Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 www.notjustatheory.com part 2
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:50:27  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
A continuation from here:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8313&whichpage=15



Originally posted by Siberia




So you're saying that because they look designed, they're designed. Like snowflakes. Well, please show me the designer, 'cause my body was very badly designed indeed - what with arthritis at eight months old and myopic eyes and thyroid problem and all of that. Maybe I can file a complaint.




One thing you fail to consider it that this is a distorted version of the original state of the creation. Sin has tainted everything that was created good. This is the beauty of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That while we were yet sinners, Christ dies for us. Because of Christ, and the work he did on the cross for those who will except the salvation he offers, paid for with his own blood, we now have a hope that transcends death and the grave.

My favorite and most inspiring hero in the faith is Joni Erickson Tada. Maybe your familiar with her, but she has been a quadriplegic for 40 years now. I have heard her speak and the joy and the optimism this women radiates is truly inspiring to all who hear her. In fact she has called her wheelchair her blessing in the rough as she realizes that the assurance of an eternal salvation with, and fully paid for by, her creator is worth infinitely more then being able to walk around for the few short years we are given in this life.


I may not be able to dance, but this quadriplegic sure is dancing in her heart as I approach the 40 year mark in my wheelchair. You may think, Joni, that's no reason to celebrate. Oh, but yes! For God has turned my despair into joy, and my heart just has to shout and sing about it.


Joni Erickson Tada


<http://www.joniandfriends.org>




(and just in case: I don't blame God for my health problems. That wasn't even the reason I became an atheist - I was never a theist, anyway - it's silly to blame something I don't believe exists for something perfectly explicable by, lo and behold, biology and evolution.)




But biological evolution explains very little. It offers thoughts on how life may have been tweaked over billions of years and has nothing to say on how that life was created and sustained in the first place, nor does it offer an explanation for the origin of the creation that sustains this created life, nor does cosmology. We basically start with a warm little pond, and all the material objects, that was just there. If you want to know where this pond came from you must take off your evolution hat and put on your cosmology hat. This keeps the two separated and independent. Of course when the atheist/humanist/materialist goes to explain their entire worldview the cosmology part leaves a big whole in their story. It's like they start their story in the middle of the book. Once upon a time in the primordial haze of long ago their existed a warm little pond and....







Frankly, I don't see the design of it; if there is such, it's crappy design. It's full of flaws, some lethal, some just annoying, some just really out there. Some design, that is.



Yet man, in all his glory, can not even duplicate the creator and reproduce the most simplest forms of life, from nothing. Heck, he can't even produce the most simple materialistic objects from nothing. Yet in his arrogance he feels he can criticize the one who did create life from nothing. The creation uses his finely honed and complex brain to dream up ideas of how to deny the very one who gave him/her his complex brain to begin with.





See, Bill, I'm a designer too. I'm a webdesigner, as well as a programmer. And I know that some softwares can generate new softwares. There's a whole branch of computer science dedicated to algorithms that change themselves (care to guess the name? That's right - evolutionary computation).



Yet what does the software that generates new software require? A programmer, as it did not program itself. What else did the software need? How about a computer to operate the software. This computer, as well as the original software, both required a creator and a programmer before anything happens. Design is written all over your evolutionary computation.










And still - what guarantees your creator is the creator? Or rather; Why the resurrection of Jesus (if the man even existed) is more credible than, say, the immortality of Achilles? Or, what the heck, I'm sure Greek mythology has a dozen stories about resurrection as well, of demigods and mortals alike. As do most mythologies I'm aware of. And I'm sure that with enough study, you'll find as many references and testimonies about those as about Jesus'. Except maybe that history might've erased them - there are too many cults and too many of them like to ignore and obliterate their competitors. Hell, Jesus claimed to be son of a God. So did Alexander the Great - and we know for sure Alexander existed, unlike, say, Jesus. Jesus - or the people who wrote about him - said he did miracles. Then again, there are several people, even in my country, alive, today, who say they can do miracles. They also have lots of people saying such miracles happened. Why Alexander's claim, or those people's claims, are not credible, but Jesus' is?



