The Demise of Evolution

[Speedwell]

So are you now saying that Jesus exists?

Your earlier post #1727 say otherwise:



In above you were replying to KomatiiteBIF who believes that historical evidences supported the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.

I think you are becoming confused again. The question of whether Jesus existed is distinct from the question of the extent to which Josephus' accounts of Jesus are reliable.

 

[roman2819]

As I said, science cannot deal with the existence of the supernatural. It's silent on the subject.

I'm not sure why anyone would claim that science demonstrates that God doesn't exist. Anyone making such claims doesn't understand science.

I would be surprised if you haven't come across people who say that science didn't prove the existence of God, so God doesn't exist.

So what is your view about the existence of God? Does God exist? Is he the creator?

PS - I am not insisting you must say yes to above questions, you are entitled to your views.

 

[Speedwell]

And what makes you think that Josephus didn't verify what he heard about Jesus?

He may well have, but we don't know--that's the point.

Wouldn't a reputable historian want to verify first to present accurate information to people, wouldn't he want future generations to remember him as a credible historian? The same applies to well-known historians life SimaYi (China Han dynasty) and others, these people have passion and conviction for their work.

Your superficial claim about Josephus is incredulously naive, to say the least. Or maybe you were too eager to discredit the existence f Jesus as a historical figure that you will say anything, However, superficial claims can be easily disputed.

That's pretty arrogant and self-centered. Not everyone who questions your pet evidence for Jesus is out to disprove His existence.

 

[roman2819]

The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed.

While you claimed that the earliest life forms has its origins hundreds of millions years ago, U am saying that I have read articles where evolutionists said a certain fossil they found dated back to billions of years ago.

I am not saying that God created the earth in 7 days x 24 days. I believe God created ecology system and lifeforms over a very long time, certainly not in a few years. He certainly didn't use CGI, instead He took time to create gradually, bit by bit. He took pride and pleasure to design the plants and trees, the tiny creatures that crawl and different kinds of flying creatures and land animals,

But I certainly don't believe that life started by itself from tiny cells who designed themselves into the millions of lifeforms we see today. Way too far fetched.

 

[Speedwell]

While you claimed that the earliest life forms has its origins hundreds of millions years ago, U am saying that I have read articles where evolutionists said a certain fossil they found dated back to billions of years ago.

I am not saying that God created the earth in 7 days x 24 days. I believe God created ecology system and lifeforms over a very long time, certainly not in a few years. He certainly didn't use CGI, instead He took time to create gradually, bit by bit. He took pride and pleasure to design the plants and trees, the tiny creatures that crawl and different kinds of flying creatures and land animals,

But I certainly don't believe that life started by itself from tiny cells who designed themselves into the millions of lifeforms we see today. Way too far fetched.

Why? You don't think God is smart enough to create such a process?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

While you claimed that the earliest life forms has its origins hundreds of millions years ago, U am saying that I have read articles where evolutionists said a certain fossil they found dated back to billions of years ago.

You're still misreading what he said - I explained your mistake in #1860:

He said, "The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed." [my bolding]

Can you see where you went wrong? 'hundred of millions of years ago' is not the same as, 'hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed'.

 

[Kylie]

So are you now saying that Jesus exists?

Your earlier post #1727 say otherwise:



In above you were replying to KomatiiteBIF who believes that historical evidences supported the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.

I think you need to read my post again, because I don't think you understand it.

I am pointing out that you seemed to be presenting a false dichotomy. Either Jesus was real and Josephus was correct, or Josephus was making it all up. They are not the only two options. The third option, which I very clearly stated, was that Jospehus was simply repeating the information he was told, even though that information was incorrect.

 

[Kylie]

And what makes you think that Josephus didn't verify what he heard about Jesus?

Wouldn't a reputable historian want to verify first to present accurate information to people, wouldn't he want future generations to remember him as a credible historian? The same applies to well-known historians life SimaYi (China Han dynasty) and others, these people have passion and conviction for their work.

