Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

I love how it goes from historians admitting that Christ was a man, to miracles proving he was more.

Let's see:
- Evidence exists to support the existence of a dude named Jesus Christ.
- A book says he performed miracles.
- Anyone who can perform miracles is clearly the son of god.

Yea, I'm not sure where the weak link is.

I would hazard to guess that if He healed someone right in front of you that you still wouldn't see the miracle. You are entitled to your skepticism.

 

[Diego440]

I would hazard to guess that if He healed someone right in front of you that you still wouldn't see the miracle.

Has he healed someone in front of you?

 

[Danoff]

I would hazard to guess that if He healed someone right in front of you that you still wouldn't see the miracle. You are entitled to your skepticism.

Is that supposed to mean that you think no amount of proof would be sufficient for me? That I have all the proof I need but I can't see it because I am blinded by, and always will be blinded by skepticism?

It would help a whole lot if he healed someone right in front of me. It would help even more if he did it in a lab with some of the best doctors in the world monitoring, and he did it over and over with the same results. You know, the kind of skepticism that most medicine is subject to.

The information out there supporting the notion of Christ as the son of God isn't any better than the information supporting the notion of Buddha as God or just about any other God for that matter, or even King Arthur. Is that skepticism or just not enough information?

I really didn't mean to get to far into this with you. Just pointing out that your argument didn't properly link up to the conclusion. I'm sure you could have gone through it, but you glossed over some important stuff there.

 

[Danoff]

It's strange to hear you say that. You have proven in the past that you don't even accept anything other then the fact that you are. If that's not calling the kettle black I just don't know what is.

I didn't say I believed it beyond any doubt. I don't believe god doesn't exist beyond any doubt - so it's not hypocritical. Not even a little bit. So... don't call me a hypocrite. And just because I hold things to an extreme standard of proof before I accept them as undeniable fact doesn't mean that I can't accept things as sufficiently proven to act upon. I don't believe beyond any doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it doesn't stop me from getting out of bed in the morning.

Right...so from your point of view stop pretending like you know for sure how evolution works. There could be 5 Billion things fundamental things left to be figured out about our universe. With following your logic you are the idiot looking into space thinking you know how our planet landed in its current location. Your arrogance to knowing more then the man that lived before you leaves you standing in your own poo without smelling it.

Uh... I'm not at all sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I didn't say it wasn't possible to understand our environment. Quite the opposite. I was leveraging on our understanding of clouds and atmospheres to show how humanity's knowledge grows over time and invalidates our trying to guess about 5 million steps ahead. That doesn't mean we can't know anything or don't progress. It means that things that look unexplainable to us now may have an explanation someday. That's it. I didn't think I did that bad a job of explaining it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I love how it goes from historians admitting that Christ was a man, to miracles proving he was more.

Let's see:
- Evidence exists to support the existence of a dude named Jesus Christ.

Just because I know how much you love attention to detail: His last name was not Christ. Christ is a title not assigned until after the disciples believed him to have risen from the dead. And it would be proper to call him Jesus the Christ, or Jesus, Christ. The original form (Christus or Christos - Latin or Greek) was a title denoting him as "anointed one" or "Saviour" or even "Messiah" in the ancient Hebrew. As best as can be seen from the naming conventions of the time his name would most likely be Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene. Or if they used job-related titular naming conventions then he would be Jesus the Carpenter, or just Jesus Carpenter. But, pre-resurrection he is commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, even in the Bible.

The information out there supporting the notion of Christ as the son of God isn't any better than the information supporting the notion of Buddha as God or just about any other God for that matter, or even King Arthur.

By calling him Christ you are calling him the son of God. For your own sake I suggest sticking to just Jesus, unless you don't mind giving him a title you are arguing he doesn't deserve.


OK, dead language lesson done.

 

[Danoff]

Just because I know how much you love attention to detail: His last name was not Christ. Christ is a title not assigned until after the disciples believed him to have risen from the dead. And it would be proper to call him Jesus the Christ, or Jesus, Christ. The original form (Christus or Christos - Latin or Greek) was a title denoting him as "anointed one" or "Saviour" or even "Messiah" in the ancient Hebrew. As best as can be seen from the naming conventions of the time his name would most likely be Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene. Or if they used job-related titular naming conventions then he would be Jesus the Carpenter, or just Jesus Carpenter. But, pre-resurrection he is commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, even in the Bible.

I know.

By calling him Christ you are calling him the son of God. For your own sake I suggest sticking to just Jesus, unless you don't mind giving him a title you are arguing he doesn't deserve.

