Religion

[Pie]

god what a mess I have.

Sorry, that thing about the murder thing, was just to disprove the razor thing in this situation. And that one thing about all those steps in the Fossle records, instead of the gradual thing that evolution entails.

What I was saying about the scrap of Jhon, is that there are earlyer gostples than whatever other gosples or whatever.

And Nosajami, I'm talking about other high pressure bubble(or something or another) that came up and you know, made the huricane a lower levle.

Diego, for the big bang theory to be relavent, you have to have evolution to compleat the sequins for creation.

And as I think it was, evolution is the gradual evolving of creatures, correct? (there is no gradual evolving in the fossle records)

And evolution explained what we see in the fossle records as a gradual evolving, it predicted a gradual evolving, but i see no gradual evolving.

As for the big bang thing... you're only looking at the results of the creation of the univers. there is no concrete proof of it, becaus sometimes, what semes plausible on paper, and is a good theory, with only one or two elements uncountedfor, it may not have happened.

It's just like that murder. the girl, holding the gun, did she kill him, or was he framed by the long string of events?

Except there's hundreds of thousands of notes with different names on them. And the tide comes up higher and higher and retreats less and less each time. And there's a bomb that says the watch is stupid (Mohammed) and there's a much older rock that says crazy things (Buddha) and there's a seashell yelling out nonsense (Zarathrusta). Then the watch uses bobs almighty power and shoots a lazer beam into the sky so that all the other religions shut up about it (jesus's resurection)

Now onto the next thing, We aren't talking about theories based on words on paper right now. Were talking about fact, or not fact. Becaus jesus' resurection, if proved true, proves the whole cristian religion true, correct? Than we have to talk about this not in the philosofical way, not in a theoretical way, we have to talk about this in a fact or not fact way.

whew. I hope I didn't mess up when i was explaining everything up there, becaus then I'd have a big mess on my hands. Just remember, i took up all the argunments in the order of distance from this one.

[Diego]

What I was saying about the scrap of Jhon, is that there are earlyer gostples than whatever other gosples or whatever.

All the gospels reviewed and accepted or rejected for the New Testament were written several decades after the death of Jesus. What is your point?

Diego, for the big bang theory to be relavent, you have to have evolution to compleat the sequins for creation.

Nope. Anything could've caused life to show up on Earth--the Big Bang is a different scientific theory. Say, if life on Earth originated through any other alternative biological theory, the Big Bang is entirely not affected. They are not tied to one another, although in your mind they might be. Keep in mind science doesn't try to "complete the sequence of creation". Science doesn't AIM for anything; it just looks for answers to the world around us. When those answers also happen to fit together, well, that just means they're doing it right.

And as I think it was, evolution is the gradual evolving of creatures, correct?

Incorrect.
The Law of Evolution states that the allele frequency in a population shifts over time. This is a biological law, and no one's questioning it.

The Theory of Evolution claims that evolution is the cause for the current biological diversity we observe, through Darwinian natural selection.

(there is no gradual evolving in the fossle records)

And evolution explained what we see in the fossle records as a gradual evolving, it predicted a gradual evolving, but i see no gradual evolving.

You seem to have the (extremely wrong) idea that anything that dies is fossilized. In reality, it is extremely rare for anything not to turn to dust over time; very, very specific conditions must be met for corpses to fossilize and be preserved for our days. As such, it's entirely unrealistic to expect tiny, step-by-step fossils that display the evolutional process all the way through. However, if you look at horses, you'll find that the fossil record for them is vastly complete, at least enough to figure out their exact evolutionary process.

Similarly, you fail to explain, if the theory of evolution is bullshit, how did it predict where and when would we find the remains of an ancient transitional fish?

As for the big bang thing... you're only looking at the results of the creation of the univers. there is no concrete proof of it, becaus sometimes, what semes plausible on paper, and is a good theory, with only one or two elements uncountedfor, it may not have happened.

Do you expect us to... go back in time and watch? We have no concrete proof in the sense that we will never know for sure, at least, as sure as going back and seeing it happen. However, there's mountains of scientifical evidence pointing towards it. The Cosmic Background Radiation, for example. And, no, scientific theories are not simply "good on paper." For something in science to be called a theory it has to:
a) Have mathematical basis
b) Have tons and tons of evidence
c) Make predictions about its effects
The Big Bang theory has all three, so it's a theory. If you write on a piece of paper "God did it!", you've got neither, so it's not called a theory. Not even a hypothesis, or a conjecture--a guess, at best.

Except there's hundreds of thousands of notes with different names on them. And the tide comes up higher and higher and retreats less and less each time. And there's a bomb that says the watch is stupid (Mohammed) and there's a much older rock that says crazy things (Buddha) and there's a seashell yelling out nonsense (Zarathrusta).

