Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

How on earth do you figure that?
Which JC has mosaics, monuments, busts, statues, contemporary documentation and coinage?
Which JC has no hard evidence at all?

Are we saying that Jesus is a conspiracy theory?

Why say "apart from the Bible"?
Are the NT writers to be discounted, plus 1st century writers?

There are ongoing discoveries, such as this.
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/surprising-archaeological-find-proof-of-jesus-existence

 

[alwight]

"There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9)."​

Of course Duane Gish was probably trying to be humorous rather than factual but then didn't have the advantage of more recent discoveries back in 1985.

 

[alwight]

Are we saying that Jesus is a conspiracy theory?

I was asking you how you figured that Julius Caesar had no hard evidence or at least less than Jesus?

Why say "apart from the Bible"?
Are the NT writers to be discounted, plus 1st century writers?

Where did I say "apart from the Bible"?
Nevertheless the later dramatized accounts of four unknown evangelists doesn't actually count as hard evidence.

There are ongoing discoveries, such as this.
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/surprising-archaeological-find-proof-of-jesus-existence

Interesting, but when it is verified do let me know.

 

[Hedshaker]

Yet you believe in Julius Caesar, of whom there is a fraction of the evidence.

Heard it all before a hundred times. I couldn't give a hoot about Julius Caesar or Abraham Lincoln or anyone else who isn't claimed to have magic powers. And don't you think that apologetic argument wears a bit thin now? It doesn't change the fact in focus.

I know it's tough that there is no "contemporary" mention of your saviour outside of the Bible but it's the facts. I mean.... here's this guy going around doing all these supernatural magic stuff and what not and no one writes a word about it until decades later. They all must have forgot about it for a while, and pigs might fly.

It should make you think at least, but if you're already too far gone it probably won't. Such is the power of religious belief among some people.

 

[iouae]

Heard it all before a hundred times. I couldn't give a hoot about Julius Caesar or Abraham Lincoln or anyone else who isn't claimed to have magic powers. And don't you think that apologetic argument wears a bit thin now? It doesn't change the fact in focus.

I know it's tough that there is no "contemporary" mention of your saviour outside of the Bible but it's the facts. I mean.... here's this guy going around doing all these supernatural magic stuff and what not and no one writes a word about it until decades later. They all must have forgot about it for a while, and pigs might fly.

It should make you think at least, but if you're already too far gone it probably won't. Such is the power of religious belief among some people.

So do you think a historical person called Jesus walked the earth, or is it a conspiracy theory?

 

[alwight]

So do you think a historical person called Jesus walked the earth, or is it a conspiracy theory?

Why does the only alternative have to be a conspiracy theory?

 

[Hedshaker]

So do you think a historical person called Jesus walked the earth, or is it a conspiracy theory?

I actually don't care because I don't have a dog in that race. Even if there was an historical Jesus that would not prove the miraculous stuff attributed to him actually happened. I don't believe they did either way.

Conspiracy theory is the wrong assertion. There is no contemporary evidence and there should be therefore there is doubt.

It's your religion. Have you thought about doing a "critical" study? Just to prove to yourself it's all true? It's the only way to know for sure.

Start with contemporary evidence from several sources "outside of the Bible"

Or do you not care and believe because you want to? Me....? Meh, don't care!

 

[iouae]

Why does the only alternative have to be a conspiracy theory?

I am not sure what kind of artefact could ever prove Christ did miracles. Suppose we found some leftover loaves and fishes. That would prove nothing. A piece of cursed fig tree. That would prove nothing. But wait, almost every Catholic Church has a piece of the cross as a sacred relic. So I guess that settles it then

 

[iouae]

I actually don't care because I don't have a dog in that race. Even if there was an historical Jesus that would not prove the miraculous stuff attributed to him actually happened. I don't believe they did either way.

Conspiracy theory is the wrong assertion. There is no contemporary evidence and there should be therefore there is doubt.

It's your religion. Have you thought about doing a "critical" study? Just to prove to yourself it's all true? It's the only way to know for sure.

Start with contemporary evidence from several sources "outside of the Bible"

Or do you not care and believe because you want to? Me....? Meh, don't care!

If you want to believe the god of Dumb Luck rolling the dice frantically got us all here today - meh

 

[Hedshaker]

If you want to believe the god of Dumb Luck rolling the dice frantically got us all here today - meh

Quality strawman. 6 days will be proud of you

 

[iouae]

Quality strawman. 6 days will be proud of you

I learned from the best

But good luck with trying to deny Jesus walked the earth.

I wonder if there is any evidence for my hero Socrates' existence, other than the writings of Plato?

 

[alwight]

I am not sure what kind of artefact could ever prove Christ did miracles. Suppose we found some leftover loaves and fishes. That would prove nothing. A piece of cursed fig tree. That would prove nothing. But wait, almost every Catholic Church has a piece of the cross as a sacred relic. So I guess that settles it then

Surely to a rational person it must be most likely that any claimed miraculous events are added simply to embellish a more humdrum tale. To pull in the punters so to speak.

Of course it is very likely that some guy at the time called Jesus was causing a stir, but to suppose that miracles ever really happen must surely require some extraordinary evidence, not just the enthusiastic assertions of a later evangelist with his own agenda.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I learned from the best

But good luck with trying to deny Jesus walked the earth.

I wonder if there is any evidence for my hero Socrates' existence, other than the writings of Plato?

I'll come to your defense here, iouae. It's almost without question that a real Jesus walked the Earth. Every religion class I took, and almost every credible source out there concludes that there is simply too much textual evidence (hardly all of it canonical) that points to him being very real and influential.

His divine properties are obviously up for debate. But whether he existed or not really isn't

 

[Hedshaker]

I learned from the best

But good luck with trying to deny Jesus walked the earth.

I wonder if there is any evidence for my hero Socrates' existence, other than the writings of Plato?

It is not my place to prove that Jesus "did not" walk the earth but yours to prove that he did, since it is you and your peers that make the the positive claim. But I am sure you know this and I'm detecting an air of cognitive dissonance in your replies. The only way to be sure and get to the truth would be conducting your own "critical" study. And I'm sure you are aware that a "critical" study would not constitute a copy/paste attack of apologetics sites. That would be meaningless. As they say, the truth is out there if truth is important to you?

If I didn't know better I might think confusion had got the better of you on this. You keep trying to compare an Historic Jesus with some other known figure that could possibly have a bone of contention regarding it's historicity. But we both know full well that this is a worn out apologetics red herring.

We are not talking about Socrates', William Shakespeare or Harry Potter. We are talking about a character on whom the biggest world religion rests. If we had sound, extra biblical, contemporary evidence, for an historical Jesus then that might help but it would still not prove the supernatural claims attributed to said character.

Happy New Year

 

[Hedshaker]

I'll come to your defense here, iouae. It's almost without question that a real Jesus walked the Earth. Every religion class I took, and almost every credible source out there concludes that there is simply too much textual evidence (hardly all of it canonical) that points to him being very real and influential.

His divine properties are obviously up for debate. But whether he existed or not really isn't

And yet it's hotly debated and it's far from a conspiracy theory. A smigin of contemporary extra Biblical evidence might sway the matter. Yet there is none.

HS vs MS

 

[Greg Jennings]

And yet it's hotly debated and it's far from a conspiracy theory. A smigin of contemporary extra Biblical evidence might sway the matter. Yet there is none.

HS vs MS

If you take into account the many non-biblical gospels, the textual evidence is fairly overwhelming.

But you are obviously correct that there is more or less no non-gospel evidence for Jesus. Some things just get lost to time, though. For example, only recently did archaeologists discover that crucifixes were actually "X" shaped and not true crosses. The reason they didn't know this before, despite the Roman writings telling of many thousands of crucifixions, is because the Romans never bothered to explain how it was done in any writings that we have today. It took a heel bone nailed to a piece of wood at a certain angle to reach the correct conclusion.

The only reason that crucifixions have been thought of as having a cross-shaped wooden frame is because that's how medieval and Renaissance artwork portrayed it. So things do get lost to time, on occasion

 

[Hedshaker]

If you take into account the many non-biblical gospels, the textual evidence is fairly overwhelming.

,
Well I'm very open to evidence since I'm agnostic on the matter and, as you say, even a proven historical Jesus says nothing about any truth in the supernatural claims. Do these non-biblical gospels pre date the actual gospels? How authentic are they??

I find Richard Carrier to be something of a Non Christian Biblical Scholar and he makes good points. But either way evidence, as always, is king.

Happy New Year :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

,
Well I'm very open to evidence since I'm agnostic on the matter and, as you say, even a proven historical Jesus says nothing about any truth in the supernatural claims. Do these non-biblical gospels pre date the actual gospels? How authentic are they??

Some are authentic, others aren't. None predate Matthew, I'm fairly certain. One of these gospels has Jesus flying in the skies :chuckle: So some are very inauthentic. The Gospel of Thomas is one of the texts considered to be highly authentic, though the church thought it to be too gnostic and discarded it from consideration for canon.

I find Richard Carrier to be something of a Non Christian Biblical Scholar and he makes good points. But either way evidence, as always, is king.

It is. But as I stated in my last post, things get lost to time sometimes. Even important things, or descriptions of everyday events from back-in-the-day.

Happy New Year :thumb:

Happy New Year to you as well :cheers:

 

[6days]

Yes selection. What exactly does the Bible have to say about artificial (or natural for that matter) selection?

Point to the verse and I'll read it for myself, ta.

Strawman
I said selection and rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creationist model.

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

 

[iouae]

I'll come to your defense here, iouae. It's almost without question that a real Jesus walked the Earth. Every religion class I took, and almost every credible source out there concludes that there is simply too much textual evidence (hardly all of it canonical) that points to him being very real and influential.

His divine properties are obviously up for debate. But whether he existed or not really isn't

Thanks for that Greg. My server went down, but you did a better job than I would have.

People seem to know where every apostle went to and died. They know the second century converts who succeeded the last apostle John, like Polycarp.

At the time Paul wrote, Paul said there were many who saw Christ after He was risen.
Paul's argument here seems to be "If you don't believe me, I can produce many witnesses to the resurrection of Christ".

1 Cor 15
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.