|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion or Science - How do they compare? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The fact that you see doubting questionable claims as a punishment - rather than simple honesty - speaks volumes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The fact that you see a truthful and honest assessment as ingrained prejudice also speaks volumes. Honestly assessing the evidence is not punishment. That you say otherwise does say a lot about you. That’s not prejudice, that’s just fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In no way is it punishing your belief to point out that by your own source:
For example, the Talmud mentions Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, speaking with Rabbi Akiva,[3] who was executed at the climax of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.
Since Rabbi Akiva was born in 50 AD, it is rather unlikely that he would have spoken to Jesus’ stepfather and the name Pappos ben Yehuda does not seem to match that of Joseph - even the father’s name doesn’t match either of the Gospel genealogies. In short, the identification of the Talmud’s Yeshu ben Pantera with the Biblical Jesus is uncertain. That you would object to anyone pointing this out is bad enough. That you would laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong with such an attitude is even worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, and obviously so since I said nothing about bar Kochkba. What I said is that the information on Yeshu ben Pantera’s stepfather indicates that he was not the Joseph named in the Gospels as Jesus’ father. He had a different name, a different father and seems to have lived decades later - likely not even born before Jesus’ death. But thanks for the examples of anti-semitism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Regardless of your opinion the facts are not clear enough to make a certain identification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And there we have your evil exposed. I didn’t say anything about advocating violence. I said that you provided examples of anti-semitism. And you did. Moreover you only call them facts because they come from the Bible. The Barabbas story in particular is almost certainly a fiction. So we have anti-semitism in the Bible. Calling me a Nazi - when you are defending genocide - is just a typical example of your vile and hypocritical lying. So much for the benefit of the doubt!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Stop making things up.
quote: That you think they are true does not make them true.
quote: Faith I understand that you are an evil lying slanderer. But contrary to your silly opinion that does not give you the right or the power to silence the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The fact that their truth is very much in question should prevent any honest person from relying on them as facts. If you want to establish that they are facts, I am willing to discuss the evidence. Are you ?
quote: They aren’t established as facts. It neither requires a lie or a threat of harm to be anti-semitism. Prejudice against or hostility to Jews is quite adequate and you are expressing both. And let us not forget that you are raising these facts as excuses for Luther’s anti-semitism which did indeed encourage harm to the Jews.
quote: Yes, we know that you are a raging hypocrite as well as a liar and a slanderer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In other words your sole argument is to say that people believed it - and call anyone who disagrees a Liberal Nazi Because viciously and falsely smearing anyone who disagrees is such a good argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Unsurprisingly it is not good. Faith will, of course accuse me of prejudice but the facts speak for themselves. Most of the citations are Bible verses with no indication that they played a role in the Founder’s thinking. I looked at the sole exception: It claimed that Judicial, legislative, and executive branches was based on Isaiah 33:22 claiming to cite Madison. Isaiah 33:22 says:
(For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us); I will note that this doesn’t appear to have any separation of powers, and that England already had a King, a Parliament (a two-chamber Parliament at that) and a judiciary. The role of the Bible seems somewhat superfluous. The citation is worse. It refers to a website which offers as it’s only source the Wallbuilder’s website. Which is of course David Barton’s organisation. Citing a source that quotes only an unreliable secondary source is hardly good scholarship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Here is one of the dictionary.com definitions
to express what is false; convey a false impression.
dictionary.com also allows that:
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
may be considered a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If it can work for unwitnessed events in historical times, why should it not work for unwitnessed events in prehistoric times ? And why do the various cross-checks, using independent methods fail to qualify as verification? Radiometric dating methods, for instance rely on well-established physics and chemistry. Unless you are going to say that those operated differently in the prehistoric past it seems that you don’t really have a point here.
quote: We can however note that the evidence is very strongly in favour of our interpretation - to the point that there is no reason why it should not be considered settled science.
quote: The idea that there are Kinds which impose a limit on variation is merely an assumption, without any real evidence. The evidence, notably including transitional fossils but also including genetic analyses and the distribution of species in time and space is consistent with large scale evolutionary change.
quote: You have assumption and speculation. We have the evidence. It is not at all likely that there will be any proof of Flood geology. Even restricting ourselves to the modern version you’ve had a hundred years and it still isn’t close to explaining the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Does any of that actually matter for the sorts of cases we are considering ? In terms of getting a date for when a rock cooled from lava or magma it doesn’t seem terribly relevant.
quote: And supports evolution, too.
quote: There is no valid evidence that contradicts it. And plenty that supports it. You can argue over exact dates but the difference between YEC time frames and those accepted by science is night and day and the evidence rules out the possibility of YEC dates being even in the right order of magnitude.
quote: Even YECs put the writing of the Bible after the Flood, so you don’t have documents from the timeunless you want to argue that the Book Of Enoch really was written by the Biblical Enoch. And if you can tell me what use cell phones or credit cards would be in in dating a rock please do.
quote: It’s pretty obvious that the Flood didn’t build the whole geological column so you’d be pretty off track trying to find it there, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That seems to be an example of your fantasies. They have no reasonable explanation for the geological or fossil records and they can’t even agree on which rocks were due to the Flood (I think most put the end of the Flood at the end of the Cretaceous, disagreeing with your idea that the Flood accounts for all of it).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And the fossils, and the strata. There’s a whole lot more evidence out there.
quote: The evidence we have is so strong I think we can rightly dismiss that possibility. The idea that there is something incredibly wrong with so many different dating methods - and they still produce strongly consistent results itself isn’t worth considering. When you add in the other evidence, you might as well hope for proof that the Earth is flat. Why not accept the truth? The evidence says that the Earth is undeniably far, far older than the mere 10,000 years or less than YEC claims. There is no real evidence to the contrary worth considering.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024