10. Pagan Origins: Abiogenesis and the evolution of genera are not new ideas. These emerged from mythology. Ancient Egyptian mythology records the myth, and later, Greek philosophers accepted it like Anaximander and Democritus. Diodorus Siculus, a first-century BC historian, presented in his “Universal History” the ancient Egyptian myth that life emerged from membranes in a wet marsh. He reported that Egyptians believed that bestial man hunted and gathered, invented language from grunts, and discovered fire. Does that sound familiar? Such theories are not original to science. Read more.
9. Habitability: The universe is fine-tuned for life. The cosmological constants perfectly set against naturalistic odds. The earth is precisely balanced for life. The habitable zone from the sun, the amount of liquid water, protective “gas giant” planets, the ideal orbit for stable temperatures, a precise axial tilt to maintain seasons and warmth, a protective magnetic field, an open position in the galaxy, and essential elements of biochemistry are some conditions necessary for life on Earth. Secular scientists have yet to observe another planet that meets these few conditions despite the thousands of observable planets. The earth is observably 1 in 10^24. Read more.
8. Hoaxes: Evolution of humanity rests on refuted conjectures and frauds. Find a “missing link”; find a hoax. “Missing links” are based solely on conjecture. The list of evolutionary hoaxes presented as the primitive man include the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man, Cro-magnon, and Neanderthal. Another hoax that stands out is Haeckel’s embryos. This fraud is still used in textbooks to indoctrinate children and adolescents that they evolved through forms of animals in the womb. There is no doubt that this lie is the basis the U.S.’s 50 million plus abortions since 1973 as seen by Carl Sagan’s belief that unborn children are just animals.
7. Biology: Whatever system is more complex than design is most likely designed. Biology is more complex than human design. Therefore, biology is most likely designed. The complexity of the internal order of the cell displays a complex machine. Kinesins are motor proteins that walk on cytoskeleton. Every process of every cellular organelle performs essential functions for each living cell to exist. Comprehending the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within only by its genetic code. The functions of a cell is an example of the irreducible order of life.
6. DNA: People learn and educate themselves to communicate in complex languages, and they intelligently design complex computer codes. According to evolutionists, nature formulated its own code — a molecular mechanical strand containing more than a trillion processes that instructs the building and maintaining each cell. The order of each code is different for every living organism. As scientists have observed, if SETI received a code one billionth in size to any strand of DNA, then they would declare the existence of intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. How is it that DNA does not declare intelligent design behind life on Earth?
5. Radiometric Dating: God would create a mature and habitable earth rather than a mass of radioactive lava. By presuming that natural processes formed the original rock without God, secularists ignore any consideration that God could and would have created the universe for life to live in the beginning. According to Genesis, God created man and woman in maturity not infancy, and likewise, God created the earth and its life in maturity. Radioactive measurements reflect a mature creation not long ages. The atheistic assumption undermines long ages that secularists presume. Scientists recognize the assumptions upholding radiometric dating by presuming the original elements. Read more.
4. Causality: Causality is the law of cause and effect. The law affirms that everything that begins to exist has a greater cause. Trace the effect of every cause back and find the greatest cause of all. The cause of the universe must extend beyond the universe, and so the cause must transcend nature. Atheistic origins assert that a quantum flux formed mass-producing particles forming a dense ball of matter once known as the singularity that exploded in the Big Bang forming the precise order of the universe with fine-tuned cosmological constants. Read more here: The Law of Causality and Cause and Effect.
3. Biogenesis: As Louis Pasteur affirmed, life only comes from life, and life only produces after its own kind. This scientific fact is indisputable and no experiment has yet disproved this scientific Law. No scientist has formed life in the lab. No life has evolved from nothing. However, secular evolutionists conjecture without proof that there could have been a time when this might have happened given a number of assumptions. Read more.
2. Constant Virtues: Why believe someone who believes himself to be an ape and lays aside a constant standard of virtue? Why trust the person who believes humans are highly developed animals who invented morals? Why undermine all human rights by there being no constant right and wrong? Why reject the belief that virtues are constant? Right and wrong are always right and wrong. Why believe those who see the virtue of honesty as an idea invented by people? Evolution and its constructs are the prejudice that rejects virtues, because people attempt to console their guilty consciences and appease their own faults through self-righteousness. At the core of doubt and unbelief is the guilty conscience allowing self and society to claim morality. Read more.
1. God in the Flesh: Jesus Christ also testified to the Genesis account of the Creation of the universe (Matt 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–9). Critical scholars admit that Jesus lived as an apocalyptical preacher and his followers and opponents sincerely experienced appearances of Jesus risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:1–4). Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels testify of what they saw and heard, and they also testify to the testimonies of other eyewitnesses. Historical criticism affirms that Christ lived, was crucified, buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, women found the tomb empty, many experienced appearances of Jesus resurrect, and the church began upon faith in the resurrection. Their written testimonies remain for an honest examination before all. The written statements of the Gospels attest to Jesus as the predicted Messiah doing miracles, predicting Jerusalem’s destruction, and resurrecting from the dead (Ps 22; Isa 52:13–53:12). Read more.
The Breath of God 
Richard Lenski’s experiment I would rate in the top 3 cases for evidence of evolution. Also along the same lines is bacteria that developed the ability to eat by-products of nylon manufacture. These by-products did not exist in the environment before the production of nylon.
“What do none of the Darwinists, who comment ever provide just the 2 or 3 strongest evidences for evolution? Either these will fall and so will evolution, or the evidence will stand and so will evolution. It is just that simple. I challenge you, Darwinists,”
How do we know that you won’t dishonestly (in the name of Jesus, because that’s what dishonesty is all about) edit comments like you did to mine? How do we know you won’t just censor the information you don’t agree with, stick your fingers in your ears & rhyme off bible verses?
How did I dishonestly edit your comment? Would you rather I delete your whole comment or every comment embedded in prejudice?
What is it that you result to prejudice jabs to feel better rather than addressing the subject? This is not a game. You are being conned and you don’t like that thought. It angers you and frustrates you, so you turn to what makes you feel better by belittling others. Yet, this really doesn’t help. You actually feel worse. That anxiety and stress from all of this continues the cycle for you can only be treated by such negative behavior. We, ex-skeptics, know where you’re coming from.
I won’t be reviewing any more comments today, 17 Dec. 2012. Maybe tomorrow after work, 18 Dec. 2012. Thank you. Please, understand that this is a one-man operation.
Certainly, you all can come up with the best proof or two that Darwinian evolution is true. Don’t you already have this comment already written and cited, and ready to be cut and pasted.
Maybe evolution is on a journey, or relieving himself, or sleeping.
There are about a dozen comments pending and a growing number of views for this article right now.
“There are about a dozen comments pending and a growing number of views for this article right now.”
Would you give us an opinion as to why there are so few comments agreeing with your reasons why evolution is false Scott?
You don’t read the comments on Facebook and people do not usually comment to agree, but to ask questions and, or disagree.
I am fairly certain this is not a reply to me, but there are a few things I just can’t let pass. Nothing of evolution is proved? That’s interesting. Not one thing? really? Lets look at that… wait. Found one. Took me ten seconds but I wasn’t using creationist websites:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
You would be better served to not look to the Bible for information. It features obvious and blatant falsehoods, such as the flood of Noah for just one example.
I agree with your article, “No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species.”
The finches are still finches.
[I’m sure that can find the evidence for the flood if you looked for it (i.e. shells and whales on mountains).]
One down and two to go. Who is up next (1 Kings 18)? First come, first served.
Oh dear, no you silly man. The finchs arwe finshes that can no longer breed. Are you one of those less eductaed types who actually think there is some barrier to changer over time? Do you believe in “kinds” or some other non scientific nonsense?
No, I can’t find evidence for the flood. No one can. Shells and whales are on what are now mountains becasue a long time ago, those mountains were seafloor. It’s really simple.
The finches are finches that can no longer breed, I meant. Lots of typos there… sorry. I was in a hurry. Anyway, I am still waiting for you to reply to observed speciation, since you failed so badly the first time. Here are some more:
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation
And;
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
But I guess they’re all just wrong and you come along and show them up… wait, np. You’re the one who is wrong.
More about observed spaciation:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
I normally don’t just spam links like this, but your claim that observed spaciations not happening was just too much for me.
Do you still need more? Speciation happens and has been observed. All forms are transitional, etc. I assume you are aware that these facts dispel your foolish claims, which is why you are ignoring them..
“The finches are still finches.”
I always laugh at that old chestnut!
You do realise that Finch is a family (Fringillidae) under which numerable distinct genera and species of finch exist, don’t you?
You could likewise proclaim that:
“The chimpanzee and Orangutans are still Hominids (Hominidae)”
To which one could reply “Well yes, as are humans… and bonobos and gorillas.”
Here to, you lying scoundrel, you cut and run when faced with facts you don’t like. How about a reply, you ignorant coward?
**Why do none of the Darwinists, who comment ever provide just the 2 or 3 strongest evidences for evolution? Either these will fall and so will evolution, or the evidence will stand and so will evolution. It is just that simple. I challenge you, Darwinists.** [Edited typos.]
The most powerful line of evidence for evolution (in my opinion) is called biostratigraphy – the order in which life forms appear in the fossil record. As you go up the geologic column, dated both relatively (in relation to younger strata above and older strata below) and absolutely (via hundreds of concordant radiometric dates using multiple techniques), all over the world, you find the same successional order of appearance. At the lowest levels you find nothing but bacteria. Even among bacteria there is a specific order, divided into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. That is all there was on the earth for about a billion years. Then the first multicellular life appears in the form of stromatolites, and, along with bacteria, were the only life to exist for the next billion years. Then the first metazoic (animal) life appears around 600 million years ago, all marine invertebrates. These marine invertebrates then become more diversified – trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, echinoderms, etc. About 525 million years ago or so we find jawless fishes, the first vertebrates. Vertebrate fishes become more and more diversified, and then 400 million years ago the first amphibians appear. Amphibians become more diversified and then 320 million years ago the first reptiles appear. Reptiles become more diversified and then 200 million years ago the first mammals appear in very limited niches. Then the first birds begin to appear about 140 million years ago. Reptiles dominate throughout this period, especially dinosaurs, and then 65 million years ago the dinosaurs became extinct. After that, mammals begin to diversify and appear in greater numbers and greater variety. 55 million years ago, the first primates appear, followed by the first marine mammals, who (quite conveniently) share an inordinate amount of genetic material with four legged terrestrial mammals.
This order of appearance is the same all over the world no matter where you look. And within each of these groups, you find an equally interesting order. The first amphibians to appear are nearly identical to the shallow marine fish they are thought to have evolved from. As you move forward in time they become increasingly less fish-like, more diversified and better adapted to terrestrial life. The first mammals to appear are virtually indistinguishable from therapsid (mammal-like) reptiles and, again, as you move forward in time they spread out, become increasingly less reptile-like and more diversified and more like modern mammals. The first birds to appear are, quite literally, feathered dinosaurs and, once again, as new species appear they become more diversified, better adapted to avian lifestyles, they gradually branch away from reptilian traits and look more and more like modern birds.
It’s not just that there are transitional fossils that link reptiles and birds, it’s where these fossils are found – in layers of rock that immediately precede the first birds – that provides compelling evidence for evolution. Ask yourself, why aren’t these pre-avian fossils found just anywhere? Why are these (and other) fossils only found in particular rock strata?
This exceptionless order is a fact that requires explanation. Evolutionary theory provides that explanation. It’s important to recognize that biogeography, the study of how life is dispersed around the globe, validates evolutionary theory, as well as genetics, which allows us to continually test evolutionary hypotheses by examining modern variations of species for shared genomic sequences.
It’s also important to note that this evidence for evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non existence of God. It is simply our observation about what we see in the world.
This is the #2 of the 3 “evidences” of evolution that I will address.
You are only seeing one explanation and disregard polystrate fossils, which refute millions of years of geologic strata and leads us to consider a relatively sudden formation of these layers. Animals of their own kind and habitat are going to be found together all over the world.
Evolution has everything to do with being contrary to the existence of the God of the Bible and faith in the words and life of Jesus of Nazareth.
No, it really doesn’t. If you accept the whole of the Bible as literally tre then you get a contradiction really quickly: the differing accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2. And once you’ve accepted a contradiction, everything is true. And false. At the same time. Which is, you know, problematic.
Watching your behaviour throughout this conversation has been interesting. Thanks for the exposure to maximum crazy and/or poe.
See, there is the prejudice again with Genesis 1 & 2. You have no basis. This is all speculative. What dishonesty!
It’s definitely not prejudice, kiddo. I was raised in a very Christian household. Unfortunately, I was also raised to pay attention.
If it is the case that both Genesis 1 and 2 are correct, that is, literally true, then everything is true. The most concise version of the argument goes like this (and if you don’t follow, feel free to ask for clarification.)
P1: The account in Gen. 1 is literally true.
P2: The account in Gen. 2 is literally true.
P3: Gen. 1 and Gen 2 are contradictory accounts of the creation of the universe.
C1: P1 & not-P1.
C2: Whatever you like, as you’ve asserted a contradiction.
You can use Lewis’s “explosion” argument to prove absolutely anything you want to say, as long as you start with a contradiction.
