Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: April 25 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 192
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:25
Exactly. Which is why I cannot go by the bible
alone or any of the subequent scriptures that were written for the same
purposes. I have to take into account all of the writings from that
time, and only in biblical writings is there any mention of Jesus'
apparent abilities.
Look up Josephus then. There ARE secondary sources about Jesus, not just the bible.
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
Joined: April 25 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 192
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:24
I admit it. I only go by things I have read
here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings.
However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the
research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike
Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They
simply state their findings as they see them.
Just an observation, but only the evolutionists are trying to "convert" on here.
The whole agenda thing doesn't work for me. Christianity doesn't = the church. Of course we want other people to have our views - that's the same in EVERY point of view/belief. I'm Christian but I don't shove it down people's throats.
Just felt the need to post that cos its such a tiring argument.
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:17
jampa17 wrote:
Ok then... I have seen a lot of research in that matter and I don't know still which are your sources or what your'e checking,
I admit it. I only go by things I have read here and there. I have never claimed to be an expert on past wrtings. However, I have read articles written by men who HAVE done the research, and I have no reason to distrust them, since, unlike Christianity, they don't have any agenda or need to convert. They simply state their findings as they see them.
but I have been studying it as well and there's a lot of historic writers from the Jesus era that mention the same things, maybe with different names of the places or the cities in which it takes place...
Oh, so there are contradictions all over the place, with names and locations being different, but it's in the Bible, so it must be true!
but mostly of the New testament has been proof...
If any part of the Bible were proven to be 100% correct, we wouldn't be having this debate right now. Confirming that the locations in which the biblical events took place are real does not prove the bible itself to be true! Hell, do you not realize how many fictional stories are written to take place in real locations? Read Dean Koonts or Stephen King to see what I mean. Maine and New York are real places, yet the events in those stories sure as hell didn't actually happen.
of course, there are other resources which said things in the opposite, but my point as a Journalist is that you have to be very carefull to know your resources...
Exactly. Which is why I cannot go by the bible alone or any of the subequent scriptures that were written for the same purposes. I have to take into account all of the writings from that time, and only in biblical writings is there any mention of Jesus' apparent abilities.
there's have been a lot of lies or fictions all around the so called parallell scriptures and sometimes changing intentionally the translation of the scriptures to makes them less probable... but I can assure that if you dedicate your self at least one semester to the study of these old texts you surely change your mind...
I have an friend who is actually doing just that. He's writing a book on it, actually. He's also an Atheist. His mind sure hasn't been changed yet.
I can assure you that... the problem with a person as famous and important as Jesus is that there are a lot of missunderstanding, manipulation -in every direction- and prejudge...
Exactly. Those misunderstandings would include people believing him to be the son of God.
but my advise is that you take a course of investigation and resources... I can bet that you surely change you mind... there are a lot of information about it...
I've already addressed that. I have already informed my author friend to give me an advanced copy of his book once all the research is complete. That's the best I can do, as I have a life outside of doing all the research myself.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:17
Negoba wrote:
Dawkins has taken ProgFreak's account.
Don't get so obsessed with Dawkins ... he's simply very active in the promotion of clear thinking, he has published several books. Plus nobody's complaining about religious people referring to their favorite authors all the time ...
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:16
Citizen Erased wrote:
That's all very well but AmbianceMan's point sort of still stands.
Or rather my point. How can that be considered fact? It might be considered highly probable by some but fact?
I can't prove to you that tomorrow the sun will rise again. There's a small, highly improbable chance that it might not. But there's an abundance of evidence that it will. So I say to you: I'm certain, without any reasonable doubt, that the sun will rise again tomorrow.
(Now a creationist could object, saying that maybe the sky will be cloudy ...)
Evolution should be considered to be highly probable ... not only by some, but by everyone who looks at the evidence objectively. There are countless examples of evidence that supports evolution *and* makes intelligent design seem highly unlikely. As a clear-thinking and unbiased person, you *must* prefer the theory that is most consistent with the evidence to the one that is contradicted by most of the evidence.
Joined: April 25 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 192
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:12
p0mt3 wrote:
First of all, you assume falsely that I am an Atheist. I consider myself Agnostic, since I still cannot say for sure if I believe in a creator or not. See, this is what I'm talking about. You speak to non-believers as if we flock in packs, when in fact we make up the most diverse collection of people you are ever likely to meet. ''You Atheists'' isn't too for from saying ''You people'' as far as I am concerned. Such bland and general opinions of the unbeliever clearly shows your bias for what it really is.
Geez. How defensive can you be?!
I wasn't even directly referring to you when I said "you atheists" and I say "you so and sos" all the time. It's an expression here in Scotland - or 'youse'. So sorry if you got offended.
Half my family are atheists, I'm hardly 'biased'.
As for what Dawkins said . . . I'm glad that you admit you exaggerated his speech. But you didn't just exaggerate a little . . . you exaggerated a LOT. Dawkins has never and will never call someone an idiot for believing in God. That's Christopher Hitchens' job. He simply states his opinion just as strongly as you would. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.
Have you watched this program? If no, how can you tell I'm lying? It's been a while sinec I saw it but from what I remember, he basically insulted the intelligence of those in the room that were theists. He didn't use the word 'idiots', thus I said he exaggerated, but he implied it very much so. And many times he has made statements akin to saying that atheists are just "intellectually superior" or enlightened you might say.
Furthermore, if he spoke to a child, it would not have been to call his family 'stupid' as you claim. He probably just wanted to wake the kid up to reality. How would a non-believer do that? Well . . . tell them there is no God, of course. How is that 'ridiculous' or out of character for a non-believer anyway? It's not like he randomly walks up to people on the street, gets in their face and proclaims that their belief system is wrong. Whoever he has discussions with obviously wants to debate with him. He speaks on God and such at his lectures and debates. The people who attend there obviously know what to expect before they even enter. The way you've twisted it, you make Dawkins out to be a madman on a rampage, trying to destroy people's lives. He simply states things as he sees them. Don't agree with it? Don't go to his lectures.
Unfortunately I had to watch this video as part of a philosophy lecture. To be honest, we don't really get the arguments against Dawkins, just Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins, so forgive me for making him out as a bit of a madman. I've read a good part of the God Delusion and found his debate with Dr Collins very interesting as well.
I just found that particular video very unfair on those kids - I say kids, they were about 15. He's not made a good impression on me, I'll put it that way.
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:08
AmbianceMan wrote:
So far all you have done is argued AGAINST creationism...how about arguing FOR your point instead of saying "look in a museum".
In fact I've been arguing for evolution, which is the theory supported by the evidence that's there, for you to see, in museums. At the risk of arousing ever more anger from you, let's have a look at yet another clip from the RDF TV Channel:
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:06
Citizen Erased wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
And Dawkins....sheesh. I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself? He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you. He's the Al Gore of atheism.
Actually, I posted that very video not too long ago, and everybody pretty much agreed that Ben Stein twisted things around in a very biased, unfair way.
Just to butt into the conversation here, but surely some of you atheists get wound up by that moron? I even watched one 'educational' program where he went into a science class and told them something along the lines:
"Evolution is real. God isn't. Accept it, you're all idiots that were brought up that way" - slightly exaggerated of course but only slightly. He went on to tell a poor Jewish kid that his parents were completely stupid and that God was plainly and obviously not real. Ridiculous man.
First of all, you assume falsely that I am an Atheist. I consider myself Agnostic, since I still cannot say for sure if I believe in a creator or not. See, this is what I'm talking about. You speak to non-believers as if we flock in packs, when in fact we make up the most diverse collection of people you are ever likely to meet. ''You Atheists'' isn't too for from saying ''You people'' as far as I am concerned. Such bland and general opinions of the unbeliever clearly shows your bias for what it really is.
