Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
But I do take exception with science that feels it has all the answers and has emphatically disproved the existance of God!


You haven't been paying attention, have you. Or maybe you've been paying a little too much attention to your preacher, and not enough to the scientists...

Any how, aside from a vocal minority, few scientists make the claim you state above. As myself, and several others have pointed out hundreds of times in this thread SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE METAPHYSICAL. Science can no more disprove or prove the existence of god, than the bible can tell us the number of protons you'll find in the nucleus of plutonium.

So science makes no claims vis-a-vis god. Any such claims are either the scientists personal view, or more likely in your case, parroting the hateful words of an anti-science zealot preacher.

Bryan
 
Umm, no it does not make him an idiot. ... He's clearly not a scientist, but rather a theologian.
I'll kick his ass in science. I'll kick his ass in history. I'll kick his ass in theology. I'll float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.:D

Actually it would be a lot harder if he were competent in even one of the fields. He's a tool spouting back pre-digested crap that he doesn't understand. That's why I've never gotten an answer to my challenge ... he's no knowledge of his own. It'll be interesting to see what kind of BS we'll get after Church on Sunday. I'll be diving.
 
Last edited:
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.


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."

There's more to it. I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject from a variety of sources. All things considered from documentory evidence (secular and non-secular) to the behavior of followers immediately following the crucifiction (obviously I think there's enough evidence to support the fact that it did happen) and growth of Christianity that resulted, I'd say that Jesus existed, He claimed to be who Christians still think He is, His followers believed what He said and that He was indeed who He said He was.

I still go back to it when I have time but the smoking gun that disproves the existance or identity of Jesus just isn't there and I don't find the liberal or "secular" arguments, methods or conclusions particulary sound or convincing.

And, we covered this pretty well earlier in the thread. LOL, so Jesus didn't exist but He had a brother James and His disciples, after being convinced themselves, went on to risk life and limb to preach His resurection? A rather large impact for someone who never existed?
 
So science makes no claims vis-a-vis god. Any such claims are either the scientists personal view, or more likely in your case, parroting the hateful words of an anti-science zealot preacher.

Bryan

I haven't run into any preachers who I could describe as inti-science (maybe groups like the Amish come close?), including those who are proponents of a completely "literal" interpretation of the Bible. I might describe most of them as anti(anti-religion) though.

Science may not make any claims vis-a-vis God but there are people who do and try to use science as their justification...just as there are those who try to use religious beliefs to dispute science.

Personally, I don't see much value in either approach.
 
I'm really not sure what the existence of Jesus has to do with Evolution or Creation. Evolution and Creation happened before Jesus was born. Also, Jesus never said that Evolution or Creation did or did not happen. So I'm not really sure how he became part of this discussion.

Also, if a Christian is really strong in his faith it shouldn't bother him what scientists discover or what theories they have. Isn't faith supposed to be believing without seeing or having proof so if that is the case why not just leave the scientist alone? Why do religious people become so angry unless their faith is lacking.

The job of scientists is not to prove the existence or lack of existence of any deity. Scientists make observations of the natural world and come to conclusions based on those observations. Then they present this information to the public. Its as simple as that. Its all about what can be seen or measured.
 
I'm really not sure what the existence of Jesus has to do with Evolution or Creation. Evolution and Creation happened before Jesus was born. Also, Jesus never said that Evolution or Creation did or did not happen. So I'm not really sure how he became part of this discussion.

Also, if a Christian is really strong in his faith it shouldn't bother him what scientists discover or what theories they have. Isn't faith supposed to be believing without seeing or having proof so if that is the case why not just leave the scientist alone? Why do religious people become so angry unless their faith is lacking.

The job of scientists is not to prove the existence or lack of existence of any deity. Scientists make observations of the natural world and come to conclusions based on those observations. Then they present this information to the public. Its as simple as that. Its all about what can be seen or measured.

They just can't stand it that the "truth" is "so obvious and clear" and someone else can not see it! There must be something wrong with you. :satanlook: well :blessing: be with you in your war on/for truth.:swordfight::chair:
:yeahbaby:
 
All of these give reference to Jesus Christ.


references, yes ... personal accounts of having met him, no

not outside of the New Testament

and even those books of the New Testament ascribed to "eyewitnesses" have been established by solid scholarship to have been written by others long after the fact

(it is by now beyond doubt in serious Bible scholarship that three of the Gospels were not written by their namesakes (Mark, Matthew, and John). the historical Luke might have written the Gospel of Luke, but he never met Jesus in person himself, and he traveled with Paul, who also never met Jesus in person)

the only books in the New Testament absolutely known to have been written by a contemporary of Jesus are the first five or six epistles of Paul ... and Paul himself acknowledges he never met Jesus alive

Paul does describe meetings with Peter (the Apostle) and James (the brother of Jesus) in Jerusalem ... so the best we get in the New Testament is someone who never met Jesus but met two people who told him "yeah, Jesus was a real person" -- but what exactly they told him, and what they knew about Jesus, and what they talked about, Paul does not go into (other than Peter and James agreed that Paul would go preach to the Gentiles)

even taking Paul at face value (and he might have been overstating his case to convince others of his authority and relationship to other Church elders) that's as close as we get
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom