Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Renee Tahass]

BTW
How do you reconcile being a Christian with trying to prove the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error?

Who knows what Jesus was prone to? did Jesus even exist? who knows?

 

[Radrook]

Who knows what Jesus was prone to? did Jesus even exist? who knows?

Had Jesus not existed then the Jews who were fanatically opposed to Christianity would have immediately mentioned it. Josephus would not have mentioned Jesus as having existed either which he did. He is also mentioned in Roman historical records of the time as the leader of the sect called Christians. Neither do we have any evidenced in the epistles of Paul of any such objection concerning Jesus being made against Christianity. Neither does the objection appear in the book of Acts where opposition to Christianity during that time is recorded in detail. In fact, even today the Jews do not claim Jesus never existed. They simply say that the did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. So your suspicion is rather new on the world stage and really has absolutely no logical nor historical basis whatsoever to justify it.

 

[Renee Tahass]

Had Jesus not existed then the Jews who were fanatically opposed to Christianity would have immediately mentioned it. Josephus would not have mentioned Jesus as having existed either which he did. He is also mentioned in Roman historical records of the time as the leader of the sect called Christians. Neither do we have any evidenced in the epistles of Paul of any such objection concerning Jesus being made against Christianity. Neither does the objection appear in the book of Acts where opposition to Christianity during that time is recorded in detail. In fact, even today the Jews do not claim Jesus never existed. They simply say that the did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. So your suspicion is rather new on the world stage and really has absolutely no logical nor historical basis whatsoever to justify it.

From what I can gather the jury is still out, there are historians for and against the existence of Jesus.
Considering it is supposed to be the most important message that ever existed don't you think it has all been handled in a pretty shoddy way?

 

[AV1611VET]

From what I can gather the jury is still out, there are historians for and against the existence of Jesus.

Got any names?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

SOURCE

Considering it is supposed to be the most important message that ever existed don't you think it has all been handled in a pretty shoddy way?

Yes.

Get better historians.

 

[Renee Tahass]

Get better historians.

I was talking about the message, because of the lack of evidence people are reduced to using faith to believe the message, the same faith Muslims and Hindu's use to believe in their Gods which according to Christians is all wrong, which tells us that faith is not a pathway to truth if it can just as easily lead people to believe in the wrong things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you need to use my post as a vehicle to slip your agenda in here, I suppose that's up to you, but as to the topic, I'm fine with my wording, at least for the moment until the OP helps me out.

I have no agenda. I was merely pointing out what should be zn uncomfortable fact to you. Biblical literalism makes God a liar. Realizing that the Bible was written by fallable human beings makes neither one a liar.

The evidence in the world tells us that various stories in Genesis are just stories. No lying by anyone. If you insist that Genesis is true then the evidence, which had to be created by your god, is a lie, and that would make your version of God a liar. It is much more reasonable to see that the Bible is simply wrong in this matter and that no one is lying.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If we're studying supernovae, we still have to observe spectra from individual instances, time curves, etc and make deductions based on connecting the dots. Do you really think you can take a set of observations about a supernova and deduce the correct model of supernova development from the data?

I am not denying you have to make certain assumptions when deducing anything from data, but are you trying to argue this is really no different from studying fossils, noticing patterns, etc? One is decidedly more qualitative. Wouldn't you agree?

You kind of didn't answer the question: how much research have you done in either field?

Research in biology I've done relatively little, and none academically, I will happily admit to my flaws.

As for physics, I'm into quantum physics and am currently designing a quantum computer (yes, academically).

What about you? I don't really care for credentials, you're clearly very intelligent regardless, though you've made me curious now.

That's one opinion I've earned the right to hold. Ever heard the saying, "Physics: the smartest people studying the simplest problems"?

It doesn't feel simple to me, haha. I suppose it's simpler in that you can be more sure of the answer when you actually come to it, but perhaps that's not what you meant.

Not at the moment, I'm afraid -- I'm very pressed for time. Look up "endogeneous retroviruses" if you want to learn about the subject.

Gee you don't make it easy do you.

We also don't know whether the supernova actually happened, because we weren't there for that either. All we can do is conclude that our observations conform to what we would expect if a supernova did occur X million years ago, or that our observations conform to what we would expect if common descent were true.

Would you assert the certainty with which we can hold the supernova actually happened is on the same level with which we can look at fossils and genes and conclude evolution is a reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical understanding has progressed considerably since that time.
[\quote]

No, the Bible has merely been reinterpreted to accept reality. The Bible is reinterpreted by most Christians today to accept evolution. Denying reality is never a wise way to try to spread ones religion.

BTW
How do you reconcile being a ℅Christian with trying to prove the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error?

How does accepting reality do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is, you may not like it but it is, a modern woman gave birth to you but go back enough generations and a woman living in a cave gave birth to a child that lived in a cave, go back even more generations and an ape in a tree gave birth to a baby ape in a tree.
Evolution is the changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next, time is the key.
Given enough time and the right conditions an elephant could evolve into a shrew.

I don't quite like your last sentence. Since the path of evolution is essentially a One Way Street I would have said that an elephant could have evolved into a shrew like animal.

 

[Renee Tahass]

I don't quite like your last sentence. Since the path of evolution is essentially a One Way Street I would have said that an elephant could have evolved into a shrew like animal.

I have removed that sentence to save any confusion.

 

[Radrook]

Denial of biblical misunderstandings is a denial of a reality.

 

[Radrook]

From what I can gather the jury is still out, there are historians for and against the existence of Jesus.
Considering it is supposed to be the most important message that ever existed don't you think it has all been handled in a pretty shoddy way?

The following documentary disproves your suspicions.

BTW
Why are you evading the question as to why the Jews never brought up your claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Denial of biblical misunderstandings is a denial of a reality.

Oh there is no doubt that the Bible has been misundedstood. Of course the worst at misunderstanding it could easily said to be by the literalists.

 

[Renee Tahass]

The following documentary disproves your suspicions.

That disproves nothing, it's just a religious person telling everyone what he wants to be true, there is no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus ever existed, if you think there is please point me to it.

BTW
Why are you evading the question as to why the Jews never brought up your claim?

What question is that? if I did miss it please ask it again.

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't claim that at all. Your imagination up and ran way with you there...bigtime, my friend.

And I suppose your post #253 is a figment of my imagination as well?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you reconcile being a Christian with trying to prove the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error?

How do you reconcile being a Christian with leveling false accusations against your fellow believers?

 

[Radrook]

How do you reconcile being a Christian with leveling false accusations against your fellow believers?

Well, if I misunderstood you I apologize.

 

[Radrook]

That disproves nothing, it's just a religious person telling everyone what he wants to be true, there is no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus ever existed, if you think there is please point me to it.
What question is that? if I did miss it please ask it again.

I already did and you choose to call it bogus.
The question I asked is in clear English and needs no repetition.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, if I misunderstood you I apologize.

Thank you, and remember that the worst thing in that respect which you can accuse your fellow Christians of is holding to a different interpretation of scripture than you do, not that "the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error." That conclusion only makes sense within the context of your own interpretation.

 

[Radrook]

Thank you, and remember that the worst thing in that respect which you can accuse your fellow Christians of is holding to a different interpretation of scripture than you do, not that "the Bible is flawed and that Jesus was prone to error." That conclusion only makes sense within the context of your own interpretation.

I am not sure what you mean by that but I am happy to know that you are not saying that Jesus was wrong.