Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Does anyone have knowledge of some books that will argue with physical evidence and "scientific theory" that support creationist "theory".
While I tend to side with evolution I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation. I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory. I am not wanting to start any discussion here, just want some good books to read. Thanks
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory. I am not wanting to start any discussion here, just want some good books to read. Thanks.

I think you'll need to be more specific about what you mean by "creationist theory." are you referring to young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, gap creationism, or something else?

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 53
While I tend to side with evolution I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation.

You assertion is incorrect. There are tons of evidence. If you get the chance, catch the NOVA program on the Dover trial in which the Dover School Board was taken to court to justify their negative stance on evolution (and their positive stance on intelligent design). The biology (a science that operates on "genuine scientific evidence") presented was overwhelming. Evolution has passed every test thrown at it, right down to making predictions that were later verified.

I don't know where your position that there is no "genuine" evidence comes from. Maybe a misunderstanding of how science works, or maybe just the result of fallacious Christian propaganda. But either way you are incorrect. Someone posted a link (I think on this board) to short talks from the biologists that testified at that trial. I think there were PDF presentations also (or maybe that was a different link). If I find them I'll reply again with the info (unless someone beats me to it).

I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory.

I don't have any books for you. You can look up two idiots named Behe and Dembsky who have written books favoring ID. Both of them have been thoroughly discredited, but if you're determined to read such tripe then those are the names I know. There's also a pseudo-science website "answersingenesis.org". They pretend to be doing serious science, but as a physicist I can tear apart some of their works myself, and I can direct you to other specialists (e.g. geologists) that have torn apart pretty much everything else on that website. IOW, it's bogus.

I think it dangerous for a layperson to get into that because sites like AiG make it sound so official and technical, and if you don't have the training and background you could easily be fooled. Some of this science is very esoteric. Note that as a trained scientist I still referred to others because the topics were outside my area. In that respect scientists are like doctors. We may have similar bases, but we all specialize. And it is impossible for any one person (scientist or otherwise) to know all the minutia of a different area of inquiry. If you can keep that in mind, it doesn't hurt to view AiG. Balance your inquiry with a visit to "talkorigins.org". There are numerous papers there written by specialists who critiqued (and dismembered) the various works on AiG.

I've been through this exercise over the past almost-1-year now. I was challenged by a fundie coworker whom I respected to look at "new data". I don't have the same respect for him now that I've completed my journey into "creation science". He's simply deluding himself.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

why, "catch", the nova program. Here it is!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

And for some of religiously motivated creationists' motives....

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

- weitzhuis
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory.

There is none.

While I tend to side with evolution I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation.

The museums are overflowing with examples and evidence of evolution. All of modern biology is based on evolution. The concepts of disease control and prevention rest on the foundation of evolution. There is supporting evidence throughout other scientific disciplines such as geology, natural history, botany, marine sciences, paleontology, paleoclimatology and others. You can find books in nearly any section of the bookstore which deal with those branches of science.

Or, you can find a book written 2,000 years ago by sheep herders which some people say contradicts it. That would be in the "religion" section.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This board is called Creation v Evolution. I still havent heard anything from the creationist side.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Any "scienctist" who goes into a study to find evidence to support their pre-supposed theory isn't conducting science.

Intelligent design is creationism with a new moniker so that it could be proposed to be a counter argument to the science of evolution.

Many argue that evolution is only a "theory". They haven't looked up the difference between a scientific theory and the word theory's common usage.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The NOVA program is really interesting. Thanks for the tip and the link!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you want rebuttals to what evolutionists are spinning, you might be interested in this website:

http://www.arn.org/

I myself find the Christian Holy Bible to be the most authoritative book and the basis for Creationism.

The theme of this board is Creation vs Evolution, but I have come to the conclusion that it is more a persons fundamental belief that leads him to accept Creation vs Darwinian Evolution. You either accept God and the Bible, or you accept something else. There is no ground in between. There may be some who accept intelligent design and not the God of the Bible, but the most diametrically opposed views are based on beliefs.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...I have come to the conclusion that it is more a persons fundamental belief that leads him to accept Creation vs Darwinian Evolution.

