The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There isn't. Existence yes, death yes, post mortem? No.

So are you doubting the historicity of the disciples claiming that they saw the Resurrected Jesus?

The gospels don't even get the post mortem story correct and were not even eyewitnesses.

Care to elaborate there, frankie?

As well for the trinity read the Old Testament

I did.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So are you doubting the historicity of the disciples claiming that they saw the Resurrected Jesus?



Care to elaborate there, frankie?



I did.

Considering that none of the disciples wrote anything...

Read the resurrection as told in all 4 gospels and you'll notice inconsistencies. But you can easily write them off of course

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Um, frankie, that is basically where we get all of our historical information from, you know...from stuff that was "written".

So, anything that is written is automatically true regardless of how much evidence or corroboration there is?

There is no non egyptian historical evidence that king tut existed either.

If all of the information about King Tut existed in a book that was written around 100 years after King Tut's supposed death, and there was absolutely zero corroborating evidence of his actual existence from contemporary historical sources, that is sufficient cause for doubt. There's a huge difference between "non-Biblical evidence of Jesus" and "non-Egyptian evidence of King Tut". Trying to compare the two claims is blatantly ridiculous.

Second, you are assuming that non scriptural evidence is necessary, when it isn't.

Yes, it is. If you're going to assert the truth of a claim, you are going to need better evidence than a book written from third-hand sources that has little to no support for it's claims outside of it's own pages. Do you believe the claims of the Qur'an? The Torah? The Bhagavad Gita? Ramayana? Do they require non-scriptural evidence, or is their existence alone sufficient justification for anyone to believe them?

Third, we have non scriptural evidence.

Such as...?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, anything that is written is automatically true regardless of how much evidence or corroboration there is?

Wow, so Harry Potter is real!?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Considering that none of the disciples wrote anything...

False. The book of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, and the book of John was written by the disciple John. Mark and Luke were written by John Mark, disciple of Peter, and Luke, the physican of Paul.

Read the resurrection as told in all 4 gospels and you'll notice inconsistencies. But you can easily write them off of course

There are no inconsistencies. The stories aren't exactly the same (word for word), but you shouldn't expect that given that they are different accounts.

 

[outhouse]

False. The book of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, and the book of John was written by the disciple John. Mark and Luke were written by John Mark, disciple of Peter, and Luke, the physican of Paul.



.

Well your wrong again.

You keep making one mistake after the other, its a serious pattern with you.


The gospel authors are unknown.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

False. The book of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, and the book of John was written by the disciple John. Mark and Luke were written by John Mark, disciple of Peter, and Luke, the physican of Paul.



There are no inconsistencies. The stories aren't exactly the same (word for word), but you shouldn't expect that given that they are different accounts.

Not at all, the book of Matthew does not endorse an Author but we rest on tradition.

John was obviously not written by john. Read the last 2 chapters and follow te flow it is not being written from by the person who witnessed it.

They are secondary sources which doesn't make them useless but still not as strong as primary sources.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, anything that is written is automatically true regardless of how much evidence or corroboration there is?

Of course it isn't automatically true, but no one is making that point anyway. It is true based on the BACKGROUND evidence that corroborates the events.

If all of the information about King Tut existed in a book that was written around 100 years after King Tut's supposed death

Hmm. Alexander the Great's biographies were written more than 400 years after his death and historians consider it trustworthy, and compare that to the Gospels, particularly the synoptics, which were written no later than 40 years after the death of Jesus, that is almost like a newsflash. That "100 years after" stuff that people like to spew is just simply false.

, and there was absolutely zero corroborating evidence of his actual existence from contemporary historical sources, that is sufficient cause for doubt.

Contemporary sources from those times, or contemporary sources from modern times? Either way, you are dead wrong in both regards. First off, having "contemporary sources" isn't a criteria when examining history, second off, we do have contemporary sources dating from the first Century AD from both believers and unbelievers.

There's a huge difference between "non-Biblical evidence of Jesus" and "non-Egyptian evidence of King Tut". Trying to compare the two claims is blatantly ridiculous.

Then enlighten me of the difference? If we lived in the 1800's and I asked you to show me non-biblical evidence that king tut, pharaoh of egypt existed, what would you give me? None. So there is no huge difference, it is the same thing.

Yes, it is. If you're going to assert the truth of a claim, you are going to need better evidence than a book written from third-hand sources that has little to no support for it's claims outside of it's own pages.

First off, you are going to need better facts, because there are no third hand sources...second handed at that, and credible second handed sources at that, not including the extra-biblical sources. So until I can prove anything, you have to get past all of the falsehoods that you continue to spew.

Do you believe the claims of the Qur'an? The Torah? The Bhagavad Gita? Ramayana? Do they require non-scriptural evidence, or is their existence alone sufficient justification for anyone to believe them?

When you have a perfectly good bible, who needs the Qur'an?

Such as...?

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar-Serapion

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not at all, the book of Matthew does not endorse an Author but we rest on tradition.

Early tradition. If that is the case we should question each and every thing that was ever written by anyone, since no one alive today was there to witness who wrote it and when. That kind of strict criteria is not held to anything else except the bible, which is amazing.

John was obviously not written by john. Read the last 2 chapters and follow te flow it is not being written from by the person who witnessed it.

It was written by John, and someone else FINISHED the last few verses, not chapters.

They are secondary sources which doesn't make them useless but still not as strong as primary sources.

Once again, the early church stated who wrote the Gospels, and they were a lot closer to the events than you are some 2,000 years later, as if you have some authority to speak on the matter.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Early tradition. If that is the case we should question each and every thing that was ever written by anyone, since no one alive today was there to witness who wrote it and when. That kind of strict criteria is not held to anything else except the bible, which is amazing.



It was written by John, and someone else FINISHED the last few verses, not chapters.



Once again, the early church stated who wrote the Gospels, and they were a lot closer to the events than you are some 2,000 years later, as if you have some authority to speak on the matter.

It wasn't written by john. Where does it even say it was written by john?

I'm not using my authority I'm using the authority of numerous theistic and non-theistic NT scholars.

 

[outhouse]

Once again, the early church stated who wrote the Gospels, and they were a lot closer to the events than you are some 2,000 years later,.

Wrong again. This is nothing but secre ignorance talking of historical methods.

We have a compilation of historical data, these ancient church fathers did not have.

What do you know from 150 years ago with certainty?

as if you have some authority to speak on the matter

he has more then you. You just keep making ne error after error, and will not listen what so ever, to anyone no matter how much credibility they have.

It is embarrassing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course it isn't automatically true, but no one is making that point anyway. It is true based on the BACKGROUND evidence that corroborates the events.

So, when you said:

"Second, you are assuming that non scriptural evidence is necessary, when it isn't."

So you, in fact, meant to say the exact opposite is true?

Hmm. Alexander the Great's biographies were written more than 400 years after his death and historians consider it trustworthy, and compare that to the Gospels, particularly the synoptics, which were written no later than 40 years after the death of Jesus, that is almost like a newsflash.

This is a red herring. We are not debating the existence of Alexander the Great, we're debating the existence of Jesus. There is, as far as I'm aware, lots of doubt and discussion about Alexander the Great among historians. The fact is that you are point-blank telling us that Jesus was a historical figure based on little to no evidence whatsoever.

That "100 years after" stuff that people like to spew is just simply false.

Can you confirm the dates the new testament was written and who wrote them?

Contemporary sources from those times, or contemporary sources from modern times?

Contemporary meaning "living at the same time". Obviously a written source from modern times wouldn't be much use for making a historical claim.

Either way, you are dead wrong in both regards. First off, having "contemporary sources" isn't a criteria when examining history,

Yes, it is. If there are little to no contemporary historical sources to lend credibility to a given historical account, it throws the account into doubt. If a guy was going around with five thousand followers and performing miracles and not a single historian around at the time makes a note of this, it is reason to cast doubt on the claim.

second off, we do have contemporary sources dating from the first Century AD from both believers and unbelievers.