I'm treating it as a name more than a title - as is common in these parts these days. Didn't think I had to be that careful about it. It just doesn't seem right to call him just "Jesus". It's like Madonna or Cher or something... the dude needs two names or it sounds wrong. I was aware that I was being sloppy when I wrote that. I guess I should have known better here.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I didn't say I believed it beyond any doubt. I don't believe god doesn't exist beyond any doubt - so it's not hypocritical. Not even a little bit. So... don't call me a hypocrite.

But you’re trying to tell me there is a certain level of understanding and acceptance that I HAVE to adhere. Your level is extreme so why can't mine be? I have every right to say I believe nothing until MY level has been met. That’s why I say you’re doing one thing and expecting something else from others.

 

[Danoff]

But you’re trying to tell me there is a certain level of understanding and acceptance that I HAVE to adhere.

Obviously you don't HAVE to do anything. You can believe whatever you want, but some things are unreasonable to believe and others are not. It isn't so much a matter of opinion as iron-clad irrefutable proof. Believing something without undeniable proof is perhaps the very definition of unreasonable.

What I'm saying is that your belief in God is not founded in reason or rationality. That's fact. And it actually shouldn't bother any religious person to hear that.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm treating it as a name more than a title - as is common in these parts these days.

It just seemed unlike you. Too many Christians I've met believe his last name is actually Christ, and it seemed unlike you to join them in their naming conventions.

Didn't think I had to be that careful about it. It just doesn't seem right to call him just "Jesus". It's like Madonna or Cher or something... the dude needs two names or it sounds wrong. I was aware that I was being sloppy when I wrote that. I guess I should have known better here.

If the world had such a small population I am sure that we could get away with referring to people by towns or regions, such as Steve of Frankfort, but as I know three other Steves from Frankfort, it just doesn't work anymore.

Call him what you will (but be respectful), I am sure I educated somebody. It just struck me as odd because I know overly religious Christians who have taken the time to do historical Bible study and they actually say it like: Jesus, Christ - Jesus (pause) Christ in order to give him the title and not the name.

 

[Duke]

I'm not quite sure what else Christ could have done to prove his divine origins. He healed the sick, raised the dead, raised himself from the dead, predicted future events that happened as He said it would, and ascended into heaven, and all this in public places with crowds of people. Science can't explain all these miracles but science doesn't have to explain it.

Again, there is NO proof outside the Bible that Jesus performed any miracles whatsoever. The Disciples wrote down their version of things. Being a disciple of Christ the Son, they naturally made things look good for their leader.

I mean, there are disciples of another kind that say someone supposedly flew radio-controlled airliners full of explosives into some buildings that were pre-wired for demolition - in public places full of crowds of people.

Not to be rude, or anything, but the actual veracity of both those accounts is precisely the same. Remember, we're talking about Jesus's divinity here, not just his existence.

 

[UnoMOTO]

What I'm saying is that your belief in God is not founded in reason or rationality. That's fact. And it actually shouldn't bother any religious person to hear that.

True...and I am blissfully happy living in my irrational thought of an after life. I really don't have anything to lose so you are right in that it doesn't bother me. I choose to reject the big bang because it has no bearing on my entry into eternity and not because I don't understand it.








Wicky Wicky Radsters RULE!

The Chefs can burn in.....the kitchen....I said kitchen!

 

[Pako]

Again, there is NO proof outside the Bible that Jesus performed any miracles whatsoever. The Disciples wrote down their version of things. Being a disciple of Christ the Son, they naturally made things look good for their leader.

At the cost of their lives.

I mean, there are disciples of another kind that say someone supposedly flew radio-controlled airliners full of explosives into some buildings that were pre-wired for demolition - in public places full of crowds of people.

Not denying that there are pranksters, thieves, and people that are looking to deceive others. In this above paragraph you take the stance that even if it were witnessed that it was still a hoax by your example. Not sure how they could do that back in the day with known paralyzed, blind, and leper stricken town beggars that were told to get up and walk home, completely healed. It's not likely they 'played' paralyzed or blind for a lifetime, even before Christ was born, to pull this kind of hoax off.

Not to be rude, or anything, but the actual veracity of both those accounts is precisely the same. Remember, we're talking about Jesus's divinity here, not just his existence.

His divinity comes from his own proclamations. Given his story, I don't doubt what He says to be true.

 

[Famine]

His divinity comes from his own proclamations. Given his story, I don't doubt what He says to be true.

And this is where we always hit a barrier.

His story was written 30-70 years after the fact by a collection of people who rarely refer to the same events in that person's life. These books were then translated from their original language(s) and assembled together, 400 years later still, by a society which had recently converted to the belief that the stories were true. This has then been retranslated into our language(s), 800 years later still, and constantly amended as our language(s) evolve(s) - to the point where there are myriad "Versions" (which refer to themselves as such).

And this is then the undiluted word of God and proof that the person in the story in the first place was of divine origin.

 

[ERacer]

What I'm saying is that your belief in God is not founded in reason or rationality. That's fact. And it actually shouldn't bother any religious person to hear that.

This is where Faith enters the picture. Although I'm not religious, I believe religion is an expression of faith.

 

[Diego440]

I believe in God... He's available in Japan

​

You have to love the fact that they've decided to use the box to point out ways your Jesus Robot can help you get chicks. As if you needed them to tell you.

 

[Year.Zero]

Let me stop you now. The Christian God is not defined by anything more than people who want to think they know more about God than they do. It is by the human trait to anthropomorphize things. It is common among humans to do this in order to attempt to define God. It is common among humans to do this with everything. We do it to pets, cars, plants, houses, everything. The only difference is that when we discuss God we try to explain everything in the universe from a cold to a natural disaster and try to apply human reasoning to why God would do such a thing, when God may not have had anything to do with it.

Your flaw is that you are trying to disprove God based on a human flaw. If I say that my cat thinks I am funny you aren't proving that I don't have a cat by pointing out that cats don't display humor. You are merely pointing out that I incorrectly anthropomorphize my cat. In the same way you aren't disproving God, but you are just showing that many Christians don't truly understand God.

You raise a good point (which has no bearing on me, because I'm not taking a side for this argument), but you didn't respond to the one at hand.

 

[FoolKiller]

You raise a good point (which has no bearing on me, because I'm not taking a side for this argument), but you didn't respond to the one at hand.

What is the point at hand? You drew a conclusion that the Christian god cannot exist because God has to be without limitation, and you said that Christians define God, thus creating a limitation. I pointed out to you that any Christians trying to define God were sorely mistaken and it creates a fallacy in your argument because you are basing your conclusion on incorrect data.

Since your second premise is wrong then your conclusions, using that premise, are also wrong.

You will have to either show me where the Christian God is truly defined or find a new premise to support your conclusion.


So, unless I am completely missing the point of the your post, I think I did address the point at hand.

 

[Azuremen]

And this is where we always hit a barrier.

His story was written 30-70 years after the fact by a collection of people who rarely refer to the same events in that person's life. These books were then translated from their original language(s) and assembled together, 400 years later still, by a society which had recently converted to the belief that the stories were true. This has then been retranslated into our language(s), 800 years later still, and constantly amended as our language(s) evolve(s) - to the point where there are myriad "Versions" (which refer to themselves as such).

And this is then the undiluted word of God and proof that the person in the story in the first place was of divine origin.

Head on nail for the science and logic based people here.

You could say the LDS church has their own modern day revelators and clarifying works, but then I'd have to argue with every person that adheres to the Trinity notion that LDS Church is in fact a Christian denomination. Which is never fun, because it never works.

Danoff's view is much like my fathers. People have issues with gray zones though...

The big issue comes down to believing a book, that as Famine pointed out, would not be considered original or highly reliable by secular types in this day and age.

 

[Pako]

Head on nail for the science and logic based people here.

You could say the LDS church has their own modern day revelators and clarifying works, but then I'd have to argue with every person that adheres to the Trinity notion that LDS Church is in fact a Christian denomination. Which is never fun, because it never works.

Danoff's view is much like my fathers. People have issues with gray zones though...

The big issue comes down to believing a book, that as Famine pointed out, would not be considered original or highly reliable by secular types in this day and age.

Very true observation.

 

[Sureboss]

And this is where we always hit a barrier.

His story was written 30-70 years after the fact by a collection of people who rarely refer to the same events in that person's life. These books were then translated from their original language(s) and assembled together, 400 years later still, by a society which had recently converted to the belief that the stories were true. This has then been retranslated into our language(s), 800 years later still, and constantly amended as our language(s) evolve(s) - to the point where there are myriad "Versions" (which refer to themselves as such).

And this is then the undiluted word of God and proof that the person in the story in the first place was of divine origin.

Biggest game of Chinese whispers ever?

 

[Pako]

Biggest game of Chinese whispers ever?