Your superficial claim about Josephus is incredulously naive, to say the least. Or maybe you were too eager to discredit the existence f Jesus as a historical figure that you will say anything, However, superficial claims can be easily disputed.

Okay, and how would Josephus have verified the information he was told about Jesus?

 

[roman2819]

Okay, and how would Josephus have verified the information he was told about Jesus?

Are you really saying that you have NO idea about how you, or anyone today -- or a historian who lived 2000 years -- could verify what they heard?

 

[roman2819]

The third option....I very clearly stated, was that Jospehus was simply repeating the information he was told, even though that information was incorrect.

Point #1: I read the options you spelled out, and I still repeat the same question: Why did you think the information was incorrect if many people in Galilee were saying that Jesus had many followers and did miracles? Why would they attribute this miracle ability to Jesus if it didn't happen? Why didn't people say Julius Caesar could do miracles?

Point #2: Consider this from another perspective: Why didnt't Josephus hear that Jesus led an armed revolt, but was defeated and crucified? Because it didin't Happen

Relating this to contemporary people: The general consensus among people is Obama is a great speaker, smooth talker and mostly get along well with media and people. Why didn't we hear the same thing about Trump? (PS - No political affiliations here to either one)

My point - there are grains of truth in what we hear if many people generally say the same thing. And we can verify what we hear in order to ascertain the facts. As a historian, Josephus would verify and he is considered a reliable source. Just because you disbelieve what he wrote about Jesus does not mean you could take away his credibility by making superficial claims about what he did or did not.

 

[roman2819]

You're still misreading what he said - I explained your mistake in #1860:

He said, "The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed." [my bolding]

Can you see where you went wrong? 'hundred of millions of years ago' is not the same as, 'hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed'.

Already answered. Thanks

 

[roman2819]

Why? You don't think God is smart enough to create such a process?

Why what? Now you appear to conjecture that God create a process that create the lifeforms. Lets not wade into another "evolution process".

 

[Kylie]

Are you really saying that you have NO idea about how you, or anyone today -- or a historian who lived 2000 years -- could verify what they heard?

No, I'm asking YOU how Josephus could have verified it. If you are unable to answer the question, that's okay. But if you CAN answer the question, please do so.

I mean, it's not like Josephus could have called up old editions of the local newspaper or anything, right?

 

[Kylie]

Point #1: I read the options you spelled out, and I still repeat the same question: Why did you think the information was incorrect if many people in Galilee were saying that Jesus had many followers and did miracles? Why would they attribute this miracle ability to Jesus if it didn't happen? Why didn't people say Julius Caesar could do miracles?

And who are these "many people" who made these claims? It's not enough that the story says many people who saw it. Anyone can say that about anything. According to the Godzilla movies, there are lots of people who were eyewitnesses to Godzilla attacking Tokyo, but you'd call me a fool if I tried to use that to support the claim that the Godzilla movies were real.

Point #2: Consider this from another perspective: Why didnt't Josephus hear that Jesus led an armed revolt, but was defeated and crucified? Because it didin't Happen

That does not mean that the things Josephus DID hear must have been the truth.

Relating this to contemporary people: The general consensus among people is Obama is a great speaker, smooth talker and mostly get along well with media and people. Why didn't we hear the same thing about Trump? (PS - NO political affiliations here to either one)

The difference is that there are many people alive today who can serve as eyewitness accounts, and even after all eyewitnesses are dead, there will still be many records - photos, videos, direct transcripts of speeches, etc - of what they said and did. Records that were written by people who were either there, or had access to the primary records of the events being described.

My point - there are grains of truth in what we hear if many people generally say the same thing. And we can verify what we hear in order to ascertain the facts. As a historian, Josephus would verify and he is considered a reliable source. Just because you disbelieve what he wrote about Jesus does not mean you could take away his credibility by making superficial claims.

But we can't assume that a story is true just because lots of people tell it. There are countless examples of stories told by many people that are not true.

And you still haven't explained how Josephus could have verified the things he heard.

 

[roman2819]

The difference is that there are many people alive today ....... many records - photos, videos, direct transcripts of speeches, etc - of what they said and did. Records that were written by people who were either there, or had access to the primary records of the events being described.

