Responding To Comment Concerning Evolution
On my last post, in which I respond to Adler's Newsweek article on Darwin's life, the following anonymous comment came in. I'd like to respond to some of the points made.
"Once upon a time, during the 16th Century, men who fervently believed that the Biblical account of existence (Creation) was the literal and 'only truth' burned people at the stake for saying that the earth was not the centre of the universe. They burned people at the stake for claiming that our galaxy was but one of many. They burned people at the stake for claiming that the earth went around the sun, and not vice versa. Copernicus. Bruno. Galileo. All suffered to one extent or the other at the hands of people who 'knew' the 'truth'. "
Please understand that the Catholic Church killed people outside of biblical sanction. They were not doing what God intended, but what they felt was right. The errors of people do not discredit the system they claim to follow, if indeed they have deviated from that system. Many factors led to these errors, such as lack of education and church abuses, but they were errors nonetheless and certainly not a true picture of biblical Christianity.
"And it was those who did the burning who were wrong. They were not different people to Christians today - the mentality is the same (although fortunately there are no longer any Sunday morning human barbeques)."
In some Christians today the mentality is the same - but not all. In those "Christians" where the mentality remains the same they, too, are in error and deviation from Biblical principles.
"Mr Dollar one again claims that it requires 'divine' knowledge to know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't. What it requires is honest observation, measurement and anaylsis of the results to know the age of our planet."
I'm sorry but with all due respect, this is ridiculous. There are so many disagreements among modern scientists as to the interpretation of data and dating that it is clear that it is not that easy to determine these things. I am not saying we should not try to date things - but lets be realistic about what we can know with our highly limited human observations. We simply do not have a time machine to know for sure. I would have been fine if Adler had said, "Many assume the planet is 4.5 billion years old." He did not say that. He said, "We know..." When in fact, we do not have certainty in this area.
"Constant denial of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is rampant amongst Christians, but I don't hear any of you denying Einstein's Theory of Relativity, without which you would have no lighting, energy, satellites, cameras, televisions, dvd's or indeed computers with which to write these messages upon."
Einstein's theory of relativity is true science not based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. BIG difference. To the degree that Darwin did true science, Christians, like me, should accept his findings as helpful. There is a wrong supposition that Christians are not interested in scientific advancement. That is hogwash. The issue is, we want advancement in an ethical fashion.
"The silicon chip relies upon Einstein's discoveries in order to operate. It was science that learned, by effort and trial and error and success to place these things at our disposal. Those who did so did not sit around praying for piles of plastic and silicon to spontaneously and miraculously arrange themselves into a computer."
Interstingly, you make the case for Intelligent Design here. Matter did not miraculously arrange itself into human intelligence either, which is far more brilliant than a computer and upon which our computers are based.
"Evolution is no different - everything evolves, even our own technologies."
Believe it or not I agree. But does evolution mean the change of one species to a completely different species? No. There are plenty of changes within a certain type of animal or plant, adaptations, but no change from fish to tree or dog to cat or horse to human or whatever.
"As for ID and its rather silly Irreducible Complexity, take a look at the common garden mole (same name in the US)? It is virtually blind, living all of its life burrowing underground. Yet its skull contains a perfectly normal orbit for the eyeball, and all of its relative species have sharp eyesight. The mole specialised to live underground, and lost the need for keen eyesight - its eyeball became reduced in complexity. Its known as devolution, and is observed, like evolution, everywhere."
By calling Irreducible Complexity "silly" you reveal you lack of knowledge of the concept. It's like me saying Darwin was silly. We might disagree on his conclusions, but I know he was far from silly. Your example does not prove anything about what this concept proposes. Just becasue a certain animal "devolves," or adapts to a new environment, does not mean that its eyeball was not irreducible complex to begin with. The point is, there are to many separate complex mechanisms within an eye that have to be working at the same time in order to function properly. Of the two options that explain how this might have happened, evolution seems totally illogical and certainly impossible. Intelligent Design makes scientific sense of observed data.
"Truth is found by eliminating the impossible, via experiment and observation."
That is right and more and more scientists are insisting that the idea of evolution is impossible.
"The Bible has been found impossible and indeed incoherent for hundreds of years via this method. Genesis did not occur. Evolution - universal, galactic, stellar, planetary and biological, DID occur, and we see its signature every day."
The Bible is impossible only to those who are already predispossed against it. And again you seem to contradict yourself by using personal terminology like the word "signature." That implies intelligence and thus destroys the theory of impersonal evolution. It is amazing how often Naturalists do this.
"Why not let your children make up their OWN minds, instead of trying to teach them something that remains unsupported by everything that has made our species a success - LEARNING. Far beter than superstition."
It is amazing that you would say this when evolutionists insist that ID not be taught in public schools. Yes, I agree, lets let kids make up their own minds - so let ID be taught alongside the theory of evolution so that they have that opportunity. As far as superstition, I am of the opinion that it takes more faith to believe the myth of evolution than it does to trust the God who inspired the words of Scripture.
I do appreciate your interaction and I hope the readers of this exchange come away with fresh thoughts in regard to this debate. May Christ be honored in our attempt to focus on the truth.
"Once upon a time, during the 16th Century, men who fervently believed that the Biblical account of existence (Creation) was the literal and 'only truth' burned people at the stake for saying that the earth was not the centre of the universe. They burned people at the stake for claiming that our galaxy was but one of many. They burned people at the stake for claiming that the earth went around the sun, and not vice versa. Copernicus. Bruno. Galileo. All suffered to one extent or the other at the hands of people who 'knew' the 'truth'. "
Please understand that the Catholic Church killed people outside of biblical sanction. They were not doing what God intended, but what they felt was right. The errors of people do not discredit the system they claim to follow, if indeed they have deviated from that system. Many factors led to these errors, such as lack of education and church abuses, but they were errors nonetheless and certainly not a true picture of biblical Christianity.
"And it was those who did the burning who were wrong. They were not different people to Christians today - the mentality is the same (although fortunately there are no longer any Sunday morning human barbeques)."
In some Christians today the mentality is the same - but not all. In those "Christians" where the mentality remains the same they, too, are in error and deviation from Biblical principles.