I listed 10+ historical facts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which you addressed none of them. Also, please tell me what you know of this Alexander and how did you come about to know it?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:51:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur





The environment and genetic variation/mutation will work just fine, thank you very much.




Is this the same enviroment and genetic mutaions that designed the human brain with intent and forethought?

Hey fur, I got a nice bridge down south that I would be willing to part with. For you my friend a speacial price.


"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:55:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by GeeMack



All that says, Bill, is that you don't understand biology well enough to understand how the process of evolution works. Your simple lack of understanding evolution doesn't in any way support the idea that magic is a reasonable explanation for life and its diversity. Well, other than in your own imagination, of course. If you want to propose that magic is the explanation, you'll have to show how that explanation is falsifiable and testable, and provide scientifically based evidence to support it. So far nobody has been able to do that.



Your use of the word magic clearly shows that you have comprehended zero % of my posts and the low levels of your maturity status. Magic would be the mechanism that produced the warm little pond, and the primordial earth to sustain the warm pond, and this magic also washes away the need for understanding the origin of this warm pond to begin with. Not to mention the magic used by random mutations to design the human brain with intent and forethought.











Evolution, on the other hand, is a process which occurs. All the time. Pretty much everywhere on Earth. It's a matter of fact.



I don't deny this. Heck, look at evolutionary computing. But what was needed to kick off the evolutionary process? A programmer but of course.






The theories which explain the process of evolution do so according to the scientific method. They are falsifiable, testable, and are supported with evidence, real scientifically valid evidence.



Micro evolution? Yes, then I would agree




You see, science is the real stuff, Bill. It is the base used to explain why the frame of that Corvette holds up against the torque of the engine, the method that explains how much friction is necessary to stop that Corvette in a given distance from a given speed, the method used to determine how much fuel needs to mix with how much air to create the explosions required to send that Corvette cruising down the highway.



Which is mostly the laws of physics, but forth by the creator. Science is just a method to prove what God has already established. Through science we establish and define the law of gravity. Does not mean that science created gravity, the creator created gravity, only that science was used to explain gravity.




And although there are a lot of people who don't (or can't) grasp the design and engineering concepts involved, pretty much no moderately intelligent human being would suggest that, simply because they don't understand internal combustion, that Corvette must scoot along by the power of magic.



And just because they are having trouble grasping the design and effort and forethought that went into the creation of the Z06 this does not mean the Z06 was just there by default, with no designer or creator required to put it there. It was just there is not science.





The power of magic works equally as well to explain the origin and diversity of life as it does to explain anything about that Corvette.



Is this the same magic where warm little ponds and life are just there, with no explanation required?


You just keep heaping on the proof that you don't understand biology, evolution, abiogenesis, or for that matter, pretty much anything at all about the science as it applies to those areas of study. If you choose to wallow in your delusion, in that world built around ancient mythology, that's certainly your prerogative. But when you enter a conversation about scientific things that are so far beyond your comprehension, you sure do make yourself look the fool, Bill.


How about, hmmm, abiogenesis. Tell me all about it G. Nothing but the facts.




Millions upon millions of grade school children get this stuff while you choose not to. The rest of the world is growing up without you, boy, because you don't have the courage to leave your little comfort zone of superstition, imaginary beings, and yes, magic. It's an act of willful ignorance on your part. Plain and simple willful ignorance
.


Milllions and millions of grade schools kids were once told it was beificial to smoke. Doesn't mean that it is true.



Fortunately the people of the world will advance and continue to progress. Only a few hundred years ago nearly everyone fell for the kind of magical fantasy that taints your reality, Bill. Times change and people gain understanding. Always have. Always will. Science moves ahead and we continue to get a clearer view of the universe. Every day more and more people get it. So you clinging to superstitions of primitive cultures isn't going to hurt anything in the big picture. Your refusal to crawl out of that dark little hole of ignorance isn't going to stop the intelligent, aware people from moving ahead. But please, if you're going to refuse to join us, at least stay the hell out of the way.


Care to refute the reserection of Jesus Christ while defending the historocity of Alexander the Great at the same time?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:56:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse




Can you imagine that people may see a designer other than God/Jesus/Yahweh?