As for what Dawkins said . . . I'm glad that you admit you exaggerated his speech. But you didn't just exaggerate a little . . . you exaggerated a LOT. Dawkins has never and will never call someone an idiot for believing in God. That's Christopher Hitchens' job. He simply states his opinion just as strongly as you would. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, if he spoke to a child, it would not have been to call his family 'stupid' as you claim. He probably just wanted to wake the kid up to reality. How would a non-believer do that? Well . . . tell them there is no God, of course. How is that 'ridiculous' or out of character for a non-believer anyway? It's not like he randomly walks up to people on the street, gets in their face and proclaims that their belief system is wrong. Whoever he has discussions with obviously wants to debate with him. He speaks on God and such at his lectures and debates. The people who attend there obviously know what to expect before they even enter. The way you've twisted it, you make Dawkins out to be a madman on a rampage, trying to destroy people's lives. He simply states things as he sees them. Don't agree with it? Don't go to his lectures.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:04
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Well, I think each one is reading what they want... maybe I didn't explain myself clearly -maybe my problem, I don't write in english- so... I was asking you what point of reference you take to claim that the OUTSIDE Scriptures are more right than those in the Bible...? how you decided that those are more right...??? no you understand what I was saying...??? like, the date of those scriptures are older...??? we have a proof that those were write by occular testifications or taken by the mass knowledge of the subject... now you understand what is it I'm asking about your text... don't tell me I'm not putting attention or ignoring your sentences...
All I can really say in response to that is this:
I trust documents that can be further supported by additional documents from the same era. When something matches up with something else from two seperate sources, it begins to have more credibility. Once you have five to ten more documents that also support the original, it is generally accepted as fact, since the authors of all those sperate documents clearly had no agenda, and were simply recording what happened.
Biblical scripture is different. It meshes known history with fiction. Real locations and people are thrown into a fictional story that cannot be supported by any other source other than what is already considered biblical canon. So when other information about the same people and places are found to contradict or completely leave out events described in the Bible, I am more inclined to believe those documents, since they can be supported by other unrelated documents, and weren't thrown into a book to push an agenda.
Ok then... I have seen a lot of research in that matter and I don't know still which are your sources or what your'e checking, but I have been studying it as well and there's a lot of historic writers from the Jesus era that mention the same things, maybe with different names of the places or the cities in which it takes place... but mostly of the New testament has been proof... of course, there are other resources which said things in the opposite, but my point as a Journalist is that you have to be very carefull to know your resources... there's have been a lot of lies or fictions all around the so called parallell scriptures and sometimes changing intentionally the translation of the scriptures to makes them less probable... but I can assure that if you dedicate your self at least one semester to the study of these old texts you surely change your mind... I can assure you that... the problem with a person as famous and important as Jesus is that there are a lot of missunderstanding, manipulation -in every direction- and prejudge... but my advise is that you take a course of investigation and resources... I can bet that you surely change you mind... there are a lot of information about it...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:04
AmbianceMan wrote:
I could go on and on...the fact that there should be a bajillion fossils of steps between monkeys and man if it were true, like whole populations. Instead you have monkeys...and man....and scientists digging and digging and causing a bunch of hoopla if they think they might have found ONE that MIGHT be in between There is a such thing as minor variations and changes along the way, but species never change to another species, which is required for evolution. This was a theory created by one guy, and accepted by billions because it's an easy explanation.
While it is technically correct to say we share a common ancestor with monkeys, we also share an older one with bush-babies (tarsids) and an even older one with some form of Jurassic rodent, but more importantly, we share a younger common ancestor with apes (such as gorillas and chimpanzees). The age of the common monkey ancestor is something like 25mya while our common ape ancestor is around 16mya.