And yet, you cannot show the contradiction. Okay.
Genesis 2:4-6 supplements the account of Creation of earth and plants in Genesis 1:9-13.
Genesis 2:7ff supplements the Creation of humankind in Genesis 1:24-31.
No contradiction.
I’m not a biologist, but here are some that are near the top of my list:
1) The discovery of Taktaalik roseae in 2004. Evolutionary theory predicted the existence of a transitional form between fish and amphibians It also predicted the age of the rocks these transitional forms would be found in. Then biologists went out and found them in precisely these rocks.
2) The discovery of “Lucy” or Austrolopithecus afarensis. Evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms between humans and “apes”. This and numerous others have been found.
3) The discovery of intermediate stages in the evolution of whales. The existence, age, and location of these fossils were predicted by evolution.
I’ve focused on stuff in rocks. But there are also other types of evidence such as the distribution of various living species (biogeography), DNA, vestigial features, evolution in laboratory settings, etc. I suggest the book “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne if you want a more thorough and expert summary of the evidence.
1) Animals of similar habit are found in similar strata.
2) This is addressed above. What is “Lucy”, but an ape, an extinct ape?
3) I am still waiting to see these fossils. Even if so, what do extinct whales prove? We could presume and jump to conclusions that these are transitional forms if we are so set to perceive such through the comfort of a worldview. [This applies to Lucy too.]
“Vestigial features” in what habit and necessary place of adaption and genetic drift? Cannot such features exist for purpose for genetic drift necessarily designed to survive in other habits and other survival conditions not being considered?
1. Simply not true. No evaluation of the stratification of the fossil record is as you describe. You are simply, insanely incorrect. Provide evidence if you can.
2. Lucy was a kind of “ape”. Her species is extinct. They lived several million years ago and scientests (real ones, not fools like you) suspect her species was an evolutionary predecessor to ours.
3. The fossils showing whale evolution are universally available on the internet. I suspect that you are, yet again, lying. you have seen them. You are just too deluded to understand them. This is not the problem of the evidence or of the men and women who have evaluated them. It is your problem. That is the main lesson you need to learn. You have no insight and no knowledge of value. You know less then nothing about science and need to be silent and learn. It is you who is pathetically out of step with reality.
1) The existence of polystrate fossils shows that this is false.
2) Lucy is dated by presumptuous and inaccurate dating. Anyone who does their homework can find this out.
3) Whale evolution is displayed in drawings and a few unrelated fossils. Evolutionists admit that this “evolution” is imagined and speculative.
Just like that Darwinian evolution is debunked, and yet the God of Christ remains.
1) Polystrate fossils? Seriously. They haven’t been a problem to explain since the 19th century!
I recall a creationist ‘lecture’ I attended, where they argued that polystrate trees where an unsaleable problem for ‘evolutionists.’ The funny thing was that on their slide the used the exact drawing of such a fossil that was drawn for the 19th century paper that explained them! That made me laugh out loud!
2) Utter nonsense, Lucy is an example of one of the many Australopithecus afarensis fossils found, all dating around her age of 3.2 million years BCE.
3) “unrelated fossils” and you know this how?! Have you studied them your self. I very much doubt it. No, you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn’t fit in your tiny little dogmatically clung to worldview.
You think you “debunked Darwinian evolution” with that? You really are clueless aren’t you?
Again, you concede. You provide no primary sources, and yet anyone able to search these things knows that your 3 witnesses are false and you whole basis for evolution has fallen. You have proven that Darwinian evolution is false. Thank you.
Let us consider some funny assertions about the evolution of cetaceans since polystrate fossils and faulty dating oppose you other points, which you cannot defend with evidence other than mockery.
National Geographic posts, “Thirty-seven million years ago, in the waters of the prehistoric Tethys Ocean, a sinuous, 50-foot-long beast with gaping jaws and jagged teeth died and sank to the seafloor. – Over thousands of millennia a mantle of sediment built up over its bones. The sea receded, and as the former seabed became a desert, the wind began to plane away the sandstone and shale above the bones” (emp. added).
Whale, that’s funny! Because diatoms accumulated at a slow rate of about 10,000 cm/k.y. or maybe 260 cm/k.y. Decaying dead organisms just sit there for thousands of years and fossilize. Hmmm. This is what you believe! “Well, lets just throw science out the window for now and go with a miracle.”
What is next?
Primary sources? I don’t need to do that, nor does Andrew. We know what we are talking about and are simply pointing out to you, an ignorant zealot who doesn’t understand science and to your readers, the facts. You can ignore them all you want.
For every problem there is an answer which is obvious, simple and wrong. Here you’ve found an obvious, simple and wrong answer to the problem of refuting evolution. By asking for “just the 2 or 3 strongest evidences for evolution” you are avoiding considering the whole body of evidence.
Technically evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in populations. This has been observed many times (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, herbicide resistance in plants, insecticide resistance in insects, drug resistance in malaria, beak size in Galapagos ground finches, industrial melanism in moths, reproductive age in cod, …).
But you seem to be using the word to mean something different – you go so far as to offer a bad argument against abiogenesis as a refutation of evolution.(The validity of the theory of evolution is independent of how life originated.) If we take your target to be common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes the 2 strongest “evidences” (drawn broadly to avoid to restrict your ability to ignore evidence) are
1) the contemporary biosphere
2) the fossil record
Correction: for “without” read “with”.
Corrected.
Alias Ernest Major,
I have considered the evidence in focus of parts and as a whole, and I still do. I was once a skeptic. I ask for 2 or 3 as you presented well “1)” and “2)” of a common observation, rather than one finding. Yet, I cannot agree with your interpretation. Though I give 10 reasons above, I will stick with my top 3.
10. Not relevant to science, it doesn’t matter who ideas come from as long as they are correct
9. Of course the planet that we live on is habitable, that is true by definition. Celebrating the fact that life developed where it can and then saying that god must have made it so is nonsensical.
8. A total of one of those is a hoax, the rest are either mistakes or real (where did you get the idea of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal are not real). The only hoax that you listed was uncovered as a hoax by scientists and has never been used as evidence for evolution. This “missing link” thing needs to stop. Transition species have been found for a very large number of important biological stages, and gaps in the fossil record are inevitable as not every animal that has ever lived becomes fossilized. Even if hoaxes did exist, why would that be relevant? You wouldn’t deny the truth of Christianity just because people have used hoaxes to try to prove it.
7. This is just incorrect. Every biological scientist not affiliated with a creationist or ID group denies this and the arguments for it have been defeated to many times to count, literally in open court.
6. DNA is not language, and is incredibly simplistic. After the formation of the first DNA molecule, it is self propagating, so it is not difficult to create extremely complex strands.
