Lines of Evidence

[bhsmte]

I'm sure they have, but have they ever studied it? Oh really, in what way is it flawed?

Many NT scholars and historians have more issues with John, then they do with the first three gospels. And, I do believe NT scholars and historians have studied it.

 

[[serious]]

Here is one that is argued.

Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth - creation.com

"Polystrate" Fossils

Petrified wood with sedimentary lovers over it isn't an issue for geology. The whale fossil was a fiction.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought you might have responded to the first part of my reply. There's so much more to be gleaned from reading sacred texts -- but it really depends on how much time and effort, one is willing to invest in such an activity. Sure a casual read, followed by a commentary or two -- might be useful. Yet, there is so much more to these texts, which the first read or two seldom gets.
I noticed the dig at the point about Jesus' deity (I don't think it was you) -- but one has to get past the first few sentences of any book (certainly a sacred text), before one can make such strong judgment calls about it.
I thought you were interested in the psychological profile of Jesus, as per this text -- or perhaps those of certain of the characters he engages. No?

Not sure you are interpreting what I am stating as I intended and maybe I have failed to make myself clear.

I will say again, how one interprets and believes stories written 2000 years ago from anonymous authors, will be quite dependent on the psyche one has when they engage in reading and studying the same. If one has a strong psychological need to believe the stories, guess what, they will rationalize however is necessary, to reconcile the stories to themselves as accurate and historical. Hope that makes sense.

Now, I am not talking about a casual reading of the gospels, I am talking about diving in and engaging the works of numerous NT scholars and historians who have studied the same for the bulk of their lives.

For 40 years, I was a Christian and one of the prime movers in myself becoming atheist towards the Christian God, was an attempt to reach out to the NT for support and guidance and that turned into a deep investigation into the scholarly and historical work of the same, by accident. The more I studied, the more I discovered; wow, I did not know that and I gained knowledge that I did not have before, in regards to the historicity of the NT.

After digesting this new knowledge and relating my deeper knowledge of the Christian story with the realities of the world, I could not reconcile the story any longer, without playing mind games with myself.

And no, I am not interested in a psychological profile on Jesus, though I have read interesting hypothesis from some on the subject. I am more intrigued by how different people, rationalize what they believe, to be credible and likely true.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Do note that belief isn't influenced enough by what a person wants or would be happy believing to be a determining factor by itself. Case in point, myself: being an atheist sucks for me mentally, but despite 6 years of seeking belief, I have yet to attain it.

If you've been following my chat, you'll see that is exactly my point. In fact, I mentioned the gospel of John -- not because of the belief, but to look at the main character and see that he is out there touching lives (he's not self-preoccupied) and though he runs up against those who seem to spend their time stuck (like needle jumping on a record) in religion and they kill him -- even that sacrifice is real martyrdom. (I know the religious want to jump ahead and shout about the resurrection -- miraculous stuff, his deity etc., but I think that the first thing that us humans need, is to see a life that had purpose, and meaning and ultimately the right sort of focus) Hmm?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not sure you are interpreting what I am stating as I intended and maybe I have failed to make myself clear.

I will say again, how one interprets and believes stories written 2000 years ago from anonymous authors, will be quite dependent on the psyche one has when they engage in reading and studying the same. If one has a strong psychological need to believe the stories, guess what, they will rationalize however is necessary, to reconcile the stories to themselves as accurate and historical. Hope that makes sense.

Now, I am not talking about a casual reading of the gospels, I am talking about diving in and engaging the works of numerous NT scholars and historians who have studied the same for the bulk of their lives.

For 40 years, I was a Christian and one of the prime movers in myself becoming atheist towards the Christian God, was an attempt to reach out to the NT for support and guidance and that turned into a deep investigation into the scholarly and historical work of the same, by accident. The more I studied, the more I discovered; wow, I did not know that and I gained knowledge that I did not have before, in regards to the historicity of the NT.

After digesting this new knowledge and relating my deeper knowledge of the Christian story with the realities of the world, I could not reconcile the story any longer, without playing mind games with myself.

And no, I am not interested in a psychological profile on Jesus, though I have read interesting hypothesis from some on the subject. I am more intrigued by how different people, rationalize what they believe, to be credible and likely true.

