Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:16 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:16 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:And that would make sense if they lived pretty near the same time as Jesus compared to us, 2,000 years later, when any potential evidence they had could have been lost or destroyed.
Strange that historical figures that lived before and after Jesus happened to have a whole hell of a lot more evidence of them -- like Josephus and Tacitus.
Or maybe they simply asked a lot of questions of a lot of people and took the old "my father and his father saw the miracles" thing as fact. Who knows? All we have to go on is their words. Just like the Bible.
quote:What do they base that on, I wonder? According to the texts, He made some pretty specific claims and specific claims were made about Him.
Even most scholars agree that the New Testament is not an accurate portrayal of Jesus -- even the Christian ones.
Unless you and they have other evidence to support the notion that the Bible (New Testament descriptions) is wholly inaccurate in regards to its claims about Jesus based on other first-hand accounts and/or contemporaneous historical records, I'll continue to believe the Biblical account. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you.
quote:They were historians, not gossip magazine editors. With that said, they wrote about a lot of historical events that they weren't around for. What constituted "good evidence" for them may not constitute "good evidence" for you, but they lived in a different time with different cultures and placed a heavier weight to oral tradition (which many cultures highly valued and worked diligently to relay information accurately down through their generations). We can either take them at their word or we can't. That wasn't the issue I was addressing, though.
Both of which mentioned Jesus in passing and neither existed during Jesus' times. They were talking about current events (that people were talking about it), not that there was good evidence he existed. People have died for concepts and ideas (Greek Gods) without any convincing evidence.
It was inferred that Jesus was different than Socrates in that no one wrote about Him, much less his supporters. I was simply arguing that not only did His supporters write about Him (the epistles of the NT were letters written from one Christian to other Christians) but other non-Christians wrote about Him not that long (within a hundred years) after He was alive.
1
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What do they base that on, I wonder? According to the texts, He made some pretty specific claims and specific claims were made about Him.
It's called Biblical Interpolation. Several pieces have been changed to better suit a lord or ruler at the time. The fact is: The Bible has been changed extensively in some parts and cannot even name the authors (this is a very important piece).
Early in the thread. I showed that none of the authors of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew could even be named and all are "assumed". All were written at least 20 years and at most 90 years after Jesus had died.
Believe the Bible all you want, but as time goes on and more evidence arises -- the less credible the Bible is used as a source.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Something is true and correct or it is not, regardless of the evidence for it. The evidence is used to help us know if it is true or correct, but it doesn't change that fact one way or the other.
No, that's not how truth works. Evidence can prove truths by negation (AKA proof by contradiction). This is philosophy 101. Someone might claim "No grapes grow in the state of Kentucky" and I can prove a truth (the negation of their claim) by finding a single instance of grapes growing there.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Something is true and correct or it is not, regardless of the evidence for it. The evidence is used to help us know if it is true or correct, but it doesn't change that fact one way or the other.
Okay, I see your point. Evolution was true well before Darwin showed up.
My point though wasn't more about the evidence and about the other poster claiming that he felt an answer wasn't satisfactory or something. The personal feelings of an individual don't have anything to do with the truth of the matter.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:32 pm to MontyFranklyn
Has anyone said guesses and suppositions yet?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:34 pm to justlookin
quote:
Has anyone said guesses and suppositions yet?
I've been waiting for the fabled: "If we come from monkeys, why are monkeys still here, eh?"
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:35 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I've been waiting for the fabled: "If we come from monkeys, why are monkeys still here, eh?"
We came from pine trees and elephants.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:16 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:This is a common claim but what parts have been changed that change the message of the original text? There are discrepancies in the manuscripts but none that change the themes or important details outlined in the Bible, that I'm aware of. The names of the authors aren't important from a theological perspective, since (Orthodox) Christians believe in Biblical inspiration by God, making the specific human author more or less irrelevant.
t's called Biblical Interpolation. Several pieces have been changed to better suit a lord or ruler at the time. The fact is: The Bible has been changed extensively in some parts and cannot even name the authors (this is a very important piece).
quote:And? As a Christian, it is the message (and how it fits with the rest of scripture) that is important. A lot of the Old Testament was actually written down hundreds of years after the fact. The jist of Biblical inerrancy is that God has "protected" the scriptures so that the theological points are maintained so that people may know salvation through Jesus Christ.
Early in the thread. I showed that none of the authors of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew could even be named and all are "assumed". All were written at least 20 years and at most 90 years after Jesus had died.
quote:Again, evidence has to be interpreted; facts are not brute and all evidences are not equal.
Believe the Bible all you want, but as time goes on and more evidence arises -- the less credible the Bible is used as a source.
Most unbelievers view the Bible as not being credible already. Nothing will change that but a personal change and conviction by God.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:19 pm to Crimson G
quote:I didn't claim that evidence is completely divorced from truth or that evidence cannot be used to determine truth.
