Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

[PureX]

Facts are proposed bits of truth that are only deemed true or untrue relative to other facts. For example: it is a true fact that if I pray for rain, it will rain. It is an untrue fact, however, that it will rain whenever and wherever I want. A fact that is true relative to one fact-set criteria, may not be true relative to another fact-set criteria. So to posit facts as being true or untrue without including the factual criteria will likely be misleading. As it is nearly impossible to find a fact that is not BOTH true and untrue relative to the fact-set criteria being applied to it.

 

[Sheldon]

You’re so eloquently wrong and seems this 2016 article should have been taken off the internet. We are the most medicated, overweight society around should’ve been the statement not disease resistant. I wish it were so especially with Covid. Doesn’t seem like we are too disease resistant now does it.

90% of Covid cases are asymptomatic. The mutation of viruses is evidence for evolution as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re so eloquently wrong and seems this 2016 article should have been taken off the internet. We are the most medicated, overweight society around should’ve been the statement not disease resistant. I wish it were so especially with Covid. Doesn’t seem like we are too disease resistant now does it. The mantra was we are all going to die and the fear across the world. Problem with evolutionist is they are what they think - animals. This has contributed not to a better society but a hopeless, faithless, prayerless, Godless society with no vision or purpose.
That’s just 1 in the list.
Why is everyone pushing the vaccine regiment if this so and from birth? What is it now, almost 100?

Oh my!! Now you think that you are a tree.

 

[Sheldon]

Problem with evolutionist is they are what they think - animals. This has contributed not to a better society but a hopeless, faithless, prayerless, Godless society with no vision or purpose.

You know the Catholic church accepts the scientific fact of species evolution right? Godless society, in the US, you're kidding right, it is so heavily religious it is something of an anomaly among western democracies. We are all animals, that is simply a fact, a cursory read of the definition would demonstrate that unequivocally. I'm also at a loss as to why you think the fact humans are animals is a bad thing exactly?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are the most medicated, overweight society around should’ve been the statement not disease resistant.

Except that the article was about biological evolution. I commend you on clicking on the link and reading some of it. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that that has never happened before in my experience with creationists, or any faith-based position for that matter (climate deniers won't look at climate data, for example, and antivaxxers won't look at comparative mortality data, either). But it seems you didn't read past the bold heading of the second item. It wasn't about medication or weight. It was about mutations that protect against malaria and three other infectious diseases apart from any therapeutic intervention.

Doesn’t seem like we are too disease resistant now does it.

The comment was about natural infectious disease resistance, not disease in general or manmade disease.

According to the article, we are more resistant to specific infectious diseases where evolution has made us more disease resistant - malaria, leprosy, tuberculosis, and cholera.

Anyway, is this part of a rebuttal regarding whether there has been human evolution over the last thousand years. You said you were aware of none and implied that therefore there were none. I showed you where you were wrong. That's what a rebuttal is - if I'm right, you must be wrong, because we have made mutually exclusive claims, yours unevidenced, mine with a contradictory link.

Your job now is to either agree that your claim was incorrect, or show why the thing offered as evidence don't support the claim that human beings have been evolving in that time. Your present comment doesn't do that. Everything you've written could be true, and the claim that human evolution is still occurring correct. And if you can't or don't, you concede that you are incorrect implicitly.

But to address the non-evolutional aspects of infectious disease resistance due to medical science, yes we are more resistant to infectious diseases than ever before.

Problem with evolutionist is they are what they think - animals. This has contributed not to a better society but a hopeless, faithless, prayerless, Godless society with no vision or purpose.

Enlightenment principles (humanism) pulled humanity out of the abyss of faith and superstition, which is responsible for much of what makes modern life better than that of the Middle Ages, when a greater fraction of people believed the kinds of things you do. There is more hope thanks to humanism. As I mentioned before and you failed to acknowledge seeing much less rebut, "evolutionists," which I'm expanding to include all of the sciences, have made life longer, healthier, more functional, easier, more interesting, and more comfortable. Western style democracy has endowed man with democracy and rights converting peasants subjects to autonomous citizens with economic opportunity. Godlessness and faithlessness are virtues that made that possible, not defects. As America moves closer to faith and theocracy, rights and hope are being contracted. Prayer is obviously ineffective, and I expect that prayer in school would make people just about as good as prayer in church makes them:

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Facts are proposed bits of truth that are only deemed true or untrue relative to other facts.

That reads like the coherence theory of truth, which seems more applicable to mathematical truth than empirical truth.

"Coherence theories of truth characterize truth as a property of whole systems of propositions that can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs, hold that the truth only applies to a single absolute system. In general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence. For example, the coherence of the underlying set of concepts is considered to be a critical factor in judging validity. In other words, the set of base concepts in a universe of discourse must form an intelligible paradigm before many theorists consider that the coherence theory of truth is applicable."

A fact that is true relative to one fact-set criteria, may not be true relative to another fact-set criteria.

