The Demise of Evolution

[eleos1954]

That's not true. Who ever told you that?

was referring to the "Big Bang" theory.

 

[VirOptimus]

was referring to the "Big Bang" theory.

In your own words, what does the big bang theory entails?

 

[Larniavc]

was referring to the "Big Bang" theory.

I dunno man, The Big Bang has nothing to do with ToE. Who ever told you that it did?

 

[Speedwell]

was referring to the "Big Bang" theory.

The "Big Bang" theory has nothing to with how life began and doesn't say anything about it.

 

[Kylie]

Why would Josephus need sources if he is the source himself?

In the Han dynasty of CHina, there was a hsitrorian SimaYi who was recognized at a credible historian. Why would he need sources?

If Jesus did not exist, how did Christianity and the church begin? by 12 men plotting a story? How did tens of thouands came to believe?

Josephus can't be the source unless he was an actual participant in the events he is talking about. Given that he would have been a toddler at the time, he is not a credible source even if he was a direct eyewitness.

 

[Strathos]

To be fair, you have been unable to provide evidence when asked.

Such evidence is not possible to receive if you do not have faith.

 

[Kylie]

Please learn to use quote tags. They're not hard and they make it so much easier to not only see who you are responding to, but for people to find the posts that are responses to them.

Exactly. It suggests that these people of the Bible existed, such as Jesus, while not necessarily suggesting that he truly conducted miracles or was the son of or God himself.

By the same logic, I can claim that Harry Potter is real because it describes real world locations. Okay, maybe Harry Potter isn't an actual wizard at Hogwarts, but there must be some real world person on whom the stories are based, right?

You asked why Roman historians wouldn't have written about Jesus. I explain how even according to scripture, the Romans didn't even know who Jesus was. Your response was:

"Yeah, funny how nobody pays attention until they get the government involved. It's not like that happened to Jesus, is it? Oh wait..."

This sounds like an omission to my point.

No, it's pointing out the apparent contradiction in the story. At times, Jesus is portrayed as being well known enough to gather huge crowds wherever he goes. At other times, he is portrayed as being little known.

I mention how followers of Jesus had oral traditions and your response is:

"And oral tradition is just so reliable, isn't it?"

But again, nobody is calling for a detailed research study on how Jesus broke a single loaf of bread a thousand times. We are simply asking the question of if Jesus potentially existed. In which case, an oral tradition could absolutely be reliable.

The stories of the Aboriginal Dreamtime in Australia were almost exclusively oral until very recently. Do you think that makes them reliable?

You gave some convoluted example of circular reasoning relating to reptile Invaders. But again, Josephus didn't have to be an eye witness to be a credible source in and of himself. No more than I had to be an eye witness of 9/11 to be a credible source for someone if they asked me if it happened.

Wow, you just demolished your own point.

I asked for non-Biblical sources to support the claims Josephus made, and your response was to say Josephus was such a non-Biblical source.

I point out that a source can't serve as evidence for itself, otherwise we could write any nonsense we wanted to and then claim that our nonsense writing was supported by itself, thus giving it credibility.

You then claim that Josephus doesn't need to be an eyewitness.

Not only does this not have anything to do with my original point, but you are saying that someone who wasn't even there could write about it using the text he is writing as a source for itself, and you think that makes it valid?

And again, nobody is asking for detailed research studies on 9/11 or of Jesus' miracles and how he rubbed spit on a blind man's eyes to help him see, or how Jesus conducted exorcisms. We are simply discussing the question of the existence of a man named Jesus who inspired the Christian movement of this time.

And the fact that there are stories about a guy with that name does not mean that the guy with that name actually existed.

 

[Kylie]

So you are saying that if you repeat something little from a third source, it is a small lie. If you say something big, its a big lie.

No, I am saying that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more reliable a source you need to get the information from.

If someone claimed that Claire from accounting had a sandwich for lunch one of the days last week, I wouldn't need a particularly reliable source before I accept that claim. People have sandwiches for lunch all the time. There's nothing particularly unusual or noteworthy about it.

But if someone claimed there was a guy who could bring people back from the dead, then I would need a very reliable source, since bringing people back from the dead pretty much NEVER happens, and it's very unusual.

 

[pitabread]

Such evidence is not possible to receive if you do not have faith.

Evidence that requires faith is not evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Such evidence is not possible to receive if you do not have faith.

If the evidence is valid, then it should speak for itself and not depend on the personal wishes of the one examining it.

