Quote:There are plenty of biochemists, geneticists, other scientists that believe in a creator.

Which is irrelevant to wither there is one as those are personnel beliefs not scientific facts.

---

Quote:I didn't say anything false.  DNA has information bearing properties which cannot be explained by the atheist worldview.  From there turn to theology.

1. Yes you have 

2. Argument from ignorance 

3. There is no atheist worldview 

4. theology is worthless at solving anything

---

Quote:I do not believe a blind process could have created that functional information and the molecular machines in the cell.

Argument from credulity

At work.

Yes. A far more concise rebuttal of CDF47's now repetitive nonsense.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:09 pm)CDF47 Wrote: More evidence for the exodus:

https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/...found.html

---

You probably missed the "may" bit in the article. It has not yet been investigated yet so it is not yet evidence for the exodus.
Perhaps that will change, but I think not.
Like all those "we found the ark" stories, they never found the ark. Its Christian click bait.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:09 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:05 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Exactly, the truth of these things that are demonstrably false is unimportant to you.  So......why push them? They're not actually important.

I didn't say anything false.  DNA has information bearing properties which cannot be explained by the atheist worldview.  From there turn to theology.

You keep claiming this, but when asked for proof, you change the subject. What proof do you have that DNA couldn't have evolved through natural means and thus be explained by materialism. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

(December 27, 2018 at 10:00 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:09 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I didn't say anything false.  DNA has information bearing properties which cannot be explained by the atheist worldview.  From there turn to theology.

You keep claiming this, but when asked for proof, you change the subject. What proof do you have that DNA couldn't have evolved through natural means and thus be explained by materialism. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

I thought we couldn't prove a negative...
CDF's problem is that his argument is one of incredulity... Or lack of understanding of the mechanisms that drive what we call evolution.

I'd advise CDF to read an introductory book, perhaps Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:22 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I do not believe a blind process could have created that functional information and the molecular machines in the cell.

Your incredulity is oddly selective.  You just can't believe in organic chemistry...but no matter what, you will believe that a wizard played in the mud.

(December 25, 2018 at 1:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I linked a source {https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/guest-commentary/was-jesus-a-historical-figure.html}.  I also provided one for Exodus.

Before I finish the first sentence of your "source" it shows itself to be worse than shit (at least you can use shit as fertiliser), it calls Will Durant early on "non-christian". Nothing in his writing or his life suggests that he ever abandoned christianity. Secondly they are using a source from 1944, back in a period when "biblical history" was still dominated by religious ministers and the bible was taken as unquestioned truth. Archaeology since then has completely destroyed the myth of biblical historicity such that no reliable or well informed historian accepts any of the stories contained therein without significant corroborating evidence.

Then it mentions the bible as evidence. As I said above, the bible is not evidence it is the claim. If all we had of Caesar were his Gallic Wars there would be huge historical debate over his existence with many (if not most) historians being rightly sceptical of his existence. But we don't just have one book on his life, we have corroborating archaeological evidence showing the book was right in many of its particulars, independent evidence from writings of contemporaries, evidence of his (near) descendants, the Julio-Claudian clan which comprised the first ruling dynasty of the Empire and so on. All that is lacking for Jesus.

Then the article goes on to call John Crossan a "sceptic of Jesus", which is a complete fabrication. Being a fellow Irishman I am aware of Crossan's work and his whole life has been spent in catholic apologetics. Far from being a sceptic, Crossan is an uncritical cheerleader for Jesus.

The next "authority" is Habermas, a man so authorative and truthful that if he told you it was raining you would be forced to stick your head out the window to make sure. He is the very definition of "liar for Jesus" and not one single thing he has ever said can be taken on its own merits. And then the article goes on to list a number of fraudulent mentions of Jesus (Tacitus as I mentioned above, of which the only mention of Jesus comes from an 11th century manuscript which has been deliberately altered and Josephus which has been acknowledged by all but the most egregious of liars, cf Habermas as being a fraud perpetrated by Eusebius because he had no actual historical records for Jesus, despite having access to significant Roman records of that period later destroyed by the churches of Rome and Constantinople) or much later figures such as Pliny writing in the 190's CE. Mara bar Serapion, far from being an acknowledger of Jesus was a pagan of whom later christian writers altered his letters to add a patina of respectability and authenticity to their budding religion.

And the list of christian writers is even worse, first of all they are all 2nd or 3rd century writers, second of all they had a vested interest in perpetuating the scam, as they were profiting from it.

And finally the salmonella cherry on this shit sundae "By first century standards, this is terrific documentation." when most of what has been documented has either been later writings by vested interests or earlier works to significantly altered to insert christianity into a period when it did not exist. What little "evidence" that remains from the piece is the bible itself which is neither historically reliable, nor a primary source that it and the apologists claim of it, nor a depiction of any real or possible series of events.

Your whole premise is built on a foundation of shit, and ready to collapse like a house of cards built by a toddler. Do not try to bullshit me again, you failure.

We are extremely critical of the purported historical claims made in a text with little to no corroboration, by people with known biases and agendas.  No one actually believes the shit that roman emperors wrote word for word, for example.

.............?

(December 27, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We are extremely critical of the purported historical claims made in a text with little to no corroboration, by people with known biases and agendas.  No one actually believes the shit that roman emperors wrote word for word, for example.

.............?

Spoken like a person with a bias and an agenda.

Yes, max, I have a fact bias and an agenda for laughing at morons who need to learn new tricks....and?



Did you have something to add, to the above, that you quoted? Are you under the impression that we uncritically accept the claims made by despots and self aggrandizers of centuries past?