Then the watch uses bobs almighty power and shoots a lazer beam into the sky so that all the other religions shut up about it (jesus's resurection)

No non-biblical source claims Jesus resurrected. The Bible has no validity as historical evidence of miracle, since it's a biased cult book, not an objective historical account. Please do not use sources that are not objective historical accounts when trying to talk about history. I'll find you a billion examples of other religions writing about their miracles--it's pretty easy to find.

Now onto the next thing, We aren't talking about theories based on words on paper right now. Were talking about fact, or not fact.

It is vastly believed that we are completely not capable of producing any form of knowledge as a fact except for mathematical knowledge, Pie.

Becaus jesus' resurection, if proved true, proves the whole cristian religion true, correct?

Again, no. It makes the idea much more convincing, but he could have been a powerful psychic, a ghost, a Power Ranger or anything else you can think of. You see the matter as too black-and-white; there are much more than just two choices here. Furthermore, it is completely impossible to prove Jesus's resurrection as real, just like it's completely impossible to prove that anything that happened thousands of years ago is 100% real. Hell, it's hard enough to figure 500-year-old shit as it is.

Than we have to talk about this not in the philosofical way, not in a theoretical way, we have to talk about this in a fact or not fact way.

Philosophy is nothing about "facts or not facts", Pie. And Science, I'll have you know, is a philosophy on its own.

We have to talk this on a theoretical (scientifical) level because we are discussing scientifical merit here. Why scientifical? Because nothing in the history of mankind has ever been more effective at providing us with the truth and predicting the behavior of the world around us than Science.

[Diego]

And, and, you're GAY!

(Double post).

[Pie]

Gay? I'm sensitave about stuff, i have emotions, but I am sertainly not gay. Becaus I choos not to be.

Also, the myrterdome of the apostles is the proof for jesus's resurection.

My point is that the earlyist gostple scrap that we have, is jhon. thus I would point out that jhon is probably earlyer than any of the other ghostples that don't teach jesus's divinity. And I may ask you who were the writers of these other ghosples and what are there contents?

We may not be able to prove anything as a fact, but we can still prove historical events as a fact, and that is what I am basing everything off of.

"If you write on a piece of paper "God did it!", you've got neither, so it's not called a theory. Not even a hypothesis, or a conjecture--a guess, at best." ACtually, jesus's resurection is a prediction on the effect of god making the univers. We have historical evidence, we have a theory that is logical, and has no holes, and has only one assumption"god exists" but that asumption is probably proven true becaus of jesus's resurection.

If you're still wondering, jesus's resurection is my main point in proving my theory.

"When those answers also happen to fit together, well, that just means they're doing it right."

So if they don't fit together, than they are rong.

"Because nothing in the history of mankind has ever been more effective at providing us with the truth and predicting the behavior of the world around us than Science."

yep. But science has no logical merit in historical events. Becaus it "predicts the behaveure of the world around us" Wile history tells us what has happened, science can only predict what will happen. predictions can be rong you know.

And may I add that science only measures and predicts what happence in the world of science. In the world of caus and effect. It only tells us the absolute truths of the world. And history isn't absolute. It's a moment to moment thing.

And havent you once said yourself "in a univers wich has no beginning or end, the probability of something happening is 1?" Or something or another.

" I'll find you a billion examples of other religions writing about their miracles--it's pretty easy to find." and then I will ask you the time from the miracle happening to the time that it was written and you will probably state some large number like 500 years, 300 years, 200 years ext.

"Furthermore, it is completely impossible to prove Jesus's resurrection as real, just like it's completely impossible to prove that anything that happened thousands of years ago is 100% real. Hell, it's hard enough to figure 500-year-old shit as it is. " Rigt back at you big guy. (Conserning evolution"

you know, here is a thought. Reptiles never stop growing. And in the prehistoric period, we know as a fact(the verry old trees don't have those lines in them, and those lines signify the changing of the seasons.) that there was a differen't weather and stuff back then. And I have pastly proposed that there was thusly a higher beometric pressure and it was like a greenhows(no sun, a high amount of clouds, has a mist coming up from the ground) and I then proposed that this extended the life of animals greatly.

What if, those reptiles, were just really, really old lizerds?

I don't know what that has to do directly with this discution, all I know is that perhaps the dinosourse werent there oun speces. I just wanted to through that out there for your thoughts.

(Ok, sorry, my mom needs the computer really quick, I'll be sure to be back and answer all the other things you said. later that is.)

[Diego]

Also, the myrterdome of the apostles is the proof for jesus's resurection.

a) Their martyrdome isn't proof of anything except that someone wanted to kill them.
b) It's entirely possible that they were killed for believing in what Jesus said, not claiming he was God.
c) There is still no logical connection between being killed by Romans and saying some guy rose from the grave.