I can imagine it, but what do they base this off of? My bases is the historical event of the resurrection Christ.



Although I'm an electronics engineer, I do have an appreciation of mechanical design too



To the pessimist the cup is half empty. To the optimist the cup is half full. But to the engineer the cup is twice as big as it needs to be.




When I look at that Vette, I think of the many versions of the car that came before. Stingray is cool, but I don't like the design on the first models.




I agree. If money were no object I would have a 1970 LS6 sitting in my garage. (4 speed no doubt)





But I think of more than that. I think of T-Ford, diesel powered cars, old electrical cars. What I see is an evolution of automobiles from the horse-and-carriage, a vehicle that has evolved in a lot of small steps. Several inventions have been added, only to later be discarded as new inventions increase performance, or safety, or comfort. The 2007 Z06 Vette is by no means the end of the line, to will continue to evolve.



But behind all these improvements to the automobile was what? A designer who designed with forethought and intent.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:58:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy Alexander the Great <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great>: Bill, you should study some real history once in a while. Then, you wouldn't have to ask.





So you accept Alex the great and reject Jesus the king, even though the historical evidence for the resurrection is more abundant and more recent then that for Alex? That is not very scholarly of you and one might say even indicates bias.


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University



If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University




For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian



"Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

Sir William Ramsay

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  12:59:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf



Boundless ignorance at its finest, I cant believe you people are still responding to BS, he's 10,000 x the troll that Jerome is.



Care to refute the historical evidence for the reserection of Jesus Christ while making a case for Alexander the Great at the same time?


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University



If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:22:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Care to refute the historical evidence for the reserection of Jesus Christ while making a case for Alexander the Great at the same time?

You didn't get my point, did you?

Alexander the Great claimed he was son of Zeus. As did several people in the past. Including many Roman emperors and several other people whose existence is confirmed by archaeological evidence.

Jesus claimed he was the special son of Yaweh.

See a pattern here...?

[snipped unnecessary stuff to make my point again]

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Edited by - Siberia on 07/26/2007 13:24:36
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:29:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur
The environment and genetic variation/mutation will work just fine, thank you very much.

Is this the same enviroment and genetic mutaions that designed the human brain with intent and forethought?

Yes.
Hey fur, I got a nice bridge down south that I would be willing to part with. For you my friend a speacial price.

If by this mean I am gullible, I have to disagree. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it seems very solid.
You put your faith in a religious text that talks about the dead coming back to life and the supernatural happening throughout the text. There is no more history in the bible than there is in the other major religious texts - so why don't you accept them. I already know; it is because you have faith in the bible. It is faith, not proof that allows you to accept those religious writing and not others. Faith is fine but it is not a substitude for facts, when you try to argue for the bible using science you will lose everytime. The bible is not logical - it violate natural law over and over - it is no more scientifically valid than Greek mythology.




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:33:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Siberia



You didn't get my point, did you?


Or maybe you did not get mine. You seem rather sure that Alexander was a real person in history, but yet offer skepticism on the authenticity of Jesus Christ. I ask on what bases do you do this?



Alexander the Great claimed he was son of Zeus. As did several people in the past. Including many Roman emperors and several other people whose existence is confirmed by archaeological evidence.


I don't doubt their existence, just their claims.


Jesus claimed he was the special son of Yaweh.


And I offered the historical event of the resurrection as proof of his claim. I provided 10+ facts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How does this compare to the evidence for Alex's claim?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:33:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Okay, I finally had time to read back on what you'd posted about the alleged resurrection of Christ, but I am late; fur said pretty much everything I was going to and more clearly than I could have.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:45:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur

Faith is fine but it is not a substitude for facts, when you try to argue for the bible using science you will lose everytime. The bible is not logical - it violate natural law over and over - it is no more scientifically valid than Greek mythology.







But I listed many facts. You just choose to igonore them. Does not mean they are not facts just because they are ignored. If you dismiss the evidence for the resurrection then you might as well reject Alexendar the Great as well.



