wasn't expecting to have to teach it to bunch of children who never wanted to learn it in the first place.
Usually my thing is Cosmology or particle Physics but I keep track of all the professional journals. One thing that has always amazed me about people is that when I try to share things with them, they act like I have some ulterior motive. My only motive is the science.

There are better sub forums here at USMB to teach or learn science. This is the religious forum and the topic/OP is obviously a baiting question meant to draw in members to challenge the OP's preconceived conclusion that human beings couldn't have come from "monkeys".

We have a healthy constituent of atheists at USMB. The OP really meant to find argument with us as well as support from the "Adam and Eve" crowd. Unless you can quantify the power of "faith" in layman's term I doubt you will get much traction here.

That is correct, however, I never said what I believe about evolution. I am simply asking questions. I want to know how well people can defend the theory of evolution. It is not enough to say "because the scientists say so." Or "look it up."

Isn't the DNA enough? Or don't you believe in those tests? For me at least the provable genetic testing is pretty conclusive.

 

[HUGGY]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

Are you serious? Joan of Arc? EGAADS!!!

By your account the bible is pretty much true except for a few small errors?

Saints and miracles? WTF does THAT have to do with monkeys?

Why did you say "monkeys" anyway if you were not just baiting the board. Apes and great apes are the only claim of the evolution people. Monkeys is just a red herring.

 

[HUGGY]

It seems obvious just from the abundance of heavy metals and rare gasses and of course the composition of the comets that there have been several recyclings of suns and sources of energies that far exceeded anything in time near the original scattering of the big bang atoms. Right now the EU is looking for amino acids on that comet they landed on. Too bad the harpoon trick didn't work. They are probably hampered with the lack of sunlight to work with.

I think it has been proven that in the early earth years our atmosphere or complete lack of one couldn't have been a very hospitable place for life to begin or evolve.

The idea that all of the animals in all of their forms were just sat down on planet earth by some magical supreme being is just too great of a leap to accept. I refer back to my earlier point that ALL Theories ARE NOT Equal !!!! Some are very likely..some probable..and some just plain rediculous fantasy.

 

[amrchaos]

Do Humans have a 'tailbone'?

Well, not exactly a 'tail' but there is something called the coccyx at the end of our spines that kind of resemble a short tail.

Does that mean God may have a tail? The Bible claim we were created in God's image but it never specified how accurate that image was.


Goly be, I guess wonders never cease!!

 

[Muslim75]

Hello,

You are lucky being a Muslim and having access to the internet. If you have an average to better brain you stand a good chance to remove that nonsense from your head and discover that you do not need a religion. The information to the actual birth of Islam and what kind of a foundation Islam is based on should make it easy to distance yourself from it. Muhommed and his older wife dreamt up Islam as a way to make peace amongst the murderous Arabs and establish safe zones at the oasis's along the Arabian trade routes. Islam is so extreme because it had to be. Those that didn't sign up and buy in were killed. The result was for the first time as long as time was kept in that part of the world the Arabs stopped butchering each other and the trade routes started getting busy and there was prosperity where before there was hopeless poverty. Islam is simply a nongovernmental way for people to guide themselves. There is nothing divine about it.

Since you reached out to the U S through the USMB I suggest you do a lot of research before commiting to making statements like the one above. You can have access to everything you need to know in seconds.

Yes it is true. We are definitely linked to apes. The genetic information is undisputable. The same forensics that can convict a rapist can easily prove we are 98% the same animal as a chimpanzee or a Gorilla. Your Koran and a thousand Mohammeds could not prove differently.

Good luck in your progression to the light of knowledge.

I speak as a Muslim.

If you have basic knowledge of Islam, you know about the Night Journey. You know about the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). You also know about the holiness and the heavenliness of those who were with him (the Companions, may God be well pleased with them) and after them the Successors, and after them the Successors of the Successors (may God have mercy on them). With a basic knowledge of Islam, you know about these men and their holiness and their heavenliness. These were the men who led the expansion of the Islamic kingdom and the expansion of Islam. So Islam, to say the least is a divine message, from God to Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family).

