Creation vs. Evolution

[Marvel]

You keep basing your evidence on outdated and incorrect thinking such as the gospels actually being written by the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You are starting with incorrect data and then forming a concluding based on it. Then you argue the conclusion instead of the data.

Have you ever read up on who wrote the gospels? Have you ever wondered why Matthew, Luke (and much content from other non-canonical work) is basically the same material? Did Luke write his gospel reading over the shoulder of Matthew? Why did these men from that region get its geography wrong?

As early as the 19th century, the religious scholars with no internets or TV to disrupt their studies were noticing these anomalies.

Q document - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

deco, I am well aware of the Q document & have read much more about it that what is cited on Wikipedia- I do not like to use that site as my only source of information, only as a reference for those who cannot be bothered to find any of the underlying citations. I do my homework. I have to ask... do you? The Q document does not discuss whether or not Jesus ever lived, which is what we are discussing now. The intent of the Q document is to attempt to establish the actual words that Jesus spoke based on the similarities between to 4 Gospels.

Do you have any relevant comments on the sources I provided contrasting evidence for the existence of Alexander other historical personages, & Jesus? You said earlier that we have the evidence of the Ephemerides. I have proved that you are wrong but you are not willing to admit that.

Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander's general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Another influential account is by Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.

Again, these sources no longer exist but are only cited in later works by other writers.

Now you cite the existence of coins. Good point & one I am willing to accede as evidence- but, I never doubted the existence of Alexander in the first place, only the inaccurate textual information that you presented as evidence.

Of course, based on your argument, we have absolutely no evidence of the existence of Aristotle, Cato, Plato, Aristophanes & a whole host of others who's surviving manuscripts I listed.

Thing is, we are not going to find coins with His face on them because He was not a ruler, nor someone in a natural position to have something like that type of physical evidence associated with Him- just like Aristotle, Cato, Plato & Aristophanes. So, are you saying that these people did not exist also? Please feel free to do a search of Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities, an on line message board like ScubaBoard. I would imagine that if such coins did exist, they would be discussed there but none of my searches came up with any results. FYI- I used the broadest search I could, just names & came up with this in every case:

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Like Thal, you are arguing from a perspective that simply does not meet the established criteria for scholarly research.

You keep basing your evidence on outdated and incorrect thinking such as the gospels actually being written by the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You are starting with incorrect data and then forming a conclusion based on it. Then you argue the conclusion instead of the data.

Ah, I see. Now you want to say that the Gospel writers were not who we purport them to be despite extremely early evidence that substantiates that these were the authors. Goodness, deco- you are certainly grasping at straws. Why don't you try citing any where near the host of historians that I have used to support my arguments? I have taken the time to do some research & all you can do is present more unfounded claims. The best that you have been able to come up with are a few links to Wikipedia.

We even actually have a letter he wrote. True story.

Prove it. Show me where it has been vetted as authentic by the scholarly world. I took the time to look. Here's what I found with a quick Google search. Note: this site is maintained by Fordham University to provide factual information & debunk the inaccurate historical garbage out on the internet.

The History Sourcebook:
The Need for Source Criticism:
A Letter from Alexander to Aristotle?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is dedicated to making original primary sources available on the Internet. An important aspect of using primary source material is learning how to critique a source. It is quite possible, for example, for a source to be invented, to be edited, or to be mistranslated. Checking into the authenticity and reliability of a source is called source criticism. The text and commentary here present an example of how sources may be invented, and misused, and of the way historians respond.

& the conclusion at the end of the article, which, BTW, contains the scholarly sources that were used:

In this case then, the falsity of the source is easily established. Even so, a considerable number of different issues were taken into consideration by the various commentators. It is not always this easy: the creators of the letter could have been much cleverer - for instance they could have got their facts correct, and made the language accord more with Greek style. More: the text could have been picked up by other websites without a clear nationalist bias, and could have made it appear a more reasonable text.

The more one progresses in historical research, the more important do questions about the authenticity and reliability of sources become. Always, as Peter Green notes, Caveat Emptor! ("Let the buyer beware!")

You sir, are either extremely gullible, grossly misinformed or nothing more than one more uninformed internet troll. To attempt to discuss anything more with you would be a waste of my time.

 

[deco_martini]

The best that you have been able to come up with are a few links to Wikipedia.

In independent studies, the accuracy of wikipedia on various subjects has been rated to be as good as Britannica. The people who have contributed to wikipedia on various subjects including the Q gospel have done a good job of summarizing the scholarly work and consensus on these topics.

