Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

You tout scholarly majority in regards to Evolution but reject it when it goes against your Jesus Myth fringe ideas.

As explained, I don't believe in evolution because the scientists say so. I accept evolution because it's been proven.

I’ve already pointed out that I reject Evolution based upon evidence to the contrary;

There is none.

[whisper aside]***Psst, this is your cue to prove me wrong by presenting some.***

Since we have no direct observation of the evolution of all life on Earth from a single common ancestor (nor can we repeat such an event) Darwinism is not an empirical science. Rather it is a historical science based upon inferences about the past.

First of all, evolution is the study of how life changes over time from genetic mutations and genetic drift where said mutations that are beneficial to an organism for survival or reproduction in a given environment are more likely to be naturally selected and eventually these subtle changes in an isolated population result in speciation.

Evolution is opposed by creationism, the belief that all organisms were created into existence in their current form.

While it is true that biologists currently believe there is a common ancestor, discrediting this assertion by proving multiple ancestors to current life forms would not discredit evolution. To use a wild and completely made-up example, if we discovered that long ago aliens colonized the planet and are the true ancestor of human beings, that we share no relation to animal life on the planet, it would not discredit evolution because we would still be subject to the same forces of mutation and natural selection.

When we compare this to historical facts such as the existence of Jesus which is based upon actual testimony of eye witnesses and contemporaries we find that there is no comparison between the two.

In this other thread, I have spoon-fed you some of the information related in my videos that you refuse to watch. We have NO "reliable eye-witness testimony" on Jesus.

This is why we find that there are thousands of times more qualified experts who question Evolution...

Name one.

There are many times more experts with advanced degrees in the appropriate fields who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old...

Name one.

You realize that to believe the earth is 6,000 years old (fine, I included the comma), you reject biology, geology, cosmology, and history. There are probably several other fields of study that you also reject but I'll let others fill in the blanks.

This is actually incorrect, the one-way speed of light being uniform in all directions in relation to the observer is something that is stipulated by physicists; it is not an inherent property of Nature.

Can you account for stars that are millions of light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

There are qualified historians who disagree with this; [that there are civilizations that are over 6,000 years old]

Name one.

…all this means is that you are ignorant of such evidence.

School me then. Do tell.

No it’s not. The burden of proof is on the person rejecting the universally accepted position.

No, it's on the person making a claim. Expressing skepticism about a universally accepted position puts the burden of proof on the universally accepted position. This is why even though humanity has long believed in the supernatural, the skeptic of the supernatural doesn't have to prove that gods, spirits, magic, etc. are not real.

Proof?

I've never experienced the supernatural during my waking hours. No one has ever proven to me that they have.

Give me an example please.

You're only pretending to be this stupid.

The ancient Greeks used to believe that Zeus controlled lightning or that Poseidon churned the seas. Other religions of other cultures proposed similar explanations for natural phenomena. We now understand how weather patterns work and what causes them.

Again, this is just false. There is no such rule in logic ascribing the burden of proof to the extraordinary claim. This is a ploy naturalists try to pull when they know their position is indefensible. Making up self-serving rules is not going to get you anywhere with me mister.

These are the rules we all operate by except where our favorite religions are concerned.

By the way, I had lunch with my dead father today. His ashes reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now. He told me to tell you to renounce Jesus and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He ought to know because he's been to the realm of the dead and back.

Also, I had dinner with my wife last night. We watched an episode of The Crazy Ones, that new Robin Williams comedy. We thought Robin Williams was all that made the comedy work and so we don't recommend the show to anyone else.

Of the two claims above, which one are you more likely to accept and why?

[Minimalist]

Since we have no direct observation of the evolution of all life on Earth from a single common ancestor

Hey, D-P. Do you suppose this is the time to remind the shithead that we have no direct observation for his god poofing all life into existence, either?

[Tonus]

Hey, D-P. Do you suppose this is the time to remind the shithead that we have no direct observation for his god poofing all life into existence, either?

We have A BOOK, smarty-pants!

[Searching4truth]

We have A BOOK, smarty-pants!

Its a series of writings compiled by no-one who knew Christ. It's not a BOOK. Not to mention the various inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

Oh and scientific flaws

Oh and historical inaccuracies

its a wonder how I believed it for so long. or how many other people still shell themselves the fantasy cause they cant face the realities of life

[Minimalist]

Hey, D-P. Do you suppose this is the time to remind the shithead that we have no direct observation for his god poofing all life into existence, either?

We have A BOOK, smarty-pants!

Written by an author or authors who weren't there either.

[Tonus]

Written by an author or authors who weren't there either.

Yes, but the words are "god breathed." Which is a euphemism for "holy shit, these are some good 'shrooms."

[Minimalist]

The creatards think their shit is real.

[Statler Waldorf]

1.

Demonstrate that there ought to be if Jesus existed.

2. The gospels were written AFTER THE FACT.

Most testimonies involving the death of their central character are written after that person died. Makes sense to me.

3. How come the Orient and South Africa and South America, have NO EVIDENCE of this "savior" that dates back to his alleged existence?

Umm…because he didn’t live there.

4. Even if we conceded that a man existed named Jesus, it would not make him a God with magical super powers like Harry Potter. All it would mean is that a man (More likely a group of people) started a cult because they did not like the old social norms.

Then why do you insist on adhering to the fringe belief that Jesus never existed?

5. There is no such thing as "godsperm" and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. So the two most important stories to your myth right there alone, are scientifically blown out of the water.

Precisely the point, miraculous events often defy our understanding of science. An omnipotent God certainly can ordain that a virgin give birth and resurrect His son from the dead.

6. This does not even touch the morally repugnant self serving God character, even without Jesus, whose only goal is to get you to kiss his ass, who will beat the shit out of you if you dont.

