Creation vs. Evolution

[adurso]

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?

At the time the historical Jesus existed/or did not exist there were more religious cults than one could shake a stick at (so to speak). The behavior of the adherents of the Jesus cult were not so different than the behavior of those who followed Mithras, had not Constantine chosen to be a member of the Jesus cult, sparking imitators, Christianity may have gone the way of the bull worshippers. Look at the followers of Jim Jones, the Moonies and a host of modern cults and compare the behaviors to that of the early Christians.....

All cultists believe the leader of the cult to be who he or she says he or she is. The reason the Moonies and Hare Krishnas and Jehovah's Witnesses and other proslytizing groups do not risk life and limb (in the US) is due to our more enlightened age. We do not have a state religion (formally) we do not excute those who dissent

 

[Hockeynut]

This thread is still alive???

 

[H2Andy]

At the time the historical Jesus existed/or did not exist there were more religious cults than one could shake a stick at (so to speak).

and it's very possible (indeed, likely) that in an oral tradition, several of these "Master" figures (including earlier people named Jesus) had their stories rolled into one

so the "historical" Jesus may actually be a composite of several itinerant holy men going around Palestine around that time

one thing seems to stand out: the earliest traditions of Jesus immediately reference the crucifixion, so the "principal" Jesus was likely real and was crucified by the Romans for "rabble rousing" (and the Romans crucified a lot of people during this time)

as his story gained popularity, the accounts of other holy men and other "Jesuses" became attached to his name, and that is probably what got written about 30 to 40 years after his death ...

that is why it's so difficult to pin down the historical Jesus. the writings we have about him are not at all historical in the modern sense. they are more like collections of anecdotes that may or may not have been about the "historical" Jesus, and which were more than likely embellished over countless tellings before they got written down

 

[adurso]

and it's very possible (indeed, likely) that in an oral tradition, several of these "Master" figures (including earlier people named Jesus) had their stories rolled into one

so the "historical" Jesus may actually be a composite of several itinerant holy men going around Palestine around that time

one thing seems to stand out: the earliest traditions of Jesus immediately reference the crucifixion, so the "principal" Jesus was likely real and was crucified by the Romans for "rabble rousing" (and the Romans crucified a lot of people during this time)

as his story gained popularity, the accounts of other holy men and other "Jesuses" became attached to his name, and that is probably what got written about 30 to 40 years after his death ...

that is why it's so difficult to pin down the historical Jesus. the writings we have about him are not at all historical in the modern sense. they are more like collections of anecdotes that may or may not have been about the "historical" Jesus, and which were more than likely embellished over countless tellings before they got written down

Exactly. Another thing that was popular during this mileau was the oral tradition of a religious "superman" in a sense. The stories were told by a tribal group who were downtrodden, who may have been enslaved in the past, who were put upon by the Romans. These people told stories of a "Mashiach" (Messiah) or anointed one, who would free them from oppression. If this person did not complete their mission they were not who they were purported to be....

And Jesus was a common name.......

 

[deco_martini]

If there was a historical Jesus, then believing in Jesus wouldn't be a matter of faith. So, I'm not sure why people are so hung up on clinging to Josephus and such and claiming its confirmation.

Faith is about believing in things there is no concrete evidence for. That's kinda the point. If you could prove or disprove the divinity of Jesus then you would have no need for faith.

 

[coachpill]

I just picked one at random, here's his bio:
William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S.

Here's another. Dr. Georgia Purdom

*Ph.D., molecular genetics, Ohio State University 2000
*Former professor at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University, winning variety of honors and doing research presentations
*Published papers in Journal of Neuroscience, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Journal of Leukocyte Biology
*Member of Creation Research Society, American Society for Microbiology, American Society for Cell Biology
*Peer reviewer for Creation Research Science Quarterly
*Member of the GENE project research team conducted by the Institute for Creation Research

So?

 

[Sas]

Here's another. Dr. Georgia Purdom

*Ph.D., molecular genetics, Ohio State University 2000
*Former professor at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University, winning variety of honors and doing research presentations
*Published papers in Journal of Neuroscience, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Journal of Leukocyte Biology
*Member of Creation Research Society, American Society for Microbiology, American Society for Cell Biology
*Peer reviewer for Creation Research Science Quarterly
*Member of the GENE project research team conducted by the Institute for Creation Research

So?

So what? I don't get why the creationists here are putting lists of a few scientists that support their 'case'. There are incompetent people in every professions.

But since you've asked, Mt. Vernon Nazarene is a fundamentalist institution, not a secular one so that is hardly convincing me she is a proper science professor.

Also a googling of her name pulls up a list of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots so I don't think she garners much respect in the secular world Among many other webpages devoted to poking holes in her 'science'.

 

[H2Andy]

Here's another. Dr. Georgia Purdom

you're missing the point that these people are in an infinitesimal minority. there will always be a minority (in this case a tiny, tiny minority) in science that does not agree with the majority view

nevertheless, 99% of all working scientists accept evolution as a fact, given the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it

at the same time, only ONE FACT needs to be brought out to debunk evolution once and for all, because it is a scientific theory, capable of being disproven (unlike creationism or intelligent design)

i repeat my earlier comment: find a mammal fossil in a Cambrian fossil bed, and evolution goes poof.

good luck. if you really understood the big picture, you would know how risible your position is. what's scary is that you are a science teacher, supposed to understand science and how science works. you seem to have no clue.

that is scary indeed.

now, i could certainly respect your view that God exists and that he works in mysterious ways, and perhaps he was the originator of life. what happened before the Big Bang? your guess is as good as mine, and I can't rule out the possibility (remote as it may be) that a supernatural being was involved.

but to oppose evolution? you show a complete lack of understanding of the last 150 years of scientific thought

 

[offthewall1]

I find it interesting that Scientists Created Evolution and that prior to Modern Science the Theory of Evolution did not exist. It is quite possible that evolution still does not exist... except in the minds of scientists. In other words, there are more religious people than there are scientists. Most of those religious people do not accept the theory of evolution... which leaves the scientists in the minority.

I have not yet witnessed any evidence of evolution in my lifetime. All the animals I knew when I was a child 40 years ago are still the same... most extinct... which may be an argument against evolution and actually be an argument for devolution... or the disappearing of species from a once vast collection of God made creatures.

Perhaps God became tired of playing with the dinosaurs so he wiped them out with an ice age? Perhaps we are next?

 

[Thalassamania]

Her thesis was on [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]"The Role of the Microphthalmia Transcription Factor (MIKTF) in the Regulation of Gene Expression during Osteoclast Differentiation." I know some folks at OSU in similar areas, maybe I'll call and get the inside skinny (you know there has to be one).
[/SIZE][/SIZE]