The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

So you can't support your claims at all? Then why post them?

I can't comprehend why you diss the resources I took the time to put together? I have posted and will keep posting more well researched material, but it appears your way of dealing with the resources I present is not worthy of a response. I will respond to those who do seriously inquire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't comprehend why you diss the resources I took the time to put together? I have posted and will keep posting more well researched material, but it appears your way of dealing with the resources I present is not worthy of a response. I will respond to those who do seriously inquire.

Because they fail. You use sources that put too old of a date on the Gospels. For example the earliest Gospel was Mark. That has a date of 65 AD and yours puts it fifteen years earlier. You try to use bad sources to support your claims. If a person's claims are reasonable they should be able to support them with valid sources. Apologists are almost never valid sources. The knowledge of people tends to grow over time. As people studied the Gospels more intensely they changed their estimated age. In regards to Mark we have:

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia
When was the Gospel According to Mark Written?


When a site makes the error of assuming that Mark must be true they often put an overly old date on the book in an attempt to give it more credibility. Actual scholars have only the goal of learning when it was written without a prejudice for or against it.

 

[He has Risen!]

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things

Nobody has ever demonstrated this.

As a matter of fact, it is a logical impossibility to demonstrate such a negative.

 

[He has Risen!]

Nobody has ever demonstrated this.

As a matter of fact, it is a logical impossibility to demonstrate such a negative.

The Atheist position that holds to the view that God does not exist cannot be possible because they would have to know everything that there is to know in the entire universe to defend such a position. And the weak come back is similar to your post...I don't have to prove a negative. We only ask that the atheist defend their position by reason not by proof...which will then lead them to the position of an agnostic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Atheist position that holds to the view that God does not exist

That is not the atheist position.

cannot be possible because they would have to know everything that there is to know in the entire universe to defend such a position.

Exactly. Good thing it's not the actual atheist position then I guess.

And the weak come back is similar to your post...I don't have to prove a negative.

I'm not claiming a negative either.
And the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
When you claim "x did not happen" - then you have a burden of proof.

If it turns out that it's logically impossible to support that claim, or if you simply lack sufficient evidence to support that claim, then it's just a bare assertion for which you have no rational reason to accept it as true.

Kind of like god claims. No, exactly like god claims.
You can't support them, so there is no rational reason to accept them as true.

So I don't. And that makes me an atheist: not accepting the claims of theists as true.

We only ask that the atheist defend their position by reason not by proof

And I can.
I don't accept the claims of theism as accurate, because I have not been given sufficient evidence to justify accepting them.

...which will then lead them to the position of an agnostic.

An agnostic atheist, to be exact.

And I don't need to be "lead" there.
I knew that coming in.

 

[Rapture Era]

What is painfully clear about the three(among thousands) videos, is that they do not make any fallacious appeals to Heaven or Special Covenant.

I wouldnt expect any appeals to Heaven or Special Covenant. Two opposing world views, but "fallacious"? You dont know that for certain.

Maybe it's you that is unable to look down and see the poor logic you seem to keep tripping over. A precursor analogy would be to keep building a large standing army, and expect not to create a war.

What poor logic? The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design. Which one of these three are more reasonable and logical to you? I like your analogy. The huge and mighty United States Military Forces are a great example as peace keepers, not war makers.

Maybe you can demonstrate where Darwin was conflicted in his theories on "The Origin of Species"(not the origin of life), or in any of his other 39 books?

I’m really surprised you asked this question. Darwin admitted to having no way to defend his theory. The Cambrian Explosion is a great example of his doubts in his own words.
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence beneath the Upper Cambrian formations of vast piles of strata rich in fossils is very great.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

So, do you believe that the hypotheses posited by science to explain the Origin of Life, is just a conspiracy to usurp beliefs in the religious domain?

No, I believe that the hypothesized speculation by science to explain origins of life other than supernatural creation is lacking in vast proportions. You have to remember, supernatural creation by a transcendent being has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a supernatural transcendent being creating as he chooses, and, you are a result of his creation as is everything else in the universe. He communicates this to us by saying "For what may be known about God is plain to them,because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…
He also communicated to us through the scriptures that "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Pretty simple really, he's telling us that all things in existence, physical and invisible exist through him and by him. As science discovers and continually discovers more and more, it is extremely reasonable and logical that it points to a transcendent designer.

Science tends to provide explanations that are accepted from all perspectives.

Yes, all perspectives except Supernatural Creation, the one that makes the most sense.

So please, what is you're fallacy-free explanation of the Origin of the first life? What facts can you deposit as being relevant or objective?