I can see you're trying very hard to understand my first sentence -- your response reminds me a little of one of the characters from John. Guesses?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm sure they have, but have they ever studied it? Oh really, in what way is it flawed?

"Flawed" is the wrong word for it, but John's Gospel is called non-synoptic for a reason.

My own theory is that many people forget that Jesus, the disciples, and and majority of Gospel writers were Jews, who sought to express Jesus' story through the lens of Judaism, as it were. In fact, for decades after Jesus' death, Christianity was not considered a separate religion, but as a Jewish sect -- Christians at the time called themselves "Followers of the Way," and while they disagreed with their more orthodox Jewish bretheren, they still considered them theological brothers.

John's different -- his Gospel was written last, and clearly after Christianity and Judaism had split. He sought to remove a lot of the Jewish influence and portray Jesus' story in his own way... more likely the way he was beginning to be understood by the now-independent Christians.

He also sends out a pretty clear message that his Gospel is not to be taken as literal history, which is certainly interesting.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

According to the National Academy of Sciences, it is both a fact and a theory.

Source: (Evolution Resources from the National Academies)

Follow the link provided and read the particulars for yourself.

I absolutely agree.
I think Professor Richard Dawkins, does a wonderful job of explaining this in his little book entitled - THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH.
I've covered this already, earlier on in the thread, but I think the thread is beginning to enter those eternal loops.
It's a pity that it's got so messy, and I'd hoped we might have stuck to discussing the evidence for evolution - but I suspect, that I shall have to just be grateful for the lesson, and leave it be.

It was fun, but now it's just becoming a free for all --- and any topic is the topic of discussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It was fun, but now it's just becoming a free for all --- and any topic is the topic of discussion.

That's usually how it works around here -- heck, that's usually how it works on any forum.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

"Flawed" is the wrong word for it, but John's Gospel is called non-synoptic for a reason.

My own theory is that many people forget that Jesus, the disciples, and and majority of Gospel writers were Jews, who sought to express Jesus' story through the lens of Judaism, as it were. In fact, for decades after Jesus' death, Christianity was not considered a separate religion, but as a Jewish sect -- Christians at the time called themselves "Followers of the Way," and while they disagreed with their more orthodox Jewish bretheren, they still considered them theological brothers.

John's different -- his Gospel was written last, and clearly after Christianity and Judaism had split. He sought to remove a lot of the Jewish influence and portray Jesus' story in his own way... more likely the way he was beginning to be understood by the now-independent Christians.

He also sends out a pretty clear message that his Gospel is not to be taken as literal history, which is certainly interesting.

I'm glad you find it interesting too. I love it. I've been slowly (almost as slow as snail) working through Dr. DA Carson commentary of it, but the actual read without anything more than the text itself is wonderfully inspired and a great read for an Atheist. I started reading it, at a time when I hated the Bible -- I forced myself to read it, and argued furiously all the way through -- but the more I read, the more I got to see what a great book it is. It's still my favorite, though I have to admit the book of Isaiah -- is the ultimate, and yes the Psalms are very helpful to an old bloke, who's frightened of bullies on dark roads at night - esp. when one doesn't have a car.

 

[RickG]

It was fun, but now it's just becoming a free for all --- and any topic is the topic of discussion.

Maybe we might get back on topic. Looking back at the OP, too often discussions seem to want to focus on details when they are not really needed to understand evolution. Usually it is some bit of science that is misrepresented, therefore, evolution is false. What we need to understand is the greater picture. I could care less about DNA, transitional fossils, ect., that are not necessary of to understand that evolution has to be a reality. If evolution were false, all forms of life, both fauna and flora, would be found in all layers of the geologic column. The fact is they are not. In fact, they are distributed in such an order as to demonstrate evolution.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That's usually how it works around here -- heck, that's usually how it works on any forum.

I have actually taken a huge step forward through this thread, and it's inspired me to keep on learning about Evolution.
I found some great lectures at COURSERA, where they explain SPECIATION too.
I think that's been the highlight for me, on this thread -- and got me reading GSOE again -- plus I need to finish reading his earlier books. Though not everyone thinks that much of Richard Dawkins, I think he does a great job of making the subject clear.