"Mr Dollar one again claims that it requires 'divine' knowledge to know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't. What it requires is honest observation, measurement and anaylsis of the results to know the age of our planet."
I'm sorry but with all due respect, this is ridiculous. There are so many disagreements among modern scientists as to the interpretation of data and dating that it is clear that it is not that easy to determine these things. I am not saying we should not try to date things - but lets be realistic about what we can know with our highly limited human observations. We simply do not have a time machine to know for sure. I would have been fine if Adler had said, "Many assume the planet is 4.5 billion years old." He did not say that. He said, "We know..." When in fact, we do not have certainty in this area.
"Constant denial of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is rampant amongst Christians, but I don't hear any of you denying Einstein's Theory of Relativity, without which you would have no lighting, energy, satellites, cameras, televisions, dvd's or indeed computers with which to write these messages upon."
Einstein's theory of relativity is true science not based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. BIG difference. To the degree that Darwin did true science, Christians, like me, should accept his findings as helpful. There is a wrong supposition that Christians are not interested in scientific advancement. That is hogwash. The issue is, we want advancement in an ethical fashion.
"The silicon chip relies upon Einstein's discoveries in order to operate. It was science that learned, by effort and trial and error and success to place these things at our disposal. Those who did so did not sit around praying for piles of plastic and silicon to spontaneously and miraculously arrange themselves into a computer."
Interstingly, you make the case for Intelligent Design here. Matter did not miraculously arrange itself into human intelligence either, which is far more brilliant than a computer and upon which our computers are based.
"Evolution is no different - everything evolves, even our own technologies."
Believe it or not I agree. But does evolution mean the change of one species to a completely different species? No. There are plenty of changes within a certain type of animal or plant, adaptations, but no change from fish to tree or dog to cat or horse to human or whatever.
"As for ID and its rather silly Irreducible Complexity, take a look at the common garden mole (same name in the US)? It is virtually blind, living all of its life burrowing underground. Yet its skull contains a perfectly normal orbit for the eyeball, and all of its relative species have sharp eyesight. The mole specialised to live underground, and lost the need for keen eyesight - its eyeball became reduced in complexity. Its known as devolution, and is observed, like evolution, everywhere."
By calling Irreducible Complexity "silly" you reveal you lack of knowledge of the concept. It's like me saying Darwin was silly. We might disagree on his conclusions, but I know he was far from silly. Your example does not prove anything about what this concept proposes. Just becasue a certain animal "devolves," or adapts to a new environment, does not mean that its eyeball was not irreducible complex to begin with. The point is, there are to many separate complex mechanisms within an eye that have to be working at the same time in order to function properly. Of the two options that explain how this might have happened, evolution seems totally illogical and certainly impossible. Intelligent Design makes scientific sense of observed data.
"Truth is found by eliminating the impossible, via experiment and observation."
That is right and more and more scientists are insisting that the idea of evolution is impossible.
"The Bible has been found impossible and indeed incoherent for hundreds of years via this method. Genesis did not occur. Evolution - universal, galactic, stellar, planetary and biological, DID occur, and we see its signature every day."
The Bible is impossible only to those who are already predispossed against it. And again you seem to contradict yourself by using personal terminology like the word "signature." That implies intelligence and thus destroys the theory of impersonal evolution. It is amazing how often Naturalists do this.
"Why not let your children make up their OWN minds, instead of trying to teach them something that remains unsupported by everything that has made our species a success - LEARNING. Far beter than superstition."
It is amazing that you would say this when evolutionists insist that ID not be taught in public schools. Yes, I agree, lets let kids make up their own minds - so let ID be taught alongside the theory of evolution so that they have that opportunity. As far as superstition, I am of the opinion that it takes more faith to believe the myth of evolution than it does to trust the God who inspired the words of Scripture.
I do appreciate your interaction and I hope the readers of this exchange come away with fresh thoughts in regard to this debate. May Christ be honored in our attempt to focus on the truth.
27 Comments:
"Mr Dollar one again claims that it requires 'divine' knowledge to know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't. What it requires is honest observation, measurement and anaylsis of the results to know the age of our planet."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Honest observation???? Okay. I'll accept that. Produce the observer from 4.5 billion years ago and we'll talk.
But don't expect us to believe the findings and interpretations of men who have ruled God out of the equation from the outset.
There are no neutral facts. Everyone interprets the facts according to their presuppositions. Scientists are no different. They begin without the true God and therefore their findings exclude the true God. No surprise. Your assertions are no less grounded in faith than Christian assertions. The only difference is that your assertions are actually contradicted by the facts and findings. Where are the transitional forms? No one can ever come up with those transitional forms! And that breaks the back of the evolutionary giant to all those of honest heart and rational mind.
Nice to be on the same side!
For now :-)
Why, oh why, do Christians think that science is out to destroy their religion? It isn't, it never has been and it never will be. This assumption is based on repeated assertions by senior church figures that 'poor' Christians are being victimised by 'evil' secularists and have been oppressed by science for years.
Wrong. Quite wrong.
You guys in the US don't have the history that we do in Europe. You haven't had one thousand years of Christian oppression, that was finally ended with the Enlightenment, which led to learning and the re-education of civilisation - Christianity had banned learning for a thousand years after it destroyed Rome, an act recorded by the Christian's own hands. They burned the libraries of Alexandria, and recorded doing so with glee, even mentioning the monetary value of the destruction. Mankind spent the next millenium in ignorance and poverty, an era of Christian domination we now refer to as the 'Dark Ages'.
But there were those who were able to learn, and eventually, after the Christian leadership had tortured or executed enough of them (Bruno, Galileo etc), civilisation rebelled, and the Enlightenment dawned. Since then, we have flown. Never, ever, has science victimised Christians. Only the opposite is true.
The replies to my blog totally ignore the core points I made, veered around the facts and often used wordplay to denounce history or science - a very poor method and evidence of the shaky ground of Christian apologetics.
"Bring back an observer from 4.5 billion years ago, and we'll talk."
Poor, very poor. Perhaps you would bring back an eye witness to Jesus's supposed existence, or to the Garden of Eden or perhaps Moses or Solomon or King David or the act of Creation? You demand evidence, yet ignore it when it's presented, and simultaneously excuse yourself from needing to provide any for your own claims (and the Bible doesn't count - using it to prove itself is a false and circular logic - like me using a Star Wars dvd to prove the existence of Obi Wan Kenobi).