What about Bryan? I think he is "in between". He believes in God as the creator, but has stated (somewhere) that he believes God uses evolution as a mechanism for speciation. I'm sure he's not alone in this belief. In fact, from the links benj provided, it appears there are rather large and organized groups with similar beliefs.

My fundamental beliefs are really very simple. If the evidence indicates something is true, then it may very well be true. If the evidence says it is NOT true, then it is NOT true. The former allows for the fact that new data can come along to invalidate previously held ideas (necessitating a new idea to explain the old data plus whatever the new data is), while the latter is absolute (i.e. one counter-example invalidates the idea).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
You either accept God and the Bible, or you accept something else. There is no ground in between.

I know I'll regret this:

Paul, please defend the assertion that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only one that "accepts the Bible." For I have to say, as a fellow Christian, that IMO the idea you are espousing that theism and creationism/ID are inextricably bundled together is a lie from the pit of Hell.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
If you want rebuttals to what evolutionists are spinning, you might be interested in this website:

http://www.arn.org/



Just to give one example of why sites like this are misleading, here's a link from it ("definitions of important terms"):

http://www.arn.org/docs/Redeeming%20Darwin%20Reference%20Guide%20Excerpts.pdf

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs to create new species or types of living beings, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes within a species or population.


So there we have it: macroevolution is the creation of new species. Or is it? The formation of new species has been observed many times in the lab and in nature. IDers concede this point. To get around this, the IDers have done is create a fictional definition by including the words "new types" in addition to new species. What's a "type"? Is it a new genus? A family? They won't say.


This gets the IDers around the fact that speciation has been observed. The IDers say:

Microevolution may result in creating new species in the sense that two populations may no longer interbreed. However, macroevolution creating distinctly different life cycles, forms, etc. has not been observed.

"In the sense?" Either it's speciation or it isn't. And what we have observed IS speciation. What the creationists/IDers are looking for is a bigger change than 'mere' speciation, such as the spontaneous formation of a new genus or family or order. This is often referred to by IDers when they say "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat!"* Well, evolution does not claim that any such thing happens. As Richard Dawkins has repeatedly explained, all new genuses and families and orders began at the species level. Bigger changes, such as new 'types', have not been observed because they're not supposed to happen. And yet IDers keep claiming this is a weakness. It's on the 'Expelled' website, it's on this website, it's everywhere.

And it's dishonest. It's a strawman argument: Misrepresent what evolution predicts, and then argue against that misrepresentation.

If ID had real evidence and a real theory, they wouldn't need to keep lying and misleading.



*If you see the website for the movie Expelled, a college teacher was fired for saying this as a criticism of evolution. It's such an absurd thing to say, that no competent instructor who knew the first thing about evolution would ever say such a thing. She never should have been hired in the first place. And yet it's a standard argument from ID. It's commonplace. That should tell you plenty.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What about Bryan? I think he is "in between". He believes in God as the creator, but has stated (somewhere) that he believes God uses evolution as a mechanism for speciation. I'm sure he's not alone in this belief.

I think you are correct there. My thinking on this does differ from Bryan. The way that I wrote it may sound as if I mean to say that if you don't believe the literal story of creation in the Bible that you are an unbeliever. There are shades of thinking between the literal story of creation in the Bible and the purely Godless evolution. I hold more closely to the literal story of creation. THat does not mean that I see anyone who sees god using evolution as an unbeliever. There is a lot that seems to show that Evolution was how we came to be and I cannot fault someone for having that thinking. Belief in God is first and formost. You just either stand on one side of evolution or the other.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This board is called Creation v Evolution. I still havent heard anything from the creationist side.


Here you go:
http://www.reasons.org/shop/home.php?cat=5

(old earth creationist)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Paul, please defend the assertion that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only one that "accepts the Bible." For I have to say, as a fellow Christian, that IMO the idea you are espousing that theism and creationism/ID are inextricably bundled together is a lie from the pit of Hell.