Once again, contemporary means "around at the time". "Around 100 years later" is not contemporary.

Then enlighten me of the difference?

One is a series of claims made by a specific book, one is claims backed up by a wealth of information left behind by an entire civilization. Saying "there is no extra-Biblical sources for Jesus" is NOT the same as saying "there is no non Egyptian sources for King Tut".

If we lived in the 1800's and I asked you to show me non-biblical evidence that king tut, pharaoh of egypt existed, what would you give me? None. So there is no huge difference, it is the same thing.

So you honestly believe that for almost two-thousand years, the only historical source of evidence we had that Egypt existed was the Bible?

First off, you are going to need better facts, because there are no third hand sources...second handed at that, and credible second handed sources at that, not including the extra-biblical sources.

Please demonstrate this.

So until I can prove anything, you have to get past all of the falsehoods that you continue to spew.

I'll get over these falsehoods when you demonstrate that they are false.

When you have a perfectly good bible, who needs the Qur'an?

That's your best argument? Really?

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar-Serapion

Josephus: written around 93-94 AD. Not a contemporary, and there are debates of the account's authenticity.
Tacitus: not a contemporary.
Pliny the Younger: never mentions Jesus by name. Was also not a contemporary.
Mara Bar-Serapion: Not a contemporary, and there is again debate about the dating of the letter.

Is there more?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It wasn't written by john. Where does it even say it was written by john?

The early testimony of the church states that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The early testimony of the church states that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

Yes but the book does not hence they are secondary sources.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That isn’t the argument, Monk. So I asked you to elaborate on your critique of the arguments that apologists present, and so far within the first sentence you are off to a horrible start.

Actually yes it is. Care to explain it differently?

The argument is everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause, meaning things don’t just pop in to being completely uncaused out of nothing. So you are wrong, yet again.

Actually I'm not. Though I would like to know what you have seen being brought into existence and what caused it. I'll bet you've never seen "something come from something". We have only observed change rather than creation. So we are ignorant of what causes creation.

I specifically said the Modal Ontological Argument, so basically everything you just said is irrelevant because you mention practically every version but the one I specifically said.

By all means present the modal ontological argument and explain how it is except from the points that I presented.

Well that pretty much wraps up all of the theistic arguments.

Wraps them up nicely in the fallacy that they support.

You have to refute the actual premises of the argument. The argument is that the brain is distinct from the mind, meaning they are not the same thing. Your mind is not made up of matter, but your brain is. So the mind transcends the brain and owe its existence so a non-empirical source.

And you have to make the argument that it is NOT physical. And that our experiences and such are non-physical. This is required to claim truth. You don't "know". You have no evidence supporting your statements. Ergo it is an argument from ignorance. So I don't have to prove you wrong.

So basically what you are saying is because there are different ways we could have made an airplane that would mean that the airplane that we did make is not fine tuned? That does not logically follow because the airplane that we did make is fine tuned for air transportation despite the fact that there were other ways it could have been made.

You've set up a false premis. Your using an engineered item specifically to front you cause. Its far better to use another analogy such as a waterfall or a river. The exact course of the river is astronomically rare. However in shape or another a river will form if water is introduced. Would you say the river is "finely tuned" no matter which shape it takes? And I don't mean the water content but the shape of the river specifically. Do you think that the shape of the Mississippi River was fine tuned?

Once again, that does not follow. My backyard doesn’t support the occupancy of 1,000 people. That doesn’t mean that my neighbor’s backyard doesn’t support the occupancy of 1,000 people, or even more. Just faulty logic all the way around.

It is not faulty logic. You made the claim that the universe is finely tuned for life. I have made the case it isn't. In fact it is so demonstrably false that it is "fine tuned" for life that it is nearly infinitely more dangerous than it it supportive. If someone were to "fine tune" the universe to support life then it why is the majority of it not? Why is such an astronomically (litteral usage of the word) small amount of it livable? Hell even this tiny spec of dust we call the earth has scant few places that are livable.

And you obviously know nothing about the fine tuning parameters that were met to make life permissible. If any of these 30+ constants were off by even the tiniest degree, life wouldn’t be possible. You don’t get that kind of precision from mindless processes.

the amount of brainwashing you went through must have been one hell of a process.

I am uniquely familiar with the concept and I am uniquely familiar with the reason why its total bull. But if any of those 30 were different how do we know that a different kind of life couldn't exist? Or that the chances of it happening is almost guranteed in the sheer vastness of the universe?

If we needed a machine to print out the exact sequence of 11000222001100111110001000112002002020020030020120101200202020101020230300003230232334556345245663465123622342626361134236256457452252234234523636 to support life then the odds would be crazy to get that exact sequence. HOWEVER if we had the machine print out enough sequences then it would in fact eventually happen.

What part of that don't you understand?

Actually it does. Tell ya what, I challenge you to an informal debate on mibbit (thanks to Kryptid). We can discuss any of those 5 topics you like.

I'd rather debate it here. I am currently at work. I can also do skype.

 

[Simurgh]

Some loon in the wild uses the same lines in every post, regardless of topic and some people engage in debate past the point of reason. Why beat a dead horse? The topic in this context is dead; it ought to be buried already. Circular arguments simply waste time that could be used more productively. (i.e picking catnip, cleaning silk pillows, procuring dried salmon for treats, you know, worthwhile stuff) instead the same arguments and no results.

Ø The question then becomes: is this an exercise in masturbatory self-flagellation?
Ø Is it an attempt at trying to see how many different ways the same thing can be said?
Ø Is it a matter of killing time so that one does not have to collect catnip and clean silk pillows?
Ø Is this penance because the dried salmon has not yet shipped?
Ø Could it simply be finger exercises to increase typing speed?

One thing is for sure, it is not an attempt to flex an intellectual muscle, since this is not possible given the respondent’s ostrich attitude. And we do acknowledge the fact that the willfully ignorant take grade pride in their ignorance and parade it around for all to see, as it happens here, right?

So why again are we feeding into that self-congratulatory display of non-scientific, nonsensical, misrepresented pseudo factual tripe?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, when you said:

"Second, you are assuming that non scriptural evidence is necessary, when it isn't."

So you, in fact, meant to say the exact opposite is true?

My point is don't make seem as if non scriptural evidence is necessary in determining truth value.

This is a red herring. We are not debating the existence of Alexander the Great, we're debating the existence of Jesus.

The whole point is simple; hold other historical figures to the same standard that you hold Jesus Christ, don't play the favoritism crap, especially if you want to argue against the fact that Jesus EVER existed at all, which is troubled territory considering the historical facts.

There is, as far as I'm aware, lots of doubt and discussion about Alexander the Great among historians. The fact is that you are point-blank telling us that Jesus was a historical figure based on little to no evidence whatsoever.

First of all, historians recognize that some legendary accounts of Alexander the Great were made, but those two accounts of his biography are not disputed by historians. Second, the VAST majority of historians agree that Jesus is a historical figure. That is a FACT. Even the most secular critics admit that Jesus is a historical figure. So why are they convinced? Because the historical evidence supports it. So you are just flat out wrong and also in the minority, which doesn't matter, because it isn't as if you are an historian anyway.

Can you confirm the dates the new testament was written and who wrote them?

The general consensus is that all of the synoptic gospels were written prior to 70 AD. The book of Acts describes the "acts" of the apostles and the Apostle Paul is the central figure in the book. Paul is said to have died before 70 AD and if he was dead by the time Acts was written, then one would think that it would be mentioned in the book of Acts, which can be said to mean that Paul was alive when the book was written. The book of Acts is the second part of two books, with the Gospel of Luke being the first part. So obviously, Luke was written before Acts, so we are talking about a time period of between 65 and 70 AD for both of those books. If Luke "borrowed" material from Mark (supposedly Matthew borrowed material from Mark also, but I don't believe the hype), then Mark had to be written before Luke...so you can only go back further and further from there.