We both have different worldviews. None of us were there to witness either Supernatural creation or Darwinian evolution. What we do have is physical evidence of our world, the laws that govern our world, and the vast amount of life from sea creatures to birds, to animals, to insects and human beings. Science cannot account for all of this except from speculation and hypotheses. The creator himself has communicated to us that what we witness all around us is here by his doing, and that is in the Genesis account. Now we can dialog back and forth, but, every person must decide for themselves which account best fits the data. It's my opinion by what we know, that the biblical account fits the data more reasonably.

You needed to go through stages of development(simple to complex), just like all other living organisms. This would certainly be the case with the first life. Or, do you think that the first life was generated fully formed? Did you know that during human embryonic development, all biodiverse stages of development are all represented(Insects, Reptiles, Amphibians, birds, fish, and mammals).

I'm glad you brought this up. As for your first and second sentence, we have discussed this here in depth, but, when you are speaking of life simple to complex in an evolutionary sense, the information in cells for any kind of development must be there to carry out their development functions. Because matter from the "Big Bang" has no living information to produce life, you are left with, well zero. Now theories abound, I understand, that want to explain our world and all life from purely natural processes by taking God out of the equation. I get it, but the more science discovers and the deeper we go inside living systems, the more we see the staggering microscopic world that cannot be explained by meaningless, purposeless matter. The Genesis account is the only reasonable explanation for all living creatures and their incredible design and reproduction capabilities. Yes, I believe all life was created fully formed. Science cannot explain male and female developing from dead useless matter.

I think you are confused. Evolutionist speak about the origin of species, and how they are formed, evolved and diversified over time. Abiogenesis is the theory of the origin of life, which includes all the elements involved, that can lead to the integration of the first life. The former is a fact, the latter is still a theory/hypothesis.

I agree, but where did those elements come from and how do they lead to integration of any kind of life without the programmed information to do so?

How do you know that God exists? How do you know the nature of God(good or bad)? What is this staggering intelligence we see in earth worms, slugs, bacteria, snails, frogs, or fungi? How do you know any decisions that a God has made? How do know that the Book of Genesis is the Word of God, let alone validates creation? What is this special knowledge that is accessible to you, and seems inaccessible to me? Are your assertions only belief claims, or are they truth/knowledge claims? If they are truth/knowledge claims, then the facts should be self-evident to any rational thinker, like gravity or the Conservation of Energy. It should also be falsifiable and testable. So please, stop hiding behind any concocted weaknesses in science, and present your own case. Or do you plan to continue proselytizing, and parroting rote-learned religious soundbites, to hide a profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills. In science you would be at best, a curiosity, and at worst, politely ignored.

Well, we wouldnt know unless the creator decided to tell us, right? So the next question would be, did he tell us? The answer: Yes he did! This is how we know. How do we know God exists? What his nature is? That the book of Genesis is the Word of God? Again, we wouldn't know unless he decided to tell us. Did he? Yes!
“That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things. Rain down, you heavens, from above, And let the skies pour down righteousness; Let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, And let righteousness spring up together. I, the Lord, have created it.”
Now, don't make the mistake of saying I'm proselytizing because you were the one asking the question, "How do you know that God exists?" So I'm telling you how I know. You are not born all knowing, so your accusing me by making statements like: "Or do you plan to continue proselytizing, and parroting rote-learned religious soundbites, to hide a profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You do the very same thing. Whats hilarious is that you make a statement of fact about me "profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You know nothing about me or my education or my critical thinking skills and yet are willing to make ludicrous statements attacking my character. Your false statements about me isn't really what it says about me, it's what it say about you! And your continued proselytizing of a nonsensical process of life emerging from non-life in which you are parroting rote-learned religious soundbites of your own to hide a profound lack of education in reality, or critical thinking skills has exposed you!

I think the creationist-manufactured Cambrian Explosion was debunked many years ago.

Oh? How so? Many evolutionary scientists have expressed disappointment and frustration as one of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution. Maybe you need to share your vast education and critical thinking abilities that you so proudly posses, to solve a problem no one of superior intellect to yours has yet been able to unravel! I'm sure they would be very appreciative! So please tell us how the Cambrian Fossils of sudden full-bodied creatures just all of a sudden appeared with no prior evident pathways to these creatures.

The thermodynamic argument was also debunked, because we are talking about an open system not a closed system.

Okay, what are your debunking arguments for this explanation? Which keeps coming back again and again to my original question (still unanswered)
A Barrier to Evolution

 

[Rapture Era]

History is understood both by the written records from those times as well as the archeological finds from that historical era.