I already disproved this stupid argument. Don't think I forgot you haven't answered any of the questions I asked. It's impossible to determine that the death of anyone equals their claims were true, moreso since we don't even know if those were their claims in the first place.

My point is that the earlyist gostple scrap that we have, is jhon. thus I would point out that jhon is probably earlyer than any of the other ghostples that don't teach jesus's divinity. And I may ask you who were the writers of these other ghosples and what are there contents?

John is the latest gospel, not the earliest. Where the hell are you pulling this out from?

As for alternative gospels, they include the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Phillip, Mary Magdalene, Sophia and many others, and their contents vary greatly, as not all interacted with Jesus in the same way, but the most distinct difference from the Jesus portrayed in the biblical gospels, particularly in John's, is that they make no mention of Jesus's divinity (or resurrection).

We may not be able to prove anything as a fact, but we can still prove historical events as a fact, and that is what I am basing everything off of.

No, we can't prove historical events as fact. Historical events are one of the farthest things from facts that exist.

"If you write on a piece of paper "God did it!", you've got neither, so it's not called a theory. Not even a hypothesis, or a conjecture--a guess, at best."

ACtually, jesus's resurection is a prediction on the effect of god making the univers. We have historical evidence, we have a theory that is logical, and has no holes, and has only one assumption"god exists" but that asumption is probably proven true becaus of jesus's resurection.

Again, Jesus's resurrection is not fact, is not considered fact, can not be considered fact and will never be considered fact. History is one of the most inconsistent, varying things we know of; it relies on word-of-mouth and can't escape personal bias. Events that happened a century ago are still questioned and revised and re-revised over and over. You're trying to say that we can just assume as fact something that happened 2000 years ago and of which there is absolutely no mention anywhere in history except in books written by cult followers? Senseless, Pie.

And you clearly don't understand the concept of predictions in a scientific context. You can't exactly predict something that alledgedly happened 2 millenia ago.

If you're still wondering, jesus's resurection is my main point in proving my theory.

Any serious historian doubts Jesus's existance. You argue his resurrection is a fact. You're a pretty messed up fellow, in my book.

"When those answers also happen to fit together, well, that just means they're doing it right."

So if they don't fit together, than they are rong.

Yes, of course. When one branch of science reaches a conclusion that refutes another branch of science, well, someone is wrong.

"Because nothing in the history of mankind has ever been more effective at providing us with the truth and predicting the behavior of the world around us than Science."

yep. But science has no logical merit in historical events. Becaus it "predicts the behaveure of the world around us" Wile history tells us what has happened, science can only predict what will happen. predictions can be rong you know.

And if predictions are wrong, so was that theory, so we trash it. And science is much more reliable than history at telling us what happened, Pie. Science can not only tell us what WILL happen, it can tell us what COULD have happened. For example, folklore history claims there were vampires in the middle ages. Science tells us that they were individuals who suffered from porfiria, creating the vampire legend. Are you going to say history is right on this one?

And may I add that science only measures and predicts what happence in the world of science. In the world of caus and effect. It only tells us the absolute truths of the world. And history isn't absolute. It's a moment to moment thing.

Uh, this is pretty stupid, Pie. What happened happened, or did not. Science is about facts and the way the world works. If science says "That shit could not have happened", well, it didn't happen. What's likelier, the laws of the Universe making exceptions at random in the distant past, or people making shit up (what you call History)?

And havent you once said yourself "in a univers wich has no beginning or end, the probability of something happening is 1?" Or something or another.

Not that I recall. However, that's quite true. Luckily our Universe has a beginning, and will likely have an end.

"I'll find you a billion examples of other religions writing about their miracles--it's pretty easy to find."

and then I will ask you the time from the miracle happening to the time that it was written and you will probably state some large number like 500 years, 300 years, 200 years ext.

Pie, that's completely irrelevant. They wrote about Jesus three decades after he died, at most, and not saying he was God. They said he was God 70 years after his death (anyone who saw him alive would've been long dead by then, given the average lifespans in that era). Three hundred years later, they compiled the New Testament, picked certain gospels, made some fixings and adjustments, and said he was the Messiah.

And, even if they wrote fifteen minutes after someone did something deemed a miracle, what the hell difference does it make? People can bullshit other people at any point in time. David Blaine has people thinking he's levitating and doing magic 2 feet away from them; you think it's impossible for Jesus (or anyone else) to pull that kind of crap on anyone and have them write it down?