There are many interpretations given to many passages in the Bible. Some obviously must be right and some must be wrong. There are reasons for the various interpretations. Some are serious misinterpretations and some are minor.

I don't see where a christians acceptance of a young or old earth will cause a major problem with their faith.

What I think, however, is that someone who does not believe that the earth was created and who does not believe in God must believe iin an old earth because an old earth is required for life to evolve into what it is today.

The Bible says that the earth was created. It says that God created all life on earth. It doesn't say how he did it, whether or not he used evolution. It does say it was done in 6 days.

My opinion is that evolution and an old earth are based on evidence that presupposes an old earth and evolution. It is convenient for those who wish to believe that the earth was not created. I think that this has happened to such an extent and for so long that many now understand it to be fact. I think that is why it is accepted by many who are christian. When you observe something and believe it to be true, then you understand things in the context that you observe them. With the observation that so many things seem to support evolution, then it seems to make sense that the literal 6 days must be interpreted as a span of time that is longer that literal days.

I put an emphasis on the Bible because I believe that it holds more truth and gives more foundation to the truth that the earth was created. I think that a faith in God is more important than an interpretation of what the 6 days in Genesis means. As for me, I have always felt that the 6 days were literal days.

Despite what is said on this message board by others, I think there is good information on the AiG website.

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
There are shades of thinking between the literal story of creation in the Bible and the purely Godless evolution.

Godless evolution ? Who are you to tell God how to do His business ? You'd rather believe in a piece of paper than the reality that stares you in your blind, unseeing face.

How sad.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
must see for Fools that think creationism is a JOKE !!


It's interesting that you use creationism and Intelligent Design interchangably.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_Day:_Intelligent_Design_on_Trial#_note-CS

ICR claims that the program did not mention that important Discovery Institute witnesses were not allowed to have their own attorneys present, and therefore decided not to testify, unfairly tilting the trial in favor of the evolution supporters.


Um, which DI witnesses? The DI was not part of the lawsuit. They had reps who were there merely there to observe, because they lacked confidence in the merits of the defense case.

This article must be referring to witnesses for the Thomas More Center. The More Center refused to allow Philip Johnson, William Dembsi, and Steve Meyer to make a deposition with their own personal lawyers present. This was a decision made by the defense, and you're complaining it's not fair?!?!?

As a matter of fact, the defense attorney later relented and said Meyer could bring his lawyer, but he still refused.

This was a nothing more than a matter of internal disagreement within the defense team, who couldn't even agree amongst themselves long enough to show up and testify.


ICR also states that Darwin lacks credibility because of allegedly racist statements he made in his book The Descent of Man.


Darwin made some unfortunate statements based on what was known at the time. Lincoln also made racist statements. Society as a whole has become more enlightened since then. Both Lincoln and Darwin had their strong points, too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
ICR also states that Darwin lacks credibility because of allegedly racist statements he made in his book The Descent of Man.

I recognize that these aren't your words, fmNh, I'm just glad you brought up this quote because it highlights an aspect of this debate which I find quite troubling.

It's bothersome when people try to equate Darwin the man with his scientific work done regarding the theory of evolution. I resent being referred to as a "Darwinist" because nothing could be further from the truth. I think many on the "faith-based" side of this argument try to shape the debate (perhaps unintentionally) because it further muddies the facts of the issue.

The theory of evolution is just one of many scientific theories which are all interdependent and support one another. Evolution is not a cult of personality and Darwin, the man, is not a facet of the veracity of the details of Evolution.

If David Duke or Ann Coulter came up with a proof for Fermat's last theorem it wouldn't matter a lick how loathsome they may be in other aspects of their lives -- all that would matter (insofar as the the theorem was concerned) would be if other mathematicians could validate that published proof.

If Darwin overcooked his eggs, juggled kittens, and painted vulgar grafitti on highway overpasses none of those things could be used as legitimate critique of his scientific work. Either the science bears out under the scrutiny of experimentation and peer review or it does not. The man is not the matter.

