Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

No but you're defying odds to think there wouldn't be a more complete record.

Could you please provide the calculations that led you to this conclusion?

 

[Soggy]

Okay that caused me to spew coffee all over the monitor..thanks

It's good to be able to laugh at oneself.

 

[Thalassamania]

Jesus didn't exist? Wow. I guess Josephus was referencing a myth.

Not just that, in order to demonstrate that a historical figure existed two contemporaneous cross references are required. In the case of Jesus there are zero. Your historical scholarship is on a par with your biological knowledge.

I said this back in post #555, but it bears repeating:

Maybe there was an historical Jesus. Maybe loosely modeled on someone whose actual history got lost, but that’s just speculation. But, as good (or better) a case can be made for the historical existence of Herakles as for Jesus. Just as for the Herakles myth there’s an abundance data that supports the mythical evolution of Jesus’ story. Almost every detail in the gospel stories occurs in earlier pagan and/or Hebrew stories. But, there’s no evidence to demonstrate historicality of a Jesus "the Christ," just evidence that some people believed in him.

If you accept hearsay and take believers’ accounts as historical evidence, then shouldn’t you be consistent and extend your credulity to other mythos? How about Herakles? His story parallels Jesus’ so well that denying Herakles a position as a historical fact belies and contradicts the methodology used to establish Jesus.

The Herakles myth resembles Jesus’. Both were human from the union of a god and a chaste mortal. Herakles was on earth as a mortal helping people and performing miracles. When Herakles died, he rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Sound familiar? Herakles was the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

The data on Herakles is like that on Jesus. There are well know authorities like Hesiod and Plato who write of him. And there are stories of Homer. Aesop refers to him, even quotes him. Joesphus, in fact, mentions Herakles more times than Jesus (in the same book)! Tacitus also mentions Christ and Herakles many times in his Annals.

But (and here’s the rub) we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses concerning Herakles (or for that matter, Jesus). All information about both of them comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Herakles? Why not? Just because his is the son of the wrong god? Of course we shouldn’t and the same must apply to Jesus if we are to have any consistency.

You may doubt that a “historical” Jesus could grow from myth because you’ve not thought about it. There is plenty of precedence for this. We can all think of examples of myth taken from history (Troy, George Washington and the cherry tree, or the silver dollar toss) but what about “history” arising out of myth? Trust me, there are clear and obvious examples: the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Herakles, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, Daedalus and Icarus, as well as places such as Atlantis. These writers put their mythological heroes and places into an invented historical time line. Herodotus, even studied the myths and determined when Herakles lived.

Today belief in urban legends, turn pure fiction (or hoaxes) into history as does propaganda spread by politicians (also fiction) and believed by their supports (am I stretching the TSO as this stage to mention WMDs, al Qaeda and Iraq in a strictly historical and academic sense?).

You (like I) probably think that Herakles and other Greek gods are just myth because you do not believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so does its gods. Christianity and its church authorities still wield influence on governments, institutions, colleges, etc. and without an “historical” Jesus, Christianity dies. So they try and defend the “historical” Jesus, at all cost, even when faced with the most unreliable of sources.

A lot of folks want to believe in something and at this time, for many, its Jesus. Belief alone can create intellectual bleed through into secular thought, even down to the most used swears and oaths. Christian authorities advance the view of an “historical” Jesus over and over so that, just through being so oft repeated (remember how well the repeated big lie worked for Hitler and Stalin) it finds a comfy couch in the public consciousness. But it just ain’t so. When one makes an historical claim, the assertion should depend solely on the evidence and not require belief, since beliefs can live comfortably without any evidence what-so-ever.

 

[deco_martini]

But I do take exception with science that feels it has all the answers and has emphatically disproved the existance of God!

Well, if it will make you feel better.
A. A good scientist knows that we don't have all the answers. Since if we had all the answers, we would no longer need scientists.
B. Science can't disprove the existence of God or gods. Science is based on observation and testing. Faith is by its definition a belief in the unobservable. If you could observe God, there would be no need for faith.

If you are interested in the skeptic's viewpoint on B, consult:
Russell's teapot

 

[Warthaug]

The author assumes this has to do with a belief in religion and rules out education level?

Well, there is a well described trend towards atheism as people get higher levels of education. But creationists quite often assume I'm calling them dumb when I point that out, so I usually don't bother.

But before you get into a huff, you did ask.

Again, my post was simply a directive for the future. If you don't believe in God, you are afforded the opportunity to be your own god.

I am many things, a god I am not. No magical powers can be found here...

Therefore, you can, and should, choose to sin without regard to those you might hurt. Survival of the fittest.

Wow, you really like showing your ignorance of evolution and atheism, don't you? Firstly, contrary to what you've apparently been told in church, we atheists aren't a bunch of heartless, fire-breathing daemons out for your soul. In fact, your own governments stats show that we are far less likely to act in an immoral fashion - we're 10% of the population but account for only 1% of the prison population, we donate more time and $$$ to charity, not to mention have fewer abortions, fewer cases of STDs, and all that other stuff covered in the last link I provided, and you ignored. Clearly, we care greatly for people, and your assumption otherwise is both incorrect and completely hateful on your part.

But it is a typical view held by most religious extremists - you're different from me, therefore you must be evil in some way.

As for "survival of the fittest", you've obviously misunderstood what that means. It doesn't mean "strongest" or "most selfish", or "best hunter". It means "leaves the most offspring". Humans are a social species, and have gained great reproductive success through the evolution of social behavior. We've become greater than the sum of our parts through working as family units, and as larger societies. The genes that allow that to occur are a part of our genetic makeup, with some (for example, genes regulating violence and mothering instincts) having been identified. What this means is that we are evolutionarily "programmed" to care for others, work as a society, etc, etc, etc.

