Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Shad]

The gospel of Matthew (GoM) make no mention of census or of travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem.

While GoM mentioned going to exile in Egypt, while the gospel of Luke (GoL) make no mention of that journey to Egypt, nor the threat to Jesus' life by Herod. That would be a very important details to leave out.

I see that both stories were invented by two different authors, and neither stories could confirm the other.

This is just merely applying an analysis of testimony and finding discrepancies. It is used in court all the time in order to evaluate a witness' credibility and is also applied to multiple texts covering the same events. This is a method, in conjunction with my provided sources, in order to conclude which is true and which is not.

 

[Shad]

Not relevant to evolution. "Is the fact that our atmosphere is protected from objects from space by burning them up before they can eliminate life on this planet, just another fortunate co-incidence? When was the last time you heard about a mass extinction of human beings by a meteor?"

Actually it is relevant since mass extinction events like that of the dinosaurs is evidence for the rise of mammals and our evolutionary leaps after. Granted the human context of the comment you replied to is nonsensical but the rest is if that context is removed the focus is on the type of event itself.

 

[David M]

I have stated that my family name is very similar to that of Zhou dynasty, but I wasn't making it as if I came from that house. The Chau family name is quite common in China.

So he just provided more proof that he is incapable of following a written conversation properly as he can't distinguish between 2 poster on this board.

 

[David M]

Anyone who claims to be a Christian is not going to promote an idea that paints God as a liar.

But that is exactly what your theology does. Creationists/Literalists make God and the Bible liars because so many of the claims that are held as being wholly factual are flat out contradicted by the evidence from reality, that makes God and the Bible purposely deceptive.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Anyone who claims to be a Christian is not going to promote an idea that paints God as a liar. The Genesis account is not negotiable by "theistic evolutionists" who want to maintain a foot in both camps. That is called compromise and allows one to exhibit a sham form of Christianity whilst keeping in the good books with their peers in the scientific world. I am sorry but I have no time for wishy-washy Christians who try to justify themselves for personal benefit. (Rev 3:15, 16)
If they want to swallow the party line...let them. It's their choice. God forces no one to believe in him or to promote him correctly. He knows who the real Christians are.

So by your account all real Christians are officially wrong then? Theistic evolutionists are really the only version of Christians who are capable of maintaining their belief in god and not be proven wrong by science. You can stamp your feet all you want about how science is wrong but...its not wrong. If you believe in a literal version of the bible you are wrong. You have been told wrong. Your beliefs are wrong. And I am sorry for you. I legitimately am. But they are simply not factual.

Lets say for just a momnet that you were convinced evolution was true. I don't see it happening any time soon but for the sake of argument, would you change to be an atheist or would you be a theistic evolutionist?

 

[JayJayDee]

So by your account all real Christians are officially wrong then? Theistic evolutionists are really the only version of Christians who are capable of maintaining their belief in god and not be proven wrong by science.

Huh?? Sorry what? "All real Christians are officially wrong"??? "Real" Christians do not support evolution.

There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionist"....this is a term invented by those who want to have a foot in both camps so that they can feel good about themselves in either one. A Christan is one who doesn't sell his soul to the devil to maintain his popularity with other humans. His position with God should be his priority. You cannot be an evolutionist AND a Christian because evolution denies that the Creator did as he stated In Genesis.....that he deliberately and purposefully created each "kind" of living thing. That is in effect calling God a liar. There is not even a hint of evolution in the scriptures.

You can stamp your feet all you want about how science is wrong but...its not wrong.

The only ones I see stamping their feet here are the evolutionists who have to resort to calling me a liar for presenting the facts that are just plain common sense. I have seen no evidence to refute my beliefs about the supposition of evolution posing as fact. I haven't seen anyone refute the things I have already mentioned as the basis for my belief that intelligent design in creation is true. What about all the things that didn't evolve but are vital for the existence and perpetuation of life?

If you believe in a literal version of the bible you are wrong. You have been told wrong. Your beliefs are wrong. And I am sorry for you. I legitimately am. But they are simply not factual.

Actually you believe that they are wrong and it is your opinion that they are simply not factual. You can choose to believe that If you wish. I believe the Bible is the true word of God. He was the eyewitness to creation...not any human scientist. I will take his word over any human, any day.

Science has not, and cannot dissuade me from my belief any more than I can dissuade you from yours.
We have each made our choice.

Lets say for just a momnet that you were convinced evolution was true. I don't see it happening any time soon but for the sake of argument, would you change to be an atheist or would you be a theistic evolutionist?

Nothing will convince me that the fraud of organic evolution is provable. There is no concrete evidence or it would have been provided by now. Please show us where science can state categorically that the evidence they interpret is not based on a huge amount of supposition. I have yet to read one science article on the subject of organic evolution that can in all honesty describe the process without "might have's" and "could have's" or things that "lead us to the conclusion that"....this or that took place. Since no eyewitnesses can be brought in to testify in its behalf, we have a case based on purely circumstantial evidence.

I rest my case your honor.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Huh?? Sorry what? "All real Christians are officially wrong"??? "Real" Christians do not support evolution.

Then I am sorry to tell you but "real Christianity" by your definition is wrong.

There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionist"....this is a term invented by those who want to have a foot in both camps so that they can feel good about themselves in either one. A Christan is one who doesn't sell his soul to the devil to maintain his popularity with other humans. His position with God should be his priority. You cannot be an evolutionist AND a Christian because evolution denies that the Creator did as he stated In Genesis.....that he deliberately and purposefully created each "kind" of living thing. That is in effect calling God a liar. There is not even a hint of evolution in the scriptures.

I suppose god is a liar if he exists and he meant to be taken literally in the bible. Or maybe he doesn't exist at all and the writers are liars. Or maybe they believed what they wrote and simply were wrong. I can agree that theistic evolution is a bit of a cop out but its a necessary one.

The only ones I see stamping their feet here are the evolutionists who have to resort to calling me a liar for presenting the facts that are just plain common sense. I have seen no evidence to refute my beliefs about the supposition of evolution posing as fact. I haven't seen anyone refute the things I have already mentioned as the basis for my belief that intelligent design in creation is true. What about all the things that didn't evolve but are vital for the existence and perpetuation of life?

Your common sense is wrong. Your arguments have either been invalid, wrong or fallacious. I haven't seen you produce a single effective argument against evolution yet. What about the things vital for life?

Actually you believe that they are wrong and it is your opinion that they are simply not factual. You can choose to believe that If you wish. I believe the Bible is the true word of God. He was the eyewitness to creation...not any human scientist. I will take his word over any human, any day.

I am saying that the scientific facts that are factual invalidate a 6k year old bible where man simply popped into existence out of literal dirt.

Science has not, and cannot dissuade me from my belief any more than I can dissuade you from yours.
We have each made our choice.

And you may continue to be scientifically ignorant. That is your decision. I only ask you don't push this on your children or anyone else's children.

Nothing will convince me that the fraud of organic evolution is provable. There is no concrete evidence or it would have been provided by now. Please show us where science can state categorically that the evidence they interpret is not based on a huge amount of supposition. I have yet to read one science article on the subject of organic evolution that can in all honesty describe the process without "might have's" and "could have's" or things that "lead us to the conclusion that"....this or that took place. Since no eyewitnesses can be brought in to testify in its behalf, we have a case based on purely circumstantial evidence.

I rest my case your honor.

We have already provided the evidence or evolution. You base your opinion on it being wrong and then in the face of overwhelming evidence deny it with fingers in your ears. I can lead a horse to water so to speak.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Huh?? Sorry what? "All real Christians are officially wrong"??? "Real" Christians do not support evolution.

Only in your unreasonably narrow perception of what constitutes a "real" Christian.

There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionist"....this is a term invented by those who want to have a foot in both camps so that they can feel good about themselves in either one.

Nonsense. The two concepts are not in direct competition. There's no reason why an individual cannot accept evolution and also be a theist.

A Christan is one who doesn't sell his soul to the devil to maintain his popularity with other humans. His position with God should be his priority. You cannot be an evolutionist AND a Christian because evolution denies that the Creator did as he stated In Genesis.....that he deliberately and purposefully created each "kind" of living thing. That is in effect calling God a liar. There is not even a hint of evolution in the scriptures.