The existence of photos and video only came about 150-250 years ago. So are you implying that any history records before that are mostly not true?

The oldest people on earth now are about 100- 120 years. Presently, there is not a single living soul on earth who lived between 2000 BC-1900 AD. Are you implying that everything said before 1900 AD are mostly not true?

This went back to a post I said a few months ago: If you claim that Josephus' writing was not reliable, then by your standard, all other historical records by other historians would be considered false too, and the history of humanity would largely be a big lie. Do you agree? Or do you think other historical facts are more true because they are not about Jesus?

But we can't assume that a story is true just because lots of people tell it. There are countless examples of stories told by many people that are not true.

We have to verify what we hear to separate the truth from distortions. The Bible has been scrutinized by historians and archaeologists and considered credible, but for personal reasons, you constantly dispute what they say without satisfactory reasons to substantiate your claim (which I have noticed from all our postings)

And you still haven't explained how Josephus could have verified the things he heard.

Why try to indulge you when I know you would just disagree again without much thoughts or reason? Simply stated, you disagree with certain established facts about Jesus because you claimed to be an atheist, so you don't want to believe. That's ok for me, I am only trying to explain that you are wrong to say (or implied) in earlier posts that Jesus didn't exist and Josephus' writing wasn't reliable.

After recognizing your tendency, I wouldn't try to show you more facts to convince you. Instead, I just ask questions about the sweeping statements that you made without grounds.

 

[roman2819]

And who are these "many people" who made these claims? It's not enough that the story says many people who saw it. Anyone can say that about anything.

Are you implying that Josephus only spoke to a selected and biased sample of the population who liked Jesus, and fed him with false answers?

Jesus was such a phenomenal figure that everyone in Galilee would know about him (excluding the babies and kids of course - just to clarify because you also tend to split hair

Jewish Christians were only the minority. Most Jews did not like to believe that Jesus was from God. Although they saw Jesus and his miracles, most of them did not repent. However, they knew he existed because he lived and preached among them.

According to the Godzilla movies, there are lots of people who were eyewitnesses to Godzilla attacking Tokyo, but you'd call me a fool if I tried to use that to support the claim that the Godzilla movies were real.

Previously you use Star Trek, now Godzilla. Try not to use fiction you don't mind.

Can you think of real examples , people or history? Or you think half of history is a big lie?

That does not mean that the things Josephus DID hear must have been the truth.

Already explained ... and as a historian, would Josephus not be carefully sifting our the truth? Are you going to make a roundabout statement again that he might still be wrong?

The difference is that there are many people alive today who can serve as eyewitness accounts, and even after all eyewitnesses are dead, there will still be many records - photos, videos, direct transcripts of speeches, etc - of what they said and did. Records that were written by people who were either there, or had access to the primary records of the events being described.

Already answered in post #1895 (above)

But we can't assume that a story is true just because lots of people tell it. There are countless examples of stories told by many people that are not true.

Already answered couple of paragraphs up (same post)

And you still haven't explained how Josephus could have verified the things he heard.

Already answered in post #1895 (above)

 

[Speedwell]

Are you really saying that you have NO idea about how you, or anyone today -- or a historian who lived 2000 years -- could verify what they heard?

There are a number of ways. We don't know how Josephus went about it. But you are missing Kylie's point so persistently I have to think you are doing it on purpose.

 

[Kylie]

The existence of photos and video only came about 150-250 years ago. So are you implying that any history records before that are mostly not true?

The oldest people on earth now are about 100- 120 years. Presently, there is not a single living soul on earth who lived between 2000 BC-1900 AD. Are you implying that everything said before 1900 AD are mostly not true?

This went back to a post I said a few months ago: If you claim that Josephus' writing was not reliable, then by your standard, all other historical records by other historians would be considered false too, and the history of humanity would largely be a big lie. Do you agree? Or do you think other historical facts are more true because they are not about Jesus?

