My Documentation Challenge

[Vaccine]

Your question was really not a question.

Right here it is:

Got any polls that show that 'many' people think that way?

Are you so committed to disagreeing with me it blinds you to basic grammar?
That was a sincere question from my part btw.

No one is trying to use the fact that you share a common ancestor with chimpanzees to prove anything. Where did you get that idea from?

That statement is exactly my point. What makes you think thats a fact and not an opinion?
see this thread:
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution

 

[Vaccine]

There are polls available on line, I think the main website is called pewforum if you're interested.

I apologise if I read too much into your post but I got the impression that you were implying that there were reasons for rejecting the TOE that aren't based on religion, a view I would strongly disagree with.

No problem, if I have time I should look it up myself. It isn't that I doubt there are people who reject it based solely on religion, it's that I wondered if it was a minority or a majority. If it be a majority then the OP should continue with his point. If a minority his point is moot.

 

[Vaccine]

I suppose by philosophy you mean atheism. But the theory of evolution does not "prove" atheism and everybody knows it; it merely offers no objection to it, any more than it does to theism.

Good points, well said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right here it is:

And that was a rather foolish demand that Jimmy D showed to be wrong. And you are not being honest. I asked you about the second part of your post. Here is your post in its entirety:

"
Got any polls that show that 'many' people think that way?

Anyway, if you make the point the Bible is inaccurate, so what's it to you some people reject a scientific theory on flawed philosophical ground?"

Are you so committed to disagreeing with me it blinds you to basic grammar?

No, you made a ridiculous demand. Jimmy answered it for you. If you did not understand his answer you should have asked for a clarification. I asked you about the second part of your post. If you need clarification on how Jimmy showed you to be wrong we could discuss that too.

That was a sincere question from my part btw.

It didn't look that way. In fact it was not a "sincere question". You used a false dichotomy. You should try again.

That statement is exactly my point. What makes you think thats a fact and not an opinion?
see this thread:
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution

No need to take a detour quite yet. You really don't seem to have a point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you've got two Gospels that say he wasn't there, and two that say he was. Combine those.

Scofield beat me to it: The gospels with respect to the resurrection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scofield beat me to it: The gospels with respect to the resurrection.

He is rather awkwardly trying to get the gospels to agree. He really does not succeed. Some more points:

"The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

• What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
• Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
• Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
• Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
• Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
• Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
• Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
• Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. But John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.
• Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.
• Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
• Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
• Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Which is it?"

Hmm, very strange. I can't get the source to paste to the post.

 

[AV1611VET]

He is rather awkwardly trying to get the gospels to agree. He really does not succeed.

It's no wonder some people are atheists, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's no wonder some people are atheists, isn't it?

You have that backward as usual AV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He is rather awkwardly trying to get the gospels to agree. He really does not succeed. Some more points:

"The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three)..."

Not to mention the different accounts of the Nativity between Luke and Matthew - probably written for different audiences rather than any desire for consistency...

 

[GazzaStott]

It's no wonder some people are atheists, isn't it?

Regarding Christianity "the vast majority" of people in the world are atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regarding Christianity "the vast majority" of people in the world are atheists.

Serious question:

Would you happen to know if the vast majority of atheists in the world consider themselves "Homo sapiens"?

I'm assuming they do.

 

[Vaccine]

And that was a rather foolish demand that Jimmy D showed to be wrong. And you are not being honest. I asked you about the second part of your post. Here is your post in its entirety:

"
Got any polls that show that 'many' people think that way?

Anyway, if you make the point the Bible is inaccurate, so what's it to you some people reject a scientific theory on flawed philosophical ground?"



No, you made a ridiculous demand. Jimmy answered it for you. If you did not understand his answer you should have asked for a clarification. I asked you about the second part of your post. If you need clarification on how Jimmy showed you to be wrong we could discuss that too.



It didn't look that way. In fact it was not a "sincere question". You used a false dichotomy. You should try again.



No need to take a detour quite yet. You really don't seem to have a point.

Well, I admit I can't make any sense of that post. Perhaps if you stopped assigning motives or leaping to conclusions you wouldn't think asking a question for clarification a "ridiculous demand".

 

[GazzaStott]

Serious question:

Would you happen to know if the vast majority of atheists in the world consider themselves "Homo sapiens"?

I'm assuming they do.

Don't know don't care, not relevant.
Why would anyone believe something for which there is no evidence?

 

[GazzaStott]

Well, I admit I can't make any sense of that post. Perhaps if you stopped assigning motives or leaping to conclusions you wouldn't think asking a question for clarification a "ridiculous demand".

I agree, it's like asking you why you are a Christian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I admit I can't make any sense of that post. Perhaps if you stopped assigning motives or leaping to conclusions you wouldn't think asking a question for clarification a "ridiculous demand".

I made no leaps to conclusions. And since you can't follow a conversation perhaps you should focus on learning for once instead of reacting poorly when your errant beliefs are challenged.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know don't care, not relevant.

Maybe you should at least consider it then.

You show me an atheist, and I'll show you someone who thinks he's a Homo sapiens.

Just as Paul warns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should at least consider it then.

You show me an atheist, and I'll show you someone who thinks he's a Homo sapiens.

Just as Paul warns.

NO, Paul did not make that warning. Your misinterpretation of his writing is not a proper argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

NO, Paul did not make that warning.

Just like he didn't warn the priests to abandon their jobs, right?

My life verse is Galatians 3:26.

Did Paul write it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just like he didn't warn the priests to abandon their jobs, right?

My life verse is Galatians 3:26.

Did Paul write it?

Probably, you still are abusing it.

 

[GazzaStott]

Maybe you should at least consider it then.

Why should I consider a myth? do you give other myths any consideration?