"The Bible is only impossible to those predispossed (sic) against it"
Yet apologists must by their very nature assume that the Bible is the literal truth, and deny all those who challenge it. Now that's hypocricy at a level unrivalled to anything I've encountered before. And using my choice of word 'signature' as evidence of the existence of a creator god is a poor argument and frankly unfair. Can't you do any better than that?
"No change from a fish to a tree or dog to cat"
Again, poor and effectively a lie, as at no point has evolutionary theory claimed that such changes can occur spontaneously. Evolution occurs over huge timespans, and there ARE MANY transitionary species. It's just that Creationists refuse to acknowledge them, or indeed any evidence of evolutionary change because it would by its very nature mean refuting Creationism itself. It's not 'evidence' against evolution, its another argument from ignorance, a splendid example of which is Mr Dollar's comment on Einstein's theory of relativity;
"is true science not based on anti-supernatural presuppositions"
If Mr Dollar knew anything about what he was discussing, he would never have written that. Why? Because in doing so he's destroyed Biblical Creationism and ID in one stroke.
The very foundation of Einstein's work, the cornerstone of relativity, is that the speed of light is a constant. CONSTANT. It does not change, even if you yourself are moving. This takes me back very neatly to my very first blog here, about how supernova create the elements of life in the universe. Supernova SN1987A became visible to us in 1987. The star that exploded ( a B3 supergiant called Sanduleak ) was 164,000 light years away. LIGHT-YEARS. That means it took the light from the event 164,000 years to get here. An end to Creationism and the 6000 year old earth. Not only that, but when the event was observed, astronomers could see the light from the firebal expanding, lighting up gas and dust as it went. They weren't watching an explosion of matter - they were actually watching light itself traveling away from the remains of the star. Simple parralax and triangulation gave them the means to directly observe and measure the speed of light, and confirm that it hasn't changed for at least 164,000 years. Secondary and supporting proof of Einstein's work that just happens to refute Creationism, and with it, ID. They don't care about religion - it's just that religion in terms of the Bible is plain wrong, and everything we've ever observed supports that.
Finally, the assertion that I was making a case for ID by saying that scientists did not sit around praying for a computer to make itself is again unfair and ignores the basic point of the argument - science succeeds in producing results, religion fails to achieve anything and always has, except for being wrong about almost everything.
"It is ridiculous to claim that we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old" - (my re-wording of Mr Dollar's basic claim)
Is it? If so, in light of the above evidence, why? And is it any less ridiculous to believe in a super-natural sky-god without any evidence to support one, who supposedly was smart enough to create the entire universe, but would then 'rejoice in the smell of burning goat's flesh'?
Get a grip.
Everything that the Bible claims in terms of creationism has been found wanting. ID cannot be taught in schools as it is appalling pseudo-science, a desperate attempt by desperate people who simply cannot bear to face life without their cosy belief that they will live after they die. An eternity of non-existence is too terrible for you to contemplate. For me, its a simple choice when I die;
a) There's some kind of higher being or higher existence, in which case 'it' will accept me for who I am and understand why I think the way I do. If 'it' can't, it's not a god.
b) I'll cease to exist, just like I did before I was born. In which case, I'll know nothing about it.
Either way, whilst I'm here, I'll be sure not to burrow my head into a book of fantasy thousands of years old, and instead TEST everything to find the real truth, and live a fuller life because of it.
DC
I wrote:
"Bring back an observer from 4.5 billion years ago, and we'll talk."
Anon responded:
Poor, very poor. Perhaps you would bring back an eye witness to Jesus's supposed existence...
There is plenty of extra-Biblical testiomony to the existence of Jesus. Every heard of Suetonius or Tacitus? Your statement only reveals how willfully blind you are to the facts. You may reasonably question whether Jesus is the Son of God, but to question His historical existence demonstrates not mere ignorance but a heart which prefers lies over verified historical fact.
All of the following historians from the first two centuries mention Jesus as an historical figure:
* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)
*Phlegon (First century)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Galen (various writings, c.150)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
When you question the Divinity of Jesus we leave room for a certain level of prima facia skepticism. But when you describe Jesus' historical existence as "supposed" then we know that you have an axe to grind against the living God.
You hate your Creator and rather than be reconciled to Him through Jesus His Son you'd rather degrade yourself by hiding behind senseless "scientific" myth. That's what modern science and evolutionary theory are to you...a wall of myth behind which you to think to hide from God. More accurately, modern science is a scheme by which you folk think to remove God from His world. If no God, then no judgement. How convenient for you :-)
But the world you've created for yourself is a fiction. Professing to be wise, you have become a fool. For God has an appointment with you at your death which you will by no means escape.
I pray that you will come to your senses by then. May God break into your life and open your dark soul to the reality of His love and grace. Lo, there is life beyond the grave, life in the presence of King Jesus, Lord of all!
Farewell. Best wishes.
You said an observer - an eye witness. Not a historian who 'mentions' a Jesus. Look at your dates - all of those people lived long after the supposed life and death of Jesus. Hearsay, is what your sources are, writing and speaking long after the so called 'Gospels' were written about Jesus's supposed life.
History presents not a single eye-witness to a Jesus Christ. Not one.
Perhaps, instead of ranting on about the 'love of Jesus/God' or whomever, you might open your own eyes and stop hiding behind that odd little book of fiction called the Bible.
Oh, and you didn't answer a single one of the challenges contained within my blog. Which says far more about who is the fool here than anything else.
I challenge you to read 'Stardust' by John Gribbin, or 'The Jesus Mystery' by Earl Doherty. Let's see who's 'heart is dark'...
DC
I missed a paragraph in Mr Dollar's reply to my blog;
"By calling Irreducible Complexity "silly" you reveal your lack of knowledge of the concept. It's like me saying Darwin was silly."
No it's not. I called the idea silly, not the people who follow it. Again, facts twisted to fit your own agenda. And in your reply, you clearly support the idea that the mole's eye can devolve over time. Again, you refute ID - even 'devolution' takes tens of thousands of years - it's the exact same mechanism as evolution, but in reverse. The name simply seperates the differing results because often devolution occurs in habitats where an existing species finds itself with massively reduced resources, and adapts accordingly (often becoming smaller). Remote island habitats are where devolution is most often observed.