No, that's not how truth works. Evidence can prove truths by negation (AKA proof by contradiction). This is philosophy 101. Someone might claim "No grapes grow in the state of Kentucky" and I can prove a truth (the negation of their claim) by finding a single instance of grapes growing there.
What I'm saying is that something can be true without evidence, and false in spite of evidence.
Evidence has to be interpreted and doesn't always tell the whole story.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 2:23 pm to DCRebel
quote:Believe that if you'd like
Okay, I see your point. Evolution was true well before Darwin showed up.
quote:That's fine. I agree that feelings don't change truth or necessarily have anything to do with truth. I also think that people have different standards for what they see as acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to evidence.
My point though wasn't more about the evidence and about the other poster claiming that he felt an answer wasn't satisfactory or something. The personal feelings of an individual don't have anything to do with the truth of the matter.
In my experience, it has to do with worldviews than the evidence, anyway. Two people who start with differing ways of viewing things can look at the same evidence and potentially both come away feeling vindicated by it.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:00 pm to FooManChoo
That people can believe in a book written by anonymous people, changed over centuries and reinterpreted dozens of times with several dozen different types of Christianity before a scientific theory (different from a theory) is beyond me.
"Sure there was some guy no one talked about until decades after he died in spite of more than a few miracles and we don't really know who talked about him because the authors are anonymous, that makes it a fact."
"Yeah, so what if humans have a tailbone and no tail, what does that prove? Vestigial tail? Pfffft, that's just silly."
"Sure there was some guy no one talked about until decades after he died in spite of more than a few miracles and we don't really know who talked about him because the authors are anonymous, that makes it a fact."
"Yeah, so what if humans have a tailbone and no tail, what does that prove? Vestigial tail? Pfffft, that's just silly."
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:04 pm to MontyFranklyn
Dadgum I hate it when mere mortals try to logically reason their way into the divine stuff. Just isn't possible(aint no way). Natural beings can't reason supernatural stuff. Limitations are a bitch, but as EW&F would say, "that's the way of the world"
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:08 pm to rootisback
quote:
Dadgum I hate it when mere mortals try to logically reason their way into the divine stuff. Just isn't possible(aint no way). Natural beings can't reason supernatural stuff. Limitations are a bitch, but as EW&F would say, "that's the way of the world"
It's so strange that God hates all the things that his supporters hate. Wonder if there's any correlation?
I'm sure after creating the cosmos, wove time and manifested the physical laws of the uni/multiverse he hammered a sign in front of heaven that said: No figs.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:16 pm to rootisback
I don't think discussing or trying to understand evolution or the origins of man have anything to do with the spiritual world. I don't see any scientistific discussion here trying to figure out heaven or hell.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:18 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
No figs.
God doesn't want AIDS all over heaven bro
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:21 pm to cas4t
quote:
God doesn't want AIDS all over heaven bro
After seeing Jewish men with their cute little hats I'm pretty sure God doesn't take kindly to trendy people, either.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:26 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:I believe that Bible tells a cohesive and unified story about salvation and our savior from Genesis to Revelation, and whether we know the names of the human authors or not is irrelevant, especially since I believe all of the original text was divinely inspired. It really doesn't matter who the author was if he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That people can believe in a book written by anonymous people, changed over centuries and reinterpreted dozens of times with several dozen different types of Christianity before a scientific theory (different from a theory) is beyond me.
quote:What do you mean by "no one talked about"? Perhaps you mean that we don't have preserved records of written documentation until decades after it happened. If so, that's correct. If you really meant that no one talked about it, that's quite the absurdity. By the time those records that we do have started popping up, the Christian religion (and the stories of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus) was already rapidly growing. Emperor Nero was very familiar with these people, since he had them tortured and killed.
"Sure there was some guy no one talked about until decades after he died in spite of more than a few miracles and we don't really know who talked about him because the authors are anonymous, that makes it a fact."
quote:I understand that this and the previous comment are nothing more than overt trolling attempts based on mockery of those who believe like me by oversimplifying more complex views to the point of pure silliness.
"Yeah, so what if humans have a tailbone and no tail, what does that prove? Vestigial tail? Pfffft, that's just silly."
It would have saved you a lot of time to have just skipped to the chase and called me an idiot.
With that said, I'm not interested in debating the various "evidences" of evolution with you or anyone else here. I've done that time and time again in days past and it gets no one anywhere. Just understand that there are more ways than one to interpret evidence. What seems so obvious to me sounds absurd to you, and vice versa.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:27 pm to FooManChoo
Why do you think we grow tails in the womb? Why do you think we have a tailbone? This is a legitimate question.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:27 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Why can't the answer be that God created this wonderfully complex program called the Universe and all we see and know are just parts of his programming at work?
answer =/= guess
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:28 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
okay hate was the wrong word. More like amused with a smirk on my face with some exasperation occasionally, but go for it
Page 10 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News