There also isn't a hint of thermodynamics, gravity, quantum physics or relativity, and yet to deny these things is clearly to deny reality. If you genuinely cannot reconcile your interpretation of the Bible with reality, then the problem is your interpretation. Many Christians adopt a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, or see no conflict between the evolutionary explanation of species origin and the account given in Genesis. You do not hold the sole criteria by which all Christians are to be judged.

The only ones I see stamping their feet here are the evolutionists who have to resort to calling me a liar for presenting the facts that are just plain common sense.

No, we call you are liar when you lie. I.E: Deliberately and knowingly spreading false information in order to support your own biased, personal agenda.

I have seen no evidence to refute my beliefs about the supposition of evolution posing as fact. I haven't seen anyone refute the things I have already mentioned as the basis for my belief that intelligent design in creation is true. What about all the things that didn't evolve but are vital for the existence and perpetuation of life?

Do you mean things like oxygen? What about them?

Nothing will convince me that the fraud of organic evolution is provable.

Thank you for outright stating your own prejudice and irrationality. If nothing will change your mind, what is even the point of debating this subject?

 

[gnostic]

I don't think there is no longer any "true Christians" or "true Christianity". They all died out by the end of the 1st century CE.

Arguing that who's a true Christian and who is not in today's environment, is simply ego and arrogance, and worse of all politics.

 

[JM2C]

I linked two sources about Roman taxation policy which include the census, none of which required anyone leaving their area of residence for their place of birth.

The place of birth has nothing to do with the tribal origin. Joseph and Mary were from the tribe of Judah but were residing in Galilee. This does not mean they do not belong to the tribe of Judah anymore.

You could be from Sicily or born in Sicily but if your parents came from another country you should then look for your ancestor from the country where you parents came from and not from Sicily. You do not become a Sicilian by eating tons of Sicilian pepperoni. You can adapt their culture but not their blood. You could adapt Judaism but that does not mean you are a Jew. You could be a Christian without adapting to any race. What I’m saying is, genealogy is very important to Israel at that time frame because it can prove one’s identity as a Jew. The 12 tribes of Israel had received land inheritance and to claim this land each person must have a proof that they belong to a specific tribe or as a descendant of that particular tribe. Mary and Joseph both came from the line of Judah and that was the reason why they went to Bethlehem to register.

It a theological narrative to cover Misch, nothing more. Josphus wrote about the census after the area become a province but never mentioned a migration for registration.

”never mentioned a migration for registration” If Josephus did not mention it, does it mean there was none? Or was it understood already that each one must “register for the census, each to his own city”?

LK 2:3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

It is more likely Luke used this as a basis in order to construct the narrative to cover up the prophecies Jesus failed to met

or maybe the failure is your understanding based on your preconceived notion.

 

[JM2C]

Nonsense since those verse provide parameter dictating the comparison while your reference has no parameters regarding length. I put in bold the parameter which you are missing in your claimed tail verse. Try your post hoc rationalization again. Bends does not mean length, it mean it bends like it.

Right from the start the comparison is the length of the tail and none of the animals we know has a tail like a cedar in length. We start comparing the size of the tail of the Behemoth to a hippo or to an elephant. Our conclusion is neither elephants’ nor hippos’ matched the tail of the Behemoth; therefore there is no more argument there, right? So, right from the start we establish the pattern of the debate on the length of the tail, right? Since your arguments only support your own conclusion, i.e., [the comparison is not about the length, but it only bends like a cedar does not mean the length is like the cedar tree] means that you can’t bring yourself to any conclusion but only to your own deep-seated conclusion. But if you just try to support my argument you will end up with the same conclusion, i.e., the tail length is like a cedar based on the arguments that neither elephants’ nor hippos’ matched the tail of the Behemoth, therefore, we should arrive to the same conclusion, i.e., the length of the tail is like a cedar. Now, try this post hoc rationalization and believe me you’ll find yourself agreeing with me.

 

[JM2C]

Listen son, you post two verse and asked a general question. You never asked for translation or anything like that. You asked for an opinion which I gave. It is not my problem you have issues forming properly structured sentences which prevent you from communicated your ideas. The verse has nothing to do with the census thus is a red herring which is fallacy.