I do understand what Irreducible Complexity claims - and I also understand that it predicts nothing whatsoever and makes no scientific sense of observed data. There is no 'data' upon which ID is based; it's Creationism wrapped up in a pseudo-scientific veil. ID has made no predictions that can be tested - it has published no papers that have been supported by peer review - there are no products on our selves produced by study into ID. The eye, in all of its guises, evolved over millions of years, and it exists today in millions of different forms, each producing sight in differing species in many differing ways.
Evolution.
In a sense, ID is an 'evolved' form of Creationism, whereby dogma has failed to succeed, so it has been dressed up in the guise of a theory in order to make gullible people believe what they're reading. We had a good laugh over here in the UK a few months ago when we first heard about 'Intelligent Falling', a direct Christian challenge to gravity itself.
Nothing like 'real' science, eh?
DC
DC,
Thanks for keeping us IDiots and Flying Spaghetti Monster believers straight on the facts of science.
Perhaps you would like to stop by the Deathrow Bodine Blog for a couple more laughs.
Perhaps we can discuss some "real" science, eh?
DC wrote: You said an observer - an eye witness. Not a historian who 'mentions' a Jesus...Hearsay, is what your sources are, writing and speaking long after the so called 'Gospels' were written about Jesus's supposed life.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
These statements are so preposterous as to prove my original point. You simply are at war with God. Facts mean nothing to you. In your dark, atheistic world 2+2=5 because you can't concede the simple truth without forfeiting your autonomy. Although you know God exists you have simply determined to exchange the truth about Him for lie, and then you are left with silly arguments which reveal, again, that your main problem is a heart of darkness in obstinate rebellion against your Creator.
Look, five of those historians lived within 100 years of Jesus! And they were not even Christians! Suetonious and Tacitus are widely respected secular historians. They would never have gained such creditibility had they made up stories about Jesus.
We have no "observer" today of Abraham Lincoln's life either. So I guess his existence is supposed as well :-) Can you imagine if someone today would put forward such an idiotic notion? He'd be immediately dismissed as a mindless derelict.
You make a tactical error in your war against God and His people. You protesteth too much, and such overreaching betrays the real and fundamental motivation of your heart.
The Divinity of Jesus may be more of a calculus problem, but the historicity of Jesus is basic math. When an adult insists that 2+2=5 we understand that he has left the field of honesty and reason, and that he's retreated into the the dark bunker of his own vain imagination.
For whatever reason, DC, you have chosen this path of retreat into dishonesty and fiction. Erecting a scaffold of myth and carefully crafted theory, you stand upon nothing proclaiming your religion, all the while denying that 2+2=4. Denying the patently obvious, your "scientific" facade is betrayed and we understand that this contest is not at all about a sincere investigation into the facts, but wholly about your moral aversion for God Himself.
I pray earnestly that God in His mercy would recover you to sanity and bring you back to reality. Come back into God's world, DC. The world you live in is condemned. It has no future...for it has no reality.
This is the testimony, DC. Light has come into the world, but men have loved darkness rather than Light, for their deeds are evil. Jesus is the Light of the world. Repent of your sins and be received by the Light.
He is not light years away. He stands just outside the fictional world you call home. Leave your home, DC, and enter the home of Jesus, Lord of all. His Kingdom shall endure forever, His truth shall stand through all eternity.
2+2=4, DC. Give up the fight. Surrender to King Jesus while His offer of mercy remains. I implore you in all love and sincerity. For the vain scaffolding of your life is going to come down. Your breath will one day go out. And then you will fall into the hands of Him who created you, the One you hold in such contempt. And, oh, I pity you then. Your sorrows shall never cease, your anguish will never be quenched.
Turn, turn while there is a door of mercy opened to you in Jesus Christ. I beg you.
I'm so glad I found this site. I have been searching around for apologetically based blog sites, and seeing that Steve Cowan is a contributer here makes it that much better.
I now have a link to you guys from my own blogspot.
Against Christianity wrote; "We have no "observer" today of Abraham Lincoln's life either. So I guess his existence is supposed as well"
Yet you yourself demanded an 'observer' to the creation of thr earth 4.5 billion years ago, and "then we'll talk". Abe Lincoln was witnessed by many observers - history calls them primary sources, and they are required to verify the existence of a individual or the occurence of an event. No such evidence occurs for a Jesus - it's mindless idiots who assume that there is without a single example. People who lived within 100 years of his supposed life are not witnesses. Full stop. You also excluded Seneca the Younger from your list. He was born before the alleged Christ, died long after, and is the greatest Jewish/Hellenistic historian of his time. He lived in Jersusalem. And he mentions not a whisper of a Jesus, miracles, speeches, crucifition, resurrection or anything else.
"Although you know God exists.."
Liar. Since when would you know about what my thoughts are on divine existence in any form? Have we met? No. You're making it up, and just as before you failed to challenge anything I've stated, simply whining on about Jesus/God/love etc etc.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are forced to re-live them. Christianity is a two thousand year history of misery, corruption, fraud, genocice, bigotry, lies and murder. Check out the Inquisition for a start.
So much for Christian 'compassion'.
DC
DC - After reading some of your posts I felt I must respond to one of your thoughts on the 23rd (actually the Holy Spirit compelled me). On your thoughts at the time of your leaving this world, letter a).
I would rather believe in the God of Scripture, and find out there was not, than not believe, and find out there is and come under His judgement.
As one who accepted Christ as his saviour later in life, I am often surprised to find the compassion which His spirit has instilled in me, which is why I felt I must write to you, and pray for you.
Please forgive my lack of knowledge in literacy, but accept my wisdom which is a gift from God.
S.W. Harding,
Yours is a fair enough way of approaching things, but you miss the point - an 'all knowing' God will accept me as I am, and understand why I challenge half-truths the way I do. I have nothing to fear.
In contrast, you fear the so-called 'Judgement' - I do not. It was only created to scare people into believing, and assuring their allegiance.
Your belief is a form of 'insurance' often taken by people in later life; "I'll believe now, so that if I die and there is a god, I'll be OK."
You're chasing rainbows. Either way, if it works for you then that's great, but rather than wasting your prayers on me, please use them for the benefit of the hundreds of millions of people on this planet who need them far more than me. They're starving/dying/suffering, and probably wondering where your 'compassionate' god is. If you really have such a direct line to the 'Holy Spirit', have a word with 'Him' on their behalf...
DC
DC - Thank you for taking the time, and apparent patience and kindness in your response.
Just a couple of points I would like to make from a believer's perspective. Our God will not accept any of us as we are. We are rebellious in our sin which is an abomination in His sight. The price for our salvation is paid by Him, and is ours free just for having faith in the truths of the Gospel.
The belief I stated about the after life is one I would convey to a non-believer.
The fence-sitting sound of it is shameful to me, for it signifies a doubt, of which I have none.
However, I just wanted to respond to you, hoping that something I might say would keep your mind open and possibly soften your heart.
Many, who have sought to disprove the existence of God and salvation through faith in Christ, have come to believe themselves.
I am thankful that you are seeking the truth, either way. Too many walk through life unconcerned.
DC,
May I ask how you came to the conclusion that "an 'all knowing' God will accept me as I am, and understand why I challenge half-truths the way I do. I have nothing to fear."?
I don't have a problem with the statement that God would understand your challenges, but I do wonder how you figure that you'll be accepted as you are - if, by that, you mean that your sincerity is all that is required to be pardoned by God.
As for s. w. harding's comments, Pascal's Wager is an argument that some find very compelling, and others find to be no argument at all. For me, it's like icing on the cake - there is a gap between probablility and proof when it comes to Christianity, and Pascal's Wager helps make that gap even smaller. (There may be a gap in front of me, but the chasm of the alternatives behind is much larger as I weigh the evidences.)
Thanks for your comments.
Jwood,
An all knowing god would be just that - all knowing. It would understand why I am who I am. It is you who have 'assumed' that a pardon is somehow required by a god. How do you know this? Have you chatted recently with this supposed god somehow?
My conclusion is simply based on "if" there's a god. If there is one, then it must be all knowing. If not, then it can't be considered a god.
Whether or not a god exists is the question here, and it belongs in philosophy, nowhere else. It is the honest person who can admit that the only thing we know about god is; nothing. Burrowing into the Bible or the Qu'ran or anything else is simply burying one's head in theological sand. There is no evidence, proof or truth within. Gods are man's invention, not a universal truth, and so are the books written about them.
My arguments here always stick as much as possible to proven facts and knowledge, rather than philosophy, because I can provide evidence to support those arguments. Nobody knows if a god exists, and neither do I. However, in response to your so-called 'chasm of alternatives', could you explain, in the light of my own above comments, the following;
"If your biblical god created the universe, stars, galaxies, planets, all life etc - why would he later 'rejoice in the smell of burning goat's flesh', get jealous, have regrets and blatantly not be all knowing?"
If you follow and believe in such a transparently human-created diety, you need to sit down and think about your life.
DC
And as for Pascal's Wager, which is this;
"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything."
I prefer the Atheist's Wager, which is this;
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."
DC
DC,
It can be difficult to infer a tone when reading these posts, particularly when dealing with these hot issues. Please know that I am honestly trying to understand your point of view, and not trying to jam my own views down your throat. I want to keep this civil and constructive.
Having said that, I am still having trouble following your logic that says all knowing = all accepting. Perhaps bringing "pardon" into this assumes too much for the sake of this discussion, but by your use of "acceptance" I took it that you meant overlooking your faults and allowing you in his presence. If I'm mistaken about your intent, I am eager to understand better.
Restated, your Wager says,
"If there is no God, it is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. You will have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind.
"If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."
I know that as far as you're concerned, we're talking about a hypothetical God, but I'm not sure that I see a consistent logical argument to support the second condition of your Athiest's Wager ("if there is a benevolent God..."). This "benevolent God" condition of your Wager is your insurance policy, but it depends on your guidelines of what a good God would or should do.
[more in a bit, breaking up the post so it isn't too huge and unreadable]
JWood,
Fair point. 'Benevolent' is indeed a bit presumptuous on my part. Still, a god must be all knowing and thus see all sides of every argument / personality. But that's why this topic is philisophical rather than evidence based. Nobody can really know, and the 'holy' books of man are of no help as they are all based on false histories and characters.
My approach, the Atheist's Wager, just keeps it simple - if you can be a good person and live a good life, how can you be judged as evil?
Enjoying your posts by the way - if I've sounded caustic at any point, it's due to lack of time to check my responses properly ( I write them during my lunch break).
DC
In response to the other items, primarily I would say that I am not qualified nor do I have the space to enumerate all the evidences to which I referred. I hope that doesn’t sound like a dodge - there are great books and articles on this site and others that make well reasoned cases that suggest that there is a God, Jesus, creation, and other contentions from the Bible. You may not find the arguments convincing, but together they make a cumulative body of evidence that, to me, strongly suggests Christianity.
I don’t think philosophy and science can be separated as neatly and cleanly as you’d like. The existence/nonexistence/potential for existence of God affects how evidences about the origins of life and the universe are interpreted. If you start out with the assertion “there is no God,” then any evidences that indicate a God are dismissed out of hand without consideration – very unscientific. The same could perhaps be said about those who are sure there is a God, but what if a more neutral stance is taken by both extremes before examination of the evidence, not incompatible with either but an adjustment, to say “if a God exists (not making assertions either way, but leaving open the possibility), what indicators might there be that we could observe, that favor God as an explanation more than other current theories?”
This would not be a “God-of-the-gaps” scenario, because science should always be open for re-examination and questioning previous findings. Honest scientists should accept the theories that best fits the evidence, without conclusions made before examination of the evidence.
You contend that the honest person can know nothing about God. Well, I’m not convinced of that statement. It seems that there are two potential sources of knowledge that we can have about God – general or natural revelation, and special revelation. Special revelation would include the Bible, but the general revelation is what we can tell about God through nature and reason. The kalam cosmological argument for ID (I know you aren't convinced) is a logical model of the explanation of life by God that can be considered a general revelation. (See the Aug. 22 2005 article on this site “What Can We Know about God apart from Scripture?” or William Lane Craig’s book “Reasonable Faith.”) Or, for a philosophical general revelation example, consider the Moral Argument model. (See the Oct. 11 2005 article on this site “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence” or C. S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity.”)
These are just examples of two general revelations, but from just these two, we can see evidences that strongly suggest a God, and get a picture of some of the characteristics of this God. Considering what else may be known about this God would lead us to compare among the religions of the world, and the characteristics are most consistent with the Christian God. So from there, the specific revelation of the Bible, God’s further revelation of himself to man, becomes even more compelling.
As for the other question you raised, "If your biblical god created the universe, stars, galaxies, planets, all life etc - why would he later 'rejoice in the smell of burning goat's flesh', get jealous, have regrets and blatantly not be all knowing?", well, I’d look at them individually.
“rejoice in the smell of burning goat's flesh” – what, more specifically, is the argument? Is it some inconsistency with the command of the biblical god for sacrifices or is this just an argument by outrage? Unless you are a vegetarian and a member of PETA, it’s not even as outrageous as this phrasing of the issue tries to make it. I know that when I’m cooking hamburgers on my grill in the summertime, I frequently rejoice in the smell of burning cow flesh. Sacrifices in the Bible were, for the most part, used to feed the temple priests, following the ceremonial offering of the blood, so aside from obedience to God, this had the practical result of providing for God's priests, equivalent to supporting our church through a tithe.
“get jealous” – for the rest of these, I think a more specific reference of these incidents would be helpful to see the context, but talking in general terms as you’ve presented them, I’d answer in fairly general terms that jealousy as described of God in the Old Testament is a protective, honorable, passion to be exclusive to that which he should have exclusive access, and is not a description of a sin.
“have regrets” – I suspect a general answer to this general characterization isn’t going to be satisfying to you; the concept to which I think you are referring means in different places different things, according to the context. Sometimes this regret or repentance is a matter of grief over human failures; others it’s an indication of God’s willingness to alter judgement or render mercy in response to his followers’ prayers; still other times it’s an application of mercy or blessing that is offered when people fulfill or change conditions, such as obedience.
“blatantly be not all knowing” – Again, without mentioning a specific reference, this can’t really be answered very specifically. Generally speaking, of the references I can think of that may indicate this, such as Genesis 3:9, it seems to indicate a question asked of man to teach man something, even though God already knows the answer.
Well, this ended up being long after all, but that was a post full of questions with no short responses, sorry :)
Oh, I found this blog post today, and thought it was a good read, and relevant to the topic: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20051129113607/index.html
For DC, who insists on self-deception and waging war against the One who created him. May your heart be opened to truth through the Grace of God, that your soul may be spared fury and damnation.
*Note how Buchanan rightly states that Darwinism fills the psychological need of those who have rejected God. The truth is that faith in Evolutionary theory is the real _crutch_ for weak minds, weak minds which grasp at straw to explain their imaginary and constructed world void of God, who in reality is Creator of all and Redeemer of some.
Darwinism on defense
Posted: December 19, 2005
Pat Buchanan
© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Among the most influential men of the 20th century were a pair of 19th-century scholars: Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
Recent years have not been kind to either. Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that welded together and drove the Soviet empire, has been discredited by the horrors it produced and the colossal failure of Marxist theory when put into practice.
Comes now Darwin's turn. In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze.
In his "Politically Correct Guide to Science," Tom Bethell, who Tom Wolfe calls "one of our most brilliant essayists," has, in 36 pages, gathered and briefly described a few of the difficulties that Darwinists are facing in defending their dogmas against skeptics.
For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?
Their absence does not prove – but does suggest – that they do not exist. Is it not time, after 150 years, that the Darwinists started to deliver and ceased to be taken on faith?
In the Galapagos Islands, which Darwin visited in HMS Beagle in 1835, his later disciples discovered, after a drought, that the beaks of finches expanded 5 percent to help them crack the dried and hardened seeds – i.e., Darwinian adaptation. But when the rains returned, researchers found the beaks returned to normal size.
No one denies "micro-evolution" – i.e., species adapting to their environment. It is macro-evolution that is in trouble.
The Darwinian thesis of "survival of the fittest" turns out to be nothing but a tautology. How do we know existing species were the fittest? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest.
While clever, this tells us zip about why we have tigers. It is less a scientific theory than a notion masquerading as a fact.
For those seeking the source of Darwin's "discovery," there is an interesting coincidence. Darwin and his collaborator Alfred Russel Wallace both read Thomas Malthus' famous "An Essay on the Principle of Population." Malthus theorized that since the production of food grew by small annual increments, while population was almost doubling with each generation, the struggle for food would lead to conflicts and wars in which only the strongest would survive.
Bethell is not alone in suggesting Darwin smuggled Malthus' mid-Victorian political economy into biology. As Bertrand Russell observed, Darwin's theory is "essentially an extension to the animal and vegetable world of laissez-faire economics."
Marx's ideas also seem to have a Malthusian root. Marx predicted that the great wealth spawned by capitalism would be accumulated by fewer and fewer capitalists. And as it was, the constant expansion and immiseration of the proletariat would lead to a workers' revolution in which the expropriators would be expropriated. This was catnip for anti-capitalists.
But American capitalism proved Marx dead wrong. While U.S. capitalism did indeed create plutocrats, the years 1865 to 1914 saw historic gains in the incomes and well-being of workers. By World War I, to the rage of Lenin, even Marxists theoreticians were saying the old boy's theories needed some serious revision.
There are other questions Darwinists need to answer. If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith – and it is – is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can't scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?
If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?
Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Hence, if religion cannot prove its claim and Darwinists can't prove their claims, we must fall back upon reason, which some of us believe is God's gift to mankind.
And when you consider the clocklike precision of the planets in their orbits about the sun and the extraordinary complexity of the human eye, does that seem to you like the result of random selection or the product of intelligent design?
Prediction: Like the Marxists, the Darwinists are going to wind up as a cult in which few believe this side of Berkeley and Harvard Square.
Pray for them this Christmas season, and enjoy yourself with a reading of Bethell's fine and funny little book.
