Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I asked for evidence of this and you gave none. You mentioned one source that was known to be bogus at the time of its writing and scholars are even more sure of that today.And yet they took a chance and wrote it anyway ... then paid for it with their lives.
I wonder What prompted them to write it in the first place .. don't you?
Perhaps it was the Holy Ghost?
WEAKLING!
I'm an atheist!
You're hilarious. I love it when Baptists tell agnostics not to be so religious.
.
Yes! The Bible was inspired--not dictated. God is quoted by frail humans, but inspired does not mean dictated verbatim. I reject the Ipsa Verba doctrine. If God had written the Gospels, we would have only one version: the official one dictated by God himself; we have four!
LOLThe martyrdom of early Christians has been vastly overstated.
Luke died of old age, in Boetia. Matthew may have been a martyr, though there are conflicting stories on this. Mark seems the most likely to have been a martyr. But once again you have given no evidence of the authorship of any of the gospels and historians claim that the actual author is anonymous.LOL
We're talking about three men: Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- and you want to add who knows how many more into the equation; then say it has been vastly overstated.
Didn't you just do what you accused me of doing?Luke died of old age, in Boetia. Matthew may have been a martyr, though there are conflicting stories on this. Mark seems the most likely to have been a martyr.
No, hardly. You had a list of three people. One was most probably a martyr. Another one who knows. The third, not at all.Didn't you just do what you accused me of doing?
"Vastly overstating the martyrdom of early Christians"?
Paying for it with their lives doesn't make it true. It doesn't even mean they thought it was true.
SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.No, hardly. You had a list of three people. One was most probably a martyr. Another one who knows. The third, not at all.
I am not denying that there were some martyrs in the history of Christianity. The point is that there is nothing that amazing or convincing in their deaths. Once again, I can show you Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist martyrs. Does that meant that those religions are correct?
Actually geologist would not be incorrect, but since my studies included more than geology, therefore, climatology and oceanography as well, I prefer Earth Scientist. All three are interrelated.In other words, NO?
SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.
And when I brought the conversation back to the Gospel writers, you now are trying to get me to agree with what you read on the topic, while disagreeing with what I read (i.e., Foxe's Book of Martyrs).
I'll say this nicely and politely:
Don't try to Sanballat me.
SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.
I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.It's a fair question that Rick asked. You disagree with evolution and it has nothing to do with that logical fallacy nonsense. So if the TOE isn't sufficient to explain the biological diversity we see today then what explanation do YOU have? This isn't a case of "if you don't have a better explanation then the TOE must be correct". It's just a question on what explanation YOU have.
In the cases of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it solidifies the fact that they wrote the books that bear their names.What makes your martyrs better than everyone else's martyrs?
I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.
My claim, as always, has been that there is a logical gap between these two statements:
Premise 1: The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.
You see, this is not a valid logical argument. Now that does not mean that valid logical arguments could not be constructed. For example, I could easily construct a valid logical argument, such as this one:
Premise 1: Initial life rose spontaneously once, and only once, without any supernatural intervention.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.
Now THAT'S an argument that I could readily accept. However, in order to convince me of this argument, you would need to demonstrate convincingly not only that life arose spontaneously from non-life with no supernatural intervention, but also that this occurred once and only once.
However, most neo-Darwinist apologists quickly claim that abiogenesis is outside of the theory of Darwinism (neo or otherwise) or they change the subject.
So then I respond that since they cannot demonstrate any reason for me to believe Premise 1, that their argument is not compelling and that no one has any reason to believe in the theory of common descent in particular or neo-Darwinism in general.
That's when the logical fallacies and personal attacks usually come out.
Dèjá Vu all over again.It's as if you don't even read my posts.
First, how do you explain the evidence of humans and chimps having the same exact mutation in the ψη-globin gene?
Second, do humans and guinea pigs have the same knockout mutation in their GLO genes? Here is what I said before:
" Due to the randomness of mutation, if the gene was knocked out independently in each lineage then we should see mutations at different positions. If the gene was knocked out once in a common ancestor, then we should see the same mutation at the same position. That is the test."
Can you apply this to the human and guinea pig GLO pseudogenes?
As you are reading this post, look just to the left where you will see my handle (Zosimus) then scan down to the word "Faith" and look slightly to the right where you will read: Agnostic.So you don't have an explanation for biological diversity?
I subscribe to epistemological nihilism. That means that I believe that nothing can be known, and that we shouldn't even try until a workable framework for knowing things can be constructed.Well if you are agnostic, what is your conceptual explanation for the great panoply of life that isn't evolution and isn't religious?
I subscribe to epistemological nihilism. That means that I believe that nothing can be known, and that we shouldn't even try until a workable framework for knowing things can be constructed.
I would be interested in hearing your framework for gaining knowledge, however.
I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.
My claim, as always, has been that there is a logical gap between these two statements:
Premise 1: The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.
You see, this is not a valid logical argument. Now that does not mean that valid logical arguments could not be constructed. For example, I could easily construct a valid logical argument, such as this one:
Premise 1: Initial life rose spontaneously once, and only once, without any supernatural intervention.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.
Now THAT'S an argument that I could readily accept. However, in order to convince me of this argument, you would need to demonstrate convincingly not only that life arose spontaneously from non-life with no supernatural intervention, but also that this occurred once and only once.
However, most neo-Darwinist apologists quickly claim that abiogenesis is outside of the theory of Darwinism (neo or otherwise) or they change the subject.
So then I respond that since they cannot demonstrate any reason for me to believe Premise 1, that their argument is not compelling and that no one has any reason to believe in the theory of common descent in particular or neo-Darwinism in general.
That's when the logical fallacies and personal attacks usually come out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?