The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

All that Ramsay did was to verify the geography of Acts, not the history of it. Meanwhile history does refute the nativity in Luke.

The work that Ramsay did showed that Luke was telling the truth about geography, the political climate, and the first century historical figures, which all deals with history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The work that Ramsay did showed that Luke was telling the truth about geography, the political climate, and the first century historical figures, which all deals with history.

Ramsay only confirmed some of the work of the author of Luke/Acts. More modern historians have shown how the nativity story is mythical. Proving that someone got some claims right does not prove that he got everything right. People that can show some aspects of the Bible to be wrong only show that part of the Bible to be wrong. You are tending to over generalize in an inappropriate manner. I do not claim that the failed nativity refutes the entire Jesus story, yet you appear to be saying "he got this right therefore everything he says is right". This would be a fallacy of Hasty Generalization. People tend not to be infallible. I doubt the claim that Ramsay tried to refute the Bible. His approach was incorrect. He was likely a scholar looking for support for the Bible which makes his work rather biased. He ignored the clear errors of Luke/Acts and only wrote of the successes.

 

[He has Risen!]

Ramsay only confirmed some of the work of the author of Luke/Acts. More modern historians have shown how the nativity story is mythical. Proving that someone got some claims right does not prove that he got everything right. People that can show some aspects of the Bible to be wrong only show that part of the Bible to be wrong. You are tending to over generalize in an inappropriate manner. I do not claim that the failed nativity refutes the entire Jesus story, yet you appear to be saying "he got this right therefore everything he says is right". This would be a fallacy of Hasty Generalization. People tend not to be infallible. I doubt the claim that Ramsay tried to refute the Bible. His approach was incorrect. He was likely a scholar looking for support for the Bible which makes his work rather biased. He ignored the clear errors of Luke/Acts and only wrote of the successes.

What clear errors? Please be specific and site your source or provide a link worthy of scholarly research.

 

[He has Risen!]

It is best to at least quote one passage from a source that supports your claims. Though I know when I am using a tablet that can be rather difficult. He did read at least part of the article. Since you did not quote anything specific he did more than his share of the work there. He did not totally ignore your link.

OK, Put your cursor over 1 Clement that is under the heading "Clement of Rome" near the beginning of the article. Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia
Put your cursor over Against Heresies under the heading "Irenaeus of Lyons". Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

What clear errors? Please be specific and site your source or provide a link worthy of scholarly research.

Any scholar of the Bible would be aware of how the census of the nativity does not hold water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, Put your cursor over 1 Clement that is under the heading "Clement of Rome" near the beginning of the article. Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia
Put your cursor over Against Heresies under the heading "Irenaeus of Lyons". Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia

OK, Put your cursor over 1 Clement that is under the heading "Clement of Rome" near the beginning of the article. Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia
Put your cursor over Against Heresies under the heading "Irenaeus of Lyons". Then click on it.
Church Fathers - Wikipedia

Not doing your homework for you.

 

[He has Risen!]

Not doing your homework for you.

Very well.

 

[He has Risen!]

Any scholar of the Bible would be aware of how the census of the nativity does not hold water.

That is what I thought you would come back with...a zero reference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I thought you would come back with...a zero reference.

What sort of references would you want? Here is one:

The Jury Is In: Luke and Quirinius

And another:
Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

This work is even more thorough:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

I could get more.

 

[He has Risen!]

What sort of references would you want? Here is one:

The Jury Is In: Luke and Quirinius

And another:
Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

This work is even more thorough:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

I could get more.

Thank you very much 'Subduction Zone". I not only respect what you have given but I will read and look at the points they are making. I want to follow the truth no matter where it takes me. Thank you again.