If you require faith to get this evidence, then I'd suggest it isn't actually evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please learn to use quote tags. They're not hard and they make it so much easier to not only see who you are responding to, but for people to find the posts that are responses to them.

In return I'll simply ask that you learn some manners.

By the same logic, I can claim that Harry Potter is real because it describes real world locations. Okay, maybe Harry Potter isn't an actual wizard at Hogwarts, but there must be some real world person on whom the stories are based, right?

Jesus isn't considered real on the basis that he is said to have visited real places (though that is one aspect suggesting credible historicity of scripture). If Harry Potter was said to be real by what are considered credible historians, and simultaneously were considered real by a large body of early followers, it would hold more weight. Especially if said historians and followers were alive along side the apostles, or were the apostles themselves.

No, it's pointing out the apparent contradiction in the story. At times, Jesus is portrayed as being well known enough to gather huge crowds wherever he goes. At other times, he is portrayed as being little known.

There isn't a contradiction in what I've said. You just aren't willing to consider the possibility that a man could have followers without necessarily making a large enough commotion that Roman historians would flock to write about it.

The stories of the Aboriginal Dreamtime in Australia were almost exclusively oral until very recently. Do you think that makes them reliable?

I can't speak on Aboriginal stories, but if credible historians of various backgrounds made efforts to corroborate those stories, then I wouldn't immediately reject them.

Wow, you just demolished your own point.

I asked for non-Biblical sources to support the claims Josephus made, and your response was to say Josephus was such a non-Biblical source.

I point out that a source can't serve as evidence for itself, otherwise we could write any nonsense we wanted to and then claim that our nonsense writing was supported by itself, thus giving it credibility.

And again, first hand accounts arent necessary for a person to be speaking truth, no more did I need to witness 9/11 to be correct in saying that it occurred. You're asking for a source that isn't needed, hence why I have replied by saying that Josephus is sufficient in and of himself. And obviously Josephus received this information from someone else, just as I received information about 9/11 from someone else. And 9/11 certainly occurred regardless of if I say who that source was. I am sufficient in and of myself.


And the fact that there are stories about a guy with that name does not mean that the guy with that name actually existed.[/QUOTE]

But it very well could as well.

 

[Strathos]

Evidence that requires faith is not evidence.

If the evidence is valid, then it should speak for itself and not depend on the personal wishes of the one examining it.

If you require faith to get this evidence, then I'd suggest it isn't actually evidence.

Not the kind of evidence you would recognize, maybe.

 

[Kylie]

In return I'll simply ask that you learn some manners.

What did I say that was rude?

Jesus isn't considered real on the basis that he is said to have visited real places (though that is one aspect suggesting credible historicity of scripture). If Harry Potter was said to be real by what are considered credible historians, and simultaneously were considered real by a large body of early followers, it would hold more weight. Especially if said historians and followers were alive along side the apostles, or were the apostles themselves.

Well, we've got eh internet that allows practically instant communication around the world, and we've had radio that allows the same thing for many decades.

But if we didn't have such easy communication and people didn't understand how the world worked, I could easily see people in the UK taking the Harry Potter books to other countries and the people there misunderstanding and thinking that the books were actual descriptions of real events.

There isn't a contradiction in what I've said. You just aren't willing to consider the possibility that a man could have followers without necessarily making a large enough commotion that Roman historians would flock to write about it.

I think it's highly unlikely that a man could draw crowds of hundreds of people in a time when communicating such gatherings was very difficult if he WASN'T well known.

I can't speak on Aboriginal stories, but if credible historians of various backgrounds made efforts to corroborate those stories, then I wouldn't immediately reject them.

Wait, hang on. Weren't you trying to say that stories passed along orally are reliable enough to establish the basics at least? Do you think that same reasoning applies to the Aboriginal Dreamtime?

And again, first hand accounts arent necessary for a person to be speaking truth, no more did I need to witness 9/11 to be correct in saying that it occurred. You're asking for a source that isn't needed, hence why I have replied by saying that Josephus is sufficient in and of himself. And obviously Josephus received this information from someone else, just as I received information about 9/11 from someone else. And 9/11 certainly occurred regardless of if I say who that source was. I am sufficient in and of myself.

Let's not forget that you are able to gain access to information a lot more easily than people back then could. And the farther we get from first hand accounts, the less we can be sure that the accounts are truth.

But it very well could as well.

But it very well couldn't. You just can't be sure.

 

[Kylie]

Not the kind of evidence you would recognize, maybe.

Or any kind of valid argument at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

What did I say that was rude?

Well, we've got eh internet that allows practically instant communication around the world, and we've had radio that allows the same thing for many decades.

But if we didn't have such easy communication and people didn't understand how the world worked, I could easily see people in the UK taking the Harry Potter books to other countries and the people there misunderstanding and thinking that the books were actual descriptions of real events.

I think it's highly unlikely that a man could draw crowds of hundreds of people in a time when communicating such gatherings was very difficult if he WASN'T well known.

Wait, hang on. Weren't you trying to say that stories passed along orally are reliable enough to establish the basics at least? Do you think that same reasoning applies to the Aboriginal Dreamtime?

Let's not forget that you are able to gain access to information a lot more easily than people back then could. And the farther we get from first hand accounts, the less we can be sure that the accounts are truth.

But it very well couldn't. You just can't be sure.

These are pretty squishy responses.

You were rude in telling me to learn how to quote you, as if I didn't already know. You could act as if you honestly didn't know, but you also could have been less rude in your approach none the less.

Your responses are more or less speculation.

And scripture, typically doesn't clarify on the number of followers Jesus has. Some stories and numbers also may not be literally true, such as in the case of Jesus feeding thousands of people with a few baskets of bread.

Regarding Aboriginal dreamtime, I just am not familiar with what you're even describing, hence my lack of response. But as I've said, if credible historians of various backgrounds made efforts to corroborate those "dreamtime" stories, then I wouldn't immediately reject them as purely imaginary.

And yes, I agree that we cannot be sure if Jesus lived. We don't have the modern internet and video footage. But it seems feasible that he did none the less. If you feel as though Jesus and James brother of Jesus and perhaps even the apostles, all didn't exist, and that Josephus and Tacitus were mistaken, feel free to share your alternative narrative.

I consider Josephus' reference to James brother of Jesus the Messiah. He speaks of the man's death, which isn't spoken of in scripture. So he's not simply copying the Bible. So who would James brother of Jesus the Messiah be, if not James, the apostle, brother of Jesus the Messiah in scripture? If he were real, why would it be a stretch to believe that Jesus existed as well?

 

[Strathos]

Or any kind of valid argument at all.

Of course you would see it that way.

 

[Kylie]

These are pretty squishy responses.

You were rude in telling me to learn how to quote you, as if I didn't already know. You could act as if you honestly didn't know, but you also could have been less rude in your approach none the less.

You didn't use the quote tags in post 1704, so it seemed to me that you didn't know.

Your responses are more or less speculation.

No more so than yours.

And scripture, typically doesn't clarify on the number of followers Jesus has. Some stories and numbers also may not be literally true, such as in the case of Jesus feeding thousands of people with a few baskets of bread.

Then how do you know that the stories themselves were just invented completely?

Regarding Aboriginal dreamtime, I just am not familiar with what you're even describing, hence my lack of response. But as I've said, if credible historians of various backgrounds made efforts to corroborate those "dreamtime" stories, then I wouldn't immediately reject them as purely imaginary.

All we've got are the stories. There was only an oral history, and this was before Europeans arrived in Australia.

And yes, I agree that we cannot be sure if Jesus lived. We don't have the modern internet and video footage. But it seems feasible that he did none the less. If you feel as though Jesus and James brother of Jesus and perhaps even the apostles, all didn't exist, and that Josephus and Tacitus were mistaken, feel free to share your alternative narrative.

I think my alternative narrative is clear. Jesus was not a real person and the stories about him were invented and interpreted as factual by others who then spread them as fact.

I consider Josephus' reference to James brother of Jesus the Messiah. He speaks of the man's death, which isn't spoken of in scripture. So he's not simply copying the Bible. So who would James brother of Jesus the Messiah be, if not James, the apostle, brother of Jesus the Messiah in scripture? If he were real, why would it be a stretch to believe that Jesus existed as well?

I never said he was just copying the Bible.

And even if there was a real James, the claims he was brother of Jesus could have been added on after the fact as part of those stories I mentioned earlier.

 

[Kylie]

Of course you would see it that way.

You've given me no reason to see it any other way.

 

[Strathos]

You've given me no reason to see it any other way.

It's like trying to explain what a beautiful painting looks like to a person who has been blind since birth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's like trying to explain what a beautiful painting looks like to a person who has been blind since birth.

bad example. You are making the error of assuming that you are the one that can see. Have you ever thought that it might be the other way around?