5. First of all, if this dating is accurate to the point you admit it is, a young earth scenario is still impossible. More directly, a number of explanation have been given for this phenomenon, including the decay of uranium-thorium in the rocks around the oil, which can produce carbon-14. This is also an irrelevant argument, as fossils have been confirmed has having the proper age through other methods.
4. The law of cause and effect is demonstrably incorrect under certain conditions such as everything to do with anti-matter. There are natural explanations for the beginning of the universe that do not require supernatural forces. Even if there were not, this has nothing to do with evolution, which is biology, not astrophysics.
3. Learn what law means in a scientific context: A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions. Now onto the matter of the argument, Pasteur proved only that life coming from nonliving, inorganic chemicals was not possible. Multiple studies have confirmed the possibility of spontaneous generation of complex organic chemicals under conditions similar to those on the early Earth and the possibility of panspermia. Also doesn’t invalidate evolution, on abiogenisis.
2. Ethical arguments (including the pointless dig at Saggan for supporting abortion rights) have jack to do with evolution.
1. I’mk not going to contest the existence of Jesus, because i see no reason to. This, once again, has nothing to do with evolution. By the way, your “legal maxim and standard of truth” goes far beyond being incorrect and you fail your own test. We don’t need eyewitness accounts to establish truth and they often help to obscure it. The occasional exception is human history, in which it is quite useful, but even then only necessary for some aspects.
Every scientific fact and historical event is confirmed by observation by more than 2 or more. Have Darwinian scientists stop keeping records? Otherwise, why write any report in a scientific journal or any academic journal? Science depends on repeatable experiments for proof through witnesses or by a documented observation of a rare occurrence.
You think witnesses obscure truth, because you do not understand how to test these witnesses and their reports. If the witnesses agree on 2 or more major points without 2 or more significant contradictions, then their witnesses are affirmed. It is that simple. Apply the Law of Probability and no more than 12 insightful questions should suffice in examining the sources. I am going with the legal maxim, US Constitution, and the Biblical Jurisprudence on this one.
More then 2 witnesses stated that they saw an angel reveal to them the golden plates of the Book of Mormon. I take it then you believe Mormonism is true?
There are not 2 or more records of their witnesses recorded for examination. This does not even meet the criteria for the legal maxim of evidence to be applied. I’m familiar with the Mormon signatures as witnesses to Joseph Smith’s head in the his hat, and at least one to my knowledge, recanted.
Yes there are. A total of 11 people claimed to have seen and/or handled the golden plates and all left written testimonies, never recanted. By your standards this is more than enough proof that Mormonism is the true religion. When will you be converting?
Check your facts.
I did. I’m right, you’re wrong. If you think you have evidence that I am wrong please cite it. Their written testamonial is actually included in every published Book of Mormon.
You haven’t cited those supposed testimonies of these witnesses or how you know anything historically recorded in any scientific journal.
A quick reference. ARe you becoming a Mormon now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
No testimonies here.
Yes, there are. Hide and deny won’t work for you here. Admit your double standard or convert.
You still ducking this question? No wonder. It’s painful when you get hoist by your own petard.
You must provide the testimonies of the witnesses to be compared. Two or three agreements in the testimony prove those facts and may prove the whole if there are not 2 or 3 contradictions. It is hard to believe that you are not familiar with how to examine the truthfulness of sources if you have a basic education. Why make yourself seem ignorant?
The Mormons do not provide the testimonies and records of the eyewitnesses as the Gospels do. The Mormons would happily admit this.
Certainly, you can provide just 2 or 3 contradictions in the Gospels, and if evolution were true, you could provide 2 or 3 primary proving it to be true. You have yet to do this.
“You must provide the testimonies of the witnesses to be compared. Two or three agreements in the testimony prove those facts and may prove the whole if there are not 2 or 3 contradictions. It is hard to believe that you are not familiar with how to examine the truthfulness of sources if you have a basic education. Why make yourself seem ignorant?”
There were eleven witnesses, as you have been told. Why do you continue in your disingenuousness?
Where?
Truth can exist absent observation. Experimentation is fundamentally different from what you are talking about, which is historical records. Not that this matters as it has no relevance to evolution. Also, what is this about the Law or Probability. As someone who reads book about stats for fun I can confidently say that I have never hear of being able to input witness testimony into mathematical laws. Here’s the thing about your definition, it cannot help find truth. It has been shown many times that people viewing the same event can produce wildly different accounts that don’t get even basic facts right, but again, not a single bit of this has any relevance.
It is your choice to lay aside common-law, civil jurisprudence, the legal maxim of truth. Just how are you going to believe the reports and witnesses of scientific experiments and scientific observations of rare events in the Universe and here?
They are repeatable and testable. No sane law defines truth by there being two or more witnesses. If they did, We would be unable to convict almost nobody of any crime and would convict any number of innocent people who are mistaken for the real perpetrator (I am aware that both occur, that is not the result of legal definitions of truth, but because people have a much higher opinion than is warranted of the human senses). Again, what relevance does this have to evolution.
Wow! Do some studying? Witnesses meaning primary sources. Everyone is convicted by two or more primary sources. Writings, recordings, and videos are all witnesses. The standard are primary sources. Really?! Read my article on “The Standard of Evidence and the Bible.”
No, most people are convicted on circumstantial cases. The only place that doesn’t happen is TV.
By the way, I checked, Black’s Law Dictionary defines truth as “A fully accurate account of events, factuality”. It does not state criteria to meet this.
Even if you are right and your definition is the “legal” definition, why should that matter, when my point is that it is a bad definition, so saying it is official is not an argument when it’s quality is being challenged. Also, law very rarely defines scientific accuracy, so it is generally inapplicable to this situation.
Again, why does any of this matter in regards to evolution, until that question is answered, this discussion cannot move forward.
In addition to what oblivnow says above (below? Not sure on comment posting protocol), you should be aware that eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest things we’ve got. That’s why scientists use peer review. Search YouTube for gorilla-suit volleyball videos: I’ve personally shown one to a class of 300 (well, probably 250ish, but 300 were enrolled) and only six of them noticed the guy in the gorilla suit. Or that I had switched places with the actual instructor for the course. Which was, I admit, awkward.
(It worked out well enough; I had his lecture notes.)
Peer-reviewed!? No? Not connecting the dots? Why peers? Why witnesses? A jury (lit. witness) of your peers? This is basic stuff. This is the standard of evidence required for every scholarly journal article. How many primary sources must have to prove a point?
Also, your source for the “two witnesses” thing is Article 3 Section 3 of the US constitution? Why? It does not claim to define truth, it just says that before we convict someone of treason, we want to be as sure about it as we can be, and they figured that two testimonies or and open confession in court is a reasonable standard. The definition was derived from Britain’s Treason Act (not the bible). This is not a good source for a definition of truth, as it never claims to say what “truth” means.