Immoral according to whom?

When you can demonstrate where your fucking godboy jesus exists IN HISTORY then you can talk, asswipe. Until then, you are just a sorry sack of shit that believes in fairy tales.

It’s already been demonstrated gramps. Aren’t you old enough to be an eye witness?

The reality is that

You mean the alternative reality that no historian agrees with?

Yes, as Josephus insinuated,

You are not allowed to refer to Josephus because he references the historical Christ twice. You cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which part of Josephus you accept as historical.

As explained, I don't believe in evolution because the scientists say so. I accept evolution because it's been proven.

[Emphasis added by SW]

Oops! No it hasn’t.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

[whisper aside]***Psst, this is your cue to prove me wrong by presenting some.***

Why? We’re talking about the existence of Jesus. I realize you are quite anxious to talk about peripheral issues rather than your fringe beliefs but I am going to keep your feet to the fire.

First of all, evolution is the study of how life changes over time from genetic mutations and genetic drift where said mutations that are beneficial to an organism for survival or reproduction in a given environment are more likely to be naturally selected and eventually these subtle changes in an isolated population result in speciation.

If that is the definition of evolution you are using then I (along with other creationists) accept evolution.

Evolution is opposed by creationism, the belief that all organisms were created into existence in their current form.

Creationists do not actually believe this.

While it is true that biologists currently believe there is a common ancestor, discrediting this assertion by proving multiple ancestors to current life forms would not discredit evolution.

It actually would support the current Creation model.

To use a wild and completely made-up example, if we discovered that long ago aliens colonized the planet and are the true ancestor of human beings, that we share no relation to animal life on the planet, it would not discredit evolution because we would still be subject to the same forces of mutation and natural selection.

You’re wasting your time; creationists accept Natural Selection (which was actually first proposed by a creationist) and mutation.

In this other thread, I have spoon-fed you some of the information related in my videos that you refuse to watch. We have NO "reliable eye-witness testimony" on Jesus.

And I demonstrated that you did not know what you were talking about.

Name one.

Well now you have equivocated a bit, even creationists do not question evolution (as you now define it); so your whole argument has now fallen apart because I do not even reject evolution as you define it.

Name one.

Easy! Kurt Wise- Bachelor’s (with honors) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago, Master’s and Ph.D in geology from Harvard University.

Now name someone with a PhD in an appropriate field that rejects the existence of Jesus…and I will name another creationist with a PhD…

You realize that to believe the earth is 6,000 years old (fine, I included the comma), you reject biology, geology, cosmology, and history. There are probably several other fields of study that you also reject but I'll let others fill in the blanks.

You do realize that this is a completely meaningless assertion right? There are plenty of well qualified biologists, geologists, cosmologists (astrophysicists), and historians who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Can you account for stars that are millions of light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

Absolutely.

Name one.

Dr Colin Renfrew, professor of archaeology at Cambridge University advocates for a revision in Egyptian Chronology that would cause a complete revision in our understanding of when ancient civilizations actually lived. He doesn’t even believe in a young Earth but he is not willing to argue that any civilization can be accurately dated to being older than 6,000 years old.

No, it's on the person making a claim.

You’re claiming Jesus is a myth. Prove it.

Expressing skepticism about a universally accepted position puts the burden of proof on the universally accepted position.

According to whom?

This is why even though humanity has long believed in the supernatural, the skeptic of the supernatural doesn't have to prove that gods, spirits, magic, etc. are not real.

The skeptic is claiming naturalism; according to you they therefore have the burden of proof.

I've never experienced the supernatural during my waking hours. No one has ever proven to me that they have.

Have you experienced death, pregnancy, menstruation, Antarctica, deep sea vents, or cancer? They now do not exist?

You're only pretending to be this stupid.

Or I have learned that you can never deliver on your assertions.

The ancient Greeks used to believe that Zeus controlled lightning or that Poseidon churned the seas. Other religions of other cultures proposed similar explanations for natural phenomena. We now understand how weather patterns work and what causes them.

What does this have to do with Christianity and how it relates to science? Do you have natural explanations for talking donkeys and resurrections?

These are the rules we all operate by except where our favorite religions are concerned.

Nonsense, there is no such rule. You simply stole that from Carl Sagan.

By the way, I had lunch with my dead father today. His ashes reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now. He told me to tell you to renounce Jesus and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He ought to know because he's been to the realm of the dead and back.

You reject the existence of the historical Jesus, I would not be the least bit surprised if you also believed all of this.

Of the two claims above, which one are you more likely to accept and why?

I thought we were talking about proof here, you didn’t provide any proofs in your examples.

Hey, D-P. Do you suppose this is the time to remind the shithead that we have no direct observation for his god poofing all life into existence, either?

Well we have direct revelation, so we have deductive reasons for believing in creation. Thanks for conceding that in your mind there is just as little observable reason to believe in evolution as creation though. It’s no wonder you refuse to debate, you’re horrible at it.

Its a series of writings compiled by no-one who knew Christ.

False. Matthew, John, Jude, Peter (Mark’s source), and Paul (post resurrection) all knew Christ.

Oh and scientific flaws

Deduction trumps induction so Christians are actually being more logical than you are.

Oh and historical inaccuracies

Such as?

its a wonder how I believed it for so long. or how many other people still shell themselves the fantasy cause they cant face the realities of life

It’s a wonder you exchanged rationality for the irrationality of atheism.

[Minimalist]

It’s already been demonstrated gramps. Aren’t you old enough to be an eye witness?

You remain a fucking idiot, Waldork. Good to see that some things never change in this world.

[Doubting Thomas]

Please never change... I so enjoy submitting your posts to fstdt.com.