The only Gospel that is generally considered to be written later than 70 AD is the Gospel of John. So as a whole, we are not talking about a time period of 100 years after the fact. We are talking about a time period of no LATER than 50 years after the fact, which is hardly a long time after the fact.

Contemporary meaning "living at the same time". Obviously a written source from modern times wouldn't be much use for making a historical claim.

The sources for the Gospels were contemporary. All of the Gospels were written by disciples or friends of the disciples.

Yes, it is. If there are little to no contemporary historical sources to lend credibility to a given historical account, it throws the account into doubt. If a guy was going around with five thousand followers and performing miracles and not a single historian around at the time makes a note of this, it is reason to cast doubt on the claim.

These were isolated incidents. It isn't as if there were advertising ploys and flyers were handed out before Jesus went anywhere; "Jesus Christ, son of the living God, coming to a valley near you!!! Miracles will be performed, come one, come all!!!" Go to any place in the world at any given time, and how many historians will be standing around waiting for something to happen?

Once again, contemporary means "around at the time". "Around 100 years later" is not contemporary.

Ok so based on that jacked up logic, none of the historians that take part in writing any history books are contemporary then. None of them were "around at the time" of the things that they write about. As I said before, contemporary reports are necessary for the truth value of a historical event. It is quite helpful, dont get me wrong, but it isn't absolutely necessary. And once again, you are flat out wrong anyway, because we do have contemporary accounts....we have Paul, who was a skeptic turned believer, who WAS around at the time. Not only was he around, but he actually met with the ORIGINAL disciples. It doesn't get any more contemporary than that.

One is a series of claims made by a specific book, one is claims backed up by a wealth of information left behind by an entire civilization. Saying "there is no extra-Biblical sources for Jesus" is NOT the same as saying "there is no non Egyptian sources for King Tut".

The entire civilization could be biased. I want non-Egyptian sources for King Tut. That entire civilization could have a hidden agenda, for all I know.

So you honestly believe that for almost two-thousand years, the only historical source of evidence we had that Egypt existed was the Bible?

That is the most plain and blatant straw man I ever seen on here (and there are many to go around). Did I say for Egypt, or for King Tut? Wow.

Please demonstrate this.

I think I already did.

I'll get over these falsehoods when you demonstrate that they are false.

I just did, just scroll up.

That's your best argument? Really?

Not my best...but hey, there will be a time when both Mohammud and Charles Darwin will bow before Jesus Christ, along with you and myself. It will happen. You may not believe it will happen. You may not like the fact that it will happen, but it will happen. It will happen.

Josephus: written around 93-94 AD. Not a contemporary, and there are debates of the account's authenticity.

Ok, so if a student does a book report on the Civil War, that isn't a contemporary account, so it has no virtue??? That is not how history works. Second, there is no debate on the authenticity. The controversy surrounds a few sentences in the account that appear to be interpolated. But that is no concern, because if you take away the interpolations, you still have the historical Jesus right there. No worries.

Tacitus: not a contemporary.

Irrelevant.

Pliny the Younger: never mentions Jesus by name. Was also not a contemporary.

He mentions "Christ". Last I checked, Jesus was/is called "Christ". Unless there has been some changes to this from the past 2,000 years up until 10 minutes ago when I first started typing this, this was always the case.

Mara Bar-Serapion: Not a contemporary, and there is again debate about the dating of the letter.

What does the dating of the letter have to do with the truth value of the statement. Nothing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...there will be a time when both Mohammud and Charles Darwin will bow before Jesus Christ, along with you and myself. It will happen. You may not believe it will happen. You may not like the fact that it will happen, but it will happen. It will happen...

:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes but the book does not hence they are secondary sources.

Even if every Gospel started out with "I am Matthew/John/Mark/Luke, and I approve this message", skeptics would/could say "how do we know that they actually wrote it, anyone could of wrote it and attached their names to it. When does it stop?

Second, two of the alleged authors weren't even disciples. If names were going to be attached to the authorship, why not say that Peter wrote Mark's gospel, instead of saying that Mark disciple of Peter wrote the Gospel? Why not say that Paul wrote the Gospel, instead of saying that Paul's physician Luke wrote it?? Paul and Peter's name holds more credibility than Luke and Mark. Why not attach more prominent names to the books? Unless you are just simply telling it like it is...which is exactly what they did. They told the truth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My point is don't make seem as if non scriptural evidence is necessary in determining truth value.