Acceptance of evolution is not predicated on any aspect of Darwin himself making the label "Darwinist" either misguided or belittling depending on your perspective. Neither still is the term "Evolutionist" meaningful.

Personally, I think this language is used intentionally to further blur the lines between science and religion in an effort to promote this newer notion that "faith in science is just another religion." Perhaps this is done as an intentional "wedge" to discredit scientists or perhaps it's done because from the religious perspective it's simply challenging to conceive that a viewpoint can be based on something other than mere dogma.

In either case it's disturbing to me. If Darwin was a racist that's regrettable but it does not invalidate Evolution. Science alone has that charter and seems to have weighed in quite strongly in favor of the theory.

There's no such thing as a "Darwinist." Neither does the term "Evolutionist" have any real meaning. "Scientist" is the word you're looking for. HTH. HAND.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Paul,

I must say I am pleasantly surprised by your reply. It was nothing like what I had feared, based on the jargon in your original post. I can even agree with a lot of what you said. I don't see any reason, however, why anyone should swallow the stuff on the AiG site or your ID site. There's just no reason to: the physical evidence contradicts it, and no religious doctrine constrains one to be anti-evolutionist.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think many on the "faith-based" side of this argument try to shape the debate (perhaps unintentionally) because it further muddies the facts of the issue.

There is nothing unintentional about it. Anti-evolutionists have very slick propaganda machines. Those of you who aren't church-goers would barf to see the stuff sent out from these places to be put into church bulletins.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation.

You're only "aware" of that because of ignorance.

The scientific proof is overwhelming. Utterly overwhelming. There's tinkering with fine detail, but the broad and medium brushstrokes are totally defined.

I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory.

None.

There's fatuous crap designed to confuse the gullible, but that's it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Check out more dishonesty from AIG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp


the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator.


No, an unsolved problem for evolution is simply an unanswered question. Mysteries are not evidence of miracles.



Dawkins: Any designer capable of designing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and supremely complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable —and therefore demanding an explanation.

Several things are wrong with this argument:

God is perfectly ‘simple’—in theology, this means God, who is spirit (John 4:24), is not composed of parts, unlike organisms.19 It is almost amusing to see Dawkins musing on the alleged limitations of such a being, based on a complete misunderstanding.

It is only things which have a beginning which require a cause; God has no beginning so requires no cause.



Gee, is there any evidence for any of the statements made by AIG about God? No. No, there's not. They are simply made up.


In other words, the creationist argument is "Everything requires a beginning. Except God."


Oh, and check out this quote:

Another book which appeared at about the same time as Climbing Mount Improbable was Darwin’s Black Box by the biochemist Michael Behe. This is replete with examples of biochemical ‘irreducible complexity’, systems which need many parts working together before they have any function.



Note the word "any". This pretty much contradicts evolution's assertion that the components could have had other functions before being combined. This point has been conceded by most IDers, but not here. Nope. It's impossible. The components have NO function before being combined. Was it Colbert who said recently that if you take one part of a mousetrap away, you've got a piece of wood and some metal and a spring? Yeah, there's nothing useful about those things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
While I tend to side with evolution I am aware that it does lack genuine scientific evidence and is hinged on physical circumstance and speculation.

As gently as this can be said, you are not "aware" that evolution lacks genuine scientific evidence, because there are buildings and buildings and buildings and buildings and buildings and buildings, etc., etc., etc., full of evidence of evolution. AND the evidence IS scientific.

Skip evolution and creationism. Get a pop book on math and statistics and do some coin flipping experiments. Warning: This is a scary road to walk down, but you will have friends, you will learn, it will be difficult at times, and... it will never end.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
... the physical evidence contradicts it, and no religious doctrine constrains one to be anti-evolutionist.

Well said, Joe !

You don't have to refute religion to do good science. (Though, you may have to refute dogma)

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/03/12/catholic-priest-proposes-new-model-for-creation/

- weitzhuis
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
grungeboater:

I'd just like to highlight the fact that you posted:

I am interested in what physical evidence, if any, will support creationist theory.

