Monkeys to Men

[RickG]

The fossil record never supported Darwin theory since his tree of life is upside down and the fossil record is stasis. So I totally disagree and see the fossil is good evidence against evolution.

If evolution were false we would find fossils of both flora and fauna in all layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is, we don't. In fact we find them exactly how they would be expected to support evolution.

 

[JasonClark]

The resurrection story was not in the original writings of Mark it was added hundeds of years later so there was definitely no witnesses,
not only that, does anyone think that 500 people who saw Jesus had risen up from the dead and was walking about would not cause someone to write the event down or at least spread the word that it happened? or did that kind of thing happen every week then?

In truth believers are not really interested in what did happened or what didn't happen because true or false they will believe what they want to believe anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

The resurrection story was not in the original writings of Mark it was added hundeds of years later so there was definitely no witnesses,

You were there?

not only that, does anyone think that 500 people rising up from the dead walking about would not cause someone to write the event down?

What 500?

LOL ... you didn't get the story right ... yet you're telling me it's wrong?

or did that kind of thing happen every week then?

How do you know it wasn't written down?

After all, if ... ahem ... 500 graves outside of your town opened up and its occupants came into your town, would you even recognize them?

"Oh, hi, great-great-great-great-great-great-great aunt Bessie! I didn't know you were in town!"

In truth though believers are not really interested in what did happened or what didn't happen because true or false they will believe what they want to believe anyway.

No, in truth, some will assume what didn't happen, forgetting that God preserves what He wants written down and leaves the rest to Mother Nature to disintegrate.

 

[Smidlee]

If evolution were false we would find fossils of both flora and fauna in all layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is, we don't. In fact we find them exactly how they would be expected to support evolution.

What if they found something according to their testimony that hasn't evolve in 2 billion years?

 

[Smidlee]

What are you talking about? Clearly you have no understanding of the fossil record. You have to stop reading the garbage at lying creationist sites.

In fact you probably need to learn what scientific evidence is. Then you would not make such an obvious mistake.

Just because someone totally disagree with your view doesn't prove that person doesn't understand. It seem you have a strong bias against anyone who holds a different view than yours.

 

[JasonClark]

You were there?

You don't need to be there (you can see it today)... believe it or not the oldest manuscript of Mark does not have the resurrection in it.
What you could do to make it believable is say that it was there in the early manuscripts we don't have but for some reason it was left out of the earliest ones we do have and it was put back in later by someone who was told by God to put it back in because it was in the original, who knows?

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone was not added until a thousand years later.

 

[JasonClark]

It seem you have a strong bias against anyone who holds a different view than yours.

Yours is not a view it's a belief.

 

[Smidlee]

Yours is not a view it's a belief.

Worldview and beliefs are basically the same thing.

 

[JasonClark]

Worldview and beliefs are basically the same thing.

People do not 'believe' in evolution they accept it.

 

[Smidlee]

People do not 'believe' in evolution they accept it.

You are just playing with words while in reality it exactly the same meaning. I believe in Jesus Christ or I accepted Jesus Christ in my heart means the exact same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't need to be there (you can see it today)...

That's because the common people never used them; thus they didn't fall apart with use.

The common people used the true word of God.

 

[Smidlee]

That's because the common people never used them; thus they didn't fall apart with use.

The common people used the true word of God.

Most of the Doctor Who original copies from the 60's was destroyed. So they had to get copies from other countries but a few of them have scenes that was edited out. So they tried to restore as best they could back those missing scenes . This is an example of the oldest copy doesn't mean it's closer to the original.

The adultery woman in John 8 was leave out some manuscripts according to church history because some felt it gave the wrong message. There is little doubt those verses was in the original as it helps revealed in the following verses what was in the Pharisees heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because someone totally disagree with your view doesn't prove that person doesn't understand. It seem you have a strong bias against anyone who holds a different view than yours.

That may be, but it has been shown time after time that sites like Answers In Genesis and ICR are ready to lie for Jesus. Holding those groups in contempt is not bias since they have earned it. I hope you are aware that both of those sites require their workers to abandon the scientific method if they want to work there.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Watch out as that's a double edge sword you have there. I wouldn't want you to cut yourself.

As it apparently happened after the supposed ascension, what exactly do you think they saw that they forgot to write down?

 

[Ophiolite]

Old technology is replace with new technology yet the old technology still works.

Newton's mechanics still works for day to day situations, even though it is wrong. Geosynclinal concepts of miogeosynclines and eugeosynclines still help understand plate tectonic data.

The more science is based on human opinion the more it has to changes when discovering new facts.

This sentence tells me that you have no accurate understanding of how science works.

Scientists undoubtedly have opinions, some of them very strongly held and vociferously promoted. Science, however, is not based upon these opinions, but upon reliable, observable evidence, subject to repeated peer review. The process of collecting and assessing that evidence and establishing a model that explains the observations with clarity and confidence is what science is, not a suite of oft contradictory opinions.

I suspect you have been told this before, but your mind seems closed to acceptance. Why is that?

Science can not test the past only the present.

Well, that's odd. Even as an undergraduate geologist I routinely tested the past in the field and in the laboratory.

I give you a challenge. Make a sincere effort to learn something of the methodology of science - for your statement makes it clear you do not have that understanding at present - then reconsider your current thinking. If your faith is undiminished by what you have learned you will be in a stronger position than now to show people like myself why we are wrong. If you accept the challenge I can offer you practical ways of meeting it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are on the jury in a trial of a murder. Evidence is presented where in your opinion the defendant is guilty then suddenly one piece of evidence turn the4 tables and you realize the defendant was framed. Evidence doesn't interpret itself which is why the court has juries. The evidence is not what changed.

It seems to me that it was evidence that showed the person was framed.
Initial evidence supported the hypothesis of guilt.
New evidence then showed how the hypothesis of guilt was wrong.

How is this not evidence based reasoning?
The evidence didn't change, indeed. More and better evidence rather turned up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How life diversified deals with the past without any eyewitnesses so you only got revelation or speculation.

Didn't you just give me a whole anecdote about the nature of evidence and a court case?
Isn't a court case a setting where one tries to figure out what exactly happened at some time in the past?

Now you're telling us that that can't be done?
So if a murder happens with no eyewitnesses, then the one who did it can never be caught? Is that really what you are saying?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even forensic science needs eye witness of a crime.

No, it really really doesn't.

The same in a courtroom where the jury heard the testimony of 500 eyewitnesses.

What if these 500 give conflicting testimony?

 

[Ophiolite]

What if these 500 give conflicting testimony?

If they didn't give conflicting testimony I would be tempted to believe in miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they didn't give conflicting testimony I would be tempted to believe in miracles.

What if you were one of the 500?