Men did not come down from apes and monkeys. That is very simple common sense. The opposite belief is scandelous and shameful. Science is not always right. It did lead to industrialized economies but also to dangerous pollution and climate disturbances.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

The only way you will find a body without a soul is in the case of a dead body.

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

The evolution theory is simply unacceptable to people who reflect. Science is not always perfect. Every time a plane crashes you realize it.

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

Those miracles and those saints may not really be miracles and saints and should not be considered as such.

 

[rightwinger]

Do Humans have a 'tailbone'?

Well, not exactly a 'tail' but there is something called the coccyx at the end of our spines that kind of resemble a short tail.

Does that mean God may have a tail? The Bible claim we were created in God's image but it never specified how accurate that image was.


Goly be, I guess wonders never cease!!

Does God have a penis?

If so, what does he use it for?

 

[Skull Pilot]

How does the OP know primates are not evolving now?

Evolutionary changes take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. We have only had the ability to read DNA reliably and cost effectively for a few decades.

 

[amrchaos]

Do Humans have a 'tailbone'?

Well, not exactly a 'tail' but there is something called the coccyx at the end of our spines that kind of resemble a short tail.

Does that mean God may have a tail? The Bible claim we were created in God's image but it never specified how accurate that image was.


Goly be, I guess wonders never cease!!

Does God have a penis?

If so, what does he use it for?

According to some archaeologists

God had a wife. And it was not Mary.

pssst--keep it quiet.

 

[Brucethethinker]

The evidence I have is ... everything in the Bible...

What about the talking donkey?

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Blackrook]

Those miracles and those saints may not really be miracles and saints and should not be considered as such.

Should not be considered as such by who? Mohammed? The saints and miracles are well documented, I could provide hundreds of links if I was inclined to do so. I mentioned Joan of Arc because her miracles are well documented. You cannot discount Joan of Arc as myth or legend, she is a historical figure.

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Blackrook]

The evidence I have is ... everything in the Bible...

What about the talking donkey?

You cut out part of what I said. Here is what I said:

"Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;"

Why did you edit my quote?

 

[Syriusly]

The evidence I have is ... everything in the Bible...

What about the talking donkey?

You cut out part of what I said. Here is what I said:

"Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;"

Why did you edit my quote?

I have to admit- I am having trouble understanding what you meant by that sentence- so let me repeat

The evidence I have is:1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;


So you are saying that the Bible is evidence but we don't know which parts of the Bible are allegory or literal? I don't know how you would consider that evidence.

Genesis is really the only part of the Bible that touches on the creation of life.

How do we sort out what is the 'evidence' in Genesis?

Why do you consider that to be 'better' evidence than genetic and fossil evidence?

 

[HUGGY]

Hello,

You are lucky being a Muslim and having access to the internet. If you have an average to better brain you stand a good chance to remove that nonsense from your head and discover that you do not need a religion. The information to the actual birth of Islam and what kind of a foundation Islam is based on should make it easy to distance yourself from it. Muhommed and his older wife dreamt up Islam as a way to make peace amongst the murderous Arabs and establish safe zones at the oasis's along the Arabian trade routes. Islam is so extreme because it had to be. Those that didn't sign up and buy in were killed. The result was for the first time as long as time was kept in that part of the world the Arabs stopped butchering each other and the trade routes started getting busy and there was prosperity where before there was hopeless poverty. Islam is simply a nongovernmental way for people to guide themselves. There is nothing divine about it.

Since you reached out to the U S through the USMB I suggest you do a lot of research before commiting to making statements like the one above. You can have access to everything you need to know in seconds.

Yes it is true. We are definitely linked to apes. The genetic information is undisputable. The same forensics that can convict a rapist can easily prove we are 98% the same animal as a chimpanzee or a Gorilla. Your Koran and a thousand Mohammeds could not prove differently.

Good luck in your progression to the light of knowledge.

I speak as a Muslim.

