100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
proof
Edited by
Eljay
on
Fri 04/17/09 08:32 PM
|
|
James...  Upfront side note [your dark poem had me a little worried about your wellbeing] I am glad to read you. Just a little thought experiment...  The OP asked if there was proof that Jesus lived. I suspect that the reason for asking is connected to the recent documentaries and such which pose the very same question. Some of these films attempt to discredit all of Christianity by effectively refuting the notion of Jesus' very existence. There are different approaches being taken to warrant this this doubt. To doubt everything is to know nothing, therefore it is reasonably impossible to doubt everything. It is a matter of certainty. The Roman records - which do not mention Jesus nor his execution - are often used as evidence to make a case that his existence is a complete fabrication. This does not logically follow, for there may have been any number of reasons for not documenting such a thing. They most certainly did not record every crucifixion. Therefore, one cannot safely say that the omission in the Roman records warrants a belief in the complete fabrication of Jesus' existence. I would venture to guess that most scholarly-minded people would attribute this as evidence which directly reflects Jesus' importance to the Roman society's collective conscious at the time of his death. I think that it is much more likely that he lived and died the same as many others who also did not make the Roman records. Some of the more compelling evidence(in my opinion) revolves around the gospel problem - the actual dating and authenticity of those texts - and warrants further consideration concerning any direct eye-witness accounts. If the gospels are proven to have been written by someone other than the disciples, then those accounts can be dismissed as hear-say. Eljay has mentioned a valid point though, if those books were written after 70AD, then why did they not mention the fall of Jerusalem, which is contained in the Roman records? This alone does not prove their authenticity, however, it does lend some loose support to the Christian argument of pre-70AD dating. The fact that Jesus did not pen the words accredited to him necessitates the claim that all attributions about what he said are at least second-hand knowledge. With that being said, it is quite profound how much influence those words still have upon people and their thoughts. The installation of a previously absent hope for themselves and their future added to the message that ascribes a negative value to the concept of worrying has very practical use in the development of a positive mind-set. I would venture to claim that if the focus of the religion reflected this most profound property, the world could be a different place and the intention of empathetic enlightenment would have been realized, but instead we have the following, which is much more indicative of the path that Christianity took - from one who claims to be Christian... Sharp wrote... However, will be fun to watch when he returns and the jaws drop and naysayers quake. Fun?  If one claims to believe and follow the teachings of Jesus, one must understand them. It seems that I am reminded of the parable which speaks of eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. It seems that I am reminded of the recognition of a tree by it's fruit. It seems that this is a fine example of why the religion itself is under fire, and risks losing the profound enlightenment which comes from only looking within one's self. What a shame. I think that you have touched on something quite profound here C.S., as most people have a tendency to judge Christianity by the actions of those who profess it, rather than the testamony of those who witnessed Jesus living it. It is essentially judging the bible by those who's actions contradict it - thereby attempting to claim that the life of Jesus is discredited by those who cannot live up to the standards set by him. Yet - the bible itself states that this will be the case. Jesus himself says that "man does not seek God - not one", and that even those who see themselves as the greatest of the self-rightious will fall. So - while it is Christianity that gets attacked - and not those who abuse it, are there any who can see the forest from the tree's? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense. The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare? So the point is - what denotes "proof"? You are really clutching at straws now. Nobody doubts there was a Shakespeare, because there are countless plays written by him. These plays do not contradict eachother, they are very well written peices of art. I would bet that there are some original pieces still in existence and that it can easily be proved that they were all penned by the same person. Shakespeare isnt asking anyone to live their lives differently, nor does he claim to be the son of God. There is no need for anyone to have made up his existence, whereas for Jesus and Christianity, there are a whole host of reasons why people might have done this. Maybe shakespeare was really a bloke called Bob, it doesnt really matter if we cant prove his entire existence. Someone wrote those plays. Why i am even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous argument is beyond me. I have to whole heartedly agree with your last statement, as you demonstrate a serious ack of having educated yourself on what the bible actually says. There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. Well done Sherlock. I have already stated, plainly, in this thread that i dont know very much about religion. But that doesnt mean either that i have pure ignorance on the topic. Even if i did, that doesnt mean i cant join in the discussion. Just because you think you are so much more highly educated on the subject doesnt intimidate me in the least. I cant believe you are resorting to that tactic so quickly. For all your education on the bible, whatever that may be, all you have offered in reponse to me so far is random clap trap about Jefferson and Shakespeare, and then followed it up by calling ME ignorant. I know so little in terms of facts about the bible, and thats all you have got?? Surely, with all your education, you must beable to put my views to shame? And anyway, why should i educate myself on what the bible actually says, when there is plain proof(to those of us not blinkered to reality) that it is not the word of God. I would consider that a waste of my time. And anyway, you cant use the bible to prove the bible, that is just plain silly. So whatever it is exactly that the bible does say, is irrelavent in this topic. I'm not claiming your ignorance - I'm quoting you on it. You've already demonstrated by your own words that you are not familiar with the bible - so I ask you this. What proof that it is not the word of God? Someone else's opinion? I would suggest that if you want proof that it is not the word of God - then you read it for yourself and make your own decision about it, and not rely on what someone else thinks about it - as you are likely not aware of their bias' about it - or if in fact they know enough about what they're saying to be even qualified to give evidence of proof that it is NOT the word of God - when that is only something that God himself could do. Again - it's a matter of what the criteria for "proof" is. You did claim my ignorance very blatantly but we can move on from that. Granted, i have not read the book myself. But i have read commentaries from people that back up what they say with evidence and logic. I dont take anyones word as being the gospel truth but rather analyse what i read and THEN make my own decisions on what i think is true. If it is not acceptible to look at other peoples opinions and derive your own from them, then its equally not acceptible for any Christian to seek opinions from their priest/pastor/vicar etc It would also be pointless reading any other book on the subject other than the bible. Nobody has completely made up their own mind on the subject completely independantly of other peoples opinions. One day i do intend to read it. But to study it? Nah. Plenty of far more intelligent people than me have already done that, its far easier and far more worthwhile making sense of what these people have to say about it. I read these threads and read all kinds of opinions from both sides of the argument. I am open to change my current opinions if i am given any information to justify it. But so far, in terms of the topic of this thread, nothing has been offered. All i have been given is that the Bible is true because the bible itself says so. I cant buy that. And you shouldn't buy that. Nor should you formulate your opinion on commentaries about it by people who you really can't access their bias - not knowing the original material yourself. I'm not saying that you should "study" the scriptures, my caution is that if you want to determine the truth of scripture for yourself, I would think reading it for yourself will get you better results than reading someone else's interpretation - especialy if it is one based on Pretext, and not Context. Hard to tell the difference when unfamiliar with the actual document itself. I wouldn't change this caution if you had decided to read a commentary about the bible from Billy Graham, and decided that everything he said about it were the truth as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. That is hugely ironic coming from you. Care to back up that statement with some sort of example. Example: I started reading all the responses to this great question before I gave up. These Christians avoided the question at all cost, until a few non-believers started voiceing their opinions. Then, quickly, the Christians ran to the defense of Christianity by saying it's not torture, with very little explanation. As an atheist, I would like to point out that Bible calls for a town to stone a child to death if s/he is disobediant. I consider stoning a form of torture, because you die slowly and it hurts. So do take this wonderful question a step further, how do Christians deal with verses that deal with stoning children to death if Christianity doesn't permit torture? Christianity says nothing about stoning anyone. In 3,000 BC Judism this might have been the case - but you won't find it anywhere in Christianity. So, as I Christain - I might suggest to you that you learn about that in which you don't believe if you are going to commet on it, and at least get it right. Directly from your Holy book: Exodus 19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. Deuteronomy 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Deuteronomy 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Numbers 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Joshua 7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 1 Kings 21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. need any more? Interesting - all quotes from the Old Testament. Perhaps you are unaware that Christainity did not exist at this time. Aren't you the one who claims to know all about Christainity. I asked you to show me where in the New Testament (The scriptures from which Christianity gets it's name) where stoning was mandated, and you quote me the Law! So you've fallen short of your example of my not knowing about that which I discuss by demonstrating that you do not know about that which you talk. Once again - making my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? Because, unlike Jesus, Jefferson can A.) Be accurately placed in History. B. There are multiple, independent sources that confirm that Jefferson C. Books actually written by Thomas Jefferson. So your reference of proof is from unsubstantiated eye-witnesses - eh? You're making my point. http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Thomas-Jefferson/dp/0486442896 ... Because an Autobiography, and the tons of other evidence that Jefferson lived, doesn't count. Right. I think you really need to go back to school. There is proof that Jefferson Lived. He wrote an Autobiography. He lived a life that was uniquely his. There is no proof Jesus lived. Jesus didn't write about his life. The story of Jesus had been circling the Mediterranean for thousands of years before he came around.