Why would I say I do not know when you are so incompetent that you didn't put forward anything regarding virgin. You are projecting you thoughts of what you wanted me to do but failed to be competent enough to communicate that. Go back to school, get a tutor or think before you post.

If you are looking for a parameter that is not there then you should look deeper into why I asked, if you can explain those verses, right? People WERE arguing these two verses since the start of the 1st century.

Irenaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly wrote a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.

Your problem here is, reaching to a conclusion so quick and then tries to rationalize it or produce reasons later to justify your error or IGNORANCE. Try your favorite words, POST HOC RATIONALIZATION GENIUS.

 

[JM2C]

Congratulation, it took you 5 posts just to get back to the proper context. You are almost at the level of my 13 yr old nephew when it comes to staying focused.

You are improving from CONGRADULATION TO CONGRATULATION, GENIUS. I know it was the keyboard’s fault.

 

[JM2C]

Actually by providing the parameter regarding Immanuel you shifted focus to this point. Sadly since you lack reading and writing comprehension skills you are obvious to this fact. Go back to school and take a few English classes again. Maybe you will figure it out one day like everyone else with an education about grade 9.

Or should I tell you the whole story, GENIUS. You see what your pride doing to you, instead of learning something from it and stop justifying your IGNORANCE with more nonsense rhetoric, instead of looking for something that is not there and stop blaming me on something that you don’t understand, your pride, your deep-seated pride is forcing you to show more of your own IGNORANCE on this matter.

 

[Parsimony]

Actually it is relevant since mass extinction events like that of the dinosaurs is evidence for the rise of mammals and our evolutionary leaps after. Granted the human context of the comment you replied to is nonsensical but the rest is if that context is removed the focus is on the type of event itself.

It's relevant in the sense that it affected the course evolution would take, but it isn't relevant to the question of whether evolution actually happens or not. That's what I was getting at.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Red font makes things more SERIOUS.

 

[JM2C]

I have stated that my family name is very similar to that of Zhou dynasty, but I wasn't making it as if I came from that house. The Chau family name is quite common in China.


But I have inclination to trace my ancestors, because I couldn't care less of such connection, because it would be pointless and meaningless to me, not to mention it is often unreliable.

and this was my response to that: Oh yeah! That’s right; I forgot you’re just making a rhetorical speech, i.e., saying something the opposite of what your ego really wanted to say just like this one here,

I have qualifications in civil engineering and computer science, so my scientific background, based on practical science, hence the Bachelor of Applied Science. And even though I find theoretical physics very exciting, it is not fields of expertise, so I tends to learn more on experimental science, in which empirical evidences to go with any idea, view, hypothesis or theory.

You and David perhaps just want to elevate yourselves into something you guys are not.

That was my point to JM2C, genealogical history are unreliable. Family names get changed, over time. And I have no desire to be of royal line or ancestry.

Did you read that David, “genealogical history are unreliable” from your friend, GNOSTIC? That was a big blow to your genealogy. Imagine all those wasted time looking for ancestor and found out from Gnostic that they are “UNRELIABLE”. No Vikings, no royal blood? Don’t worry David, you can join us and

meander along celebrating ignorance.

But JM2C jumped to the conclusion as he normally do, that I was making claims that I was of royal line. The names are just similar, that's all.

That is really pushing it man. Ok, that’s it, you came from the royal family.

 

[JM2C]

Red font makes things more SERIOUS.

This is what I wrote to Shad: “We are here to debate and not insult each other. If I’m wrong correct me, but that doesn’t mean you are right when you’re correcting me. We could trade insults all day long, but at the end of the day we can ask ourselves, did I learn something today?”

This guy and Gnostic, they love to use those unpleasant words. I don’t know why they have to use those unpleasant words, for what reason, maybe that’s the way they talk.

 

[outhouse]

"All real Christians are officially wrong"???

You do not stand for all christians

 

[outhouse]

I don’t know why they have to use those unpleasant words, for what reason, maybe that’s the way they talk.

Often time people who are fundamentalist and live fanaticism without even knowing it, due to their religious bias, frustrate those who know the truth.

When "some" theist literally add up 1 + 1 = and get 43 for the answer because a ancient book of theology and mythology says so. it is frustrating.