Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 12:54 am
(April 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm not surprised that some (most) here won't be able to discern spiritual matters. After all... You're self-professed non-spiritualists. I do not expect you or any atheist/agnostic to apprehend spiritual matters - you've shut that door.
Says who? Personally I'm as spiritual as my basic rationality tempered by evidence allows. It's god-claims that my atheism addresses; nothing else about me is yours on which to speculate, based on that label alone, and how dare you presume to make that judgement, sir?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 1:46 am
(April 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: "Kind" is extremely important and wish you wouldn't cast it to the side.
You want me to take that term seriously, you've only got to do one thing: define what it means in specific terms, and then stick to that definition regardless of all the problems we'll undoubtedly find with it.
See, most creationists use the term interchangeably with a variety of other, mutually exclusive scientific terms like species and genus and so on, so that they can have this magic handwavey thing to object to evolution with, without ever being held accountable to what it means. I'm sure you can see how dishonest such a tactic is, and so you'll surely have a definition of "kind" that you'll tell us before we get into an actual discussion on it, right?
Quote: Yes, when we pet a poodle we both can agree that this may of evolved over many many years from a different looking dog. But you lose me if you say that billions of years ago this evolved from a frog.
And again, merely asserting that without explaining the mechanism that would stop small changes from accumulating into larger ones isn't compelling. It's just an argument from incredulity; the fact that you think it's implausible isn't an argument against evolution, it's a demonstration of your inability to properly absorb facts.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 2:07 am
(April 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: When the hardened Roman Centurian witness what He did at the cross two thousand years ago he said, "Certain, this was the Son of God!"
Again - that phrase is taken from the same book that makes the claim of his deity.
With that sort of logic, every religion can argue that they have proof of their deity simply by drawing attention to the witnesses they wrote in for themselves.
You mentioned that we can call you a 'Fool for Christ.' Sadly for you the word fool has a certain happy-go-lucky foppishness to it. The word is rather endearing in a way ... as if to say, "yes he's the town fool, but he's our beloved town fool." You sir are no such thing. You sir, are a blithering idiot.
Can we call you a blithering idiot for christ instead?
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 2:11 am
(March 28, 2014 at 10:39 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: He appeared to His disciples. These men's lives were changed and God used them to change the world.
And thank god for Jesus and his disciples! Without them there'd still be war today. And cruelty to animals and children. And starvation in impoverished nations. And greed and tyranny and murder and rape and intolerance and honor killings and wife beatings and pedophiles and...?
How did they change the world again?
There is an ALLLL-knowing, ALLLL-powerful, inVISible being who is everywhere, who created the WHOLE universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is perfect in every way, who was never born and will never die, and who watches you every minute of every day (even when you're squeezing one out on the toilet). There are also unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, and a giant purple people eater.
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 7:21 am
Rev, let's try this: In your own words, tell us why you think atheists would find the testimony of the NT to be insufficient for establishing the truth of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, was divine, etc. I ask because I'm pretty sure you don't get it.
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 8:31 am (This post was last modified: April 8, 2014 at 8:46 am by Chas.)
(April 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:
(April 6, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: From the guy who rejects evolution despite overwhelming evidence, and supports Noah's Ark and the great flood despite any evidence, all this shows is how meaningless and subjective a Christian's understanding of "Truth" is.
Innumerable intellectuals, professionals, and even scientists embrace intelligent design. Over 80% of Americans believe there is a God. Name me one US President that was an atheist? Sir, you are in the minority.
Do you think the U.S. is representative of all of mankind? There have been, and are, atheist leaders in many countries.
(April 7, 2014 at 10:47 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:
Nice pictures, but consider this:
The Physiology Problem
A number of land animals have been proposed as the whale's ancestor, including Darwin's bear, grazing ungulates, wolf-like carnivores (Mesonyx), and the hippopotamus. In each case the morphological differences are significant. If whales (cetaceans) did evolve from land mammals, they did so at an unbelievable rate, accruing an amazing number of "beneficial" mutations and adaptations.
The skeletal features would need to change radically, as well as the physiology (the collective functions of an organism). For example, the supposed early "whale," Ambulocetus, drank fresh water probably throughout its life "50 million years ago," and Indocetus was a saltwater drinker "48 million years ago." This means that in perhaps three million years there had to be an extreme change in the physiology of these creatures.6
These "proto-whales" would have had to mutate in a beneficial manner to produce the above physiological adaptations. However, science shows that organisms don't survive a rapid rate of mutation. Additionally, a popular encyclopedia recently stated: "Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."7
Less obvious essential design features would ensure the cetaceans against hypothermia. Mammals are warmblooded creatures designed by the Creator to function at a constant body temperature higher than fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
Maintaining a core body temperature while being bathed in an ocean of cold water would be a definite problem for the cetaceans. However, whale fins have fascinating biological structures called countercurrent heat exchangers to conserve heat. Also, zoologists have recently discovered exchangers located at the base of the massive tongue of grey whales.8 These exchangers are a series of blood vessels arranged so that they too function as heat exchangers to minimize heat loss. The grey whale would otherwise lose much body heat through the tongue's extensive vascularization.
Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system, although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved. Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."9 Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures as is often stated in evolutionary just-so stories; it can only preserve the best-adapted varieties which occur by other means.
Problems from Head to Tail
Gould10 proclaims the long and slim Basilosaurus as ". . . the 'standard' and best-known early whale." However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."11 Today there are two major groups of cetaceans: the baleen whales, called the mysticeti with double blowholes; and the toothed whales, odontoceti with a single blowhole. Stahl presents irritating morphological facts such as: ". . . the structure of the skull in the odontocete and mysticete forms shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . . ." She also describes sperm whales (odontocete) which have an asymmetric arrangement of bones that roof the skull, while mysticeans have a symmetrical arrangement.
None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement. However, whales (and an alleged link, Ambulocetus) do have a spinal up-and-down undulation. When did this happen? Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus (and the whales)? This is quite significant! The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea.
The Problem of Molecular Biology
At the 1997 keynote lecture of Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee, Douglas Futuyma stated that ". . . the molecular revolution in biology has furnished us with mountains of information that not only attests to the history of evolution, but also sheds even more light on evolutionary processes." A far different evaluation was given the same year by three evolutionary biologists who stated: ". . . even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret."12 Few systematists (biologists who study taxonomy and are involved in reconstructing phylogenetic, or evolutionary, history) would say that morphological patterns of form line up with the molecular evidence.
Regarding the supposed relationship between terrestrial and aquatic mammals, one publication reported: "These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same family, while cows and whales are classified in different orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry."13
Zoologist John Gatesy reports competing interpretations of whale origins using phylogenetic analyses of a blood-clotting protein gene from cetaceans, artiodactyls (pigs, hippopotamuses, ruminants, and camels), perissodactyls (rhinos and horses), and carnivores. He says that in combination with published DNA sequences, the data of this clotting protein " . . . unambiguously support a hippo/whale clade and are inconsistent with the paleontological perspective."14
Ever since Darwin we have seen that neither natural selection nor random mutations could possibly serve as remotely sufficient mechanisms of change that would turn terrestrial tetrapods into whales. Molecular biology, physiology, and morphology present impenetrable roadblocks for tracing a common ancestry from tetrapods to archaeocetes to modern whales.
Do you think that quoting someone else's bullshit without attribution is honest? Thou shalt not steal.
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 9:07 am
(April 8, 2014 at 8:31 am)Chas Wrote: And do you actually think that the Institute for Creation Research is scientifically credible? Here's where you stole that text from.
I had a feeling it'd be something like that, but I wanted him to admit it himself.
Now, lemme just do my "creation science" bias check...
Ah, here we go!
ICR Wrote:All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days.
Oh, so they start from the presupposition that the bible is one hundred percent correct before they write anything, huh? You mean, their approach to science is the complete opposite of the scientific method, which comes in with no preconceptions other than what the facts show, and have rigorous mechanisms in place to weed out biases based on previously held beliefs?
Yeah, such a convincing piece of scientific literature, Rev.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 10:39 am
(April 8, 2014 at 9:07 am)Esquilax Wrote:
ICR Wrote:All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days.
Oh, so they start from the presupposition that the bible is one hundred percent correct before they write anything, huh? You mean, their approach to science is the complete opposite of the scientific method, which comes in with no preconceptions other than what the facts show, and have rigorous mechanisms in place to weed out biases based on previously held beliefs?
Yeah, such a convincing piece of scientific literature, Rev.
Of the myriad interactions with Stat, rev should proceed along the lines of:
"
No, science has its own preconceptions, presuppositions. That electrons always work in the same way. That photons always travel at the same speed in the same medium. That every single repeatable physical experiment always works the same way.
You cannot explain why it always works in the same way.
I explain it with god. God maintains everything and keeps everything in operation.
Furthermore, in the past, god made things work in a different way, so that what you perceive as billions of years, under your assumption, actually happened in a few thousands, which is in accordance with the biblical text.
So, clearly, science's presuppositions are clearly wrong and you can't rely on science for anything about the past.
"
There you go, rev, I did all your work, now enjoy Esq's (and every one else's) reply.
RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 8, 2014 at 10:45 am
(April 8, 2014 at 10:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: Of the myriad interactions with Stat, rev should proceed along the lines of:
"
...
You cannot explain why it always works in the same way.
I explain it with god. God maintains everything and keeps everything in operation.
...
"
There's so much about presuppositionalism that is just so laughably batshit but for now this part is my favorite.
Essentially, it boils down to "Look! Nothing! That proves something!"
Or more specifically, "Look! Nothing unusual happened! That proves some unseen supernatural force must have acted upon it to prevent anything unusual from happening!"
It's a masterfully deft display of mental slight of hand. It turns zero evidence into evidence of its own kind.
You know what would be more impressive than nothing unusual happening?
Something unusual happening!
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
How did they change the world again?