Exactly, it is US law from the British common law based on the ancient principle found in the Bible and other civilizations for legal proof. The principle is to do as you said “to be as sure about it as we can be”. Yes, it is as you said a “reasonable standard”. How then can you say that it is not a good source for truth? If the Law recognizes this maxim to find the truth of whether one is guilty or not of a crime, then how can it not suffice that 2 primary sources will confirm other truths? You may see the truth by one source. Yet, how will you “be as sure about it as we can be”?
I am glad that you realizing this even though you may not agree with my conviction that the gospel witnesses prove Jesus to be the Christ. You will be better off in your research confirming your findings. You will better see through hearsay and slander among peers and the media. The principle is simple and true. It is thinner and more precise than Occam’s razor. It is Occam’s razor with confirmation for finding and knowing truth.
You did get the part where I said that it was a bad definition, right? And then where I said that the constitution did not in anyway attempt to define truth, just wanted to prevent people from being screwed over by the legal system when it comes to capital crimes? And then that part where I cited actual common law, which does not define truth as the fulfillment of certain criteria? And then that other part that I have said from the beginning and that you still haven’t answered where I challenged you to explain what any of this has to do with evolution? Until such a time as you answer all of these questions/challenges, this discussion cannot and will not continue.
Also, if you think that common law/American law specifically is based on biblical law, you are fooling yourself. The rare statutes that are based on those traditions are routinely struck down in both Britain and America for violating our constitution or the British equivalent (sodomy laws, for example). In fact, the American constitution is written in part for the explicit purpose of preventing biblical law being applied to the country (establishment clause, other sections of the bill of rights).
Again though, don’t bother answering the 2nd paragraph without addressing the first, it would be pointless as I wouldn’t respond without you addressing the things that I said from he very beginning.
Of course legal standards have no relevance in science. Why would you expect them to? It uses scientific standards.
Okay. Stop discussing. The gospel witnesses stand without contradiction. Unless, you can show 2 or 3 contradictions. Otherwise, the gospels have more than 2 witnesses and agree on more than 2 major points, and these hold to be truth confirmed.
The establishment clause has nothing to with this legal maxim. You do know that Israel had the first known elected republic far before Greece and Rome? See the Law of Moses. I have an article on this too. Biblical government never enforced biblical laws unless the people accept them. It was simply common-law.
The gospels do not stand at all, especially when you apply your inane definition of evidence. You are a religious zealot who will tell any lie, reject any fact, and ignore all reason to maintain your delusion.
Stop lying for once with your claims about the gospels. You criteria aren’t valid in the eyes on any historian.
These writings claim to be by multiple eyewitnesses, and they agree on more than 2 accounts of events in Jesus’ life. There are no witnesses that these are false witnesses. There are no contradictions. As imagined by skeptics, for these Gospel records to have been written in other places at other times would produce errors and apparent contradictions. Where are these? You only need 2 or 3.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “These writings claim to be by multiple eyewitnesses,”
Do they? I recall that it is claimed in Luke that it is an eyewitness (albeit of “the word” not necessarily all the events claimed) not in the others. And I know of no evidence that this is any more likely to be factual than the many first person eyewitness style works of fiction one can find.
Scott Shifferd Jr.wrote: “and they agree on more than 2 accounts of events in Jesus’ life.”
So what? They are stories on about the same subject (be it legend or otherwise.) One would expect some commonality no matter what its truth value might have been.
Scott Shifferd Jr.wrote: “There are no witnesses that these are false witnesses.”
Really? you’re going for the “well you can’t prove it wrong” play? How sad.
Scott Shifferd Jr.wrote: ” There are no contradictions. As imagined by skeptics,”
Yeah right, pull the other one, it has bells on.
And its interesting that you try to denigrate skeptics, do you consider skepticism a bad thing? Better to be credulous?
Scott Shifferd Jr.wrote: “for these Gospel records to have been written in other places at other times would produce errors and apparent contradictions. Where are these? You only need 2 or 3.”
You’re kidding right? Just do a simple search for “Gospel contradictions”, plenty are mentioned. Not that it matters; writers of fiction can avoid contradictions in their writings just as well.
Again, you concede by not addressing the primary sources. You claim contradictions, but you do not provide even 2 or 3 to prove the Gospels to be false. This is all you need to persuade believers to truly doubt and reconsider. Yet, you do not do this simple task, because you know that these are baseless accusations. You know that even the unbelieving skeptics admit that you can do a simple search and find that every supposed contradiction does not stand. This is why you do not present 2 or 3 primary sources needed to prove or disproved a point. You really could use those over and over while reminding believers of the Bible that by 2 or 3 witnesses every truth is found out according to the Bible, the US Constitution, English Common Law, the ancient Roman Corpus of Law, etc.
Yet, you admit that these accounts agree, and you cannot explain why such distant writers in time and place can agree.
This is the problem with you and those of like mind. You are too corrupt to consider the testimonies of others. You have no ability to distinguish from fact and fiction. You readily accept the testimonies of modern drawings of ancient whales. Yet, you cannot defend these reports and test them for truth. You assert “legend” from testimonies and you cannot prove them, and for anyone able to think finding contradictions should be quite easy.
You choose to be deceived and blind. You like your imaginary world. You are grand mausoleum filled with the bones of the dead.
I challenge you to reconsider and rethink, but you are opposed to such honesty.
You keep right on with your foolishness about legal standards applying anywhere else in the world. it’s funny.
Are you honestly asking why research doesn’t stop? Really? How dumb are you?
Are you honestly implying that scientific evidence only requires two witnesses? You are vastly ignorant.
Your understanding of ther validity of eye witness report is also deeply flawed. Go learn something.
#10 is irrelevant. The idea that person X (whom I don’t like) came up with idea Z, and therefore idea Z is wrong is known as “poisoning the well”. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians may have been pagans, but they did come up with many other ideas that are still accepted *because they are true*. Geometry still works, despite the fact that Euclid was a pagan. The alphabet still works, despite being based on Greek and Roman systems of writing.
#3 and 9 have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate problem from the speciation of life into new forms. Abiogenesis will not occur under ordinary conditions for a number of reasons (for one thing, there’s always something alive that can come up and devour the molecules that one is hoping will form into life), but the conditions of early earth were far from ordinary. Other planets with life on them have not been found, but planets are excruciatingly difficult to find (apart from the ones in our own solar system). Many of the ones that have been found could very well harbour life; life on a planet is even harder to detect than the planet itself.
