Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[FollowerOfJesus]

What happened? You seemed to be convinced Kent was the goods before.

I use to care about these debates, where people go back an forth trying to convince the other side who is right; knowing that each side will never concede.

Someone already pointed out there is a better place to debate; well, let the debaters debate.

Jesus said: "31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

This statement is just as true today as it was the day Jesus said it.

There are better explanations than what Kent Hovind theorized, they are not that difficult to find if one is interested; unfortunately, I lost interest in this subject a few years ago.

I became tired of the endless debates of data interpretation that did not convince either side of their position; I am not referring to school teachers, there are world class scientist that are split on these issues.

I believe this is not what it looks like, it is about a persons world view of God.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Jesus said: "31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
This statement is just as true today as it was the day Jesus said it.

The problem is Jesus didn't say it someone else did and they said Jesus had said it, Jesus had been dead at least 50-60 years before the first words of the new testament were even written so how did anyone know what Jesus was supposed to have said?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

The problem is Jesus didn't say it someone else did and they said Jesus had said it, Jesus had been dead at least 50-60 years before the first words of the new testament were even written so how did anyone know what Jesus was supposed to have said?

Let me get this straight, you are saying that the eyewitness did not record the event accurately?

There is no doubt in my mind that the eyewitness had a better perspective of what Jesus said than you!

It appears you missed the point of what I said, your response proves it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me get this straight, you are saying that the eyewitness did not record the event accurately?

There is no doubt in my mind that the eyewitness had a better perspective of what Jesus said than you!

It appears you missed the point of what I said, your response proves it.

This is always an argument that is so crazy to me. We have no other document in antiquity so close to the events they are written about, none of which were written when people still alive at the time of the writings could discount it if it were not correct and the reasoning or motivation for those who were writing it when Christians were being killed for their following of Christ.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem is Jesus didn't say it someone else did and they said Jesus had said it, Jesus had been dead at least 50-60 years before the first words of the new testament were even written so how did anyone know what Jesus was supposed to have said?

Prove it. Provide documentation that shows that the words in the New Testament were not spoken by Jesus.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO REPORTS THAT A FRAGMENT OF MARK DATES TO THE FIRST CENTURY?

 

[ebia]

The problem is Jesus didn't say it someone else did and they said Jesus had said it, Jesus had been dead at least 50-60 years before the first words of the new testament were even written so how did anyone know what Jesus was supposed to have said?

You might want to check your dates...
Jesus died let's say 30Ad
Paul starts writing 49 or 50 AD - 20 years later.
Mark writes the first gospel around 65Ad - 35 years after Jesus died.
Those words are in Luke, probably written about 75ad - 45 years after.

All well within the timeframe for an oral culture to preserve them. There's an indigenous story here that preserves a narrative account of a real geological event from over 10,000 years ago.

 

[Jan Volkes]

You might want to check your dates...
Jesus died let's say 30Ad
Paul starts writing 49 or 50 AD - 20 years later.
Mark writes the first gospel around 65Ad - 35 years after Jesus died.
Those words are in Luke, probably written about 75ad - 45 years after.

All well within the timeframe for an oral culture to preserve them. There's an indigenous story here that preserves a narrative account of a real geological event from over 10,000 years ago.

Christians hang on every word and syllable Jesus was supposed to have said as if Jesus actually said them and not as it was remembered and told by people who said they were there some 40-60 years earlier, even the parts when Jesus was alone were written down as if they were true and no one on earth could have known what they were.
None of the writers were eye witnesses because it is not known who the writers were, the names were given to the writers much later, Paul never met Jesus he had only heard stories about him.
The story where it says 'let those without sin cast the first stone' was not added to the Bible until a thousand years after Jesus had died.

An oral tradition did not mean the stories was told exactly as they happened or what words were said it means the story was remembered by telling the story to different generations, as the stories were told the teller inevitably changed the story and the way things happened but tried to keep the story true to the idea of the story, above all the stories were meant to convey either a moral or an idea, the more exiting the story the more it was told and embellished, that's why the four Gospels all give different accounts of the same crucifixion.

 

[ebia]

Christians hang on every word and syllable Jesus was supposed to have said as if Jesus actually said them and not as it was remembered and told by people who said they were there some 30-50 years later, even the parts when Jesus was alone were written down as if they were true and no one on earth could have know what they were.

The words in question were spoken publicly.

None of the writers were eye witnesses because it is not known who the writers were,

Well, there's good reason for taking seriously the tradition that Mark is writing down Peter's stories.
Luke claims to have sourced his account from eyewitnesses.
John, at the least, puts a lot on involving the testimony of "the beloved disciple".

While we can't simply say "the gospels were written by eyewitnesses", either can we simply dismiss the idea that the draw on eyewitness testimony. And, as I noted before, oral cultures can be very good at preserving the stories that matter to them. Compared to 10,000 years, 50 years is the blink of an eye.

the names were given to the writers much later.
The story where it's says 'let those without sin cast the first stone' was not added to the Bible until a thousand years after Jesus had died.

Again, this is misinformation. While the story is not in our earliest manuscripts of John, it's around much earlier than "a thousand years after".

