My two favorite arguments for creation

[Jet Black]

Why don't we all just agree to disagree..

No-one can be proved right or wrong, the attitude should be tolerance of other beliefs.

Any arguments that take place should be in good spirit with no intent to disprove but to discuss.

This is a christian site so it is innapropriate for this sort of squabling.

It's also a debate forum, so this kind of thing is inevitable.

 

[nyjbarnes]

no, but if someone writes a gospel 70 years after the crucifixion and the average life span was~ 40 years (+ or -), then we get some long lived eyewitnesses.

Please quote your source of avg lifecyclce as well as the time period for the Bibles writing.

I am tired of conjecture being passed off as fact.

It's just like my biology teacher in HS school when she said.


"Evolution is all but scientific fact"

So that would make it a .....THEORY in need of support from emperical data. Your theories and conjecture or no different and neither are mine. Let's begin to support our statements with data. Links will do fine. But not to opinion pages to the buffalo news like posted early in this thread.

[ad hoc signature] -cuz I don't have enough blessings to buy one!

Hey man, it's in the stars.....
Yeah, now if we could only figure out what "it" is.

 

[Brahe]

On what basis can the claim be supported that there is no evidence of eye witness testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?

On the basis that there are none.

Jesus left us no writings of his own. The only records, the gospels, were written decades after his death. There is no outside evidence to support these accounts. Now, these form adequete evidence for Jesus' life and death, but the more extraordinary parts of the stories require rather more extraordinary evidence, don't they? If I told you that Abe Lincoln was born in a log cabin, you could probably accept that with little supporting evidence. If, on the other hand, I told you he was born on the Moon and came to Earth in an Orion-style spaceship, you would probably want substantially more.

You very matter of factly swept aside centuries of accepted dogmatic truth based on fact.

Just because dogma is accepted for centuries does not make it in any way true. Keep in mind that creationism was accepted for centuries until people started examining the evidence. It is not that creationism had supporting evidence until geologists found evidence that falsified it; just that it had always been assumed to be true because it was religious dogma.

 

[Brahe]

You're taking quite an attitude with someone who was an innocent bystander asking a question to gain understanding.

And what attitude is that? I told you why gods are not part of science, and I illustrated that reason with a few examples.

In any case, do you have more to say about why divine intervention isn't accepted in science?

 

[w81minit]

no, but if someone writes a gospel 70 years after the crucifixion and the average life span was~ 40 years (+ or -), then we get some long lived eyewitnesses.

So when John wrote his epistle while in exile in the isle of Patmos and indicated that 'we beheld him'
He was not an eye witness?

Let me check my dates. I want to be certain we are on the same page.

 

[w81minit]

The lack of any eyewitness accounts. The Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts.

An eyewitness account of the life of Christ, written during the time he was alive, would be a huge historical find. No one has found anything like that.

Moses certainly was not an eye witness to Jacob, Joseph, Abram etc. Are you indicating that there is no evidence to support their life or death? Yet he wrote the Torah.

Perhaps you are saying that because we can not verify that Noah ever existed, maybe he didn't?

Don't take these as shots at you. I am asking.

 

[w81minit]

On the basis that there are none.

Jesus left us no writings of his own. The only records, the gospels, were written decades after his death. There is no outside evidence to support these accounts. Now, these form adequete evidence for Jesus' life and death, but the more extraordinary parts of the stories require rather more extraordinary evidence, don't they? If I told you that Abe Lincoln was born in a log cabin, you could probably accept that with little supporting evidence. If, on the other hand, I told you he was born on the Moon and came to Earth in an Orion-style spaceship, you would probably want substantially more.

Just because dogma is accepted for centuries does not make it in any way true. Keep in mind that creationism was accepted for centuries until people started examining the evidence. It is not that creationism had supporting evidence until geologists found evidence that falsified it; just that it had always been assumed to be true because it was religious dogma.

See my other posts. It seems that what (and maybe I am misconstruing your point) you are all saying is that the Gospels can't be trusted because there are no eye witness accounts.
Even further, you are limiting your scope of evidence to the Gospels.

