Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

Hearsay! Luke never says he saw Jesus. All we have is hearsay from what others supposedly told him. If that is your standard, then you've set the bar pretty low.

Basic reading comprehension. You’ll notice I said that Luke says people saw Jesus.

And you'll notice this is the very definition of hearsay.

Many historians who never saw Nero still claim he existed and I will take their word for it. It is you who changes the height of the bar depending upon which historical figure we are talking about.

I'm hardly changing the height of the bar. Nero is mentioned in historical accounts of the period. He is mentioned in historical documents of the period. Is your godboy mentioned in ANYTHING written at the time he was supposedly alive? No? Didn't think so. My bar remains unchanged.

Not to mention your amazing inconsistency. Here you don’t believe in what Creationists claim apparently because they a in the minority and the great majority of scientists don’t believe in creation.

Uh... no. I don't dismiss the claims of creationist twerps because they're in the minority. I dismiss them because they have no credible evidence to support their claims.

However, then you turn around and give credence to an argument (Jesus was a myth) that the overwhelming majority of historians disagree with.

So what? There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Just like there is no evidence that Noah's flood actually occurred. I am highly skeptical of claims when there is no evidence to support those claims. My position is very consistent.

Even DickDawk, who would like nothing more than for Jesus to be a myth, admits in his book the God Delusion that Jesus “probably existed.”

Yes, he believes Jesus "probably existed". Again, so what? "Probably" leaves a lot of room for doubt. In fact, "probably" would not get a conviction in a court of law.

If you applied your same silly standards to other ancient historical figures you would have to say that none of them existed either.

I've answered this moronic argument several times already.

What? No names are ever given? The apostles all witnessed miracles and their names are given

Gee... that's impressive.

(James being mentioned by the historian Josephus).

Which means absolutely nothing.

Lazarus was raised from the dead and his name is given.

Okay... did ANYONE ELSE witness this miraculous event?

this proves nothing. People have died for their beliefs throughout history. That doesn't make their beliefs real.

I disagree, if the person truly knows the belief is a forgery (as the disciples would have if it were one) they are almost never willing to die for it.

And perhaps they genuinely believed. Just like the assholes who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 genuinely believed they would be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise after they died committing their heinous deed. Doesn't mean either one of them are right.

Josephus was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. Anything he writes (or supposedly wrote, the passages where he mentions Jesus are widely thought to be forgeries inserted at a later date) about Jesus is, at best, hearsay.

Actually the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are accepted as valid by the vast majority of historians such as Dr. James Hannam who is a professor of history at Cambridge University.

"The vast majority of historians"? <citation needed>

In any case, it doesn't matter! Josephus was not alive at the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. Therefore, he could not possibly have been an eyewitness. At best, anything from his hand is hearsay.

It’s just the cranks in the very small Jesus Myth crowd that do not accept these accounts.

Because they are (at best) hearsay! Show me something written by an historian who lived in or near Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly lived where the author talks about this man. There were plenty! Philo Judaeus, Seneca and Pliny the Elder all fill the bill. But not one of them mentions Jesus anywhere. Hmmmmm.... I wonder why....

Josephus was very much alive during the time that James, brother of Jesus, would have been starting portions of the early church.

And this does nothing as far as demonstrating that Jesus actually lived.

Your argument is pretty silly, by your same logic you’d have to say that no historian today could say that Henry VIII was ever real because that historian was born after Henry VIII was born.

Any historian writing about Henry VIII today would reference a primary source for his material. That would be a source who was an eyewitness to the period. I'll say it again.... ya got anything like that for your godboy?

Well as I pointed out, that manuscript is a copy of the original,

And as I pointed out, we don't have the original to compare it to. So how do we know how accurate of a copy it is?

so it is safe to say the original could have very well been written within the same decade as Jesus’ death.

It doesn't matter when the original was written if we don't know what the original said. And we also don't know who wrote the original!

Well just like today, it is very easy actually to tell if something is a copy or the original because the copier indicates this on the manuscript.

So this proves it's a copy. And your point is....?

As for any changes, they would have been easy to spot once this manuscript was cross checked with other manuscripts found in other regions.

And this proves.... what? Maybe the copy was used to produce other manuscripts. This would mean all subsequent copies could be cross-checked, but it doesn't mean the first copy has errors or embellishments.

It’s a good thing scripture was copied and spread around so quickly, so altering of it would have been impossible.

What are you talking about? The Bible is altered TODAY! How many different versions of the Bible are out there? And they don't all match each other!