PS Because there is a lot to read I may find that not everything that is referenced to be unbiased or true. And I will commit as such, only after having read it and compared it with other resources. Thank you.
In the mean time you might want to read the research in the website below about the Census,
Once More: Quirinius's Census
also
Josephus (not Luke) Misdated Quirinius’s Census

 

[Polymath257]

For example, what laws can you point to that can produce the information you find in DNA? Laws such as Gregor Mendel discovered help us to understand DNA better and have shown themselves to be Laws that do not support evolution, even though the article I am referencing claims that it does but does not show were evolution has anything to do with these laws.Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia

First of all, any causal connection produces information: the end result is information that the cause occurred.

But the information in the DNA is actually mostly in the transfer RNA that effects the 'code' from RNA to amino acids. And that information is primarily in the attraction between the atoms in those molecules. Also, the feedback of mutation, potential duplication, and selection produces a LOT of information very quickly. This latter mechanism is the primary one for the information seen in DNA.

And, on the contrary, the laws of physics and chemistry are perfectly in line with what we see in evolutionary biology: information increases and there is plenty of waste energy produced to balance the relatively small entropy decrease.

 

[Polymath257]

Only real humans have a genealogy. If a historical Jesus really did exist, he would have a normal ancestry just like the rest of us. Although, the independent evidence does suggest that a historical Jesus had two fathers, with different names. This would suggest that there are two historical Jesus being referenced. One, was the son of a carpenter, and the other the son of a Jewish Priest. You need to establish objectively that your premises are true, before you can make the above assumption.

And fictitious genealogies were created for almost every monarch in Europe at one point, going all the way back to Adam. All of those were myths also. It doesn't take all that much to include the last few generations that are known and add in a number of imaginary ancestors that ultimately link to those seen in the Bible. And, again, this was *commonly* done for important personages.

Of course there is a big difference between a historical human Jesus, and the claim that the historical Jesus is the son of a God. If he truly is a son of a God, well then anything is possible. But merely creating a faulty premise to support a self-serving conclusion is unfortunately an obvious fallacy. The Bible is far too errant and inaccurate to ever be considered as a reliable source of historical truths. The Bible is simply a foreign book of fictitious stories and superstitions, designed to entertain children, and control the minds of Bronze and Iron Age peasants. It is a book written by man, edited by man, compiled by man, and contracted by man. Even the true authors writing many of the the texts(books), still remain unknown or obscure.

Why would we believe any claims that someone is the son of God (except in the sense that we all are--according to some)? And, given the number of other 'messiahs' that popped up from about 300BC to about 300AD, why would we think that Jesus has any more claim to the title tan anyone else? That a few authors, well after the events, took some legends and wrote about them?

 

[He has Risen!]

First of all, any causal connection produces information: the end result is information that the cause occurred.

But the information in the DNA is actually mostly in the transfer RNA that effects the 'code' from RNA to amino acids. And that information is primarily in the attraction between the atoms in those molecules. Also, the feedback of mutation, potential duplication, and selection produces a LOT of information very quickly. This latter mechanism is the primary one for the information seen in DNA.

And, on the contrary, the laws of physics and chemistry are perfectly in line with what we see in evolutionary biology: information increases and there is plenty of waste energy produced to balance the relatively small entropy decrease.

Site the law you are referring to in science that you would say, "Here is the law that shows information increasing by repeatable tests."

All you have alluded to is that information is there and is transferable, I agree with you that is so. But that is not the point I wish to dispute or bring into question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you very much 'Subduction Zone". I not only respect what you have given but I will read and look at the points they are making. I want to follow the truth no matter where it takes me. Thank you again.

PS Because there is a lot to read I may find that not everything that is referenced to be unbiased or true. And I will commit as such, only after having read it and compared it with other resources. Thank you.
In the mean time you might want to read the research in the website below about the Census,
Once More: Quirinius's Census
also
Josephus (not Luke) Misdated Quirinius’s Census

I have seen the first, history refutes it. The second appears to be even worse. I doubt if Josephus was the only historian that recorded that census. He may have been the only one to mention the revolt it caused.