#8 is laughable. Piltdown Man was a hoax, and it was exposed as a hoax by scientists. It was never used as a basis for evolution. Nebraska man was an error, corrected by scientists. Cro-magnon and Neanderthals aren’t hoaxes. The idea that the embryo goes through intermediate stages of evolution during gestation is not supported by evolution, and is not presented in any biology textbook that I’ve ever seen (except to dismiss the idea).
#5 presents a simplification of carbon-14 dating. The vast majority of carbon-14 in an organic body comes from the atmosphere, and ceases to be collected when the organism dies. There are other sources for carbon-14, such as radiation from uranium and other heavy elements affecting the nitrogen and carbon in fossil fuel sources. This is small enough to be ignored when the sample is less than 80 000 years old; it becomes the major source of carbon-14 in older samples. It also simply does not work for many oceanic species (their carbon does not come from the atmosphere, but has been recycled from other organisms in the ocean for thousands of years).
#2 is wrong. Virtues are virtues because they have been decided upon by society as beneficial for society. Virtues change as a society matures- we no longer accept slavery, polygamy, or the conquest of neighboring tribes. We do not stone adulterers or disobedient children. These are things that are supported by the Bible; we’ve outgrown them.
#10 – Yet, the Pagans appear to be the originators of evolution not science. If you would have read the source, you would that this was not geometry or any useful philosophy, but rather embedded in mythology.
#3, 9 – Thank you for your affirmation of the Law of Biogenesis. Sure there are a few other planets in the habitable zone, but what about the rest of the conditions necessary mentioned above. You assume a lot about unknown planets when cannot create life from nothing here. What about evolution is proved? Nothing.
#8 – Thank you again for your affirmation. Thank your associates as well.
#5 – Thank you for the summary and confirmation. Recycled or “polluted” 14C proves that such dating is not reliable.
#2 – No ethics are decided by a society. Civil laws are basic levels of ethics and, or morality necessary for civil living.
You also don’t know the Bible that you so confidently oppose and you are not familiar enough with its original languages either to study what you have quoted to you. Polygamy is not supported, but permitted for a reason that you do not or may not be able to understand. It is condemned by Jesus. The common definition of slavery is condemned in the Bible. See my article about Biblical slavery, which is slavery only for criminals. Do we force our incarcerated criminals to work today? Those in debt served as indentured servants being paid and trained in their manager’s profession. The word mistranslated “slave” is better translated servant for now rather than 400 year old King James English hangovers. A Biblical servant could any servant including an employee, an indentured servant, or a bond-servant. With a little unbiased study, you can figure out the rest.
Rev. Shifferd, are you being deliberately obtuse regarding #5? It is known by science that carbon-14 dating is not reliable for certain things such as marine organisms or extremely ancient things (such as petroleum). This fact does not disprove carbon-14 dating for situations when it is properly used.
It also appears you are being deliberately obtuse regarding #8. Yes, there have been scientific hoaxes and scientific mistakes in biology. This is true in every field. In my field of physics, there has been Jan Hendrik Shon, cold fusion, incorrect neutrino speeds, etc. Yet the entire field of physics is not discredited by the mistakes and fraud of a few. Science is self-correcting.
I’m not a reverend only God is. I am also not a pastor.
14C is really not reliable any time when it can be polluted.
There is a big difference between a fraudulent hoax derived from prejudice and a mistake or error. Then on top of this, promoting the frauds and hoaxes now in museums, etc.
You didn’t address either of my points.
You went from the accepted fact that carbon-14 dating is not reliable under certain conditions to the conclusion that it is always unreliable. What is your proof that it is always unreliable?
There have been “fraudulent hoaxes derived from prejudice” (Jan Hedrik Shon, cold fusion, Piltdown man, for example) and simple errors from the well meaning (neutrino speed errors, Nebraska man, for example) in EVERY scientific field. When these hoaxes and error are found, they are no longer taught or put in museums. Which frauds are you referring to when you say there are still some in museums?
Petro is not millions of years old as already cited. Yet, why then is it called a “fossil fuel” when it cannot be dated without prejudice?
Carbon dating is not the only way we have to determine the age of things, kiddo. For example: the Oklo formation is at least a billion and a half years old, and it’s older than oil.
How do we know that? Because there are more isotopes than C-14. And we can measure them, and their decay rates, pretty well. If we couldn’t, there would have been neither the Hiroshima nor Nagasaki events. Not sure whether that’s a good thing, but there it is. This world of ours is old. Four and a half billion years old. Oil is from long, long ago. Millions of years long ago. The ancient pagans have nothing to do with it. I’ve checked.
That’s true about there being more forms of dating. You just have to filter the right dating method through your worldview first and thereby choose to date something to thousands of years or to the millions.
OK, you lost me at “worldview”. I’m pretty sure there’s just the world, and we’re stuck in it. Not really sure how to “filter” things through the world, unless you’re positing some sort of parallel world business.
Ah. Well, in reply to your reply, I feel I should note that the first “scientist” in the Western world (Can’t speak to Asia, alas) was Thales of Miletus. Hesiod was not, despite what you might think, in any way a controlling influence on Hellenic thought. I mean, seriously. Aristotle was all kinds of wrong, but he was trying to do everything at once, so we should probably cut him some slack. Archimedes invented the differential calculus in ~300 BCE! How cool is that? Very cool, that’s how cool it is.
We are imperfect creatures — children, even — making our way through the vast darkness that is our universe. But we can climb so high! We can send men to the Moon; we can send probes beyond the Solar system; we can put tin dogs on the surface of Mars.
And you. You say that evolution is false. This claim is ridiculous on its face; evolution is the most strongly supported principle of biology (again: Aristotle did it first. Oops, pagans.) I know that you probably won’t pay attention to this, but still: You can be better. Be the best humanity can become. It’s simple, just two steps: 1: Be kind to your fellow humans. 2: Keep an open mind about this universe we live in. It’s huge and mad and sometimes, there are miracles.
Already addressed in previous comment.
Was Thales a pagan? Was he a scientist? If both of those are true (Hint: yes) then your claim that the pagans invented evolution but not science is false. Of course, he wasn’t a very good scientist, but hey, we’ve got to start somewhere.
And to forestall your next probable objection, I am perfectly capable of reading the Bible in its original language. Well, the New Testament, anyway. I’m rubbish at languages that go backwards. And don’t have vowels. Seriously, what’s the deal there?
Diodorus Siculus wrote about the myths of the Greek, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and this is the context of their evolution, which is mythology not philosophy.
Um. No. Evolution (according to those you call Darwinians) was not described by any of the ancients. Because, and I mean to put this as gently as possible, none of the ancients had any idea what you’re talking about. If you want to contest the creation myths of the ancients, sign me up! If you want to say that evolution is not happening because of those myths, well, that’s where I get off the (metaphorical) bus. Sidenote: I hope it’s a metaphorical bus, as the last time I was a passenger on an actual bus, I felt like I was swimming in gum.