"Furthermore, it is completely impossible to prove Jesus's resurrection as real, just like it's completely impossible to prove that anything that happened thousands of years ago is 100% real. Hell, it's hard enough to figure 500-year-old shit as it is. "

Rigt back at you big guy. (Conserning evolution"

I meant historical events, as explained through legend, word-of-mouth and old documents (all of which can simply be false, in the worst-case scenario). Science in this sense is far more powerful than History in determining what happened thousands if not millions if not billions of years ago. If the evidence for evolution was a one hundred thousand year old painting depicting proto-cows evolving into cows, fuck yes, I'd be with you, it'd be stupid.

you know, here is a thought. Reptiles never stop growing. And in the prehistoric period, we know as a fact(the verry old trees don't have those lines in them, and those lines signify the changing of the seasons.) that there was a differen't weather and stuff back then. And I have pastly proposed that there was thusly a higher beometric pressure and it was like a greenhows(no sun, a high amount of clouds, has a mist coming up from the ground) and I then proposed that this extended the life of animals greatly.

What if, those reptiles, were just really, really old lizerds?

I don't know what that has to do directly with this discution, all I know is that perhaps the dinosourse werent there oun speces. I just wanted to through that out there for your thoughts.

That's a very stupid idea, Pie, displaying marvelous ignorance of biology. No decent biologist would ever confuse the bones in a dinosaur with those in a lizard, since they are entirely different in composition, shape and structure. Lizards don't lay 50kg eggs. Besides, we can determine the age of a dead animal by looking at its bones, and most fossilized dinosaurs weren't older than just a few years.

God, Pie, study Biology or read a book before throwing insane, ignorant claims out there. Do you really think guesswork is going to stump what thousands of lifelong biologists out there have studied, fixed, corrected and corrected again for decades?

[wichita]

Anyone who is interested in some peer reviewed science (in a mainstream, accepted, published on paper, scientific journal) on the subject of gene selection is welcome to take a look at these. I haven't read them in great detail yet, but the following tendency in htis thread to follow logic such as

Incorrect.
The Law of Evolution states that the allele frequency in a population shifts over time. This is a biological law, and no one's questioning it.

The Theory of Evolution claims that evolution is the cause for the current biological diversity we observe, through Darwinian natural selection.

Evolution is technically the Theory of Evolution, however unlikely it is to be taught that way. Call me a scientific purist, but it takes a lot of work before something is bumped to Law status. It is not a law in any way shape or form, aside from the fact that very few scientists are open to the possibility of it being in question, despite what evidence might be put forth. (Those guys at Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge have an awful lot of pull on the peer review strings....)

Michael J Behe and David W. Snoke, "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" Protein Science (2004)

And an editorial that was written by one of my professors in response to the aftermath of his journal publishing the above article:

Mark Hermodson "Editorial and position papers" Protein Science (2005)


DO NOT call evolution a biological law because it is not. DO NOT assume that it is not being actively researched, debated, challenged by any serious efforst, because it is. DO NOT simply throw out someone's argument because you assume that smarter people have researched it thoroughly and had the newspaper tell you the truth. That is how new religions and propaganda machines are born.

[Pie]

I just hate it when this happens. I do this whole thing, but the point just dosen't get acrost. Must have spoken rong somewere....

whad did the apostles have to gain from there lives of poverty and myrterdome? And also, are you doubting that jhon wrote the gosple jhon, or that paul wrote corinthians, or that peter wrote revalations?

Myrterdome dose'nt mean that what they say are true, it just means that what they are saying isn't a lie.

But how could they be not telling the truth, If they aren't lying? the only reason I see for it is that they were lied to. Now, tell me, how could that have been?

"Any serious historian doubts Jesus's existance. You argue his resurrection is a fact. You're a pretty messed up fellow, in my book." Likewise. You know, no serious philisophical person back in them A.D.'s and the like never doubted slavery.

Saying that jesus didn't live is more blind than me saying that evolution is fals becaus my religion is true. We have the historical evidence probing that jesus lived, and he was killd through the government. If you can't accept the non biblical refurances i have given (way back when) than I will refuse to accept any fossle data that you will put up here as evidence. does that sound like a good deal?

"Thomas, Judas, Phillip, Mary Magdalene, Sophia and many others" So your saying you would take thomas's gosple, wich stars a giant cross, wich walks out of the tombe, and talks, and a giant jesus, over him just being resurected? I don't know about any of the others, so pleas give me a link.

I thought I read it somewere that the earlyist scrap they have was of jhon. *shrugs* it was one of the four ghosples.

And heres a thought. Maby those other ghosples weren't writing to be historically acurate. Maby they were just writing it to bring one part of his life into focus and to learn a moral about it. Becaus that is actually what they did back then. THey didn't write biographys starting frome the birth, becaus they wanted to point out a moral in his life story.