DC has made so many false and question-begging claims on this blog that it would take weeks to dissect and respond to them fully. Some of the other respondents are doing well in tackling some of them, but I've selected a few to address below...
anonymous said...
Christianity had banned learning for a thousand years after it destroyed Rome, an act recorded by the Christian's own hands. They burned the libraries of Alexandria, and recorded doing so with glee, even mentioning the monetary value of the destruction. Mankind spent the next millenium in ignorance and poverty, an era of Christian domination we now refer to as the 'Dark Ages'.
The Middle Ages were indeed called the Dark Ages by the minions of the Enlightenment, but that term is now largely recognized as a misnomer. Learning was by no menas banned during the Middle Ages. Indeed, the university was invented by Christian scholars durign this period, and many philosophical and scientific works were produced by committed Medieval Christians.
But there were those who were able to learn, and eventually, after the Christian leadership had tortured or executed enough of them (Bruno, Galileo etc), civilisation rebelled, and the Enlightenment dawned. Since then, we have flown. Never, ever, has science victimised Christians. Only the opposite is true.
I will not deny that many Christians (or at least those who called themselves Chrstians) did some things like DC describes, but this was by no means universal, nor does it do justice to the real diversity and scholarship that existed in the Middles Ages. DC's examples are cases in point. What he doesn't tell you is that many Christians (theologians and scientists), even church leaders, supported Galileo. And Galileo himself was and remained until his death a devout Catholic.
The so-called historical "war" between science and religion that DC promotes is largely a propaganda myth created by certain radical Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire. Teh fact is that Christian as a whole, and Chrisianity as an institution, have always been supportive of good science. What's more, apart from the Christian worldview, which views the universe as an orderly cosmos created by an intelligent being, modern science would have been impossible. It is well-documented that modern science owes it genesis and its success to the Christian worldview (see the article by Nancy Pearcy, "The War that Wasn't: Why Christianity is a Science Starter" in Areopagus Journal (Jan-Feb 05), as well as her book, The Soul of Science(Crossway).
DC's claim that science has never victimized Christians only shows that his head is in the sand. I can document any number of cases in which Christians have been persecuted by so-called scientists. Some readers may recall, for example, a couple of years ago a case in which a biology professor refused to allow a Christian student to get his degree because he would not affirm the truth of Darwinism, even though he had met all the academic requirements. Don't tell me that isn't persecution!
Again, poor and effectively a lie, as at no point has evolutionary theory claimed that such changes can occur spontaneously. Evolution occurs over huge timespans, and there ARE MANY transitionary species.
You are being disingenuous here. Jason and I know very well that evolution is not supposed to occur spontaneously. His point was that there is no actual empirical evidence that macro-evolution occurs. There is no evidence that (however long it may take) one species evolves into an entirely different species. I defy you to cite one datum of empirical evidence to the contrary. What's more, you are simply wrong about transitional species. Sure, there are a handful of organisms (e.g., archaeoptyrix) that have been proposed as transitional forms, but these are all disputed even by Darwinists!--so don't appeal to your ad hominen cop out that its just that creationist refuse to acknowledge them.
Moreover, if macro-evolution were true, then there ought to be literally billions of clear transitional forms in the fossil record. But, there isn't! Not one undisputed transitional form has been identified! Don't you beleive that a good scientific theory can be tested? Well, then, evolution has been tested against the fossil record and been found wanting. Why doesn't the fossil record effectively falsify evolution? Simple--evolution is the atheists' creation myth, and they must maintain belief in it regardless of the evidence or else capitulate their worldview to the theists.
Simple parralax and triangulation gave them the means to directly observe and measure the speed of light, and confirm that it hasn't changed for at least 164,000 years. Secondary and supporting proof of Einstein's work that just happens to refute Creationism, and with it, ID.
All you have proven here, DC, is that you have not studied the ID theory much. How can you refute a theory that you don't even understand? Maybe your point about the star being 164,000 light years away refutes tradition creationism, but it leaves ID completly untouched. ID theory per se makes no claim about the age of the universe and would be perfectly consistent with a universe that is many billions of years old. Most ID theorists with which I am familiar (as well as many conservative Christians) are "old-earthers", who do not believe that the "6 days" of Genesis 1 should be taken literally. So your argument attacks a Straw Man.
History presents not a single eye-witness to a Jesus Christ. Not one.
What about Matthew, Mark, and John who claim to be eyewitnesses? What about Luke's claim to have interviewed eyewitnesses? You cannot dismiss their claims without giving us some reason to believe they were lying. Can you?
Just stumbled across these new arguments against my blogs - didn't realise they'd been written until today.
A brief series of answers;
'Survival of the fittest' is a term given to Darwinist evolution, but was never uttered by the man himself nor is it used by modern researchers. Using is as an argument against evolution is a strange angle to take. Either way, the synthesis of the elements of life from stars and their subsequent structure within life here on earth refutes everything you're saying. The mechanisms all exist and are well understood, to the point that 'synthetic life', as it was termed, has been created in the laboratory from 'non-life'. It's been done. Get over it.
Dr Cowan; your response seems to reply to a series of blogs at once, and my claims have subsequently been proven on other blogs since. The relationship between the study of light and its implications both for Creation and ID (it proves them both false) can be found on more recent postings, the ones where you yourself challenged me to provide evidence of the origins of life itself.
As for the Biblical disciples as eye-witnesses of the mythical Jesus, you're obviously not reading my blogs very closely - using biblical characters to verify biblial characters is false logic. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also exist only in the bible, and even then as far as I'm aware they do not name themselves nor introduce themselves under those names.
As I've written countless times before, you logic means that I can 'prove' the historical existence of Achilles because I've read the Iliad, or of Darth Vader's existence because I've seen Star Wars. Using the bible to prove itself doesn't work.
Jesus Christ is a mythical figure, as is King Solomon, King David, Moses, Abraham and so on. None of these figures appears in the historical record, and nor does the supposed 'Jewish Empire'. The bible is a false record.
DC
In addition, transitional specia are many and varied, and are observable in life today!
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
This is obviously a pro-Darwinism site, which will no doubt herald cries of *bias*! from Jason Dollar or Dr Cowan. None the less, the in-depth knowledge of how transitionary species are observed and catalogued is beyond my own field, and thus I include the link above for those not too closed-minded to take a look.