Also, you really ought to leave philosophy to those competent. Note: This category does not include you.
No. Again, you are not reading to understand, but to twist. The pagan mythology describing evolution shows a much earlier origin of evolution within mythology and that its origins are not in science.
Please cite where pagan mythology describes hereditable variation acted on by natural selection.
“Wait. That’s adaptation “heritable [edited] variation acted on by natural selection”. Evolution proposes that one animal genetically drifts into another.”
Wait. You think adaptation isn’t part of evolution? You literally have no idea what you are talking about. I assume you aren’t going to let my first comment out of moderation?
Your comment falls on its own.
I did exactly what you claim people on here arent doing. I went through your points one by one and explained why each one was wrong. If you think it falls at least have the guts to address it, after all, you wanted your own points addressed. I notice you also fail to address my point here. Do you actually believe that adaptation isn’t part of evolution?
Let us suppose, for the moment, that you are correct. (You really aren’t.) How, precisely, does this devalue the work of (a recent example) Lenski et. al? More generally: how is it the case that an idea’s origin in mythology (BTW, you’re misusing “pagan”; you should really re-read your Suetonius) makes that idea ineligible for scientific refinement?
“But, shouldn’t Creation and the God of the Bible get the same consideration?”
The only consideration is how well theories map to data. Evolution maps well. Creationism does not. End of story.
Boo,
Wait. That’s adaptation “heritable [edited] variation acted on by natural selection”. Evolution proposes that one animal genetically drifts into another.
It doesn’t. But, shouldn’t Creation and the God of the Bible get the same consideration? Truth is seen more than just in the scientific method, but also in the records of observers (eyewitnesses), who see these events that may be rare.
As an honest observer and inquirer, God and Jesus are no more initially considered mythological than evolution. Number 10’s point is that evolution is not scientific in origin.
Pagan: “one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist” (Dictionary.com, 18 Dec. 2012).
Typical Christian revisionism. The Jews took foreign slaves. The rules you cite concern only other Jews.
Yes, they took slaves of war criminals. Thank you. How did you know? Have you been reading the Bible? :-)
You silly man… they took slaves from people they defeated. That in no way equals “War Criminal”. Of course I have been reading the Bible. An intelligent, honest reading of it is the best way to become an atheist. If only you could do anything intelligently and honestly.
The people they defeated were war criminals. The Canaanites practiced genocide, and you think they were innocent. Read Deuteronomy 20. The Canaanites worshiped Baals and Asherahs. Do you know what that included?
War criminals..Ha! That’s some revisionist pseudo-history write there. On the contrary in most, if not all, of the cases it reads as if anyone were the war criminals it would have been “God’s chosen people”, as they were the invading aggressors.
You concede. :-)
Andrew,
Why do you believe that Israel invaded Canaan and then you do not believe them to be opposing proven human-sacrificing and child-sacrificing Baal worshipers? Where is the revision if you do not believe the history within the Bible? Do you have writings from Babylonians or the Canaanites themselves about these events? I see which side you side you on, because evolutionists are a lot like Baal worshipers, right?
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “You concede. :-)”
Huh?!
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “Why do you believe that Israel invaded Canaan and then you do not believe them to be opposing proven human-sacrificing and child-sacrificing Baal worshipers?”
What a confused sentence. If you want to ask a question at least try to make it coherent.
Why do I believe that Israel invaded Canaan? I don’t believe that. If I remember the story I think it suggested that their imaginary friend told them that it was there land to take. I recall nothing about Baal or human sacrificing in the Bible except for one or two instances of God-followers doing so. I do recall the Jews, who you paint here as some kind of heroic liberators from evil, slaughtering far more than those you assert to have been transgressors, including every male, adult or child, all women except for the virgins that they got to keep for themselves (sounds like sex slaves to me) and all of the livestock as well (were they practicing human sacrificing too?!)
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “Where is the revision if you do not believe the history within the Bible?”
In the revising of what is actually written there obviously. Reinterpreting what it says, even adding in ideas not at all included therein, in order to try to force fit those texts to work with your own secular values and morays.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “Do you have writings from Babylonians or the Canaanites themselves about these events?”
Not that I know of, nor any writings anywhere near the period in question to back your assertions about it.
Scott Shifferd Jr. wrote: “I see which side you side you on, because evolutionists are a lot like Baal worshipers, right?”
That doesn’t even make sense. If you are going to fall back on the all too common cheap shot personal attack, attempting to upset instead of convince, at least make an effort, that’s just sad and pathetic.
If you don’t even believe in the God of the Bible, so how can you accuse Him of crimes He did not do?
You just said that God’s people were the aggressors, and now you revise your error that you do not believe Israel invaded Canaan to be the aggressors. Revise your history of comments! The reference to human-sacrificing is throughout the Bible. You have forgotten this.
God gave all life, so He can take all life. Everyone will die and no one will escape death and judgement. God is just to the blameless in the afterlife. Consider the account of the flood upon the earth for against the evil of the world killing man, woman, and child. If you knew Deuteronomy 20 and the Hebrew text, you would know that man, woman, and child were slain by assimilation into other nations to which they are commanded to drive them. The killing that you may refer to is Baal Peor where Balak hired one of God’s prophets to curse Israel. Balaam acted like a donkey and tried to curse Israel 3 times. Finally, Balaam told Balak to cause Israel to worship Baal, so King Balak sends the women of Moab and Midian to seduce many of Israel’s men with sex to worship Baal. For this, 24,000 men were killed by a plaque from God, and God commanded Israel to war against the Midianites for this, and Israel took their women and children with them until God’s just judgment came against those women, who were not virgins, and against their little sons that they had during that time. God will justly treat these little children in eternity. Read Numbers 25 and 31.
You know the righteous judgment of God and that these deserve to be put to death (Rom. 1:32).
10. This is no argument against the fact and science of evolution. Who the first observers of a verifiable fact are is irrelevant to it being a verifiable fact.
9. Several planets within the theoretical “Habitable Zone” have been found. You are simply wrong. A Google search will show you that. The idea that conditions existed for life, thus some deity must have planned it because we are alive is circular reasoning and thus false.
8. All of the errors or deliberate hoaxes in the history of science (not just evolution) have been found and publicized by scientist. As far as Haeckel’s embryo’s go, that is simply a creationist lie (one of sadly far too many). No modern textbooks use them. You are making the positive assertion that they do. Present some.
7. Irreducible complexity is a fallacy. It is simply an argument from ignorance. Upon looking at a structure, a given person says “I don’t know how this could have evolved. It must not have.” That is a classic error in thinking.