EXACTLY! which keeps adding credibility to the creation event and the historicity and truth of the bible! You can trace the generations from Jesus to Adam! This is no mystery, it's plain historical facts that have been verified by believers and non-believers. The evolutionist avoids this like the plague because if there was a Jesus you can bet there was an Adam. And if that's true, which it is, because it has been substantiated by historical facts in both written records and archaeology, guess what? No evolution! They both cant be true at the same time and it's an enormously massive problem for them that they have yet to overcome! It's pretty hard to prove something that never happened which is why they keep throwing more and more speculation and hypotheses at the problem. Keep hoping for a different result! And they say we are intellectual misfits!

 

[Rapture Era]

If it turns out that it's logically impossible to support that claim, or if you simply lack sufficient evidence to support that claim, then it's just a bare assertion for which you have no rational reason to accept it as true.

So you can't support your claims at all? Then why post them?

BINGO! By Jove I think he's got it!

 

[Rapture Era]

The Atheist position that holds to the view that God does not exist cannot be possible because they would have to know everything that there is to know in the entire universe to defend such a position. And the weak come back is similar to your post...I don't have to prove a negative. We only ask that the atheist defend their position by reason not by proof...which will then lead them to the position of an agnostic.

You know what your problem is HhR? You just don't understand what atheism is!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what your problem is HhR? You just don't understand what atheism is!

For once you are correct. That was an amazingly poor description off atheism. Almost as bad as claiming Christians worship anyone nailed to two boards. If you can see what is wrong with that claim you should be able to see what is wrong with @He has Risen! 's version of atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BINGO! By Jove I think he's got it!

Wow! That s amazingly close to you admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

EXACTLY! which keeps adding credibility to the creation event and the historicity and truth of the bible! You can trace the generations from Jesus to Adam! This is no mystery, it's plain historical facts that have been verified by believers and non-believers. The evolutionist avoids this like the plague because if there was a Jesus you can bet there was an Adam. And if that's true, which it is, because it has been substantiated by historical facts in both written records and archaeology, guess what? No evolution! They both cant be true at the same time and it's an enormously massive problem for them that they have yet to overcome! It's pretty hard to prove something that never happened which is why they keep throwing more and more speculation and hypotheses at the problem. Keep hoping for a different result! And they say we are intellectual misfits!

You have that backwards. Serious study of the Gospels show all sorts of problems. And if you believe the Genesis myths you are in fact calling God a liar.

 

[Rapture Era]

For once you are correct. That was an amazingly poor description off atheism. Almost as bad as claiming Christians worship anyone nailed to two boards. If you can see what is wrong with that claim you should be able to see what is wrong with @He has Risen! 's version of atheism.

Wow! That s amazingly close to you admitting that you are wrong.

You have that backwards. Serious study of the Gospels show all sorts of problems. And if you believe the Genesis myths you are in fact calling God a liar.

This is the so-called intellectual answers! This is what the evolutionists are embarrassed by! All talk and nothing to back up their claims! Why? They have nothing! All you do is make false accusations and back it it up with nothing! Whats your best left hook for believing what you do? It's your time to shine so give us your best hit!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the so-called intellectual answers! This is what the evolutionists are embarrassed by! All talk and nothing to back up their claims! Why? They have nothing! All you do is make false accusations and back it it up with nothing! Whats your best left hook for believing what you do? It's your time to shine so give us your best hit!

When you begin to debate properly my answers will get more refined. And you are projecting your class on others. I can and do back up my claims. You have not been able to support yours.

To understand why we know we are the product of evolution you need to learn some of the basics. Let's discuss the concept of evidence first. Are you willing?

 

[Rapture Era]

When you begin to debate properly my answers will get more refined. And you are projecting your class on others. I can and do back up my claims. You have not been able to support yours.

To understand why we know we are the product of evolution you need to learn some of the basics. Let's discuss the concept of evidence first. Are you willing?

Go ahead the floor is yours!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go ahead the floor is yours!

There are two concepts that one must understand before understanding science itself. The first is the scientific method. The following is a simplified flowchart of the mthod:

Perhaps the most important part of that is constructing a hypothesis.

 

[Rapture Era]

There are two concepts that one must understand before understanding science itself. The first is the scientific method. The following is a simplified flowchart of the mthod:

Perhaps the most important part of that is constructing a hypothesis.

Okay keep going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay keep going.

I am just making sure that you are with me and have no major disagreements.

Scientists are human too and are also apt at times to claim that something is not evidence when it goes against their personal beliefs. That is why using the scientific method a clear definition of what scientific evidence is was formed. Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Any problems so far?

 

[Rapture Era]

I am just making sure that you are with me and have no major disagreements.

Scientists are human too and are also apt at times to claim that something is not evidence when it goes against their personal beliefs. That is why using the scientific method a clear definition of what scientific evidence is was formed. Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Any problems so far?

Nope, keep going