Hell, behavior counter to many of the "sins" are part of the biological makeup - respect thy mother/father; behavior that support the family unit. Do not steal, do not murder, etc - behavior that allows for the formation of a functioning society. Do not covet thy neighbors wife - an evolutionary drive to ensure one is raising ones own offspring, and not the offspring of another man.

Each and every one of those traits are a biological imperative, represent evolutionary advantages, and in many cases have genes directly linked to the behavior. They represent "survival of the fittest", as they allow us to maximize the number of offspring we leave, compared to a human living alone. The "sins" were not an invention of your religion. Your religion simply codified something that's been written in our genes - and the genes of most social mammals, for millions of years.

Bryan

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Jesus didn't exist? Wow. I guess Josephus was referencing a myth.

Not just that, in order to demonstrate that a historical figure existed two contemporaneous cross references are required. In the case of Jesus there are zero. Your historical scholarship is on a par with your biological knowledge.

Tacitus (A.D. 54-119)
Pliny the younger'
Philo
Josephus the Great
Suetonius
Documents from early church elders, sermons and teachings in the first century that are not biblical.

All of these give reference to Jesus Christ.

 

[Thalassamania]

Tacitus (A.D. 54-119)
Pliny the younger'
Philo
Josephus the Great
Suetonius
Documents from early church elders, sermons and teachings in the first century that are not biblical.

All of these give reference to Jesus Christ.

And the nearest that you actually get to contemporaneity with the alleged Jesus is more than 30 years after his death. Sorry ... game, set, match. You really do need to go back to school, or at least learn to read the entire thread before you bloviate.

Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time:

Apollonius
Appian
Arrian
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Damis
Dio Chrysostom
Dion Pruseus
Epictetus
Favorinus
Florus Lucius
Hermogones
Josephus
Justus of Tiberius
Juvenal
Lucanus
Lucian
Lysias
Martial
Paterculus
Pausanias
Persius
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philo-Judaeus
Phlegon
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Plutarch
Pompon Mela
Ptolemy
Quintilian
Quintius Curtius
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider:

"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the rpesence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. "These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, we unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

"Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering this time of Christ's reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

"Josephus: Late in the first century, Josephus wrote his celebrated work, "The Antiquities of the Jews", giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:

"'Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Book XVIII, Chapter iii, Section 3).'​

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned. "Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. 'If it be lawful to call him a man.' 'He was the Christ.' 'He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.'

"These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith -- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Abrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A.D.), offers the following explanation, which only a theologican could frame:

"'If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intentiion.'​

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed more than thirty years after his death with a dozen lines."
​

 

[deco_martini]

Tacitus (A.D. 54-119)
Pliny the younger'
Philo
Josephus the Great
Suetonius
Documents from early church elders, sermons and teachings in the first century that are not biblical.

All of these give reference to Jesus Christ.

You misunderstood what he said since this doesn't supply what he asked for.

 

[Warthaug]

Wow he went to seminary, that makes him an idiot.

Umm, no it does not make him an idiot. However, you claimed that you had a list of scientists who didn't believe in evolution. He's clearly not a scientist, but rather a theologian.

Of course, you just copied the first couple of pages of the discoveries institutes's/AIG's list of 300 (or is it 400 now) people who've claimed to be scientists and who state they do not believe in evolution. This list has been demolished many times before, long story short, only about 3% of the people on their list are practicing scientists; less than 50% are PhD holders, and hardly any are trained in a relevant field.

But since you seem to put great weight onto lists, here's two for you:

1) Steve evolution list: A list of scientists, all of whom are proven to be currently active in scientific research, and have a PhD, who believe in evolution. But wait, there's a catch - they have to be named "Steve" (or some derivative thereof). Steves, BTW, represent about 1% of practicing scientists.

NCSE Resource

Oh look, 889 Steves, compared to your lists what - 300? 400? people, of which only two would qualify for the steve list?

2) Clergy Letter Project: A list of Clergy members who hold evolution to be true, and to be compatible with the bible. How many signatures did they get - 11, 406 as of today. And you have 300 to 400... seems the clergy of your own religion don't even agree with you.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Wow he went to seminary, that makes him an idiot.

Umm, no it does not make him an idiot. However, you claimed that you had a list of scientists who didn't believe in evolution. He's clearly not a scientist, but rather a theologian.

Of course, you just copied the first couple of pages of the discoveries institutes's/AIG's list of 300 (or is it 400 now) people who've claimed to be scientists and who state they do not believe in evolution. This list has been demolished many times before, long story short, only about 3% of the people on their list are practicing scientists; less than 50% are PhD holders, and hardly any are trained in a relevant field.

But since you seem to put great weight onto lists, here's two for you:

1) Steve evolution list: A list of scientists, all of whom are proven to be currently active in scientific research, and have a PhD, who believe in evolution. But wait, there's a catch - they have to be named "Steve" (or some derivative thereof). Steves, BTW, represent about 1% of practicing scientists.

NCSE Resource

Oh look, 889 Steves, compared to your lists what - 300? 400? people, of which only two would qualify for the steve list?

2) Clergy Letter Project: A list of Clergy members who hold evolution to be true, and to be compatible with the bible. How many signatures did they get - 11, 406 as of today. And you have 300 to 400... seems the clergy of your own religion don't even agree with you.

Clergy Letter Project. Website Banners. Project Links

Bryan