An oral tradition did not mean the stories was told exactly as they happened or what words were said it means the story was remembered by telling the story to different generations, as the stories were told the teller inevitably changed the story and the way things happened but tried to keep the story true to the idea of the story, above all the stories were meant to convey either a moral or an idea, the more exiting the story the more it was told and embellished.

It's much more complex than that. You seem to be working from 19th century scholarship. The way and degree to which oral cultures preserve their stories, and what they preserve, has become much better understood in the last few decades since people started actually started studying oral storytelling cultures instead of assuming how they work.

 

[RickG]

The words in question were spoken publicly.

Well, there's good reason for taking seriously the tradition that Mark is writing down Peter's stories.
Luke claims to have sourced his account from eyewitnesses.
John, at the least, puts a lot on involving the testimony of "the beloved disciple".

While we can't simply say "the gospels were written by eyewitnesses", either can we simply dismiss the idea that the draw on eyewitness testimony. And, as I noted before, oral cultures can be very good at preserving the stories that matter to them. Compared to 10,000 years, 50 years is the blink of an eye.


Again, this is misinformation. While the story is not in our earliest manuscripts of John, it's around much earlier than "a thousand years after".

It's much more complex than that. You seem to be working from 19th century scholarship. The way and degree to which oral cultures preserve their stories, and what they preserve, has become much better understood in the last few decades since people started actually started studying oral storytelling cultures instead of assuming how they work.

And that has what to do with this thread?

 

[Jan Volkes]

The words in question were spoken publicly.

Well, there's good reason for taking seriously the tradition that Mark is writing down Peter's stories.
Luke claims to have sourced his account from eyewitnesses.
John, at the least, puts a lot on involving the testimony of "the beloved disciple".

While we can't simply say "the gospels were written by eyewitnesses", either can we simply dismiss the idea that the draw on eyewitness testimony. And, as I noted before, oral cultures can be very good at preserving the stories that matter to them. Compared to 10,000 years, 50 years is the blink of an eye.


Again, this is misinformation. While the story is not in our earliest manuscripts of John, it's around much earlier than "a thousand years after".

It's much more complex than that. You seem to be working from 19th century scholarship. The way and degree to which oral cultures preserve their stories, and what they preserve, has become much better understood in the last few decades since people started actually started studying oral storytelling cultures instead of assuming how they work.

OK if that's what you want to believe then go for it, I just can't see why anyone would want to spend their lives believing it when there are so many question and very few if any answers.

 

[Jan Volkes]

And that has what to do with this thread?

Someone quoted something Jesus was supposed to have said, why I don't know.

 

[ebia]

And that has what to do with this thread?

Not a lot. But it undermines the credibility of what posters say on the on-topic stuff if they say stuff that isn't historically sustainable on tangential stuff. If someone's expertise is in science stick to the science, and stay away from stuff gleaned from inaccurate sources of textual history.

 

[RickG]

Someone quoted something Jesus was supposed to have said, why I don't know.

Apologetics is a good way to get a thread closed. Sometimes I wonder if its not done on purpose.

 

[ebia]

OK if that's what you want to believe then go for it, I just can't see why anyone would want to spend their lives believing it when there are so many question and very few if any answers.

I wasn't asking you to believe the bible. Or even to stop critiquing it.

But just as you don't take seriously creationists who get the science wrong, you don't help your own credibility by getting the history wrong if you choose to talk about the history of the New Testament texts.

As to the vagueness, the uncertainty, the if, buts and maybes. History is like that - it just doesn't have the definition of the hard sciences. Some still find it fascinating and illuminating

 

[Ryukil]

I'm really not sure how a picture of hominid transitional fossils does not show people that there is something to evolution. Really.

 

[ebia]

Apologetics is a good way to get a thread closed. Sometimes I wonder if its not done on purpose.

I'm not trying to close the thread down - I agree roughly speaking with your overall position on the thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Christians hang on every word and syllable Jesus was supposed to have said as if Jesus actually said them and not as it was remembered and told by people who said they were there some 40-60 years earlier, even the parts when Jesus was alone were written down as if they were true and no one on earth could have known what they were.
None of the writers were eye witnesses because it is not known who the writers were, the names were given to the writers much later, Paul never met Jesus he had only heard stories about him.
The story where it says 'let those without sin cast the first stone' was not added to the Bible until a thousand years after Jesus had died.

An oral tradition did not mean the stories was told exactly as they happened or what words were said it means the story was remembered by telling the story to different generations, as the stories were told the teller inevitably changed the story and the way things happened but tried to keep the story true to the idea of the story, above all the stories were meant to convey either a moral or an idea, the more exiting the story the more it was told and embellished, that's why the four Gospels all give different accounts of the same crucifixion.

Like I said, prove it. You seem to be aware of some evidence that has provided you with material not known by those who have researched the Bible.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I'm really not sure how a picture of hominid transitional fossils does not show people that there is something to evolution. Really.

Because it goes against what people want to believe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Apologetics is a good way to get a thread closed. Sometimes I wonder if its not done on purpose.

I've considered the same thing.