Someone above mentioned about the lack of transitory species of 'bat' - how come there are no half-winged/sonarless bats in the fossil record?
A) There are - they're called virtually the entire mammillian rodent chain. Bats are mammals, not birds.
B) Transitionary species include variants of mammilian rodents, alive today, who have half-winged appendages beneath their trunk limbs which allow them to glide from tree to tree (south-American forests). Granted, as far as I'm aware they do not use sonar techniques. But then, many species other than bats use sonar (dolphins, for instance) - whilst others simply grow larger eyes better suited to night-life (owls).
There's 4 billion years of evidence out there, and 4 billion years is plenty of time for everything to evolve... But then, Dr Cowan and Jason Dollar, you've also stated clearly that you don't have any problems with an 'old earth' scenario. If so, why ask the question?
DC
anonymous said...
As for the Biblical disciples as eye-witnesses of the mythical Jesus, you're obviously not reading my blogs very closely - using biblical characters to verify biblial characters is false logic. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also exist only in the bible, and even then as far as I'm aware they do not name themselves nor introduce themselves under those names.
You've made a fair point. I DO think that traditional authorship of the four gospels can be defended very well, but I will forgo that for now. Let us assume, as you do, that these authors are anonymous. That does nothing to refute my point. Whoever the authors were, they claimed to be eyewitness, and their writings imply that their intended audiences knew their identities. So, what positive reason can you give to believe that these authors were lying when they claimed to be eyewitnesses?
As I've written countless times before, you logic means that I can 'prove' the historical existence of Achilles because I've read the Iliad, or of Darth Vader's existence because I've seen Star Wars. Using the bible to prove itself doesn't work.
Your comments here assume that readers can make no rational assessments concerning the genre of a book. Some books are clearly fictional, some books are clearly non-fictional, and of course some books are unclear as to their genre. The gospel writers give no indication whatever that their works are fictionall they actually claim to be reporting history. So, you are gonna have to give us some argument to the affect that, diespite their claims, they wrote fiction.
Moreover, historical methodology is somewhat more complicated than your comments would suggest. Historians all the time make historical judgments about the contents of books based on the books themselves. They use critical criteria by which they can discern historical authenticity. For example, New Testament scholars (and I mean ALL kinds of them, including liberal, skeptical scholars like the members of the Jesus Seminar) have develop several principles by which they can verify that particular statements placed on the mouth of Jesus in the Gospels were really said by him. Two of these criteria are (1) multiple attestation, by which a historical report is deemed veridical if it is attested in more than one independent source, and (2) dissimilarity, whereby a deed or saying by Jesus is deemed authentic if it is dissimilar from what we might have expected Jesus' Jewish contemporaries or the early church to have said or done. The rationale behind the latter is that the report would not have been preserved in the tradition if it were not authentic.
Using criteria like these (and others) we most certainly CAN verify the authenticity of much of the Bible regarding the life and teaching of Jesus by using the Bible, and do so in a non-circular, non-question-begging way. In fact, this methodology can work even if we assume a skeptical stance toward the historical reliability of the Bible. That is, let us assume that the gospels are generally historically unrelaible. Still, anything in those sources that is, say, multiply attested, can be accepted as historically authentic.
The upshot of this for our purposes here is that the existence
of Jesus is clearly multiply attested. Mark, written in the A.D. 50s, is one independent source, as is the so-called Q material (which scholars believe pre-dates even Mark) which is the source for the material that Matthew and Luke have in common. Then we have the unique Luke material, known as L, and the unique Matthean material known as M. Then there is John which everyone recognizes as independent of the synoptic gospels. Lastly, we have the testimony of Paul to the existence of Jesus. So, just looking at the Bible itself, we have six independent sources that multiply authenticate the existence of Jesus. In addtion, we can cite Jospephus, who, though writing about 40 years after Jesus and who was not an eyewitness, nevertheless corroborates the broad contours of what we find in the gospels.
Let me mention one other crucial factor that puts the icing on the cake for the existence of Jesus. Let's just take the Gospel of Matthew all by itself. it is universally agreed that Matthew is writing to a Jewish authience, and most likely one centered in Palestine, perhaps even Jerusalem. Over and over again, Matthew cites the sayings and deeds of Jesus and says that they fulfill Old Testament prophecy, and he often records the reaction of the crowds and the Jewish leaders. Especially poignant is the episode that Matthew records near the end of his work about the Jewish leaders bribing the guards at the tomb to say that Jesus' disciples came and stole the body by night. Matthew then says this: "and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day" (Matt. 28:15). Even if Matthew fabricated the story of the bribery, his statement here could not have been made unless it was common knowledge among the Jews in Jerusalem that Jesus's tomb was empty, and that could not have been known unless Jesus existed as a historical figure.
Dr Cowan,
Scrap everything. Why? Because everything you've said is based on biblical claims, exactly what the gathering of genuine history demands cannot be done. The only claim that you make that is external to the Bible is the words of Josephus.
A) Most scholars recognise that the insertions in Josephus's work are fraudulent, being as they were not mentioned for 300 years after being 'written', until being 'discovered' by the bishop Eusubius (sic?) who is on the historical record as saying it was perfecly fine to lie for Christianity.
B) It doesn't matter either way, as Josephus lived long after the supposed biblical events. Hearsay.
History recognises personages and events only if they are supported by primary and secondary sources; someone who was an eye-witness, and someone who lived at the time and wrote about the event/person, thus corroborating the eye-witness account.
Jesus Christ is unsupported by history, completely and utterly. No biblical account can be considered 'historical' because they are rarely, if ever, accurate or comply with the aforementioned strictures of history. Proof must come from *external* sources.
Certain biblical characters, such as Pontius Pilate / Herod, did live, but their actual histories are wildly different from biblical accounts. Pilate never executed a 'Christ', Herod never burned any babies etc etc. Such lists of inaccuracies are endless, honestly.
I'd like to write on, but all of these threads/responses are getting quite lengthy at the moment
so I'm going to try and keep my own a bit shorter. I suspect that some of the subject matter covered here might be becoming too lengthy and 'heavy' for others to join in...
DC
Post a Comment
<< Home