"except in books written by cult followers?" They weren't followers. They were the leaders. And they were myrterd. Pleas, If you cant get this,if you cant conseave the philisophical idea that someone won't just make up this story, and get killed about it, unleas he had a reason to it, shut up.

"And you clearly don't understand the concept of predictions in a scientific context. You can't exactly predict something that alledgedly happened 2 millenia ago." Likewise to you. You see, I am placing the "god made the univers" as a theory in my statenment, and jesus's resurection as the prediction, equally important as your "they found the fish thingy" prediction, to prove it.

"it can tell us what COULD have happened" Within a sertain context. Becaus, you see, science goes like this. A guy in a wite coat has a piece of soap. A girl in a white coat stands behind him holding a clip board. The guy places the soap inside a buket of whater. he pushes it down, it floats back up, the girl scribbles something on the clip board. They repeat this for a few times. And thus, becaus of an exparement, they have proved that soap floats.

But you see, they cant find out 100% what actually happened in history. Becaus they can only figure out what can happen. Not what will happen. (Can as in, this will create this. Will as in, will this take the 2% chance and explode, or will it make gold)

"Pie, that's completely irrelevant. They wrote about Jesus three decades after he died, at most, and not saying he was God. They said he was God 70 years after his death (anyone who saw him alive would've been long dead by then, given the average lifespans in that era). Three hundred years later, they compiled the New Testament, picked certain gospels, made some fixings and adjustments, and said he was the Messiah.

And, even if they wrote fifteen minutes after someone did something deemed a miracle, what the hell difference does it make? People can bullshit other people at any point in time. David Blaine has people thinking he's levitating and doing magic 2 feet away from them; you think it's impossible for Jesus (or anyone else) to pull that kind of crap on anyone and have them write it down? " the empty tome. How can you fake that? the holes in his hands. what about that?

Let me ask you something. Do you read plato's writings(lived 600 years before it was ever written) any of ceasers acounts of the war (300 years) MAny of those books writen around that time period?

"I meant historical events, as explained through legend, word-of-mouth and old documents (all of which can simply be false, in the worst-case scenario). Science in this sense is far more powerful than History in determining what happened thousands if not millions if not billions of years ago. If the evidence for evolution was a one hundred thousand year old painting depicting proto-cows evolving into cows, fuck yes, I'd be with you, it'd be stupid. "

Hey, as you say, not all bones are fosselised. Perhaps we still had dinosourse and the like right up into 1400 bc, and then they all just died out. We seriously don't know. and finding bones in the diferen't levles of dirt i think is just kinda.... not smart. Between earthquakes, argriculture, landslides, floods, ice ages, comit strikes, animals that die and weren't fossilised,rain, and of course differen't levles of dirt instinctively go to differen't levles of weight(do an experement, put dirt and sand in a bottle and shake it up and leave it for a while, or perhaps you should put an item into the dirt and then see what happens, or how deep it goes after a wile) I think were just shooting into the dark. And carbon dating is definatly unknown, between other animals, and water, and any other thing that touches it, we don't know. And might I add that if you find any carbon in a dinosour bone, it is younger than 11k years. (the halflife of carbon dating, remember?)

Perhaps I'm shooting in the dark, but meh.

"That's a very stupid idea, Pie, displaying marvelous ignorance of biology. No decent biologist would ever confuse the bones in a dinosaur with those in a lizard, since they are entirely different in composition, shape and structure. Lizards don't lay 50kg eggs. Besides, we can determine the age of a dead animal by looking at its bones, and most fossilized dinosaurs weren't older than just a few years.

God, Pie, study Biology or read a book before throwing insane, ignorant claims out there. Do you really think guesswork is going to stump what thousands of lifelong biologists out there have studied, fixed, corrected and corrected again for decades?" perhaps when they got bigger there embryoes also got bigger. perhaps they just grew so large, or differen't as they grew, that there bones changed. perhaps they were a new species of smaller lizerd. It was just a thought.

[Diego]

whad did the apostles have to gain from there lives of poverty and myrterdome? And also, are you doubting that jhon wrote the gosple jhon, or that paul wrote corinthians, or that peter wrote revalations?

Yeah. The authorship of most biblical texts is fairly questioned, particularly due to timeline issues and the fact that John could not have lived to 100AD in all likelihood.

Myrterdome dose'nt mean that what they say are true, it just means that what they are saying isn't a lie.

This is entirely retarded, Pie. Martyrdome means they were killed. Now, I'll ask you again:

What if they were killed for following Jesus, then after their death, subsequent followers proclaimed Jesus as God, rather than just a peaceful philosopher?

We have no way of knowing if they truly made any of the claims you think they made. We don't even know for sure if they were martyrized, much less if they were martyrized for believing in Jesus, much less if they were martyrized for believing Jesus to be God. You're jumping to conclusions here, where it is quite dangerous to do so.