Fossilisation is an extremely rare event. To be able to find a fossil, seven stages have to occur:
Surviving death - dying is not enough - the body has to remain undisturbed - nature has ways of preventing this - scavengers, carrion eaters, worms etc
Surviving burial - a dead body lying on the surface will not be fossilised - it has to be buried - this is not a natural thing unless the body died in quick sand or a land slide or at the bottom of a silt-bed.
Surviving Underground (1) - once underground the body has to be in the right kind of substrate material - anything organic or too acidic will destroy the bones - the vast majority of bones do not survive this stage.
Mineralisation - this is a complex chemical process where minerals in the bones are replaced by harder minerals from the surrounding rocks - this is an issue of being in the right place at the right time.
Surviving Underground (2) - having been mineralised, the resulting fossil has to survive underground - the mineralisation process can be reversed, changes in the environment can change the mineral carrying water in to acid carrying water which will dissolve the minerals, also digging by burrowing animals, erosion, earthquakes and volcanic action can destroy the fossil
Surviving being exposed - the commonest means of finding fossils is after they have been exposed by some other process, such as glaciation, wind, water or wave erosion etc. These process can also destroy a fossil
Surviving being found - having been exposed and found is no guarantee that the fossil fragment will be correctly identified, many fossils end up as hardcore ballast in concrete buildings.
The journey from being up-right, stamping around the earth, eating things, procreating and generally being alive to lying forgotten in some museum basement as a pile of dusty rocks is a precarious one with slim chance of survival. Even if each of the seven stages required to create and find a fossil have as high as a 10% chance of occurring, then there would be 1 fossil for every 10,000,000 creatures that died. If there was only a 1% chance for each step then the probability would be as low as 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 Putting that in perspective: If the population of the USA had remained fairly constant at the current level (250 million) for the last 4 million years, then at 1% probability, only 1 fossilised American would have been found. If you happened to belong to a rare species (say a population of less than 100,000 at any one time), whose time on earth was extremely short (say 100,000 years before extinction, or evolution into a new species) then it is unlikely that an example of your species would ever make it into the fossil record.
Dinosaur populations numbered 100's of millions and existed for over 150 million years, resulting in a staggering 15,000,000,000,000,000 creatures. Or 1.7 million dinosaurs for every person alive today. The total land-mass area on Earth is roughly 57,500,000 square miles - if every dinosaur that ever lived had been fossilised, there would be 260 million per square mile or 9 per square foot! (You would be able to pave the entire land-surface of the Earth in dino-fossils to a depth of several feet). As we know, the reality is somewhat different, which adequately demonstrates why fossils for less numerous creatures will never be found, why the fossil record is incomplete and, more importantly, why it never will be complete.
So gaps in the fossil record are inevitable - that's simple maths. However your assertion that there should be bajillions (whatever that is) of fossils is inaccurate - regardless of how many intermediate steps there were, finding any fossil evidence is a very rare event.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:04
Mike, we like you but you're getting worked up. You are entitled to be a "7" atheist if you wish. Your are not entitled to claim others are idiots because they don't share your views.
Micah, I don't know what I really believe, but I've spent a very long time looking. I know what I hope is the truth and I know what I can see with reasonable certainty is the truth. My hope is would probably represent typical self-serving cherry picking to both hard core atheists and fundamentalists. But my understanding of science is stone solid.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
suppose you don't know the SHIFT key either. And there are plenty of ways to indicate the superscript - I did it using the ^ symbol, I could also have used a special character (E=mc˛). Come on, where's your resourcefulness as a scientist?
Again with the keyboard insults...please tell me that you are above that...
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:01
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion. Just because you don't understand something or perceive it as overwhelmingly complex, there can still be a simple explanation (often even remarkably simple).
Here we go, another Dawkins syncophant throwing insults...seen it all before. To say I obviously don't understand the difference reduces your credibility. Relying on Dawkins means that you don't have to think for yourself...
Now if I only knew what a syncophant was ... in any case, your claim that there exists any scientific proof against evolution still lacks evidence. Maybe it's the syncophant ... some cross between a syncope and an elephant maybe?