If you have basic knowledge of Islam, you know about the Night Journey. You know about the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). You also know about the holiness and the heavenliness of those who were with him (the Companions, may God be well pleased with them) and after them the Successors, and after them the Successors of the Successors (may God have mercy on them). With a basic knowledge of Islam, you know about these men and their holiness and their heavenliness. These were the men who led the expansion of the Islamic kingdom and the expansion of Islam. So Islam, to say the least is a divine message, from God to Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family).

Men did not come down from apes and monkeys. That is very simple common sense. The opposite belief is scandelous and shameful. Science is not always right. It did lead to industrialized economies but also to dangerous pollution and climate disturbances.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

The only way you will find a body without a soul is in the case of a dead body.

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

The evolution theory is simply unacceptable to people who reflect. Science is not always perfect. Every time a plane crashes you realize it.

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

Those miracles and those saints may not really be miracles and saints and should not be considered as such.

WOW !! Dude !!! You are one thoroughly brainwashed individual. All that stuff I said about the internet and freedom to think for yourself was a waste of my time. You have reinforced my contention that the only way to deal with the radicalized Muslims that threaten America is with drones. Thanks for playing.

 

[Tuckwolf]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

This is known as Argument from Authority, which means it's BS. On the bright side though, it's a very good example of faulty reasoning.

 

[Blackrook]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

This is known as Argument from Authority, which means it's BS. On the bright side though, it's a very good example of faulty reasoning.

How is this argument from authority. If there is eye-witness testimony that certain events occurred, and this is recorded in historical (not religious) documents, then what other evidence is required?

Under the auspices of Metz and Poulengy, she gained a second meeting, where she made an announcement about a military reversal near Orléans several days before messengers arrived to report it.[31] Given the distance of the battle's location, Baudricourt felt Joan could only have known about the French defeat by Divine revelation, and this convinced him to take her seriously.

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Joan's knowledge of a battle hundreds of miles away is historical fact, not a story told in the Bible or in a myth or legend. It is recorded in Wikipedia and hundreds of other secular sources.

I can cite many other examples.

 

[Hollie]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

This is known as Argument from Authority, which means it's BS. On the bright side though, it's a very good example of faulty reasoning.

How is this argument from authority. If there is eye-witness testimony that certain events occurred, and this is recorded in historical (not religious) documents, then what other evidence is required?

Under the auspices of Metz and Poulengy, she gained a second meeting, where she made an announcement about a military reversal near Orléans several days before messengers arrived to report it.[31] Given the distance of the battle's location, Baudricourt felt Joan could only have known about the French defeat by Divine revelation, and this convinced him to take her seriously.

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Joan's knowledge of a battle hundreds of miles away is historical fact, not a story told in the Bible or in a myth or legend. It is recorded in Wikipedia and hundreds of other secular sources.

I can cite many other examples.

Well, as long as you read it on Wiki, it must be true.

 

[Blackrook]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

I have more evidence backing me up than you do. The evidence I have is:

1) Everything in the Bible, which can't be discounted entirely as a source of information even if not all of it is literally true;

2) 2000 years of saints and miracles, many of them witnessed by thousands and well documented.

The story of Joan of Arc is just one example. Her story would not be possible were it not for the direct intervention of God. I invite you to read about her, keeping an open mind and realize you are reading historical fact, not myth.

This is known as Argument from Authority, which means it's BS. On the bright side though, it's a very good example of faulty reasoning.

How is this argument from authority. If there is eye-witness testimony that certain events occurred, and this is recorded in historical (not religious) documents, then what other evidence is required?

Under the auspices of Metz and Poulengy, she gained a second meeting, where she made an announcement about a military reversal near Orléans several days before messengers arrived to report it.[31] Given the distance of the battle's location, Baudricourt felt Joan could only have known about the French defeat by Divine revelation, and this convinced him to take her seriously.

Joan of Arc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Joan's knowledge of a battle hundreds of miles away is historical fact, not a story told in the Bible or in a myth or legend. It is recorded in Wikipedia and hundreds of other secular sources.

I can cite many other examples.

Well, as long as you read it on Wiki, it must be true.

Go to the library and you will find dozens of biographies of Joan of Arc which relate the same story. This is undisputed historical fact. If you reject it, you reject reason and logic and fact.