I just love when Creationists play this game! "There's no evidence that Jesus was a real person? Well, you can't prove (fill in the name of an historical figure from antiquity) was a real person! NYAAH! NYAAH! NYAAH!"

Actually, it's rather easy to prove Nero was a real person. He is mentioned in historical accounts of the time and his name appears in historical records of the period. The Colossus of Nero was even made in his image during his lifetime. Ya got anything like that for your godboy?

No sources huh? Oh well these historians of the day, were they Roman? If they were then I am sorry, you cannot use those because I cannot use the letters from the apostles since these could be biased sources.

This is not an issue of "biased sources". It's an issue of knowing who the sources were. For the most part, no one knows who wrote the letters from the apostles. And the ones where authorship is known do not mention an Earthly Jesus. Plus, these writings were composed decades after Jesus supposedly lived. Can't say the same for Roman historians.

As for the artwork, how do you know they were depicting a real person with this artwork and not a legendary hero?

Google "Colossus of Nero" and find out for yourself. This argument is just stupid.

I am sorry, you are going to have to do better.

No, you're the one who has to do better.

Logically? My Logic 101 professor would have failed you for exhibiting this type of "logic".

My history professor would have failed you for belonging to the “Jesus Myth” crank club.

Nice rebuttal. Has nothing to do with what I said.

What an incredible steaming pile of crap! So the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs all knew about your deity prior to the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors? How can you spew idiocy like this and expect to be taken seriously?

Look up the word “Suppress”, and maybe it will clear this up for you a bit.

Nice deflection. You still haven't addressed the question of how people living in the Americas prior to 1492 could have possibly known about a deity worshiped by Europeans.

Ordering people to stone someone to death shows he's a "just god"? Was he also being "just" when he said you can own slaves?

Where did he say you can own slaves?

I guess you don't know your Bible very well.

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." Leviticus 25:44-46

Using your atheistic worldview, why would slavery in Bible times be morally wrong since you seem to assume this point?

Because slavery causes immense harm. It is wrong today, it was wrong then. It's ALWAYS wrong. Do you believe slavery is not wrong? After all, your deity in the sky endorses it. And there's no commandment prohibiting it. But there is a commandment that prohibits saying "Goddammit!". Which is worse? Imagine all the suffering that could have been prevented if your deity had included a commandment saying "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow man".

Except Jesus and the devil didn't have a radio.

What makes you think a fallen Angel and the Son of God would need one?

I see my point sailed over your head. Not surprised.

NOWHERE in the Bible does it say he was shown all the kingdoms "supernaturally"! It doesn't say they were conjured up before him, or that the kingdoms appeared on the clouds, or that the devil gave him a pair of amazing glasses that allowed Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world. The way the passage is written leaves only one possible interpretation. He was taken to the top of a high mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world. AN IMPOSSIBILITY!

What are you talking about? It’s obviously a supernatural event because you can’t see all the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain top.

No, it is NOT "obviously a supernatural event". But, of course, you have to run with this crappola because you need some way to explain something that can't be explained. However, you are right that you can't see all the world's kingdoms from a mountaintop.

It never says that when Jesus healed the blind that it was a supernatural event, but I know it was because you can’t naturally rub mud on someone’s eyes and have them be healed.

By definition, healing someone with a touch of the hand is a miracle. There is no miracle involved in showing something to someone from the top of a mountain. This passage only makes sense if you believe the world is flat. Otherwise, why would you have to take someone to a mountaintop to show them the world's kingdoms? Why not do it in a valley? Or inside a house?

Hmmmm... I noticed you didn't try to refute my response to your "Mt. St. Helens proves the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood" bullshit. Maybe you've learned the difference between water quickly creating a canyon in volcanic ash and water very slowly creating a canyon in solid rock?

Oh no, I just thought that was a bit of a dead horse. The Little Grand Canyon did not actually cut through ash, but rather sediment that had been laid down a few days earlier (600 feet worth).

Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.

This is exactly what we believed happened at the Grand Canyon, the receding waters cut through thousands of feet of sediment laid down by the flood.

Except the "sediment" at the Grand Canyon was solid rock! This is far different than cutting a channel through ash and mud.

To form a canyon you need either a lot of water in a very short period of time or a little water in a long period of time. Unfortunately for your side of the aisle we have never scientifically observed the latter to take place, though we have observed the former.

(Sigh) We don't have to directly observe a canyon being formed to know how it was formed. You just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your moronic holy book. Open your eyes and join the real world.