A QUESTION OF HISTORY


Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.



LIVING WITNESSES


The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."



IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html




You also have the:

BROKEN ROMAN SEAL

EMPTY TOMB

LARGE STONE MOVED

ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL

GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE

JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED

OVER 500 WITNESSES

HOSTILE WITNESSES




There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University



I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University


For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:48:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Siberia

Okay, I finally had time to read back on what you'd posted about the alleged resurrection of Christ, but I am late; fur said pretty much everything I was going to and more clearly than I could have.


So you will not tell me why you are a skeptic on the existence of Christ but have no doubts on Alexander the Great. Why not?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  13:48:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Siberia



You didn't get my point, did you?


Or maybe you did not get mine. You seem rather sure that Alexander was a real person in history, but yet offer skepticism on the authenticity of Jesus Christ. I ask on what bases do you do this?



Alexander the Great claimed he was son of Zeus. As did several people in the past. Including many Roman emperors and several other people whose existence is confirmed by archaeological evidence.


I don't doubt their existence, just their claims.


Jesus claimed he was the special son of Yaweh.


And I offered the historical event of the resurrection as proof of his claim. I provided 10+ facts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How does this compare to the evidence for Alex's claim?


Well, let's just say Alexander did a helluva lot more to prove he existed than Jesus did - physical evidence, wars fought, economic registers, statues, coin printed with his name, not just religious writings from people inclined to believe. Like, say, Achilles. Or Agamnemon. Or Helen of Troy. Or Herakles. Or King Arthur.

In any case, Jesus might have existed and probably did, anyway. Which doesn't make him son of god any more than Alex was.

But anyway - my point is that Alex's claim to being son of god is as baseless as Jesus' is. Several people back on Alex's time were willing to believe he was son of Zeus. As many people probably believed the Roman emperors were gods incarnate, or that the Pharaohs were gods.

Hell, you don't even have to go back to ancient history. There's a guy over here that claims he's son of God and that he can perform miracles (Inri Christ is his nickname), and you'll find men and women more than willing to confirm his divine nature and his alleged miracles. Only Inri is regarded as a lunatic...

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1265 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  14:17:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bill scott, you have already put nearly identical posts in part one of this thread with no stated reason for the duplication. Why?
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  14:25:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Here's the thing about Alexander: nobody is asking me to believe that he was the son of any deities in order for me to get some great reward.

As such, I don't give a damn about whether Alexander was the son of Zeus, or even if Alexander existed at all.

So saying that Jesus is more historically attested to than some guy whose existence doesn't matter is not much of an argument, Bill. I'd even agree that Jesus' existence is better verified than Santa Claus'. But being better attested than a fictional person doesn't mean Jesus actually lived.

Pick any Tom Clancy book, Bill. Red Storm Rising, for example. You'll find that the accuracy of the book is extremely high, with places like Washington, D.C. and Moscow actually existing in the real world, along with real armies, divisions and even battalions, and much true-to-life equipment and capabilities. But strangely, even though the vast majority of the details check out, most of the individuals named in the story never existed, and there never was a ground, sea and air war between the U.S. and the Soviets. Odd, isn't it, how historical and contextual accuracy cannot together (or each alone) lead us to conclude that the most important events in a text are true?

But that's what the quotes you list ask us to believe. And thus your (repeated!) appeals to authority are nothing more than a mantra with which you try to wish into existence that which may not have.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2007 :  15:30:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I find it both irritating, and a demonstration of your bullheaded close-mindedness, Bill, that you have time to copy and paste the same long passages repeatedly, yet when I compose and post a short essay in a polite and real attempt to explain to you why evolution has the appearance of design, you totally blow it off. In fact, you ignore everything I write.

So please accept my contempt, Bill. Have a nice life, then rot in the dirt just like everyone else always has, you delusional, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious ass. Even if I somehow could believe your infamously contradictory book of myths, or your mythical God, I would refuse to worship that bloody-handed, bigoted, genocidal Yahweh. You and him make a fine team. If you meet him, give him kisses like David gave his beloved Jonathan. Meanwhile, you can both kiss my ass.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.23 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000