When describing empiric truth, it's simply a matter of deciding what works where. Truth is what works, or more properly, correct empirical ideas are ideas that accurately map and predict observed reality. So, if a statement is empirically true in one context but not another, one need merely state under which circumstances it can be expected to accurately predict outcomes. Saying that water boils at 100 deg C and then being shown that at higher altitudes or osmolarities, that this is no longer true, only means that the original comment was too broadly worded, and correspondence with reality is restored by adding the words necessary to make the comment map onto experience whatever the conditions.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You know the Catholic church accepts the scientific fact of species evolution right? Godless society, in the US, you're kidding right, it is so heavily religious it is something of an anomaly among western democracies. We are all animals, that is simply a fact, a cursory read of the definition would demonstrate that unequivocally. I'm also at a loss as to why you think the fact humans are animals is a bad thing exactly?

It’s only honest and right to say what and who I am:
“Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:7-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
And as the OP communicates this, He has risen from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s only honest and right to say what and who I am:
“Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:7-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
And as the OP communicates this, He has risen from the dead.

But it is rather certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The story ignores some rather basic facts.

 

[joelr]

Spiritual/religious scriptures is not myth to me.

There is nothing to debate about beliefs. But can you provide evidence?

 

[joelr]

Spiritual lifestyle isn't build on physical evidence, as I have said before too.
Spiritual lifestyle are meant to grow in wisdom about the unseen from within.

Faith and belief.

But your definition of spiritual isn't a common definition. You are switching the words spiritual and religious. If you are going by a religion you generally want to know if the religion is true? Would you follow Islam as well?

Faith is not a good path to truth. I can have faith in anything including racist ideas or gender superiority.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is nothing to debate about beliefs. But can you provide evidence?

Evidence of my personal belief? You do know spiritual faith is a belief and not science?

 

[Spirit of Light]

But your definition of spiritual isn't a common definition. You are switching the words spiritual and religious. If you are going by a religion you generally want to know if the religion is true? Would you follow Islam as well?

Faith is not a good path to truth. I can have faith in anything including racist ideas or gender superiority.

Faith in God and the teaching, the study of the teaching is up to me, but I can get strenght from God in the prosess

 

[joelr]

I believe the Gods spoken about in spiritual scriptures are real.

Tolkien was a fiction writer, but he based many things on his own experiences too

All Gods? Hindu, Greek, the scriptures of Inanna?

Yes Tolkien wrote fiction. There is no evidence scripture is revelations from any Gods but is actually also likely to be fiction. Both are very similar. Scripture just gives more direct laws and instructions.

 

[joelr]

Evidence of my personal belief? You do know spiritual faith is a belief and not science?

Yes of course? Do you care if your beliefs are true? Or are you fine with taking any scripture about any deity and running with it?

 

[Spirit of Light]

All Gods? Hindu, Greek, the scriptures of Inanna?

Yes Tolkien wrote fiction. There is no evidence scripture is revelations from any Gods but is actually also likely to be fiction. Both are very similar. Scripture just gives more direct laws and instructions.

Yes All the teachings. There is a teaching for everyone, just find the one you can follow and enlighten to. My own search has sendt me over many teachings.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes of course? Do you care if your beliefs are true? Or are you fine with taking any scripture about any deity and running with it?

I believe the teaching is true, it impacts my life every day in all areas

 

[joelr]

Exactly right, except the theory that humans were 200k years ago, notice that the emergence coincides with The Creation account written in Genesis. Evolution says slowly evolving but that’s not what we see.

where does it say 200,000 years ago?

So, no. That creation story was written around 6 B.C.E. using Mesopotamian stories as a guide. It doesn't matter when they said it happened? You understand people write fiction and say it takes place a long time ago. You know Star Wars opens with "A Long time ago..."

Homo Sapien emerged 200,000 years ago. Hominids were evolving for millions of years.

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity

It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.[2] The first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source) and was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today.[3] The two sources can be identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic.[4] The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[5] Robert Alter described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends".[6]

The scholar Bruce Waltke cautions against the "woodenly literal" reading of the first two chapters of Genesis which leads to "creation science" and to such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.[7] Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.[8]

 

[joelr]

Our common ancestor probably looked roughly as much like us as it looks like a chimp. The problem is that people have a bias. A hominid that has only a slight difference from our looks wil seem to be huge to us, where a slight difference in chimp relatives would look small.

Yes. I think the first hominids looked a lot like chimps but walked more than they swung in trees.

 

[joelr]

Faith in God and the teaching, the study of the teaching is up to me, but I can get strenght from God in the prosess

Every religion claims to get strength from their God. As do cult members, Scientologists and many other type groups. What you are probably getting is strength from the belief in a God or from belief that a God is sending you strength. You have to demonstrate that a God is actually sending you strength if you are going to make the claim.

 

[ppp]

Our common ancestor probably looked roughly as much like us as it looks like a chimp. The problem is that people have a bias. A hominid that has only a slight difference from our looks wil seem to be huge to us, where a slight difference in chimp relatives would look small.

As I understand it, our known common ancestors look more like us than like chimps.