Well enough prattle, it's time to catch some much needed sleep.
Nice to have met you, and thanks for your input here.
I shall keep reading.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Maybe we might get back on topic. Looking back at the OP, too often discussions seem to want to focus on details when they are not really needed to understand evolution. Usually it is some bit of science that is misrepresented, therefore, evolution is false. What we need to understand is the greater picture. I could care less about DNA, transitional fossils, ect., that are not necessary of to understand that evolution has to be a reality. If evolution were false, all forms of life, both fauna and flora, would be found in all layers of the geologic column. The fact is they are not. In fact, they are distributed in such an order as to demonstrate evolution.

That's a valid point.

I found the clash about SPECIATION (and the misunderstanding of what is called MACROEVOLUTION) very interesting -- mainly because it's one of the areas where even Darwin struggled.

Obviously, the other hang-up is the one that most Christian struggle with - how age is measured -- is it reliable?

Obviously the question about gaps in the fossil record, always comes up, especially with regard to human evolution.

 

[Kylie]

Nobody uses the show Mash as a refernce source. It is common knowledge that it was written for entertainment.

It's not like using the work of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle for reference. You would never compare them to Mash.

And what happens when someone finds it in 2000 years? They'll have all this evidence of there being a Korean War, and they could well think that MASH is a documentation of that.

Then there will be some who cite the inconsistancies: "It went for longer than the Korean War actually did!" And then there will be wars between those who think it is documentation and those who don't, and there will be wars between those who think Hawkeye was the best or Klinger. ANd those who prefer Hotlips shall be shunned, and yea, though there will eventually be peace, there shall be no friendship between the diffeent factions, and they shall live in different parts of the world.

 

[RickG]

That's a valid point.

I found the clash about SPECIATION (and the misunderstanding of what is called MACROEVOLUTION) very interesting -- mainly because it's one of the areas where even Darwin struggled.
Obviously, the other hang-up is the one that most Christian struggle with - how age is measured -- is it reliable?
Obviously the question about gaps in the fossil record, always comes up, especially with regard to human evolution.

I'm sure its already be said, but the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. And those trying to invalidate evolution on what Darwin didn't know is just plain silly. Its like saying airplanes don't exist because we didn't know how to build them 150 years ago.

As for how age is measured, join the discussion in my thread "Dating Methods". All of the young earth arguments against dating methods are nothing more than deliberate misrepresentations of the science which can be easily shown.

 

[Kylie]

Here is one that is argued.

Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth - creation.com

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm sure its already be said, but the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. And those trying to invalidate evolution on what Darwin didn't know is just plain silly. Its like saying airplanes don't exist because we didn't know how to build them 150 years ago.

As for how age is measured, join the discussion in my thread "Dating Methods". All of the young earth arguments against dating methods are nothing more than deliberate misrepresentations of the science which can be easily shown.

Yes, another valid point. You've got quite the gift for presenting things simply and clearly. Thanks.
I've seen it, but not had time to read. I look forward to that.

 

[JacksBratt]

And what happens when someone finds it in 2000 years? They'll have all this evidence of there being a Korean War, and they could well think that MASH is a documentation of that.

Then there will be some who cite the inconsistancies: "It went for longer than the Korean War actually did!" And then there will be wars between those who think it is documentation and those who don't, and there will be wars between those who think Hawkeye was the best or Klinger. ANd those who prefer Hotlips shall be shunned, and yea, though there will eventually be peace, there shall be no friendship between the diffeent factions, and they shall live in different parts of the world.

Nice strawman, however, if they find it in 2000 years someone would catch on that there are credits depicting the character and the actor that played the part, producers, directors. All give light to the truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

So, you asked what evidence was used by both evolutionists and creationists.


Does this pass the requirements?

 

[JacksBratt]

sorry double post deleted.

 

[[serious]]

Nice strawman, however, if they find it in 2000 years someone would catch on that there are credits depicting the character and the actor that played the part, producers, directors. All give light to the truth.

MASH started out as a book. No list of actors in a book. So the movie was obviously based on the historical account as compiled by Richard Hooker.