Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

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

That’s irrelevant.

Glad to see you think it's irrelevant whether or not something crucial to your case is hearsay.

This is history we are talking about here, not a court case.

Yes, and whether or not something is truly "history" depends on first hand accounts and/or tangible evidence, NOT hearsay.

When a historian records the existence of a historical figure it is generally accept whether or not that historian physically saw the person or not, especially in those days.

When the historian lived at the time of the historical figure.

Most people believed Caesar existed despite they themselves never seeing him.

Back to the silliness vis-a-vis the existence of known historical figures, I see.

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 He is mentioned in historical documents of the period.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.

Actually the gospel of Luke is believed to have been written shortly after Christ’s death. So I guess you were just wrong on this one.

And this proves....? Luke never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus. He was not an eyewitness.

Fail.

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.

Name me three Ph.D. historians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I bet you can’t even name one because it’s a crackpot position to hold.

You probably don't even see the trap you just fell into. I point out how your position of a 6,000 year old Earth has no support in the scientific community and you dismiss it as an appeal to consensus. Now, you call my notion of a mythological Jesus "a crackpot position" because the majority of Ph.D. historians believe Jesus to have been a real person. How is this not an appeal to consensus? As you so loudly pointed out, consensus does not make for facts!

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.

We are not talking about a court of law,

True. But I would say that the minimum standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply when researching history as well as determining guilt in a courtroom. Saying "probably" is little more than an educated guess. In fact, saying "probably" only means it's more likely than not. Which is 51%. Would you bet your life savings on a probability of 51%?

we are talking about history dingle-berry.

Nice job of slipping in an insult.

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

Yup, Lazarus’ family and Jesus’ disciples were all there.

Great! So, did Lazarus's family write about this miraculous event anywhere? Or is it just claimed by the author of John that they were there? Because I could make an outrageous claim and say "so-and-so witnessed it, too!"

How could they genuinely believe it if they made it up? The Muslims on 9/11 did not make up Islam, they just fell for it.

Kind of like how you've fallen for Christianity?

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

Oh yeah, so James was starting a church that followed the teachings of his imaginary brother Jesus, riiiiiigggghhht.

There was a man who walked on water, was born of a virgin, healed people with a touch of his hand and rose up from the dead. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.

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?

Yup, Mark, Matthew, and John.

BZZZZTTTT!!

Sorry, incorrect. We don't know who wrote these accounts. The names "Mark", "Matthew" and "John" were attached to these writings by the early church. Also, the earliest of these writings dates to around 70 CE. About four decades after Jesus supposedly died. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts as none of the unknown authors claim to have met an Earthly Jesus.

Nice try, but we do have some lovely parting gifts!

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?

Because hundreds of copies separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles all agree on what the original said Scooter.

How can you say "they all agree on what the original said" when WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL?

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

Well you asked how we know it is a copy, so I told you scooter, try and keep up.

Yes, we know it's a copy. This does nothing to prove it's an accurate copy of the original. Looks like you need to keep up.

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!

Yet they all affirm the essentials truths of the Christian faith, funny how that works.

Again with the deflections.

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.

Did you not read the passage? It says that Creation professes His existence.

So people living in the Americas prior to Columbus "knew" of your specific deity because of "creation"?

Yeah, makes sense to me.

"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

I do read my Bible, just wanted you to do some work for once. Well you should be well aware that the slaves in ancient Israel were not equivalent to the slaves taken by the Europeans out of Africa.

And here we go with the horseshit that it was a "kinder, gentler slavery". What kind of "loving" god would EVER say that it's okay to keep your fellow human beings in chains?

The slaves in bible days were more like servants and were often a means of getting out of poverty and having a safe place to live and food to eat.

And here's the bullshit claiming that slaves back then were actually indentured servants. Try reading the passage I quoted again. It always cracks me up when believers justify slavery to defend their holy book.

History matters, but you don’t even believe Jesus was a real person, so I am not surprised you were ignorant to this historical fact.

And this "historical fact" does not relate to the passage I quoted.

You didn’t really answer the question, why would causing harm to others be wrong?

I didn't say causing harm to others is wrong. I said we should act to minimize harm. Not the same thing.

Actually taking the Lord’s name in vein does not have anything to do with “Godd***it”, but you would not know that because you don’t’ even think Jesus existed.

Actually, if you lived in a religious community say around 1600 and said, "Goddammit!" you would have been found guilty of blasphemy for using god's name in vain. This is why people would say something like "Gotdang!" or "Goshdarn!". But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this.

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.

I forgot who I was dealing with here, yes you are right it might not be obvious to someone like you, but to most people it is.

Yes, keep running with the rationalization that "it's obviously a supernatural event!" Never mind what the passage ACTUALLY SAYS.

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?

Where in the passage does it say he had to go up there? It just says he went up there.

Yes. It says he went up there and was shown all the kingdoms of the world. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

When I go in the other room to answer the phone it does not mean I had to go in the other room to do this, just means I did it.

Yeah, great analogy....

I love it when creationists want to take the Bible literally for all manner of nonsensical garbage. But when you show them something that is clearly impossible they say, "No, that's not what it really means!'

Yeah, sediment that was composed of ash.

Wrong again, sedimentary soil, not ash.

Soil, ash, it makes no difference.

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

Actually numerous lines of evidence such as the Kaibab upheaval suggest the Grand Canyon was carved before it solidified to rock.

<citation needed>

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.

By all means, keep believing in unobserved events by blind faith.

I'm guessing you don't even see the irony in this statement.

And knowing how a canyon formed has nothing to do with "blind faith". There is geologic evidence that indicates what formed the canyon. But I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

God’s word says it is my eyes which have been opened; it is you who are steal suppressing the truth in your heart. I’ll take his word over yours.

Keep following the "word" of ancient goatherders. I'm sure it will get you far.

I’ll leave you with some quotes from actual historians on Jesus and just how silly the Jesus Myth crowd is.

Appealing to consensus again? Tsk, tsk....