But how could they be not telling the truth, If they aren't lying? the only reason I see for it is that they were lied to. Now, tell me, how could that have been?

What if, I don't know, let's say, they never said anything in the first place? What if they didn't exist? What if they are legends based on real people, greatly exaggerated? What if Jesus was just full of shit?

"Any serious historian doubts Jesus's existance. You argue his resurrection is a fact. You're a pretty messed up fellow, in my book."

Likewise. You know, no serious philisophical person back in them A.D.'s and the like never doubted slavery.

I have no idea of what you're saying here, but we are in the ADs.

Saying that jesus didn't live is more blind than me saying that evolution is fals becaus my religion is true.

I understand; subjectively, that makes sense. However, I can't accept you stating that objectively, the existance of Jesus is remotely factual. Is your faith so weak you need to convince yourself there's facts and logic behind it?

We have the historical evidence probing that jesus lived

You have perhaps 1/1,000 the historical evidence for Jesus that there is for basically any usual individual of medium fame in his era. The sources are decades more recent than Jesus, the most recent source's author being born some fifteen years after his death. What little historical evidence you have is not enough prove anything, and to claim so is to display sheer ignorance of History and how it functions. There's pretty much the same amount of historical evidence for Jesus that there is for Alexander the Great being the son of an Olympian God.

and he was killd through the government. If you can't accept the non biblical refurances i have given (way back when) than I will refuse to accept any fossle data that you will put up here as evidence. does that sound like a good deal?

Uh. You have four sources, all of which briefly mention a man called Jesus in Judea, only one of which mentions Jesus having anything to do with a cult of Jews. All of this sources were written between 40 and 150 years after Jesus's death.

You have nothing, Pie. Can't compare a bunch of decades-late historians mentioning a name on passing to thousands of fossils matching what evolutionists claim should be there.

"Thomas, Judas, Phillip, Mary Magdalene, Sophia and many others"

So your saying you would take thomas's gosple, wich stars a giant cross, wich walks out of the tombe, and talks, and a giant jesus, over him just being resurected? I don't know about any of the others, so pleas give me a link.

I'm not doing your research for you. The Gospel of Judas was fairly publicized recently on NatGeo; google yourself.

I thought I read it somewere that the earlyist scrap they have was of jhon. *shrugs* it was one of the four ghosples.

The earliest scrap as in the earliest version currently in existance. It was still, of the four gospels, the last to be written. And the four gospels are simply the ones a shitload of Romans that had converted to Christianism a few years before upon order of the Ceasar chose to make the New Testament. Nothing else.

And heres a thought. Maby those other ghosples weren't writing to be historically acurate. Maby they were just writing it to bring one part of his life into focus and to learn a moral about it. Becaus that is actually what they did back then. THey didn't write biographys starting frome the birth, becaus they wanted to point out a moral in his life story.

Exactly! Which is why they should not be taken as historical sources, but rather, very nice tales with a moral. No one's worshipping the Big Bad Wolf.

"except in books written by cult followers?"

They weren't followers. They were the leaders. And they were myrterd. Pleas, If you cant get this,if you cant conseave the philisophical idea that someone won't just make up this story, and get killed about it, unleas he had a reason to it, shut up.

They were followers of Jesus. Cult members. And, to put it bluntly, Pie, we don't know if the apostles wrote their own gospels, we don't know if the divinity of Jesus was added to the gospels after the death of their authors, we don't know why were their authors killed, we don't know if they ever claimed to have seen Jesus resurrect. It. Could. All. Be. Bullshit. And when all you have to go on are 2-millenia-old documents, translated back and forth for centuries, edited numerous times, hand-picked from a pile of other documents that said different things about the same man, and still managing to tell the same story in a different way, the smart thing is to assume they're full of shit.

It doesn't come down to "Either they lied for no reason or they said the truth!!!". There's a myriad of other options, Pie. Don't be blind to them.

"And you clearly don't understand the concept of predictions in a scientific context. You can't exactly predict something that alledgedly happened 2 millenia ago."

Likewise to you. You see, I am placing the "god made the univers" as a theory in my statenment, and jesus's resurection as the prediction, equally important as your "they found the fish thingy" prediction, to prove it.

Cool beans. However, Jesus resurrecting is not a measurable, observable fact, it's a load of shit that you are trying to get me to swallow because you think some cult members wrote about it and got killed for it.

"it can tell us what COULD have happened"

Within a sertain context. Becaus, you see, science goes like this. A guy in a wite coat has a piece of soap. A girl in a white coat stands behind him holding a clip board. The guy places the soap inside a buket of whater. he pushes it down, it floats back up, the girl scribbles something on the clip board. They repeat this for a few times. And thus, becaus of an exparement, they have proved that soap floats.

But you see, they cant find out 100% what actually happened in history. Becaus they can only figure out what can happen. Not what will happen. (Can as in, this will create this. Will as in, will this take the 2% chance and explode, or will it make gold)

The point is, if Jesus's story said something along the lines of "And then Jesus threw a piece of soap in the water, and it sank.", Science would step in and call "BULLSHIT!". Science tells us what is or is not feasible. Which is why science is excellent for ruling out bullshit pieces of history; it proves how they could not have happened.

"Pie, that's completely irrelevant. They wrote about Jesus three decades after he died, at most, and not saying he was God. They said he was God 70 years after his death (anyone who saw him alive would've been long dead by then, given the average lifespans in that era). Three hundred years later, they compiled the New Testament, picked certain gospels, made some fixings and adjustments, and said he was the Messiah.

And, even if they wrote fifteen minutes after someone did something deemed a miracle, what the hell difference does it make? People can bullshit other people at any point in time. David Blaine has people thinking he's levitating and doing magic 2 feet away from them; you think it's impossible for Jesus (or anyone else) to pull that kind of crap on anyone and have them write it down? "

the empty tome. How can you fake that? the holes in his hands. what about that?

Easy: It never happened. Bullshit stories in a 2,000 year old piece of text that has been added to, removed from, edited, translated and changed more times than almost any book in history.

Let me ask you something. Do you read plato's writings(lived 600 years before it was ever written)

Before what was ever written?

any of ceasers acounts of the war (300 years) MAny of those books writen around that time period?

Which Caesar? What war? What the hell are you talking about?

"I meant historical events, as explained through legend, word-of-mouth and old documents (all of which can simply be false, in the worst-case scenario). Science in this sense is far more powerful than History in determining what happened thousands if not millions if not billions of years ago. If the evidence for evolution was a one hundred thousand year old painting depicting proto-cows evolving into cows, fuck yes, I'd be with you, it'd be stupid. "

Hey, as you say, not all bones are fosselised. Perhaps we still had dinosourse and the like right up into 1400 bc, and then they all just died out.

That would not explain why no bone fossilized for 64 million years, Pie. That's pretty dumb. Besides, mankind would remember; civilization existed and was fairly developed by 1400BC.

We seriously don't know. and finding bones in the diferen't levles of dirt i think is just kinda.... not smart. Between earthquakes, argriculture, landslides, floods, ice ages, comit strikes, animals that die and weren't fossilised,rain, and of course differen't levles of dirt instinctively go to differen't levles of weight(do an experement, put dirt and sand in a bottle and shake it up and leave it for a while, or perhaps you should put an item into the dirt and then see what happens, or how deep it goes after a wile) I think were just shooting into the dark.

Well, you're wrong, and there's entire sciences dedicated to proving it. We're not hiring amateur twelve-year-olds to guess how old something is and where and how did it die. Scientists can and do factor in every single thing you mentioned (and quite likely more). This isn't guesswork, Pie, and furthermore, it works. How do you explain correct predictions of where and why would we find the fossils of transitional species, and these predictions being accomplished? If shit doesn't evolve, it seems pretty lucky for scientists to pick a specific rift or valley in a specific region of a specific continent, dig to a specific depth, and find exactly what they said would be there.

And carbon dating is definatly unknown, between other animals, and water, and any other thing that touches it, we don't know. And might I add that if you find any carbon in a dinosour bone, it is younger than 11k years. (the halflife of carbon dating, remember?)

Good thing carbon dating isn't used for dinosaur bones.

Pie, you really need to stop guessing what you think is obviously wrong with science. If it was dumb enough for an uneducated young man to see it right off the bat, someone would have said something by now. If you want to refute everything and categorically prove Christianity someday, read, study, educate yourself, and stop making unsupported, unscientific, vastly senseless, misspelled claims.

"That's a very stupid idea, Pie, displaying marvelous ignorance of biology. No decent biologist would ever confuse the bones in a dinosaur with those in a lizard, since they are entirely different in composition, shape and structure. Lizards don't lay 50kg eggs. Besides, we can determine the age of a dead animal by looking at its bones, and most fossilized dinosaurs weren't older than just a few years.

God, Pie, study Biology or read a book before throwing insane, ignorant claims out there. Do you really think guesswork is going to stump what thousands of lifelong biologists out there have studied, fixed, corrected and corrected again for decades?"

perhaps when they got bigger there embryoes also got bigger. perhaps they just grew so large, or differen't as they grew, that there bones changed. perhaps they were a new species of smaller lizerd. It was just a thought.

Uh, that's kind of what people think happened. Tiny lizards got big and became dinosaurs. Evolved.

[Floris]

Diego, I must mostly agree with you, but it is generally accepted among historians that Jesus did exist in fact as a human being.


