True. There was no census carried out during Herod's reign.
Also, the Romans wouldn't do census on non-provincial kingdom. Herod may pay tributes to Rome, but the Judaeans wouldn't pay tax to Rome, so there would be no reason for the Romans to have census in Judaea while Herod the Great was still king (or his son, Herod Archelaus, and successor) of Judaea.
The census was carried out only when Archelaus was ousted in 6 CE, and Augustus had Quirinius appointed as legate of Syria, and Coponius as prefect of Judaea. Because Judaea has become province, a census was required.
What I don't understand is why Joseph would have to travel from Galilee to Bethlehem to enroll for the census when he wasn't even living in Judaea.
As you say, it makes no sense, though I didn't know about that last part in such specific detail. Interesting.
As I keep pointing out, each cell in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. You cannot get this kind of complexity from a blind and random process, which is exactly what evolution is.
And as I keep pointing out: The evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It "only" explains the diversity of species and how something complex can spring from something simple if given enough time.
The origin of life is another topic and if we are to discuss it there is a few suggestions on that as well. The cells of today, with all there parts are "infinitly" more complex than the first string of DNA would have been. It's not like the first form of life ever where like the cells of today. As I also pointed out earlier, the simplest one cell organisms today are extremely more complex than what we would have found at the beginning.
DNA are just a bunch of amino acids which during the right conditions form strings and fold themselves in specific 3D forms. In the "beginning" it would probably have been just a string of a few amino acids forming either DNA or RNA and because of their attribute of being able to copy themselves it would be the only thing needed for evolution to kick in.
There is no sharp line to be drawn to tell when a string of DNA is complex enough to be called a lifeform. It is a slow process beginning with extremely simple constitutions of amino acids forced by the laws of physic to form certain chains with ability to copy.
A blind man has a better chance of going to the junkyard and assembling a space shuttle than non-living material to produce a living cell.
True. But as shown above that has nothing to do with it since a living cell wasn't formed just like that from non living materia. The living cell is quite high up on the evolutionary ladder if you involve the first, very simple forms of DNA/RNA.
There is no scientific explanation for this kind of complexity.
Here on the other hand, you are wrong. Evolution does explain, and in great detail as well, the complexity of life. It explains perfectly how complexity forms from simplicity.
To believe this occured by a evolutionary process is a leap of faith. It is relying on the unseen. And not only are you relying on the unseen, but the PROCESS of evolution is relying on the unseen. There is no mind, there are no eyes. There is no agenda. There is no purpose. There is just this mindless, blind, unintelligent process that seems to be performing these acts of complex and orderly functions. This just can not happen. So if you believe it, thats fine, but for you, and others to say that this is science is being disingenuous.
The immense amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution exist whether you like it or not. And evolutionary biology is a science as good as any. The results, backing up the theory, has been reached using the scientific method.
But you are right. Evolution has no eyes and no agenda. It simply is. The individual animal, best suited to pass it's genes on survives. The offspring goes through the same process and the species gets more and more fine tuned to their enviorment. It is very simple, really.
Saying you dont know something is taking the honest approach, no doubt. But, there are only two options. Either we are here by evolution, or we are here by ID.
Nonsense. Since we don't know there is an infinite number of possible, completley natural explanations that might or might not be found later. It's not evolution or ID, it's Evolution, ID or something completley different that we don't know of yet. Disproving evolution wouldn't be the proof of ID. All serious scientists would just say: "Ok, evolution is obviosly not the explanaition, now let's find out what is."
No, you dont know what you are talking about. First of all, I didnt say that it just suddenly "pop up in one generation". Side by side?? The question is, before each gender got its reproductive organs, how were they reproducing??? You said "it takes millions of years and the reproductive organs develope side by side", which FAILS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. While the reproductive organs were developing, how were they reproducing??
Before species with two sexes there where probably just cell division as reproductive process. Then a possibility would be that one type of species were able to mix their DNA in the reproductive process, something that is favourable when it come to natural selection since the differences becomes bigger, thus speeding up the process. But I must say that I am not sure. I would have to look into that further.
Second,how did evolution know what was needed to be compatible?? Males have testicales that produce sperm, and a penis to which the sperm travels to fertilize the eggs which are in the females vagina. The female just happen to have what is needed in her system to reproduce with the males system. How did evolution know?? How can a blind an unintellectual process know what each gender needed??
It's not like males and females evolved their genitals separetley until they were "finished" and fitted together perfectly. As an example: Say that one special type of cell mutate over time (due to copying errors and radiation. This is very common) into a type of cell that has the ability to mix with other cells of the same kind to produce offspring with DNA from both its "parents". This would as I said be favourable. The next generation would be, let's say a hundred cells where a few of them (by chance) had a slight difference which made the "mixing" process easier or less costly (regarding energy). That would mean that that kind of cell would have a bigger chance of reproducing, thus increasing the amount of cells with that typical attribute. Parallelly would also another kind of cell develop, namely one who would be better to mix with that kind of cell I explained above. This would mean that we would have taken the first tiny steps towards a penis and a vagina and two sexed species. This is hard to explain but it is forced to happen (if that first change happen by chance, which is not at all impossible).
Third, as I said before, this same question applies to all living organism excluding plant life. How are roaches reproductive systems compatibles, how are whales, the same question applies to these guys as well. This lame answer you gave makes it clear, that science does not provide a good answer for this, and that ID is the best explanation. I would like my questions answered, please.
Acctually, many plants species are also two sexed. And many animals are not. ID is not the best explanation in any case since it has no evidence at all. The only thing you have based ID on so far is, in your opinion, the lack of evidence for real scientific theories. ID is a vauge hypothesis without any evidence at all.
On my research there is some concern as to whether the translation should be "before" Quirinius was governor as opposed to "while" Quirinius was governor. As long as this is even possible, then there should be no cry of a contradiction.
This is also why the Bible is unrelyeable. People don't even know what was written from the beginning. When a contradiction is pointed out, people do everything they can to find a slightest chance of something being a translation error, no matter how improbable. If this is the case of every contradiction, then there is lots and lots of translation mistakes. A rather weak source of information.
), and a brain to help me think. What I am saying is, everything that I have within my body has a purpose. Purpose. Purpose. To have a purpose is to have an agenda. Evolution is not a thinking process. It is a blind process with no thinking or agenda whatsoever. You cannot get a blind and mentally retarded person and expect him to build a space shuttle. So how can this blind and unintellectual process be the origin of eyeballs in order for people to see, a brain for people to think, a nose for people to smell?? Im sorry, but this is completely absurd to me. Everytime we see purpose in our life, we recognize intelligent design. So why, when we see purpose as it relates to our own human anatomy, do we hesitate to draw the ID conclusion?? It is mind boggling. To answer your questions, I haven't read much biology or evolution material as a whole. But I have read bits and pieces, and so far no one can convince me that we can have all of this purpose from a process that is purposeless.
