The Demise of Evolution

HitchSlap · May 1, 2020

roman2819 said:
You made a sweeping claim .
Can you demontrate why hisory and archeology do not suppprt the Bible? I believe you are not saying taht hostorians and archeloists made false claims. But if you are, you imply that many of them are unreliable? what make your words better than theirs?

No evidence of a literal exodus, for starters.

AnotherAtheist · May 1, 2020

HitchSlap said:
No evidence of a literal exodus, for starters.

I would have gone for global flood first.

Speedwell · May 1, 2020

AnotherAtheist said:
I would have gone for global flood first.

Right. There may be no evidence for the Exodus, but there is quite a bit against a global flood.

Kylie · May 1, 2020

roman2819 said:
I click of couple of the 5 links you provided, and they led me to previous postings by yourself, you were answering questions from others, giving them your opinion and interpretations of things. There was NOTHING credible from you to try to provide explanation on how life begin.

So as I said, there is still no credible explanation about how life begins. No proof that eons of time ago, a tiny amoeba or cell or whatever started to breathe and very gradually transform to two, then 20, then the millions of diversities we see around us.

The reason I took almost 3 weeks to click on the links is I have other priorities and more importantly, I didn’t expect you to have good theories to offer – because this area is still very much at a work-in-progress stage among scientist and microbiologists, nothing conclusive, far from it.

So lemme get this straight.

I offer a few links to posts where I presented plausible explanations of how life might have got started.

You assumed that I was presenting links to scientific proof of how life got started.

When you finally read the links and discovered that your assumptions were incorrect, you criticize me for not living up to your expectations, and claimed that because I hadn't provided what you thought I had, my examples of a possible origin of life are meaningless and have no merit at all.

Would you like some sources that are not me to tell you about this idea?

Very well.

The Origin of Self-Replicating Molecules

Life’s First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA, New Model Suggests

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

New theoretical model explains the origins of self-replicating molecules (w/video)

https://phys.org/news/2015-07-life-emergence-self-replication-early-earth.html

Scientists Create Self-Replicating Molecules To Explain How Life Began

First life: The search for the first replicator

Now, tell me, do you still think that this idea of life coming from self replicating molecules is just some whacky notion I came up with, or do you now accept that it's a strong contender among scientists who study in the field for how it actually happened?

Kylie · May 1, 2020

roman2819 said:
@Kylie, this statement by Josephus is more interesting than your “proofs of life” . Josephus was a secular historian of the Roman empire, not a Christian historian, he wrote “There was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why wouldn’t you agree that his statement us credible? Or you believe it is credible?

First of all, Josephus lived and wrote AFTER the events he described. So what he got was not first hand information - he didn't see it for himself. He was just repeating the words of others.

Secondly, the passage you speak of is considered to be a partial, if not complete, forgery, added in after the fact by Christian historians.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

Josephus - RationalWiki

So, no, I do not think Josephus is a credible source when it comes to the existence of Jesus.

Bungle_Bear · May 1, 2020

roman2819 said:
Do you recognize that Jesus lived and existed?

Josephus not only said Jesus was there, he said “there was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why would he say that Jesus did miracles? If Jesus didn’t, would Josephus would not write that he did miracles.

@Kylie, this statement by Josephus is more interesting than your “proofs of life” . Josephus was a secular historian of the Roman empire, not a Christian historian, he wrote “There was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why wouldn’t you agree that his statement us credible? Or you believe it is credible?

The Josephus statement is credible as a confirmation that somebody named Jesus existed. As a credible source for confirmation of miracles? Not so much.

Job 33:6 · May 2, 2020

Kylie said:
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

Josephus - RationalWiki

So, no, I do not think Josephus is a credible source when it comes to the existence of Jesus.

From your link:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[97] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[99]

It sounds as though scholars generally agree that Josephus' works, collectively, support the existence of Jesus. And that, of at least the above referenced work, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is accepted "almost universally" as credible. I'd otherwise agree that while Josephus is considered a credible source with respect to the existence of Christ by most scholars (as other sources are, such as Tacitus' Annals), it isn't specific to whether or not he performed miracles.

Speedwell · May 2, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
From your link:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[97] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[99]

It sounds as though scholars generally agree that Josephus' works, collectively, support the existence of Jesus. And that, of at least the above referenced work, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is accepted "almost universally" as credible.

And all of this proves that the world was created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM exactly how? Yes, I know that is hyperbolic but it points to the problem, which is that you are going about the thing backwards. The creationist biblical argument is about the nature of the biblical texts, not about the events they purport to describe.

The most you can hope for is that historical and archaeological evidence will confirm that the events themselves are in some sense true. But no amount of historical or archaeological evidence will prove that the texts themselves are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of divine plenary verbal inspiration, and without that there can be no creationism.

Job 33:6 · May 2, 2020

Speedwell said:
And all of this proves that the world was created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM exactly how? Yes, I know that is hyperbolic but it points to the problem, which is that you are going about the thing backwards. The creationist biblical argument is about the nature of the biblical texts, not about the events they purport to describe.

The most you can hope for is that historical and archaeological evidence will confirm that the events themselves are in some sense true. But no amount of historical or archaeological evidence will prove that the texts themselves are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of divine plenary verbal inspiration, and without that there can be no creationism.

I believe that scripture, and historical works, while obviously not sufficient in demonstrating that Jesus was God, do support the claim that Jesus said and did things, as scripture describes.

And I'm not talking about breaking loaves to 5000 people. I'm talking about support for Jesus' non miracle works. And of course Jesus' teachings, which, in my opinion, are more significant to the religion of Christianity, than the suggestions of miracles themselves.

Speedwell · May 2, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
I believe that scripture, and historical works, while obviously not sufficient in demonstrating that Jesus was God, do support the claim that Jesus said and did things, as scripture describes.

And I'm not talking about breaking loaves to 5000 people. I'm talking about support for Jesus' non miracle works. And of course Jesus' teachings, which, in my opinion, are more significant to the religion of Christianity, than the suggestions of miracles themselves.

And I agree with you with respect to Christianity generally (and my own faith in particular) but it doesn't do a thing for biblical creationism.

Kylie · May 2, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
From your link:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[97] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[99]

It sounds as though scholars generally agree that Josephus' works, collectively, support the existence of Jesus. And that, of at least the above referenced work, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is accepted "almost universally" as credible. I'd otherwise agree that while Josephus is considered a credible source with respect to the existence of Christ by most scholars (as other sources are, such as Tacitus' Annals), it isn't specific to whether or not he performed miracles.

At best this shows that James was considered to be the brother of Jesus. Doesn't mean that Jesus existed. It's just repeating a popular belief about James.

Bungle_Bear · May 2, 2020

Job 33:6 · May 2, 2020

Kylie said:
At best this shows that James was considered to be the brother of Jesus. Doesn't mean that Jesus existed. It's just repeating a popular belief about James.

Do you feel as though all historic records of Jesus, are also non-credible, so long as they were not first hand accounts? Such as in the case of Tacitus as well?

I suppose you would consider books of the Bible, also as non-credible sources for Jesus' existence as well? Perhaps the accounts of Jesus therein are...forged?

Speedwell · May 2, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
Do you feel as though all historic records of Jesus, are also non-credible, so long as they were not first hand accounts? Such as in the case of Tacitus as well?

That's too much of dichotomy.

Job 33:6 · May 2, 2020

Speedwell said:
That's too much of dichotomy.

I gave an example to help clarify the question. How about Tacitus? Is he (or his books) also a non-credible source, given that his words are second hand?

Or are these credible accounts, but just "not good enough" because they're second hand?

Kylie · May 3, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
Do you feel as though all historic records of Jesus, are also non-credible, so long as they were not first hand accounts? Such as in the case of Tacitus as well?

Tacitus was just repeating a story that had been passed down. When Tacitus wrote that passage, many of the official documents had been destroyed by fires. And given that three of the gospels had already been written, it seems like that Tacitus' source was Christians telling him what they believed.

Also, the passage says that Christians were being punished for the burning of rome. There is no source that actually shows that Nero was persecuting Christians for that. Tacitus - RationalWiki

I suppose you would consider books of the Bible, also as non-credible sources for Jesus' existence as well? Perhaps the accounts of Jesus therein are...forged?

Considering we don't even know who wrote those books, I wouldn't say they were necessarily forgeries. but I would say they are not reliable.

roman2819 · May 3, 2020

Kylie said:
First of all, Josephus lived and wrote AFTER the events he described. So what he got was not first hand information - he didn't see it for himself. He was just repeating the words of others.

Secondly, the passage you speak of is considered to be a partial, if not complete, forgery, added in after the fact by Christian historians.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

Josephus - RationalWiki

So, no, I do not think Josephus is a credible source when it comes to the existence of Jesus.

In order for their writing to be credible, do all historians have to be living at the time events happened or witness for themselves what happened first hand? That is not the standard today. I suppose that is your biased and artificially high standard to deny the existence of Jesus. Do you then believe that Jesus did not exist?

Many historians who wrote about ancient or modern history lived after the events happen, This include historians in our times now who were borned after World War 2. They researched and wrote about events that they did noit witness. The credibility of their writings are judged by other methods such as their sources, cross-referencing etc.

roman2819 · May 3, 2020

HitchSlap said:
No evidence of a literal exodus, for starters.

If an event that happened 5000-7000 years ago cannot be proven, does it mean it never happened?

roman2819 · May 3, 2020

Kylie said:
At best this shows that James was considered to be the brother of Jesus. Doesn't mean that Jesus existed. It's just repeating a popular belief about James.

Post #1627 explained to you that it is "almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"... But you disagree. What credentials do you possess that give you credibility to dispute evidences presented by specialists in their field?

No wonder your response got a funny rating from @KomatiiteBIF .

roman2819 · May 3, 2020

AnotherAtheist said:
I would have gone for global flood first.

THere is evidence of global flood. Why would various different cultures allude to a flood if it didn't happen? There are also archeological evidence of people being slammed against the city walls and perished, It was not like they drowned. The evidence suggest that the water came upon them suddenly, they did not have time to escape, and the sudden rush of water crushed them.

The Demise of Evolution

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads