The Demise of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why would they lie? That doesn't even make sense. Undoubtedly the people who Josephus talked to told him what they believed. A concerted fable about an imaginary character they made up is not a realistic possibility. But the reliability question rests on who told Josephus and where and how they came to believe it themselves. We don't really know any of that which, from a historian's standpoint, impinges on the conclusions arrived at about the reliability of the account. Just because it cannot be considered technically to be 100% reliable doesn't mean it must be a lie. What Josephus boils down to is "Some people whom I deemed to be credible told me this story." Sometimes that's as good as it gets in ancient history. Why is that a problem for you? Why do you think it has to mean "This story must be a lie?"


You are saying ""A concerted fable about an imaginary character"(you were referring to Jesus I presume) they made up is not a realistic possibility." So you believe Jesus existed. And I have always believe the same, just as I am sure that history did not lie when it said that Confucius, Buddha George Washington, Muhammad etc exists. These people lived long time ago, but just because we don't know much about sources who wrote them, it does not mean they were friction. So just because Josephus did not see Jesus first hand does not mean the Roman historian invented a tall tale, as someone in this thread stupidly claimed that he did.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You are saying ""A concerted fable about an imaginary character"(you were referring to Jesus I presume) they made up is not a realistic possibility." So you believe Jesus existed. And I have always believe the same, just as I am sure that history did not lie when it said that Confucius, Buddha George Washington, Muhammad etc exists. These people lived long time ago, but just because we don't know much about sources who wrote them, it does not mean they were friction. So just because Josephus did not see Jesus first hand does not mean the Roman historian invented a tall tale, as someone in this thread stupidly claimed that he did.
I don't recall that anyone made that claim. As recall, you were the one who imputed that claim to anyone who disagreed with you about the reliability of Josephus' account. And most of the discussion, it seems to me, had to do with trying to talk you out of that false dichotomy.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What is the mechanism by which God created life? I've never seen anyone provide that.



Here you go.

Likewise, I have never seen anyone who could prove that life came about on its own without God- which is what you are claiming. I have read about filmsy speculation and theories about origin of life that exclude God, but they are never proven. No one can explain the minute molecular changes or massive transformation which had to happen, starting from the most tiny cells. All they said is such changes take billions of years -- but time alone is not proof, is it?

How do we explain the God exist even of we we did not see Him create the earth? We judge from the millions of lifeforms we see around us. These are millions of circumstantial evidences. In the court of law today, we do not have to see something happen to prove that it happen. Credible circumstantial evidence carry weight too. If you see millions of such evidences of life and yer claimed they synchronize nicely entirely on their own without God, then you are lying to yourself.

I have also said before -- the Bible contains valid historical evidences and prophecies to prove that it is credible and true. There are evidences of historical cities and prophecies about Jesus. There are even accurate "scientific verses".

Third is personal experience with God - but these cannot be demonstrated to those who havent believe, of course. My personal experience is further substantiated by both points above.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't recall that anyone made that claim. As recall, you were the one who imputed that claim to anyone who disagreed with you about the reliability of Josephus' account. And most of the discussion, it seems to me, had to do with trying to talk you out of that false dichotomy.

You dont recall someone made the claim? I do.

Now, you seem to understand what I have been trying to explain. Thats good.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Likewise, I have never seen anyone who could prove that life came about on its own without God- which is what you are claiming. I have read about filmsy speculation and theories about origin of life that exclude God, but they are never proven. No one can explain the minute molecular changes or massive transformation which had to happen, starting from the most tiny cells. All they said is such changes take billions of years -- but time alone is not proof, is it?

There are a few things to unpack here:

1) First, science doesn't deal with absolute proof. At best, we're going to have a substantive scientific theory on how life arose based on various lines of evidence (including chemical/biological experimentation). If you want to dismiss that as "flimsy", that's your prerogative. However, by that standard, then one would also have to characterize the claim that life arose via supernatural intervention to be at least, if not moreso flimsy.

2) We have evidence that life has existed and changed over time. Such evidence is firmly preserved in the fossil record. I don't think anyone truly disputes the existence of such.

3) The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed.

How do we explain the God exist even of we we did not see Him create the earth? We judge from the millions of lifeforms we see around us. These are millions of circumstantial evidences. In the court of law today, we do not have to see something happen to prove that it happen. Credible circumstantial evidence carry weight too. If you see millions of such evidences of life and yer claimed they synchronize nicely entirely on their own without God, then you are lying to yourself.

If you're going to necessitat that a supernatural being is required to create life, then what is the specific evidence that supports that?

Simply claiming, "life exists, therefore Godddit" is not a convincing argument. You haven't established a connection between the former being necessitated by the latter. In effect, you're just begging the question.

Appeals to incredulity and/or awe are equally unconvincing. Those are just appeals to emotion.

I have also said before -- the Bible contains valid historical evidences and prophecies to prove that it is credible and true. There are evidences of historical cities and prophecies about Jesus. There are even accurate "scientific verses".

Historical fiction often involves using real time periods, places, people and even events. For example, Saving Private Ryan was set in a real place during a real event (World War 2), but the specific narrative in the movie is a work of complete fiction.

I find it odd that people appeal to things like the existence of things like historical cities mentioned in the Bible as though that somehow makes the narratives in the Bible become true. Even a cursory understanding of historical fiction should make clear why that connection is faulty.

I've also read up on claims of Biblical prophecy and found none of them hold up to scrutiny when placed against rigorous standards for said prophecy.

Third is personal experience with God - but these cannot be demonstrated to those who havent believe, of course. My personal experience is further substantiated by both points above.

Sure, you have your own personal experiences. However, your personal experiences are not my personal experiences. Thus your own personal experiences don't exactly do me or anyone else any good in that regard.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you feel that a believers "connection to and experience of God" is the equivalent of "their beliefs"? They seem to me quite different. The former deals with spiritual experience and overarching perceptions, the latter with specific of laws, history, prophecies, personalities, miracles, etc.

I am not about to wade through a ton of technical jargon to explain people's belief in God. Try to use plain english if you can.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Likewise, I have never seen anyone who could prove that life came about on its own without God- which is what you are claiming. I have read about filmsy speculation and theories about origin of life that exclude God, but they are never proven. No one can explain the minute molecular changes or massive transformation which had to happen, starting from the most tiny cells. All they said is such changes take billions of years -- but time alone is not proof, is it?
No one has claimed that life came about "without God," not even our atheist colleagues, who are generally careful about such things. What is being claimed is that life came about by natural causes, a very different thing indeed and one that both theists and atheists can agree on.

How do we explain the God exist even of we we did not see Him create the earth? We judge from the millions of lifeforms we see around us. These are millions of circumstantial evidences. In the court of law today, we do not have to see something happen to prove that it happen. Credible circumstantial evidence carry weight too. If you see millions of such evidences of life and yer claimed they synchronize nicely entirely on their own without God, then you are lying to yourself.
Again, the question of whether God exists and is author of our being is not really an issue on this board.

I have also said before -- the Bible contains valid historical evidences and prophecies to prove that it is credible and true. There are evidences of historical cities and prophecies about Jesus. There are even accurate "scientific verses".
And here is a good example of what I mean: even many devout Christians who are convinced that the Bible is the inspired word of God think that is hogwash.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
You are saying ""A concerted fable about an imaginary character"(you were referring to Jesus I presume) they made up is not a realistic possibility." So you believe Jesus existed.
That doesn't logically follow.

The assertion was, "Undoubtedly the people who Josephus talked to told him what they believed." The implication being that they did not conspire to invent the character of Jesus, they believed he existed. That doesn't mean he did exist, or that Speedwell believes he existed.

Just sayin'.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I just want to say, I’m amazed this topic I started on a whim half a year ago is still going strong. Yikes.

Initially i was just browsing through the comments, and posting answers here and there. But when i saw comments such as Bible is false, Jesus didn't exist and millions of lifeforms managed to design themselves starting from tiny dots billions of years ago, I have to challenge such far-fetched statements that are made without sense, reasoning or evidence.

Now, we are about 2/3 of the way through, I estimate.Stay tuned, you ain't see nothing yet, and thank you for starting the thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't logically follow.

The assertion was, "Undoubtedly the people who Josephus talked to told him what they believed." The implication being that they did not conspire to invent the character of Jesus, they believed he existed. That doesn't mean he did exist, or that Speedwell believes he existed.

Just sayin'.

You didn't state any reasons to substantiate your disbelief. You are free to think that Jesus didn't exist of course, but without providing any reason, yours is just an empty statement.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No one has claimed that life came about "without God," not even our atheist colleagues, who are generally careful about such things. What is being claimed is that life came about by natural causes, a very different thing indeed and one that both theists and atheists can agree on.

Again, the question of whether God exists and is author of our being is not really an issue on this board.

And here is a good example of what I mean: even many devout Christians who are convinced that the Bible is the inspired word of God think that is hogwash.

Are you saying that God exists but He didn't create the earth and millions of lifeforms?

And are you going to say He create some lifeforms but not most of it?
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed.

So you believe life began hundred of millions of years ago, instead of billions. However, others state that certain fossils dated back to BILLIONS of years ago.

See the contradiction?
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't recall that anyone made that claim. As recall, you were the one who imputed that claim to anyone who disagreed with you about the reliability of Josephus' account. And most of the discussion, it seems to me, had to do with trying to talk you out of that false dichotomy.

To answer your question on who made the claim that Jesus was a fictional account by unreliable Josephus' account, here is the post #1725 by @Kylie

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.

You can follow the discussion for 30 threads after ... until i gave my two-cents in #1813

I don't mind people disagreeing ..... but hopefully they don't become worse than absurd.
 
Upvote 0

roman2819

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 22, 2012
835
212
Singapore
✟208,448.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are a few things to unpack here:

1) First, science doesn't deal with absolute proof. At best, we're going to have a substantive scientific theory on how life arose based on various lines of evidence (including chemical/biological experimentation). If you want to dismiss that as "flimsy", that's your prerogative. However, by that standard, then one would also have to characterize the claim that life arose via supernatural intervention to be at least, if not moreso flimsy.

2) We have evidence that life has existed and changed over time. Such evidence is firmly preserved in the fossil record. I don't think anyone truly disputes the existence of such.

3) The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed.



If you're going to necessitat that a supernatural being is required to create life, then what is the specific evidence that supports that?

Simply claiming, "life exists, therefore Godddit" is not a convincing argument. You haven't established a connection between the former being necessitated by the latter. In effect, you're just begging the question.

Appeals to incredulity and/or awe are equally unconvincing. Those are just appeals to emotion.



Historical fiction often involves using real time periods, places, people and even events. For example, Saving Private Ryan was set in a real place during a real event (World War 2), but the specific narrative in the movie is a work of complete fiction.

I find it odd that people appeal to things like the existence of things like historical cities mentioned in the Bible as though that somehow makes the narratives in the Bible become true. Even a cursory understanding of historical fiction should make clear why that connection is faulty.

I've also read up on claims of Biblical prophecy and found none of them hold up to scrutiny when placed against rigorous standards for said prophecy.



Sure, you have your own personal experiences. However, your personal experiences are not my personal experiences. Thus your own personal experiences don't exactly do me or anyone else any good in that regard.

I know what science say: Science does not prove that God exists, and it is neutral.

However there are people who twist it by saying that science haven't prove the existence of God, so God does not exist.

Are you one of these people? Whatever you believe is fine for me, I am just saying how people twist science to suit themselves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
714
504
✟71,668.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I know what science say: Science does not prove that God exists, and it is neutral.

However there are people who twist it by saying that science haven't prove the existence of God, so God does not exist.

Are you one of these people? Whatever you believe is fine for me, I am just pointing out the flaws in the reasoning :), just as I mentioned couple of thread ago: You claim life began hundreds of millions of years ago, but other evolutionists say billions of years ago. so who is right?
Science does not deal in the “who”, but in the “how”. That is, the mechanisms and and the explanations of what happened that caused the universe to be as we see it today. Science, by its nature cannot and should not study the existence or influence of G-d.

From a different point of view:
“For Judaism, the search for religious certainty through science or metaphysics is not merely fallacious but ultimately pagan. To suppose that G-d is scientifically provable is to identify G-d with what is observable, and this for Judaism is idolatry.” ~ Lord Jonathan Sacks
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
To answer your question on who made the claim that Jesus was a fictional account by unreliable Josephus' account, here is the post #1725 by @Kylie



You can follow the discussion for 30 threads after ... until i gave my two-cents in #1813

I don't mind people disagreeing ..... but hopefully they don't become worse than absurd.
Obviously you didn't understand Kylie's post. It was about Josephus as a credible historical source, not about the existence of Jesus per se.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying that God exists but He didn't create the earth and millions of lifeforms?

And are you going to say He create some lifeforms but not most of it?
What I am saying is that identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out or deny God's creative involvement.
1. Life as we know it evolved over a long period of time by natural causes from a common ancestor --which may also have arisen by natural causes.
2. God is the author of all of it. I don't mean that He just flipped the switch on the natural processes and walked away but was and is continuously involved.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
You didn't state any reasons to substantiate your disbelief. You are free to think that Jesus didn't exist of course, but without providing any reason, yours is just an empty statement.
Non-sequitur. My post was correcting your logical error; either you're responding to the wrong post, or you completely misunderstood what I said.

My post said nothing about my own beliefs, disbeliefs, or whether I think Jesus existed. If you'd like to know about my beliefs, disbeliefs, or whether I think Jesus existed, you need only ask.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
So you believe life began hundred of millions of years ago, instead of billions. However, others state that certain fossils dated back to BILLIONS of years ago.

See the contradiction?
There's no contradiction. Unfortunately, you have completely misread his post. He said, "The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed." [my bolding]

Can you see where you went wrong? 'hundred of millions of years ago' is not the same as, 'hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.