Creation, Evolution, and faith

It will be by a contemporary author, but not a contemporaneous account. And, if you were to do that without citing contemporaneous sources, I suspect it wouldn't be given much serious consideration.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I see something wrong....Given: You conclude: To the person who has "seen" Jesus, their belief isn't from blind faith.Regardless of the lack of objectivity and replicability, the person's experience would make their faith not blind.

Hi slevesque, So what? They believed it. They were not witness to it. Paul never met Jesus, except arguably in his Road to Damascus vision. That's not much to build a historical account upon. This in no way counts as a contemporaneous account.Mutate and Survive

CS, I disagree.Every Christian who I have ever heard cite one of these experiences seems to believe, often without any shadow of doubt , that the experience they had was of Jesus. THE Jesus. The same Jesus that every other Christian encounters in these enraptured moments. There is absolutely no basis for this belief.How do they know that it is Jesus? Faith.How do they know it wasn't a Satanic trick? Faith.How do they know it wasn't Krishna? Faith.If the interpretation of the experience is based upon faith, then all arguments that rest upon that interpretation are faith-based as well. Given that there is no way of empirically demonstrating that the interpretation is correct, that leaves the faith essentially blind.We know that there was a real experience, but we do not know that it was Jesus. That belief is taken on blind faith. Also, we are none the wiser as to whether Jesus is divine. We might conclude (very tentatively) that there is some sort of supernatural entity called Jesus that is in communication with the believer, but it does not prove that he is actually divine.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Subbie,I've stated here time and again that I don't think that scientific evidence for science and the evidences for the Bible are one in the same. What more do you want me to say about it? How many more time should I say it? They aren't the same...there I said it yet again. I'm sorry if this isn't getting through here but I'm not arguing for science proving the Bible. I'm arguing for reason in logic in the biblical evidence.Secondly, I don't think I've ignored the opposition. Quite frankly, I've been a punching bag here today, took a standing 8 count from Percy, and have tried to address 7-8 of you while there is one of me, at least until Slev addressed one issue.

This will probably be my last response tonight in this debate, I need a breather...lol.Percy, again, sorry for the lame analogy but my point wasn't to declare that there is something wrong with the theory and testing in the speed of light. I know the speed of light, I was taught the speed of light, and although I've never myself tested the speed of light, I still believe it. My example was for the layperson, not for the scientists of the board. How many soccer mom's load up their minivan with the rugrats, plug in the TomTom, and say, "hey look Johnny, this GPS is working at the speed of light" and then proceed to tell all the kids in the car what and how the speed of light works?. Answer, none of them say that, or even know it.My point is, there are tons of people out here, millions in fact that can't tell you what the speed of light is but they believe it, not on blind faith, but on some sort of faith level. There are many self proclaimed evolutionists all around us who have zero ability to defend their positions, same can be said for Christians. I work with a guy who in passing disagreed with me on the age of the earth....yet, he had zero, and I mean zero clue, on how to defend that position, but he believed it...is that faith? I think it is. I'm not applying that example to this board as this board represents a fairly small sample of society.

I'm not really meaning to "pile on" here, so there is no need for you to reply. If they "can't tell you what the speed of light is" then I'm not sure what it is that you think they believe.What most people believe, is that their technology works.Whenever we use our hi-tech devices, we are actually checking the speed of light. For example, the TV antenna design depends on the speed of light. Things like the speed of light are built into our technology to such an extent that we are continually testing it.

Hi Flyer75,Yes, we know there are people who accept things they can't explain or understand, but I think you've lost the direction you've been arguing if you think that's relevant.In science there are people who understand it, can explain it, and can show you how to replicate its findings so you can demonstrate things to your own satisfaction.In religion there are also people who understand it and can explain it, but they cannot show you how to replicate its findings. They cannot provide a factual basis for the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension, or Catholics not eating meat on Fridays for centuries. They use reason and logic, yes, but hanging from the clouds.--Percy

How do you know Paul never met Jesus ????AbE We know he was a Pharisee, and was in Jerusalem prior to his conversion.(from his wiki page)For all we know he could even have been in the Sanhedrin that condemned JesusEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Ok, and for example hypothetically if Obama himself wrote an autobiography about his presidential campaign 40 years after it, would it be considered by a contemporary author, but not a contemporaneous account ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Sure, if Obama actually wrote it.But then, we have a longer expected life than 2000 years ago. It's conceivable that Obama could push 90 and still be around. 2000 years ago, being able to live long enough to write an account 60 years after the event which took place when you were at least adult age? That would make you pushing between 75 and 90.It's not considered t a contemporary account because it requires the author to be far older than the average life expectancy of the time. I would be a miracle in itself for such an author to still be able to write...let alone remember the account accurately.

Well first off, we were talking about 40 years, not 60. And of course, this figures comes from the 70AD date to the first Gospel Theodoric gave earlier, which is even a bit high considering most scholars date the first gospel to 55-60. That puts it at 25-30 years after the events.So not only did you give no source for the life expectancy of people at that time, instead claiming that it would require a miracle for someone to still be able to write at an age of 75-90 at that time, but you are also stretching the dates to permit yourself to make baseless claims.And now of course, if Obama writes about his presidential campaign 40 years after the event, you consider it contemporary. But if I write about it 40 years after the event, you won't consider it contemporary ? This alone is a fallacy.But disregarding this, it still poses a dilemna. If you consider Obama's account as not contemporary, then it is putting a burden on the proof that the vast majority of historical documents won't fit in. How many ancient documents about historical accounts do you seriously think were written as the events were taking place ? Very few.But if you do consider that Obama's account would be contemporary, then you have to come to the same conclusions about at least the first gospel written in order to stay consistent.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This is a excellent illustration of the subjective nature of religious beliefs. Can you imagine anything in science depending upon whether, for example, Galileo ever met Newton? That if Galileo had at some point met Newton then we could trust that there are four moons around Jupiter, otherwise we could not?There are real world facts standing behind the theories of science. Anyone with the interest can verify scientific theories for himself. But with religion there's no factual basis that anyone can check for himself regarding, for example, the virgin birth, the resurrection or the ascension and so on. All you can do is argue about who was an eye witness and who wasn't, or who made things up and who didn't, or what is literally true and what isn't. There's no objective real-world basis for these things. If your sole claim to some knowledge is what some people wrote then your certainty in its ties to the real world ends at those people. You can never go to the real world, the universal arbiter of last resort, and verify it for yourself.The factual real world basis of science is why there is an ever expanding volume of widely accepted theory, while the subjective nature of religion is why it will be forever fragmented into many religions and hundreds of sects that evolve continually through time.This doesn't necessarily mean religious beliefs are bogus. Different people can draw different conclusions. But it does mean that in regard to the real world religion is a very different beast than science.--Percy

Slevesque, you shock me, really you do. What possible reason could you have to suppose that he did? Or maybe they played baccarat together every third Wednesday.Seriously, in your attempts to show how well founded Christian beliefs are, you have wandered into the territory of simply making shit up. Now if you're going to start suggesting convenient possibilities for which no evidence exists, then that's your right; you go ahead and believe what you please. Just don't pretend that what you are doing is in any way akin to science.Can you imagine a physicist saying "Well, how do you know I didn't achieve cold fusion in my kitchen?"? I think not.Mutate and Survive

And yet you continue to conflate the two. You say that both theists and scientists use evidence and then fill in the holes with faith, as if they are the same thing.I'm sorry, but it's dishonest to conflate religion and science and then turn around and deny the conflation. For example, in message 164 you wrote:

quote:

---

The thread started off about faith and moved to logic and reason, which is fine. If anybody here wants to just make the claim (which kb is arguing against, even though we disagree on probably everything else) that there is zero logic in the Christian belief then fine, there's really no sense in me trying to convince you otherwise. All I'm saying, that in my brief studies, there is enough evidence for me to belief A, B, and C, in the Bible, thus I can believe X, Y, and Z. Faith fills in the rest but it's not blind faith. If we want to debate all these other things such as archeology and prophecy and problems that Christians run into in the Bible, we can do so in another thread.

​

I'm of the belief that although I disagree with it, evolutionists believe based on reason and logic and a little bit of faith to fill a few holes.

---

You implied that theists are no different than scientists when it comes to religious beliefs and scientific theories, respectively. Care to explain?