Without being degrading, I give wikipedia links sometimes because other sources are harder to understand and use bigger words. Regardless, throwing it out because its a wikipedia link isn't a very rational viewpoint.

However, there is no double standard for Alexander and Jesus. Even though the contemporary written sources do not survive, we had their content cited in other works near-contemporary, his tomb was well documented for 500 years, there is a fragment of surviving diary written by scribe at his death, there is currency with him on it, there are copies of art including a bust of his head made from contemporary works. The cultures he conquered have legends and tales around him (Jesus of course never travelled but if he had and other cultures had seen his miracles we could at least indirectly point to his existence).

Now, if Matthew and Luke actually cited a Q type gospel as a source that was contemporary we would have a much better case for the historical Jesus. If his disciples had commissioned art the copies were made of. If the Romans of his time had written about him. If Jesus had traveled to Egypt and performed miracles which the Egyptians would have noted and made legends of. If Jesus tomb was known and treated as a monument for 500 years as Alexander's was. If Jesus face was on the coins his disciples used. If his family tree could be mapped and he had descendents.

The case for the existence of Alexander is so large that to question his existence instead of the details of it make one look like a fool. It occurs to me that attempts to tie the historical evidence of Jesus to Alexander is based on the false implication that the cases themselves are equal when nothing could be further from the truth.

If you want a case of Jesus getting equal treatment, look to Apollonius. There is no double standard for the case for Jesus.

Btw, I don't know why I thought the fragment was a of a letter Alexander wrote. The fragment was actually the diary fragment of his death written by someone else.

 

[MattC007]

I'm an atheist.

 

[deco_martini]

Ah, I see. Now you want to say that the Gospel writers were not who we purport them to be despite extremely early evidence that substantiates that these were the authors. Goodness, deco- you are certainly grasping at straws.

If you have the evidence, it will be a revelation unto the entire world. So please, step up and receive your prize. The only "evidence" we have that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote a gospel was that their name was on them. However, there are gospels attributed to every disciple including Judas. This is not evidence.

Please, step up and prove what no biblical scholar has been able to do thus far and prove a gospel was written by written by its namesake. Also, chastise those disciples for not being able to agree on where Jesus was born, who Joseph's father was, or on the geography of Israel as their either disagree on those subjects or in the case of geography get them wrong.

 

[vicdiver656]

Personally, I believe in Creation.

Here's a little basis of evolution, and my theory for why it is false.

First, evolution states that the process of evolving has happened at the same rate for millions of years. Tests today prove that evolution can happen in a matter of hours. Take an earthquake, or a volcano for instance. They can change the face of the earth in minutes.

Second, evolution states that human forms gradually evolved over millions of years. If that is possible, how come we don't find any transitional forms (i.e. forms that are halfway between changing).

Third, evolution states that man eventually became better over time. The law of entropy states that molecular changes always result in confusion, rather than organization, always losing molecules.

Fourth, evolutionists use carbon dating which uses the current amount of radiation in a material compared to the original amount of radiation to determine the age of the material. How do they know how much radiation there was originally? They don't!!! If you don't believe me, Google Kent Hovind, and watch his videos.
Both Christianity and evolution can not be proved, but must be a matter of faith

 

[vicdiver656]

I'm an atheist.

I feel sorry for you

 

[coachpill]

Personally, I believe in Creation.

Here's a little basis of evolution, and my theory for why it is false.

First, evolution states that the process of evolving has happened at the same rate for millions of years. Tests today prove that evolution can happen in a matter of hours. Take an earthquake, or a volcano for instance. They can change the face of the earth in minutes.

Second, evolution states that human forms gradually evolved over millions of years. If that is possible, how come we don't find any transitional forms (i.e. forms that are halfway between changing).

Third, evolution states that man eventually became better over time. The law of entropy states that molecular changes always result in confusion, rather than organization, always losing molecules.

Fourth, evolutionists use carbon dating which uses the current amount of radiation in a material compared to the original amount of radiation to determine the age of the material. How do they know how much radiation there was originally? They don't!!! If you don't believe me, Google Kent Hovind, and watch his videos.
Both Christianity and evolution can not be proved, but must be a matter of faith

Though you will probably get rebuked stiffly for: combining geological events with evolution and using Kent Hovind's name, the points about uniformitarianism and assumptions in measurements are well taken.

 

[Thalassamania]

Hmmm... so, while you are are willing to accept the existence of Alexander the Great, even though the earliest source we have lived three centuries after him,

I never undertook to "prove" or "disprove" Alexander. But you happen to be wrong, numerous documents that are contemporaneous survive, including (as you note) logs from his army.