But the only creationist to respond so far said:

If you want rebuttals to what evolutionists are spinning, you might be interested in this website:

http://www.arn.org/

I myself find the Christian Holy Bible to be the most authoritative book and the basis for Creationism.


I know you think that all those posting in support of evolution are just trying to shout down the creationists, but let me assure you that this is really all they've got. "Rebuttals to evolution," and "the Bible."

Let me further suggest that this is all you can expect to find no matter where you post this question. Because neither creationism nor intelligent design is a science, and neither is based on physical evidence to any degree. They are gripes about evolution which eventually trace back to religious resistance to the science.

Also, "creationist theory" is a misnomer. There is no theory. There is no framework. There is no explanatory mechanism. There is just "God [or some unidentified designer who may perhaps (wink wink) be God] did it."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I myself find the Christian Holy Bible to be the most authoritative book and the basis for Creationism.

When will the church be updating it to fit the facts and include new data?

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In the sense?" Either it's speciation or it isn't. And what we have observed IS speciation. What the creationists/IDers are looking for is a bigger change than 'mere' speciation, such as the spontaneous formation of a new genus or family or order. This is often referred to by IDers when they say "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat!"* Well, evolution does not claim that any such thing happens. As Richard Dawkins has repeatedly explained, all new genuses and families and orders began at the species level. Bigger changes, such as new 'types', have not been observed because they're not supposed to happen. And yet IDers keep claiming this is a weakness. It's on the 'Expelled' website, it's on this website, it's everywhere.


Sadly, given the climatic changes we are now seeing, we may have the opportunity to see evolution kick into high gear within a century. Polar bears are already under duress, and as an apex predator, pressure on them will open new niches and exert other pressures elsewhere that could lead to major changes unlike we've been able to observe. Since Darwin, the biggest pressure has been us, and we just fill the niche we clear out.

Nigel

PS - If god was intervening, and this biodiversity we have that he's supposedly not only created, but is directing, I'd speculate we'd have seen at least a couple brand new, successful plants and animals over the past century.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS - If god was intervening, and this biodiversity we have that he's supposedly not only created, but is directing, I'd speculate we'd have seen at least a couple brand new, successful plants and animals over the past century.
------------

Perhaps waiting for the Mayan calender thing to come to pass in 2012, the christian end times wet dream, or the Kali Durga to work its way.

Then will reintroduce more proper life forms at her leisure?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Perhaps waiting for the Mayan calender thing to come to pass in 2012, the christian end times wet dream, or the Kali Durga to work its way.

Then will reintroduce more proper life forms at her leisure?




could be .. suspect She's thinking : "Brilliant! a new species that can cause mass extinctions... no more messing with comets needed"



-=b
were i a wee bit wackier, i'd note that superficially Evolution combines Eastern & Western -- Cycles of Mass-extinction/regeneration .but each Cycle, the Critters are more 'advanced'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I myself find the Christian Holy Bible to be the most authoritative book and the basis for Creationism.

You consult Bronze Age texts for basic instruction on science!?

Please ask your dentist to do the same next time you go visit. Just sayin'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I put an emphasis on the Bible because I believe that it holds more truth and gives more foundation to the truth that the earth was created. I think that a faith in God is more important than an interpretation of what the 6 days in Genesis means. As for me, I have always felt that the 6 days were literal days.

I assume you also believe in the fallibility of human beings. If so, then how do you know when what you believe is wrong? One can go through a long litany of events in which silly and horrific things were done when unquestioned faith trumped science, from blaming hurricane Katrina on sin, to withholding medical care in favor of religious ritual, to performing exorcisms on the mentally ill. So how do you know when you are wrong?

Science is ultimately a methodology. It is based on empirical testing as a means of providing an objective standard for determining what may be true and what is definitely false.

I've met many who are anti-science. I've yet to meet one who could provide a logically consistent method for testing the accuracy of what they believe. This likely has something to do with why much of what they believe is demonstrably inaccurate.

You believe in a six day creation. Suppose you were wrong, how would you ever know?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator.