Consider that the book of James was written (beleived to be) by Jesus' half brother.

 

[w81minit]

And what attitude is that? I told you why gods are not part of science, and I illustrated that reason with a few examples.

In any case, do you have more to say about why divine intervention isn't accepted in science?

Lets say that it appears most posters I have found in this forum expect hatred and assume venom. I will respond in kind if that is the hand you deal. I would prefer that you assume I am ignorant of your beliefs and use my questions to help me understand what you believe.
Assume I come from ignorance and ambivolent requests for knowledge. If my hand gets slapped for being a seeker, instead of seeking knowledge I will retaliate with overwhelming force. That isn't intended as a threat. I have no patience for wolves in sheeps clothing.

As for you question - I guess I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. "Divine intervention has to be left out of all of Evolution, because it would taint the results"

 

[nyjbarnes]

Good Question!

 

[Nathan David]

Moses certainly was not an eye witness to Jacob, Joseph, Abram etc. Are you indicating that there is no evidence to support their life or death?

I wouldn't say there is no evidence, but you were asking specifically about eyewitness accounts.

Yet he wrote the Torah.

Most Jewish and Christian scholars would disagree. The Torah was compiled by rabbis during the Babylonian exile from various written and oral sources.

Perhaps you are saying that because we can not verify that Noah ever existed, maybe he didn't?

Of course. I doubt very much that Noah existed. The story of Noah reads more like a legend than a historical account, and seems to be based on an older Babylonian story.

 

[Nathan David]

See my other posts. It seems that what (and maybe I am misconstruing your point) you are all saying is that the Gospels can't be trusted because there are no eye witness accounts.

Even if there were eyewitness accounts they couldn't be trusted. No written document can be trusted implicitly. You need corraborating evidence.

Did Alexander the Great exist? Yes. Did he make all the speeches attributed to him in various accounts of his career? No. Are the numbers given for the size of his armies accurate? Probably not. Was he the son of Zeus and a human woman, as some accounts claim? I am positive he was not.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As for you question - I guess I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. "Divine intervention has to be left out of all of Evolution, because it would taint the results"

Divine intervention has to be "left out" of all of science, because it would render the results meaningless.

The reason is simple: How does one scientifically test for divine intervention? Can you do an experiment for God?

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. The laws of nature which scientists study could easily be tossed out the window by God any time He chooses. But God's been pretty consistent as far as we've seen: He hasn't done it yet.

Even Christians in the scientific field know enough to look for natural explainations before assuming the supernatural. The thing is, it's impossible to totally eliminate every possible natural explaination. The supernatural has to be taken on faith, not on experimentation.

Take gravity for example:

Objects fall down at 32 feet/second/second. They've done so for as long as we've dropped objects. God hasn't seen fir to change that yet; why should I assume He'd start now?

I drop a rock 999 times. Each time it falls straight down. For the 1,000th drop, God could suspend the law of gravity and make it "fall" to the left.

Could God do this? Of course.
Has God ever done this? No.
Should I assume He's going to do it this time? Not really.
Could I be wrong? Possibly.

Let's drop the rock and see what happens...

It reminds me a a cartoon: Two scientists are standing at a blackboard filled with one long mathematical equation: One scientist points to a spot on the equation and says: "And here's where the miracle happened."

Shall God be reduced to a scientific excuse for the unknown? Sounds like bad science and worse theology to me...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Did Alexander the Great exist? Yes. Did he make all the speeches attributed to him in various accounts of his career? No. Are the numbers given for the size of his armies accurate? Probably not. Was he the son of Zeus and a human woman, as some accounts claim? I am positive he was not.

I can back this up; I spoke to Zeus and he swears by the Styx that he never even met Alexander's mother.

However, he quickly changed the subject when I brought up Perseus...

 

[w81minit]

Even if there were eyewitness accounts they couldn't be trusted. No written document can be trusted implicitly. You need corraborating evidence.

Did Alexander the Great exist? Yes. Did he make all the speeches attributed to him in various accounts of his career? No. Are the numbers given for the size of his armies accurate? Probably not. Was he the son of Zeus and a human woman, as some accounts claim? I am positive he was not.