(IF he came around.) The only place that there is no proof that Jefferson lived is in your head, where you have to twist the meanings of words around to make yourself feel like you are winning. Again - you're missing the point. Where's the "proof". What is determining that this is factual? The proof that jesus lived comes from those who were eye-witnesses to his being here. The proof we have of Jefferson comes from eye-witnesses who testified of his being here. Of those who claim that the documents of Jefferson were indeed - from his pen. For there is no one alive today who can give testamony to either of them. Obviously - it stands to reason that there is more testamony for Jefferson - since he lived a mere two hundred years ago, rather than two thousand years ago - but the fact remains - the "proof" for either one comes from documentation alone. Therefore - you are hard pressed to "prove" the likelihood that one existed while the other did not. It is a self contradiction to make that claim, as the premise for proving either one existed is the same - so the result of your argument should logically be the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. That is hugely ironic coming from you. Care to back up that statement with some sort of example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense. The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare? So the point is - what denotes "proof"? You are really clutching at straws now. Nobody doubts there was a Shakespeare, because there are countless plays written by him. These plays do not contradict eachother, they are very well written peices of art. I would bet that there are some original pieces still in existence and that it can easily be proved that they were all penned by the same person. Shakespeare isnt asking anyone to live their lives differently, nor does he claim to be the son of God. There is no need for anyone to have made up his existence, whereas for Jesus and Christianity, there are a whole host of reasons why people might have done this. Maybe shakespeare was really a bloke called Bob, it doesnt really matter if we cant prove his entire existence. Someone wrote those plays. Why i am even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous argument is beyond me. I have to whole heartedly agree with your last statement, as you demonstrate a serious ack of having educated yourself on what the bible actually says. There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. Well done Sherlock. I have already stated, plainly, in this thread that i dont know very much about religion. But that doesnt mean either that i have pure ignorance on the topic. Even if i did, that doesnt mean i cant join in the discussion. Just because you think you are so much more highly educated on the subject doesnt intimidate me in the least. I cant believe you are resorting to that tactic so quickly. For all your education on the bible, whatever that may be, all you have offered in reponse to me so far is random clap trap about Jefferson and Shakespeare, and then followed it up by calling ME ignorant. I know so little in terms of facts about the bible, and thats all you have got?? Surely, with all your education, you must beable to put my views to shame? And anyway, why should i educate myself on what the bible actually says, when there is plain proof(to those of us not blinkered to reality) that it is not the word of God. I would consider that a waste of my time. And anyway, you cant use the bible to prove the bible, that is just plain silly. So whatever it is exactly that the bible does say, is irrelavent in this topic. I'm not claiming your ignorance - I'm quoting you on it. You've already demonstrated by your own words that you are not familiar with the bible - so I ask you this. What proof that it is not the word of God? Someone else's opinion? I would suggest that if you want proof that it is not the word of God - then you read it for yourself and make your own decision about it, and not rely on what someone else thinks about it - as you are likely not aware of their bias' about it - or if in fact they know enough about what they're saying to be even qualified to give evidence of proof that it is NOT the word of God - when that is only something that God himself could do. Again - it's a matter of what the criteria for "proof" is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? Because, unlike Jesus, Jefferson can A.) Be accurately placed in History. B. There are multiple, independent sources that confirm that Jefferson C. Books actually written by Thomas Jefferson. So your reference of proof is from unsubstanciated eye-witnesses - eh? You're making my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense. The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare? So the point is - what denotes "proof"? You are really clutching at straws now. Nobody doubts there was a Shakespeare, because there are countless plays written by him. These plays do not contradict eachother, they are very well written peices of art. I would bet that there are some original pieces still in existence and that it can easily be proved that they were all penned by the same person. Shakespeare isnt asking anyone to live their lives differently, nor does he claim to be the son of God. There is no need for anyone to have made up his existence, whereas for Jesus and Christianity, there are a whole host of reasons why people might have done this. Maybe shakespeare was really a bloke called Bob, it doesnt really matter if we cant prove his entire existence. Someone wrote those plays. Why i am even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous argument is beyond me. I have to whole heartedly agree with your last statement, as you demonstrate a serious ack of having educated yourself on what the bible actually says. There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense. The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare? So the point is - what denotes "proof"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I don't see the your point at