Sorry, but I have better things to do this evening than to argue with trolls.
sycophant = an elephant who has drunk too much.
and in case this word ever comes up in conversation, ostracism = of, pertaining to, or related to an ostrich. I got me an A in vocabulumary.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:57
jampa17 wrote:
Well, I think each one is reading what they want... maybe I didn't explain myself clearly -maybe my problem, I don't write in english- so... I was asking you what point of reference you take to claim that the OUTSIDE Scriptures are more right than those in the Bible...? how you decided that those are more right...??? no you understand what I was saying...??? like, the date of those scriptures are older...??? we have a proof that those were write by occular testifications or taken by the mass knowledge of the subject... now you understand what is it I'm asking about your text... don't tell me I'm not putting attention or ignoring your sentences...
All I can really say in response to that is this:
I trust documents that can be further supported by additional documents from the same era. When something matches up with something else from two seperate sources, it begins to have more credibility. Once you have five to ten more documents that also support the original, it is generally accepted as fact, since the authors of all those sperate documents clearly had no agenda, and were simply recording what happened.
Biblical scripture is different. It meshes known history with fiction. Real locations and people are thrown into a fictional story that cannot be supported by any other source other than what is already considered biblical canon. So when other information about the same people and places are found to contradict or completely leave out events described in the Bible, I am more inclined to believe those documents, since they can be supported by other unrelated documents, and weren't thrown into a book to push an agenda.
You can dismiss arguments easier with made up B.S. ... which is what you've been doing since you created your account here. My assumtion is that you're a religious fanatic, scouring the internet for religious discussions. A heavenly troll, so to speak.
Of Course!!!! It must be that!!! How else could you explain someone disagreeing with you? You most certainly have all the answers, and are the be all end all to this discussion. How silly of me not to realize.
I truly am a prog fan, and if you look at my initial posts you will see that.
It's more than obvious that we cannot have a rational discussion about this issue as you began the insult throwing a few posts ago and I feel like I'm being dragged into it.
So far all you have done is argued AGAINST creationism...how about arguing FOR your point instead of saying "look in a museum".
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:54
AmbianceMan wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
Also, I do in fact know plenty about e=mc2.
If you had any idea about it you would never write that using a lower case "e", or writing "mc2" like it was "m" times "c" times 2.
Please....I don't know how to html a superscript 2 and you are using this as an insult?
I suppose you don't know the SHIFT key either. And there are plenty of ways to indicate the superscript - I did it using the ^ symbol, I could also have used a special character (E=mc˛). Come on, where's your resourcefulness as a scientist?
Joined: April 25 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 192
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:53
p0mt3 wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
And Dawkins....sheesh. I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself? He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you. He's the Al Gore of atheism.
Actually, I posted that very video not too long ago, and everybody pretty much agreed that Ben Stein twisted things around in a very biased, unfair way.
Just to butt into the conversation here, but surely some of you atheists get wound up by that moron? I even watched one 'educational' program where he went into a science class and told them something along the lines:
"Evolution is real. God isn't. Accept it, you're all idiots that were brought up that way" - slightly exaggerated of course but only slightly. He went on to tell a poor Jewish kid that his parents were completely stupid and that God was plainly and obviously not real. Ridiculous man.
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
Exactly. Which is why I cannot go by the bible
alone or any of the subequent scriptures that were written for the same
purposes. I have to take into account all of the writings from that
time, and only in biblical writings is there any mention of Jesus'
apparent abilities.
Here we go, another Dawkins syncophant throwing insults...seen it all before. To say I obviously don't understand the difference reduces your credibility. Relying on Dawkins means that you don't have to think for yourself...
Now if I only knew what a syncophant was ... in any case, your claim that there exists any scientific proof against evolution still lacks evidence. Maybe it's the syncophant ... some cross between a syncope and an elephant maybe?