Shouldn't there be documents dating around the same time period refuting or supporting the claims made in the accounts? Secular as well as religious in nature. I guess I understand where you are going, that there is no legitimate way of separating fact from fiction, right?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Shouldn't there be documents dating around the same time period refuting or supporting the claims made in the accounts? Secular as well as religious in nature. I guess I understand where you are going, that there is no legitimate way of separating fact from fiction, right?

Or separating history from legend.... easpecially when the original writers had no intention of separating history from legend.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Please quote your source of avg lifecyclce as well as the time period for the Bibles writing.

I am tired of conjecture being passed off as fact.

It's just like my biology teacher in HS school when she said.


"Evolution is all but scientific fact"

So that would make it a .....THEORY in need of support from emperical data. Your theories and conjecture or no different and neither are mine. Let's begin to support our statements with data. Links will do fine. But not to opinion pages to the buffalo news like posted early in this thread.

[ad hoc signature] -cuz I don't have enough blessings to buy one!

Hey man, it's in the stars.....
Yeah, now if we could only figure out what "it" is.

Pureone,

I have several post's out that you haven't responded to. I am curious, are you just busy?

 

[w81minit]

Or separating history from legend.... easpecially when the original writers had no intention of separating history from legend.

That's intellectually dishonest. You are speculating on the view and intentions of the writers and their motives.
Just as you would expect that scientists desire to faithfully separate fact from fiction, I would argue that so did the writers of the ancient texts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's intellectually dishonest. You are speculating on the view and intentions of the writers and their motives.

It's called "context."

Just as you would expect that scientists desire to faithfully separate fact from fiction, I would argue that so did the writers of the ancient texts.

Were the writers of the ancient text seeting out to record a factually accurate portrayal of the life and death of Jesus, or were the gospels meant to be used primarily as a teaching tool?

If they were meant to be historically accurate, then Houston, we have a problem, because they don't even line up with each other.

 

[w81minit]

Kudos! Excellent Post!

Divine intervention has to be "left out" of all of science, because it would render the results meaningless.

The reason is simple: How does one scientifically test for divine intervention? Can you do an experiment for God?

OK. So then would you agree that God equates to divine intervention? Meaning - it is God that needs to be left out of all science?
Or is it that God is unecessary for the process of life? Please clarify this point.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. The laws of nature which scientists study could easily be tossed out the window by God any time He chooses. But God's been pretty consistent as far as we've seen: He hasn't done it yet.

Even Christians in the scientific field know enough to look for natural explainations before assuming the supernatural. The thing is, it's impossible to totally eliminate every possible natural explaination. The supernatural has to be taken on faith, not on experimentation.

Agreed (-1). If as it seems in this context supernatural equates to God then yes it is faith. The -1 intrduces a greater topic for discussion: is the supernatural any less a part of reality than the natural? Are they not boud to eachother in the same way that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Wouldn't even science have to conclude that the universe is far more than we can see? Far more than natural explanation? (But I digress)

Take gravity for example: ... Let's drop the rock and see what happens...

AWA (agreed without argument)

It reminds me a a cartoon: Two scientists are standing at a blackboard filled with one long mathematical equation: One scientist points to a spot on the equation and says: "And here's where the miracle happened."

I saw that one - that was funny!

Shall God be reduced to a scientific excuse for the unknown? Sounds like bad science and worse theology to me...

AWA. I thought you were an Atheist?

 

[w81minit]

It's called "context."

Speculation based on circumstancial evidence is still speculation. I would ask what is the circumstancial evidence that demonstrates the context. At least give me an idea where you are getting your context.

Were the writers of the ancient text seeting out to record a factually accurate portrayal of the life and death of Jesus, or were the gospels meant to be used primarily as a teaching tool?

What makes them mutually exclusive?

If they were meant to be historically accurate, then Houston, we have a problem, because they don't even line up with each other.

Please support this. I understand the obvious differences in portrayal. Where one writer emphasizes one aspect over another - but I submit they line up just fine.