So, when you said:

"It is true based on the BACKGROUND evidence that corroborates the events."

You didn't mean that either?

Which is it? Is corroboration required to ascertain truth value, or isn't it?

The whole point is simple; hold other historical figures to the same standard that you hold Jesus Christ, don't play the favoritism crap, especially if you want to argue against the fact that Jesus EVER existed at all, which is troubled territory considering the historical facts.

I'm not playing favourites. We're discussing Jesus, not Alexander the Great. You currently have no idea whatsoever with regards to my opinion on the historicity of Alexander the Great, so bringing him up is irrelevant.

First of all, historians recognize that some legendary accounts of Alexander the Great were made, but those two accounts of his biography are not disputed by historians. Second, the VAST majority of historians agree that Jesus is a historical figure. That is a FACT. Even the most secular critics admit that Jesus is a historical figure. So why are they convinced? Because the historical evidence supports it. So you are just flat out wrong and also in the minority, which doesn't matter, because it isn't as if you are an historian anyway.

I'd just like to point at out this stage that you are willing to go with the majority consensus of experts on this issue and not on the issue of evolution. Talk about playing favourites.

The general consensus is that all of the synoptic gospels were written prior to 70 AD. The book of Acts describes the "acts" of the apostles and the Apostle Paul is the central figure in the book. Paul is said to have died before 70 AD and if he was dead by the time Acts was written, then one would think that it would be mentioned in the book of Acts, which can be said to mean that Paul was alive when the book was written. The book of Acts is the second part of two books, with the Gospel of Luke being the first part. So obviously, Luke was written before Acts, so we are talking about a time period of between 65 and 70 AD for both of those books. If Luke "borrowed" material from Mark (supposedly Matthew borrowed material from Mark also, but I don't believe the hype), then Mark had to be written before Luke...so you can only go back further and further from there.

This isn't really much confirmation. Is there anything else which corroborates these dates?

The only Gospel that is generally considered to be written later than 70 AD is the Gospel of John. So as a whole, we are not talking about a time period of 100 years after the fact. We are talking about a time period of no LATER than 50 years after the fact, which is hardly a long time after the fact.

Actually, half a century very much is a long time after the fact for people to have suddenly started writing about it, and it more or less confirms that any accounts given in the text themselves will be at least second or third hand accounts.

The sources for the Gospels were contemporary. All of the Gospels were written by disciples or friends of the disciples.

Confirm this?

These were isolated incidents. It isn't as if there were advertising ploys and flyers were handed out before Jesus went anywhere; "Jesus Christ, son of the living God, coming to a valley near you!!! Miracles will be performed, come one, come all!!!" Go to any place in the world at any given time, and how many historians will be standing around waiting for something to happen?

So none of Jesus' supposed 5,000 followers thought to write any of what they witnessed down? Was Jesus a wandering messiah or a lesser-known political figure at the time?

Ok so based on that jacked up logic, none of the historians that take part in writing any history books are contemporary then. None of them were "around at the time" of the things that they write about. As I said before, contemporary reports are necessary for the truth value of a historical event. It is quite helpful, dont get me wrong, but it isn't absolutely necessary. And once again, you are flat out wrong anyway, because we do have contemporary accounts....we have Paul, who was a skeptic turned believer, who WAS around at the time. Not only was he around, but he actually met with the ORIGINAL disciples. It doesn't get any more contemporary than that.

So, what you're saying is that it isn't necessary to have direct, observational evidence of an event occurring in order to establish that the event occurred? Interesting.

The entire civilization could be biased. I want non-Egyptian sources for King Tut. That entire civilization could have a hidden agenda, for all I know.

Then you're being unreasonable, which I'm not being by demanding contemporary evidence of a man who supposedly went around performing miracles with 5,000 followers and who came back to life from the dead.