Why do you misrepresent my post? I gave those as examples of the kind of sources we could get about what Obama and Trump were like. There are, of course, many other sources about them, such as texts, official records, paintings and drawings, letters, commerce records, all sorts of things that exist for them too, AND which would also exist for people who lived before the age of photography.

So please stop misrepresenting my posts. It only serves to make you look dishonest.

We have to verify what we hear to separate the truth from distortions. The Bible has been scrutinized by historians and archaeologists and considered credible, but for personal reasons, you constantly dispute what they say without satisfactory reasons to substantiate your claim (which I have noticed from all our postings)

Yet there are many parts of the Bible that are completely unverifiable. Where are the sources that verify the story that Jesus walked on water, for example? Where are the sources that verify the Israelites leaving Egypt? Where are the sources that verify Jonah being swallowed by the whale? Where are the sources that verify Lot's wife being turned to salt?

Why try to indulge you when I know you would just disagree again without much thoughts or reason? Simply stated, you disagree with certain established facts about Jesus because you claimed to be an atheist, so you don't want to believe. That's ok for me, I am only trying to explain that you are wrong to say (or implied) in earlier posts that Jesus didn't exist and Josephus' writing wasn't reliable.

I said Josephus's writing on Jesus was not reliable because I don't see how he did anything more than repeat the stories about Jesus that he was told.

After recognizing your tendency, I wouldn't try to show you more facts to convince you. Instead, I just ask questions about the sweeping statements that you made without grounds.

So you still can't show me how Josephus could have verified the things he wrote about.

 

[Speedwell]

Why what? Now you appear to conjecture that God create a process that create the lifeforms. Lets not wade into another "evolution process".

We know that the process exists and is functioning; no conjecture required.

 

[Kylie]

Are you implying that Josephus only spoke to a selected and biased sample of the population who liked Jesus, and fed him with false answers?

Nope.

I'm saying (and I've been very clear about this) that just because Josephus heard some stories and wrote them down doesn't mean t

Jesus was such a phenomenal figure that everyone in Galilee would know about him (excluding the babies and kids of course - just to clarify because you also tend to split hair

And yet there are no records of him from that time. Why is that?

Like I said, just because the stories say Jesus was famous and everyone knew about him, doesn't mean it's true.

According to the movies, Godzilla caused lots of damage in Tokyo and lots of people were eyewitnesses. Doesn't mean that's true either.

Jewish Christians were only the minority. Most Jews did not like to believe that Jesus was from God. Although they saw Jesus and his miracles, most of them did not repent. However, they knew he existed because he lived and preached among them.

No, he didn't. Josephus wrote his book about 93-94 CE, so the people he was getting his information from were likely NOT eyewitnesses. The events happened at least 60 years previously. Even if Josephus was hearing what 70 year old people had to say, they would have been talking about things they saw when they were barely out of childhood.

Previously you use Star Trek, now Godzilla. Try not to use fiction you don't mind.

Can you think of real examples , people or history? Or you think half of history is a big lie?

You want me to use true stories to illustrate how a fictitious story can be spread? How do you think that is going to work?

Already explained ... and as a historian, would Josephus not be carefully sifting our the truth? Are you going to make a roundabout statement again that he might still be wrong?

Nah, I'm just waiting for you to describe how he would have done this "sifting for the truth."

Already answered in post #1895 (above)

Nah, you didn't answer it. You just had a go at me because you thought I was saying that we need photos or video and those are the only sources I would accept. I was only providing a list of some examples, not a comprehensive list of all possible sources. And even if I was, you completely ignored the third option I gave - direct transcripts of speeches. And in post 1898, I gave a list of several possible sources which would have been easily produced back then - sources which you are unable to provide, and sources which you cannot show that Josephus referenced.

Already answered couple of paragraphs up (same post)

And once again I will point out that just because a story says there were lots of eyewitnesses, doesn't mean there actually were eyewitnesses. I've pointed out several times that the Godzilla movies claim there were eyewitnesses to the giant monster's numerous rampages, after all, but that doesn't make the movies true.

Already answered in post #1895 (above)

No, you have not once shown that Josephus did a single thing other than write down the stories he heard.