That would be a gross analogy. A misconception is that there have been broad translations where those that were translating just put the different story's and biblical passages into their own words. Fortunately, they took a scientific approach to translating the scriptures by only allowing each translator to work on a fraction of a passage at a time. No one person was able to come to their own conclusions, thus altering the true nature of the original writings.

Some of you might find this a more interesting read than others.

 

[ledhed]

The Energizer Bunny ...it just keeps going .

 

[Joey D]

Just a few things:

1.) If the Christian God is the real God does that make every other religion wrong? Don't they think the same thing of the Christian religion?

2.) There are 1000's of creation myths, how can you be sure the Christian one is correct and the other ones are incorrect?

This is of course we are assuming that creation happened through supernatural means. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, I don't know, no one really knows.

Also one thing I've always wondered is how creationist deal with Australopithecus (Lucy), Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, etc.? I mean we have evidence they existed at one time.

Lucy at the Natural History museum in London.

 

[Azuremen]

Very true observation.

It is my own internal issues regarding Christianity as well. I tend to see both sides of this coin that Evolution and Creation, as I've walked back and forth across the line many times.

There is no point in debating it really, you either believe or you don't.

And thus the issue arises between those that go off a gut feeling, instinct or guidance from a greater being, and those that want spread sheets of data and observations to support something.

In support of those following a Book, they have this going for them. They know all they need to know more or less, where as science is constantly changing its views and understandings. And they tend to sleep better, not being overwhelmed by how much the science people realize they don't know.

But to attempt to prove one or the other is folly... we don't have all the pieces for macro evolution by any measure, and one cannot apply logic to faith. Faith is in fact a paradox in that it is more or less believing with certainty in something you cannot actually know. And that just makes the science guys nervous.

This thread does provide a great deal of insight and information, but people shouldn't try to prove the other wrong, it just ends up offending people.

 

[ERacer]

Amen to that ^

 

[wfooshee]

This thread does provide a great deal of insight and information, but people shouldn't try to prove the other wrong, it just ends up offending people.

Hmm. . . You mean like Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Middle East for the past, oh, 1200 years or so?

 

[A Fatal Goodbye]

Evolution is too random to be believable. How something so significant and complex can come from nothing...

 

[ERacer]

Evolution is too random to be believable. How something so significant and complex can come from nothing...

Well, you start off very small. The universe itself, for example, prior to the big bang, has been estimated to have been only a few millimeters in diameter.

You, yourself, started off as a single cell organism.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Evolution is too random to be believable. How something so significant and complex can come from nothing...

Natural selection is very easy to understand.

Ever heard of the phrase "survival of the fittest(sp)"?

 

[niky]

@niky,

Historians don't deny that Christ lived on earth. Jesus' disciples wrote of personal accounts of the events of Christ without contradiction. I'm not quite sure what else Christ could have done to prove his divine origins. He healed the sick, raised the dead, raised himself from the dead, predicted future events that happened as He said it would, and ascended into heaven, and all this in public places with crowds of people. Science can't explain all these miracles but science doesn't have to explain it.

Man, I miss a lot when my DSL goes on the fritz...

I'm not debating the bible, per se. But I'm pointing out that it isn't the most self-consistent of documents. Yes, there is some historical evidence to suggest the existence of a Jesus Christ and of the Apostles, but this is the "Creation versus Evolution" thread.

We don't have historical evidence for some of the things the Bible claims happened before Christ. We're fairly sure there was a David, a Solomon, a Moses... we're fairly sure that the Jews did escape from Egypt, did conquer the Palestinians, etcetera... we're not certain there ever was a "Noah" (the flood myth is common to many of the local religions and cultures, only with a different name for the ancient mariner who survived the flood...)

And we have no historical evidence for an Adam or an Eve... and the Bible never tells us where Cain got his wife (ripped out his own rib, perhaps?).

My point is: just because some parts of the Bible are possibly true, does not mean every single word is.

But the Churches don't want to admit that... and much blood has been spilled in arguments over the finer points.

I would hazard to guess that if He healed someone right in front of you that you still wouldn't see the miracle. You are entitled to your skepticism.

I would try to ascertain that the person was indeed sick, and that healing had, in fact, occurred. I would establish repeatability and verifiability.

I've seen lots of "healing" in person... people speaking in tounges, "possessions" that looked like nothing more than hysterical/epileptic attacks... laying of hands... and the charlatans who pronounced themselves healers on TV in the 80's.

Unless you can verify it, or it has been verified scientifically following proper procedure by an independent observer, of course you've got to be skeptical. That's the scientific way.