all. No one is claiming that Thomas Jefferson is the sacrificial lamb of God and that the Declaration of Independence is the word of God. Even if Jesus existed (which I personally believe that he did), it doesn't automatically follow that he was the sacrifical lamb of God. In fact, even the Biblical stories about Jesus don't support that idea as much as they would like to. Most of them sound like totally made up lies in an attempt to use the rumors of Jesus to prop up the very dogma that Jesus denounced. I believe that some guy named Jesus did live and denounce the teaching of the Old Testament and was crucified for blaspheme by the Jews. All of that makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is that this was the plan of the God of Abraham. That part makes absolute no sense at all. Why would the God of Abraham have been so stupid as to command the Jews to murder heathens, and then send his only begotten son to them to blaspheme his previous teachings? Clearly such a God would need to be grossly inept if not insane. The God of Abraham could not blame the Jews for murdering Jesus. On the contrary he would need to be highly pleased with the fact that they obeyed him so well! The God of Abraham told the Jews though Moses and the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not have any other Gods BEFORE me!". He also commanded them to murder 'heathens' where a 'heathen' is anyone who speaks out against the 'Word of God'. Yet Jesus supposed did BOTH of those things! Jesus clearly denounced the ways of the God of Abraham, plus he supposedly claimed that the only way to get to the Father is THROUGH HIM! That's placing Jesus BEFORE the God of Abraham. How could the Jews do anything BUT murder Jesus just as the God of Abraham had commanded them to do? The story just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Thomas Jefferson may have written the Declaration of Independence, but he didn't claim that the King told him to write it! So there's no comparison between Thomas Jefferson and Jesus. Thomas Jefferson stood on his own two feet. Jesus has no feet of his own. He only has clout if he's placed on the shoulders of the God of Abraham! So comparing a belief that Thomas Jefferson existed with a belief that Jesus was the sacrifical lamb of God are two entirely different things. I can believe that some guy named Jesus may have very well existed, denounced the ways of the God of Abraham and was crucified for his efforts. That still doesn't make him the sacrificial lamb of God. Believing that some guy named Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jews is EASY to believe. Although I still don't see the historical evidence even for THAT. But even if it existed it wouldn't automatically make the gospels true. I believe that Jesus lived, denounced the Old Testament, was crucified, and rumors were started about what he stood for, and who he was. I even believe that there were indeed rumors that he rose from the dead. The rumors were most likely confusing, some claiming that he had something to do with the God of Abraham, other's having him denounce the Old Texts. Eventually the authoritarians wanted to make their rumors the 'gospel truth' so they wrote them out and proclaimed them as the only official "Holy Scriptures" and whosoever refuses to believe in them or speaks out against them will be beheaded! Yep, that's what the "Holy Scriptures" are. Total lies made up by unscruplous men who wanted to use Jesus as a patsy to prop up their failing dogma. How can you not see this? Even the gospels themsleves confess that Jesus denounced they ways of the God of Abraham. They had no choice, because all of the rumors of Jesus had Jesus denouncing the Old Ways. So they were stuck with having to try to work that in. But the problem is that it doesn't FIT! That would be like trying to claim that the King told Thomas Jefferson to become independent of his rule!!! Jesus rebuked the teachings of the God of Abraham. Even the gospels were stuck with that FACT. They tried to work with it but they didn't get it past me.  I'm onto them. They were using Jesus as a patsy to prop up the very dogma that Jesus himself denounced. Did some guy name Jesus live, denounce the Old Testament, and was crucified? Very possible! Did the Christ that the gospels are written about exist? NOPE!  You don't see the point? I thought you better than that. Any "proof" we have concerning anyone in History is a matter on the faith we have in eye witness testamony. Since there is no one alive today who witnessed Thomas Jefferson arriving at the contenental Congrss with the Declaration of Independence - our proof that it is a legitimate document rests in our faith in eye witness documentation. We have no film of the event. No one photographed the signing. What then "proves" the event occured? How do we know Thomas Jefferson even lived? What makes the references in History books about him true and accurate? Proof? Hardly. There is no way to prove that Thomas Jefferson was any more real than Jesus, for the method by which we have to prove either one existed is exactly the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
I believe that Jesus lived and had Eastern influence somehow prior to the time in his life which is recorded in the Bible. How much of the gospels are an accurate depiction of actuality is anyone's guess, after all, the Catholic Church records claim more than 25 years of "oral tradition" before the first gospel was written. I often wonder how much benefit is/was lost through the cracks. To this day, it finds a way to invoke hope in a hopeless person. I just do not see much evidence that it allows the person to know why they became hopeless to begin with, in order to avoid the same set of thinking mistakes in the future. I have read the New Testament many times over, first as a devout believer in the fact that what I was reading was allowing me to become a better man, and then as a better man attempting to share the perspective of one who knows that great things can be acheived within one's self. I read it for me... It showed me how to take the first steps to know me. I would not and cannot come to terms with many things contained in the text, especially much of the Old Testament. I simply cannot reconcile some of the thoughts. I find myself very disappointed when I think about how so many, who call themselves Christians, seem as if they have taken the hope that was invoked and twisted it into a form of something which I do not, and have not ever been able to assimilate to. I came away with something different. The beginnings of an internal transformation... For the better. Most *conservative* estimates put authorship of the earliest gospel at around 70 A.D., more realistic estimates are around 30 years later and after the likely life span of any of the 12 disciples. Regardless of what date you put on them, there is a large gap in time between when Jesus started his ministry and next earliest gospel account of life. It is said he was about 30ish when he started his ministry, even if we accept the single gospel account of him at twelve that still leaves about 18 years unaccounted for. What did he do during that time? I am also bothered that an event as central to his ministry as his birth is only ever mentioned in the gospels second hand. None of the gospels directly quote Jesus, Mary, or Joseph telling the story of his birth. Actually - that doesn't make any sense that the gospels were written after 70 AD, since not one of them reports the Temple being destroyed, since that event - which occured in 70 AD would have been a MAJOR fullfillment of Jesus' prophecy and one of the most significant occurance's in Jewish history. Matthew, Mark, and John would have surely noted it - and Luke would have reported it. As to Jesus' birth - it was insignificant in comparison to what the meaning of his death and resurrection was. For that is the central theme of the Gospels. They were not intended to be a biography of Jesus - but a testament to why he was here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think god cares if guys get married. And I'm sure it isn't a slap on the face for him. Why wouldn't the supreme creator want those which it created to be happy? They aren't stealing things or murdering straight people so let them be. i dont think god hates anything. can you imagine that? a hateful, malicious god? scary stuff. also morality is a very poor basis for dictating actions because it shifts with social evolution over time and throughout cultures. take ancient greece. you know, the culture and civilization from which we take a lot of ideas on philosophy, medicine, etc etc etc from. in ancient greece, love between two men was actually considered the highest form of love and most moral form of love. so... yeah. And how did that work out for them? When was the last time Greece was a world power? Remember the last time any philosophy from Greece was even relevant - let alone influencial. And perhaps you could site even one reference at all in any of the documents from the founding fathers where anything from Greek philosophy effected any idea in ther funding of this country. But - hey, lets not cloud this issue with any facts of truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Wed 04/08/09 08:22 PM
|
 Now I am wondering how, in a polite way, can I explain to someone that everything they just said was incorrect. lol Just come out and say it. Those that enter this thread to actually learn will be able to, and it's not like anything you say will actually change the persons mind. Just look at the mounds of irrefutable evidence that has been posted in the countless threads on this subject. Irrefutable evidence? What are you refering to. I've read this whole thread - and I'm not sure what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other.  Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature. But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?  What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. This is full of inaccuracies So many that I dont even know where to start Now I am wondering how, in a polite way, can I explain to someone that everything they just said was incorrect. lol It's easy - provide acceptable facts that demonstrate the innaccuracies. That's the only polite way. Offering mere presumption and conjecture though - only demonstrates an arrogance to accure someone of innacuracies based on unsubstanciated opinions. So - just provide the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets not forget: -Jomon culture of Japan from 10000BC -Hoabinhian culture of North Vietnam from 8000 BC -Yangshao culutre of China from 5000-2000 BC -Longshan culture of China from 3000-2000 BC Where are you getting these dates from? USC library. Universities are full of information. Yes, I know - I went to one, and taught in a few others. Now - who is providing these dates, and where are they getting their information. And don't say - "a book" - because that isn't where the dates come from, there where they're recorded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature. But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this? What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. This is full of inaccuracies So many that I dont even know where to start Perhaps you don't know where to start because there's nothing to start with. Are you going to provide something relevant to support your claim. Like, maybe expound on what you are refering to by inaccuracies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature. But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this? What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets not forget: -Jomon culture of Japan from 10000BC -Hoabinhian culture of North Vietnam from 8000 BC -Yangshao culutre of China from 5000-2000 BC -Longshan culture of China from 3000-2000 BC Where are you getting these dates from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
missing the point anyone? Faith vs. Fact sigh Exactly. Evolution is a faith based religion. Nothing scientific about "Origins of the Species" and what that has become. There is no evidence for the reality of Abiogenesis at all. It has essentially - been disprven. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