6. DNA is not a code. It is information. This is an important distinction that clearly escapes you.
5. You seem to not understand the concept of half life. Start with 100. Halve it, you get 50. Halve it again and you get 25. Now, tell me how many times you must halve it for it to become zero. Get that right and you see why you are wring here.
4. There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect. You can say it’s indisputable all you want. It doesn’t make it so. There is even am epigrammatic way to express the error, “Post ergo Propter Hoc. Look that up too.
3. Again, there is no such thing as a law of biogenesis. You need to take a look at the definition of “theory”. The blanket claim that “ No life has ever evolved from nothing” is an unsupported assertion. Care to prove it?
2. Constant virtue do not exist. There are deeply ingrained, evolved traits of altruism and empathy, easily explainable in a group living animal. Darwin’s cultural racism has no bearing on the validity of his basic idea. Are you unaware that people can be wrong about one thing and right about another? You, for example, are likely right about what your name is, yet you are deeply wrong about all ten items on this list.
1. There is no verification of the existence of Christ. No contemporary records mention him. Events said to occur in the gospels are mentioned no where else. All sources referring to him are form much later periods. Again, you are simply wrong.
It is amusing to see the hypocrisy rife in lists like this. You mention misconceptions you have about science and give erroneous pseudo-scientific reasons they can’t be true. Then, you make false assertions based on your personal belief, supported by no evidence, and think they have some validity.
“5. You seem to not understand the concept of half life. Start with 100. Halve it, you get 50. Halve it again and you get 25. Now, tell me how many times you must halve it for it to become zero. Get that right and you see why you are wrong here.”
A better analogy- take a radio station, broadcasting at 100 watts. Turn on the radio to listen to it at full volume. Now turn down the power of the radio station to 50 watts, then 25 watts, etc., halving the power every minutes. At what point do you hear silence on the radio?
Never, of course. Even when the radio station is broadcasting at imperceptible levels of microwatts, there is still static making noise on the radio. In the first few minutes, you can judge the power of the radio station by the strength of the signal. When it’s overwhelmed by the static, it’s not.
Thank you Nitric. There can never be too much clarification.
Your response is full of assertions as you read into my points and do not understand the very words that I wrote. For instance, #9 notes all the conditions necessary for a habitable planet and not just being in the habitable zone. Also, #10 was presenting not philosophers, but the mythologies of Babylonian origin of gods unto the Egyptians and Greeks in which evolution and cavemen are presented.
As for #1, are you not aware of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc.? Add to this the multitudes of converts to Christianity throughout the world in the 1st c. by the evidence of the Christian scriptures and Jesus’ words were to prove Him to be the Messiah. You don’t have to be a primary source to record primary sources or to hear their records passed on to others. Yet, the Christian scriptures are written by primary sources with reference to primary sources. Why would the generation, as you may propose, have written these scriptures and invent evidence for which the previous overlapping generation would have rejected? You don’t like Christianity, because it is simply contrary to your worldview and thus you do not really consider the evidence. As once being a skeptic or simply being an honest inquirer and believer, I cannot so perceive proof this way.
In you reply to my comments on #10. It doesn’t matter what you were pointing out. A good idea is still a good idea. Don’t dodge.
As regards to #9, I will admit to reading that one quickly. I can only take so much misconception before I choke on it. It is circular to assume that since we are alive, conditions must have been created to allow that. You are again assuming the outcome and fitting your “facts” to it.
As to #1, I am aware of them all. You are simply wrong. The gospels were written later by listening to folklore, with three of them simply being recapitulations of the first. There were no primary sources there. In the others there are references to the followers of someone called christ, and the followers clearly existed, but no reference to the man himself. There is always good old Josephus, but everyone but fanatics knows that was a later forgery. Go into an inquiry assuming the outcome you will generally reach that outcome, but you won,t be right.
You should be careful about claiming what I understand and don’t. I’ve heard your weak, fallacious arguments often enough. I understand them.
I dislike christianity because of it’s followers. They are a contemptous, self-righteous lot. Many of them feel they should get to illeagely use my tax money to support their mythology. It breeds hatred while piously and falsely claiming to be about love. It’s moderate members, the beliefs and actions of whom are entirely acceptable, demand “tolerance” and evil gets to hide behind their skirts. Your faith is guilty of much, admits to little, and demands that it be taken seriously. The biggest reason I don’t like it is that people like you obstinately and foolishly deny the truth and try to force your ideas on children by getting your lies in science classrooms.
You also need to consider examining the evidence without your divine presupposition. I doubt you can, you’re pretty far gone into fanaticism, but you might be able to save yourself. Give it a try.
By the way, since you failed to address numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8, I will assume you have understood and accepted the fact ofyour errors. That’s a good start
Tacitus was writing in 116 AD, well after the alleged death of Christ. He is referencing the early version of the cult you are a member of and their beliefs. Not a reference.
Suetonius, who was responsible for the idea that Nero played the lyre while Rome burned, a discredited idea, is similar to Tacitus. He referenced the cult, not the man. Come to think of it, so was Pliny.
Quoting evidence form the Bible, a clearly unreliable text, to support other parts of it is simply inane.
Why would they have invented falsehoods to support their superstition? The same reason you create falsehoods about evolution. That’s simple enough.
I don’t like Christianity because it lies to children and encourages fools like you in their foolishness.
Good point about Tacitus. I guess Christians just spontaneous regenerated from non-living matter, but no that is the conjecture of evolution. Is this your only soothing your guilty conscience and trying to forget about the judgment coming to us all if we do not turn from evil?
Again, where do Christians come from in the early 2nd century if Christianity was invented later as some of your advocates say?
So you are claiming that the existence of a cult is evidence of it’s claims? That’s very wrong. If that is true for yoyur cult then then the Mormons are right about those plates and things that you won’t admit meet your criteria for evidence.
Scott Shifferd Jr wrote: “I guess Christians just spontaneous regenerated from non-living matter, but no that is the conjecture of evolution.”
That nonsense again? I have to take it that you are using the creationist definition of “evolution” here.
Not the standard definition: Evolution = change over time.
Or that of: Biological evolution = change in allele frequency over time.
Or that of: Theory of evolution =- Scientific explanation of the diversity of life.
But that of: (creationist) evolution = Any and all science that might differ from creationist doctrine.
Scott Shifferd Jr wrote: “Is this your only soothing your guilty conscience and trying to forget about the judgment coming to us all if we do not turn from evil?”
Ha! You’re a funny guy.
Scott Shifferd Jr wrote: “Again, where do Christians come from in the early 2nd century if Christianity was invented later as some of your advocates say?”
Those “advocates” that you claim are ours are morons. Both ‘sides’ have their share of those don’t we?