When it comes to Christ, you've yet to come up two contemporaneous documents. All the items you cite are well after his alleged death.

you dispute the early eye witness accounts documented in manuscripts from Matthew, Peter, John & James- despite the fact that these manuscripts are dated from around the same length of time & even closer*. The experts in the field do not dispute their historicity. In fact, we do not even have any manuscripts of the accounts of Alexander- only references from other sources that this documentation even existed. Just contrast that to the relative age of the oldest surviving manuscript of the New Testament & tell me why you are so willing to accept Alexander & not Jesus. Here's a list of other surviving manuscripts that scholars accept when deciding if some significant historical persons actually existed. Link:

That link is a bizarre apologia for the fact that the historical Christ doesn't pass muster. Not a single contemporaneous document is cited. Please stop wasting our time with folks who can do naught but make excuses for there being no documents or who can only come up with other issues with other figures, that's not the point. Please come up with two contemporaneous crossreferences or admit that they don't exist and fall back on, "I believe."

IOW, Thal, the evidence for Jesus DOES pass all the tests of modern scholarship. Somehow, I think that no matter how many of these experts I cite you will refuse to even consider their findings. Never mind that they trained for & have spent years investigating & studying the evidence. You, a layman, profess to know more than them. You sound somewhat like what you have asserted about those who have been arguing for creationism. You have taken a stance & it does not matter one whit what evidence is placed in front of you.

That's not true, I've asked for two citations that mention Jesus ... any kind of record at all, dated between 2BCE and 33 CE, that's the test that was put before you ... plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less ... meet it (and you haven't) or give up.

Frankly, I cannot take anything that you, or others, state about anything in this thread seriously when it is so evident that you, yourselves are willing to adopt a stance that is so easily refuted by the evidence of multiple independent sources & modern scholarship. You ask, no DEMAND that creationists take your science as gospel but refuse to apply the same standards to yourself.

Sadly & with all due respect, I cannot decide whether or not you are deliberately baiting & trolling for the sake of provoking controversy for your own private entertainment or that you truly do esteem your own intellectual prowess & knowledge above the experts in a field that you are not in. No one person can be an authority on all things, no matter how brilliant &/or well educated. If you choose to take the word of a small marginal & discredited group of historians than there is nothing that anyone can say or show that will cause you to revise that thinking.

I know that it's hard for you to understand this, but the historical existence of a Jesus figure (or the lack of one) is of no real interest to me. I could care less, it does not figure into any belief system that I hold, I am completely indifferent to the question. It happens that I was told, almost forty years ago, by an eminent historian, that Jesus did not meet the conventional academic test for having existed. Over the last four decades I have, on several occasions, brought that chestnut out ... and low and behold, every time I do so, there is a great tizzy and waiving of hands and gnashing of teeth ... but NEVER two references.

I take no one's word for anything I weight the evidence. I'd be happy to accept your view and I would instantly change my own (that's a scientist for you) if you could just meet the normal approved criteria. Got two citations for Jesus dated between 2 BCE and 33 CE? Yes? Then let's have them. No? Then you don't ... just say so, and we'll move on.

Like Thal, you are arguing from a perspective that simply does not meet the established criteria for scholarly research.

Are you now going out on a limb with the view that two contemporary cross references is not the established criteria for scholarly research in history? A bit late in the game for that gambit ... no?

 

[lamont]

He has said the following, I'am quoting:

"I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible."26

It is also said and I am quoting:

No one has adequately explained why the disciples would have been willing to die for a known lie. But even if they all conspired to lie about Jesus’ resurrection, how could they have kept the conspiracy going for decades without at least one of them selling out for money or position? Moreland wrote, “Those who lie for personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits.”25
There are many hard testimonies like that.

We don't have any direct testimony from the 12 apostles. The best accounts we have start 350 years later.

Allowing for the existence of Jesus, the Apostles and the Crucifixion, I'd argue that in those 350 years the resurrection got added to the text and had nothing to do with the apostles lying. The virgin birth also got added. That is part of the mythology, not of any historical fact.

 

[sheck33]

The law of entropy states that molecular changes always result in confusion, rather than organization, always losing molecules.

Fourth, evolutionists use carbon dating which uses the current amount of radiation in a material compared to the original amount of radiation to determine the age of the material. How do they know how much radiation there was originally? They don't!!! If you don't believe me, Google Kent Hovind, and watch his videos.
Both Christianity and evolution can not be proved, but must be a matter of faith

You obviously need to have another look at your physics text books.
I'd suggest you look up the second law of thermodynamics and radiometric dating since you seem to lack understanding of these subjects.