Would surprise me not too, as he is the source of the belief of over 1 billion people.

I also don't agree that the smart thing to do with the bible is to assume it's full of shit.

There is a lot in there that is one way or another historically correct, just like a lot of other 'ancient' texts.

Moreover, despite there being some scientifically doubtful happenstances described in the Bible, there is still a lot of it that is not shit, even if it has no purely scientific or rational value.



And whatever is to be said about science, I find it very interesting to know or try to know how everything came to exist, but it does not give any extra meaning to my life. Amongst other things, faith does give meaning, or better said it 'helps' me give meaning.

[Nalaris]

Meh, this thread has been taken over by Pie.

There's two major complaints against my arguments, the first that lots of religious people were hit by Katrina and the second came from a conspiracy theorist whose idea's appear to carry about as much weight as the average article pumped out by the Weekly World News ("America is targeting natural disasters at...itself...yeah!"). Naturally, I could be wrong in this, but other than admitting that he's on drugs, he's made no argument for this possibility.

Now, to the more valid statement concerning Katrina's broad destruction: the pain suffered by religious people in New Orleans sometimes turns into an advantage: a lot of people got into much better neighborhoods than they were originally in when they lived in New Orleans (I'm thinking particularly of a guy I knew whose family came here from the flooded city. He said he liked it here a lot better.). For others, it simply makes another trial, something to be overcome. After all, thinking about it from a purely spiritual point of view, the family lost nothing.

Sure, mardigras may not have been stopped by Katrina, but nothing can stop sin but the utter annihilation of all mankind, or just Satans death (and I'm referring to death here in the Athiest sense of ceasing to exist). I also note that people have started swearing again. Have I struck a chord? Has Pie finally driven Diego to insanity? Or do the people on the Cantr forums simply have an astonishing lack of will power? Only time will tell...

[Pie]

"Well, you're wrong, and there's entire sciences dedicated to proving it. We're not hiring amateur twelve-year-olds to guess how old something is and where and how did it die. Scientists can and do factor in every single thing you mentioned (and quite likely more). This isn't guesswork, Pie, and furthermore, it works. How do you explain correct predictions of where and why would we find the fossils of transitional species, and these predictions being accomplished? If shit doesn't evolve, it seems pretty lucky for scientists to pick a specific rift or valley in a specific region of a specific continent, dig to a specific depth, and find exactly what they said would be there. "

You know, I must say I may be getting a we bit over my head here. But what the heck.

Perhaps fossilasation is actualy more common than you think, and we can just dig right about anywere and find this animal.

Also, what does this all mean for evolution? Sure, you predicted were to find it. But My theory can easaly explain (maby I'm grabbing straws here, but whatever) it. Fossilasation is more common than that becaus of the big flood, and you found the bones at that depth becaus of the types of sedimentary rocks and dirt that is there.

Oh, and diego, you seem to have the idea that just becaus this whole group of phd's believe in this, it makes it true. (Lot's of people who had theequivelant of PHD's in philosiphy had slaves in history. Lots of smart people believed that the world was flat. lots of smart people thought the sun revolved around the earth. do you know why? They wre misinformed, or had biassed beliefes) and you must understand that (I also have a group of PHD's studying my stuff. Some of it anyway.)

ok, my mom wants on again, and I need to give the computer to her. so i'll be back.

[Nosajimiki]

I also note that people have started swearing again. Have I struck a chord? Has Pie finally driven Diego to insanity? Or do the people on the Cantr forums simply have an astonishing lack of will power? Only time will tell...

I don't swear on the forums with the above case being the exception so you can't really say I started again. Sure it was immature of me, and perhaps even wrong, but that makes you no less heartless.

Nalaris, maybe one day you'll wind up seperated from EVERYONE you care about knowing that they are stuck in the way of somthing like that, all comunications cut for a over a week with nothing to do but sit around in house full of straingers with nothing to do but run and re-run in your head what they might be going through. I didn't know wether or not my sister evacked and she lived less than a mile from shore. My girlfriend was in the path of the eye. My mom at one of the deepest parts of the city. You want to know what sprituallity it brought out in people? The mother of the person who invited me to stay in the house I was in said the same thing you claimed now, that it is God comeing to cleans the sinfulness from the city. If that's the kind of thinking that you think brings life fulfillment, then I'm better off empty.

[Mykey]

Everything, everything.

[Schme]

Faith makes me want to vomit.... It is truly imo, the worst evil to ever befall humanity. Just look at all the death, and destruction it is responsible for... It surpasses science...imo.

Much better not to feel any guilt at all.

Beat, kill and fuck your way to the top.

Not any better, if you ask me.

[Mykey]

I consider, that you commit an error. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.