Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:22 am to Loathor
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:22 am to Loathor
quote:
I don't think he was asking for "reams of evidence" or "link after link"... how about just a couple? Or one?
Saying there is this mountain of verifiable evidence then not providing any at all doesn't really help your argument.
He knows what's out there. He has determined it not to be evidence, though. Why? Because he has decided it's not evidence. Despite what centuries of scholars, up to and including present day, both Christian and non-Christian, have to say about it.
He's not ignorant, he knows there is evidence and could cite to it as easily as I could. He has just made the arbitrary, non-scholarly decision to label anything he doesn't care for as non-evidence. And when you deny evidence as being evidence, you have fled reason and joined ranks with the zealots. Which he has clearly done.
But hey, if it makes him happy --->
4
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:28 am to Loathor
quote:
I don't think he was asking for "reams of evidence" or "link after link"... how about just a couple? Or one?
Saying there is this mountain of verifiable evidence then not providing any at all doesn't really help your argument.
I thought I was going crazy.
I'd love to see these reams.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:32 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
He knows what's out there. He has determined it not to be evidence, though. Why? Because he has decided it's not evidence. Despite what centuries of scholars, up to and including present day, both Christian and non-Christian, have to say about it.
He's not ignorant, he knows there is evidence and could cite to it as easily as I could. He has just made the arbitrary, non-scholarly decision to label anything he doesn't care for as non-evidence. And when you deny evidence as being evidence, you have fled reason and joined ranks with the zealots. Which he has clearly done.
But hey, if it makes him happy --->
So instead of providing any of the vast evidence you claim you deflect again. It's certainly easy to deny evidence if none is presented. Claiming something exists without providing any proof of it just seems... silly...
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:34 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
He's not ignorant, he knows there is evidence and could cite to it as easily as I could.
Please, by all means, cite it. I've not only given you a modern scholar who disagrees with it, I've also shown that there's a shift in how the evidence is being presented.
I'm not asking for 100% evidence in history, that doesn't exist. But, most people question if Socrates was a historical figure.
Articles on Socrates
His supporters lived with him.
His supporters wrote about him.
His supporters painted pictures of him.
His supporters made a bust of him.
His supporters were well known.
Check one of these that applies to Jesus.
And keep in mind -- the historicity of Socrates was in question (it may have changed now). Why on Earth don't they apply the same standard to the Son of God?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:34 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
He knows what's out there. He has determined it not to be evidence, though. Why? Because he has decided it's not evidence. Despite what centuries of scholars, up to and including present day, both Christian and non-Christian, have to say about it. He's not ignorant, he knows there is evidence and could cite to it as easily as I could. He has just made the arbitrary, non-scholarly decision to label anything he doesn't care for as non-evidence. And when you deny evidence as being evidence, you have fled reason and joined ranks with the zealots. Which he has clearly done.
Dude! Did you really feel the need to burn down the guy's house?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:38 am to Kentucker
quote:
Dude! Did you really feel the need to burn down the guy's house?
Yeah, he's done a great job showing his position -- so great that the majority of us don't even know what evidence he has. "I've got reams of evidence, scro, I'm just not going to say any of it."
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:40 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Dude he is just trolling the piss out of you. He either believes in evolution or doesn't care, but he is having a great time pretending to have an honest debate with you
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:41 am to Crimson G
quote:
Dude he is just trolling the piss out of you. He either believes in evolution or doesn't care, but he is having a great time pretending to have an honest debate with you
We've had this discussion before.
Although the stupidity of his argument does suggest he's a Poe.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:42 am to Crimson G
And he's not talking about evolution scro.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:46 am to Crimson G
I'd say the dawg is a master debater. He has things in hand. He comes to a point and then gets off.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:49 am to Kentucker
quote:
I'd say the dawg is a master debater. He has things in hand. He comes to a point and then gets off.
A master debater at least has a platform and points, they don't just posit a thought and provide no evidence for the said thought. "Eh the evidence is out there, believe me."
Color me undeterred.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:51 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I think it was just a masturbation joke
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:53 am to Crimson G
quote:
I think it was just a masturbation joke
Certainly more accurate.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:55 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Articles on Socrates
His supporters lived with him.
His supporters wrote about him.
His supporters painted pictures of him.
His supporters made a bust of him.
His supporters were well known.
Check one of these that applies to Jesus.
And keep in mind -- the historicity of Socrates was in question (it may have changed now). Why on Earth don't they apply the same standard to the Son of God?
Not directed at me, but it's not exactly the same thing here.
If Jesus existed (I believed He did/does) and claimed to be the Son of God and claimed to be God, then it would make sense that we would not have the same evidence as Socrates:
His supporters lived with him - As did Jesus' disciples. Many more followed Him for the course of His ministry
His supporters wrote about him - Jesus' supporters wrote about Him after His resurrection
His supporters painted pictures of him - Jesus claimed to be God. His disciples (while He was alive) were primarily Jews who didn't make images of God.
His supporters made a bust of him - Same reason why they didn't paint Jesus. Also, Jesus was not rich or political and He was only "famous" for a few years prior to His death. His message was about salvation and the kingdom of heaven, not his own glorification. He didn't want people to worship those images.
His supporters were well known - Josephus (a Roman Jewish historian) makes mention of John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus, who were both disciples. However, many of Jesus' followers were not very well-known because Jesus' teachings were contrary to many people who made their fame and fortune a vital aspect of their lives. After the teachings of Christ started taking off, His disciples started becoming pretty "famous". To the point of their persecution and martyrdom.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
His supporters lived with him - As did Jesus' disciples. Many more followed Him for the course of His ministry
None felt the need to write anything he said down until ~20 - ~120 years later? Which disciple lived for over 150 years to write that gospel?
quote:
His supporters lived with him - As did Jesus' disciples. Many more followed Him for the course of His ministry
Says who?
quote:
His supporters painted pictures of him - Jesus claimed to be God. His disciples (while He was alive) were primarily Jews who didn't make images of God.
This is interesting, but there were tons who didn't believe he was God -- like the Romans who helped crucify him. Why didn't they describe him?
quote:
His supporters were well known - Josephus (a Roman Jewish historian) makes mention of John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus, who were both disciples. However, many of Jesus' followers were not very well-known because Jesus' teachings were contrary to many people who made their fame and fortune a vital aspect of their lives. After the teachings of Christ started taking off, His disciples started becoming pretty "famous". To the point of their persecution and martyrdom.
Josephus existed after Jesus had died and had written his article without ever having met any of Jesus' disciples since they would have been dead by that publication.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:17 pm to Wtodd
quote:
FWIW this is a 2 way street.
Exactly. My satisfaction doesn't have anything to do with something being correct or true. Something that is correct or true relies on evidence to be so, not the personal feelings of those who observe it.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:42 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Who is to say they didn't? What we have available to us does not necessarily constitute all that was written. We have fragments that date back to the 2nd century and potentially one that dates back to the first century that I haven't seen published yet. But, even so, there is a lot that has been written that has not been preserved. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
None felt the need to write anything he said down until ~20 - ~120 years later? Which disciple lived for over 150 years to write that gospel?
quote:The New Testament writings in the Christian Bible.
Says who?
quote:Who says they didn't? Again, not everything written in history is preserved for us. That being said, why would they?
This is interesting, but there were tons who didn't believe he was God -- like the Romans who helped crucify him. Why didn't they describe him?
The Jews who didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah were trying to convince the people He was a liar and/or a madman. They probably discouraged others from writing about Jesus, but that's just speculation. We just don't know.
I'm sure those who didn't agree with Jesus' teachings about Himself may have talked about their opinions with others, but they didn't have facebook and twitter so I doubt many of them cared enough to record it. Jesus was written about by others (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and a few others).
quote:Yes, but he was a historian, like Tacitus. I doubt they were very concerned with rumors and nutty religions that had no basis in fact (as they considered it). And they were not far off in time from the actual events in history.
Josephus existed after Jesus had died and had written his article without ever having met any of Jesus' disciples since they would have been dead by that publication.
Regardless, the issue was that his disciples weren't well known, and I was proffering that they wouldn't likely be well-known due to the nature of those who followed Jesus during His ministry (poor, downtrodden, and insignificant to most). The examples I gave showed that at least some of His disciples became somewhat well-known after Jesus was killed.
Jesus' message wasn't very popular to the ruling class during that time. Most of the Jewish leaders condemned Jesus and the Roman leaders didn't like the infighting among the Jews, especially when they had to get involved (as was the case with Pontius Pilate and Jesus' trial).
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:49 pm to DCRebel
quote:I'd have to disagree with this.
Exactly. My satisfaction doesn't have anything to do with something being correct or true. Something that is correct or true relies on evidence to be so, not the personal feelings of those who observe it.
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.
If you made a death threat against someone with no witnesses and it wasn't recorded, there would be no way to prove you made the threat. Likewise, if you didn't make a threat, but someone said or wrote down that you did, there would be evidence that you made a threat when you actually did not. You can debate the strength of the evidence if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that evidence does not make something true or false by itself.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Who is to say they didn't? What we have available to us does not necessarily constitute all that was written.
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.
quote:
The New Testament writings in the Christian Bible.
Even most scholars agree that the New Testament is not an accurate portrayal of Jesus -- even the Christian ones.
quote:
Yes, but he was a historian, like Tacitus.
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.
Page 9 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News