There are more problems than apologists can deal with when it comes to the Census. During Herod's time there would have been no census since Judea was not part of the Roman empire proper. The census of Quirinius did not occur until after Rome took over after Herod's son failed. Second is that since censuses were done for tax purposes they were taken based upon where people worked and lived, not where they were from. In fact Nazareth was not in Judea. Joseph would not have been counted. And the whereabouts and abilities of Quirinius were well known. He would not have been in the area of able to do a census before he was made governor of Syria.

 

[Polymath257]

Site the law you are referring to in science that you would say, "Here is the law that shows information increasing by repeatable tests."

All you have alluded to is that information is there and is transferable, I agree with you that is so. But that is not the point I wish to dispute or bring into question.

First, define precisely what you mean by the term 'information'. By most definitions, duplication of genes with subsequent mutation and selection increases information. But information is a slippery thing to define precisely.

 

[Etritonakin]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Below is a quote from a TV show, but the basic idea is correct.
We really need to look at the term "living" as having various levels of complexity.
"Everything" is dynamic -and so "animated" on a simple level.
Complex arrangements yield what most would consider "life" -but, as you said, life does not come from non-living things.
Every atom is made of the same stuff. We are made of exactly the same stuff as a rock -which one might consider inanimate -but there is all sorts of movement going on in that rock -and its parts are ready to do what they will when interacting with other substances.
The same is true on every level for every dynamic thing -even a pre-universe / pre-element level.

The question is... What is required for true creativity to exist -and what requires true creativity to exist?

Thank you Star Trek : Discovery !!!!!!!

"At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics. No difference at all. And you talk about spores. What are they? They are the progenitors of panspermia. They are the building blocks of energy, across the universe. Physics AND biology? No, physics AS biology."

 

[He has Risen!]

I have seen the first, history refutes it. The second appears to be even worse. I doubt if Josephus was the only historian that recorded that census. He may have been the only one to mention the revolt it caused.

There are more problems than apologists can deal with when it comes to the Census. During Herod's time there would have been no census since Judea was not part of the Roman empire proper. The census of Quirinius did not occur until after Rome took over after Herod's son failed. Second is that since censuses were done for tax purposes they were taken based upon where people worked and lived, not where they were from. In fact Nazareth was not in Judea. Joseph would not have been counted. And the whereabouts and abilities of Quirinius were well known. He would not have been in the area of able to do a census before he was made governor of Syria.

Other than Josephus what sources are you referring to? Because neither you nor I were present back then, Luke was. Everything else you stated is your opinion or just modern speculation.

 

[He has Risen!]

By most definitions, duplication of genes with subsequent mutation and selection increases information.

Point to or name one mutation that has increased the information in its genetic DNA code.

Below is Dawkins poor response to this question...

 

[He has Risen!]

Below is a quote from a TV show, but the basic idea is correct.
We really need to look at the term "living" as having various levels of complexity.
"Everything" is dynamic -and so "animated" on a simple level.
Complex arrangements yield what most would consider "life" -but, as you said, life does not come from non-living things.
Every atom is made of the same stuff. We are made of exactly the same stuff as a rock -which one might consider inanimate -but there is all sorts of movement going on in that rock -and its parts are ready to do what they will when interacting with other substances.
The same is true on every level for every dynamic thing -even a pre-universe / pre-element level.

The question is... What is required for true creativity to exist -and what requires true creativity to exist?

Thank you Star Trek : Discovery !!!!!!!

"At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics. No difference at all. And you talk about spores. What are they? They are the progenitors of panspermia. They are the building blocks of energy, across the universe. Physics AND biology? No, physics AS biology."

Life simply defined from Google is...
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I think Google has a better definition than what you believe it to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Other than Josephus what sources are you referring to? Because neither you nor I were present back then, Luke was.

The author of Luke/Acts, who very well may not have been Luke, was not there either. Luke was written roughly 70 years after Jesus's birth if I recall correctly.

Of course it does not really matter that none of us were there. The historical records make it clear that Luke made up his story. The evidence is overwhelming. There is no reliable evidence for it and all sorts of evidence against it.