As an aside, while no one can point to the exact moment molecules started catalyzing their own formation, they are known in science.

Take a look here:

http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952616

Rebek made a rather large splash when this was published. And it was scrutinized. And reproduced. There are many self-replicating systems known now. (Don't believe me? Just google "Self-replicating molecules").

Now while this isn't DNA/RNA, etc., it most surely does show that these systems can exist. And, as the saying in patents goes, it's a "proof of principle."

cnsayre
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You consult Bronze Age texts for basic instruction on science!?

Please ask your dentist to do the same next time you go visit. Just sayin'.


My dentist doesn't use Bronze for filling teeth.

I think that it is Richard Dawkins, a man who rejects God, who prefers to trounce the Bible as "Bronze Age" writings. If you cannot accept God and choose to reject the faith, then science can only make sense if the Earth is old and everything evolved without any input from a Creator.

I see the Bible as Holy scripture. If the wrong attitude is taken when reading the Bible, it will never reveal anything to you. You won't even recognize that the "Bronze Age" characterization of the Bible is in fact wrong. Genesis was written in the Bronze Age, but the New Testament including the teaching of Jesus was written in a sophisticated society and it backs up many things written in the Old Testament.

God has not personally revealed himself to me in any tangible way. Some things have to be taken in faith. It has to be taken in faith that God created the earth. The Earth had to come from somewhere. You can believe it came from God or you can believe that there is no God and it somehow came from something else. How do you know which is right and which is wrong. It all lies where you place your faith. Personally I think my belief has made me a better person and I am grateful that I have the faith that I do. There are a great many others who have a faith in God like I do. You may think that God has done nothing to show who he is, but there is a strong record that he walked the Earth 2 thousand years ago and the significance of the Christian faith is a testament to it.

The science of origins is not an exclusive science only available to evolution, though evolutionists try to claim that it is. Science has advanced a great amount since the many decades that mainstream scientists started to accept evolution wholeheartedly. Now there are a growing number of creationist scientists who are making progress to show that this earth and all that is in it was created. Science should be open to new findings even though it has been decades since any ideas contrary to evolution were actively sought by mainstream science.

Decades ago it was standard practice to use toxic metals with dental fillings. Do you want your dentist to continue with that practice?

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 45
How do you know which is right and which is wrong. It all lies where you place your faith. Personally I think my belief has made me a better person and I am grateful that I have the faith that I do. There are a great many others who have a faith in God like I do. You may think that God has done nothing to show who he is, but there is a strong record that he walked the Earth 2 thousand years ago and the significance of the Christian faith is a testament to it.

There is an equally "strong record" that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet.

There is an equally "strong record" that the Angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith and delivered God's final message on golden plates.

There is an equally "strong record" that Vishnu is the all-pervading essence of all beings.

To a rational person, all of these various mythologies and their respective creation myths are granted equivalent credibility. By their nature it's only possible for, at most, one of them to be accurate. When viewed as a whole it seems tremendously unlikely that any of them are correct.

None of these mythologies remotely resemble science. Most importantly, all of these mythologies are at odds with what we can observe and predict about nature and the world we live in.


Now there are a growing number of creationist scientists who are making progress to show that this earth and all that is in it was created.

No there are not.


it has been decades since any ideas contrary to evolution were actively sought by mainstream science.

Similarly, it has been decades since any ideas contrary to gravity were actively sought by mainstream science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I am in no way, shape or form attacking your beliefs. You are welcome to believe whatever it is you want.

However, your post contains some misinformation; I'd like to point those out to you so that a meaningful discussion can move forward:

1) You may think that God has done nothing to show who he is, but there is a strong record that he walked the Earth 2 thousand years ago and the significance of the Christian faith is a testament to it.

There is no "proof" that God/any supernatural entity walked on the Earth. The "significance" of the Christian religion is in no means a testament to anything other than it is what many people believe. And, looking back, many years ago, most people believed the sun and all the planets orbited the earth, the earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat, etc. Just because many people believe it does not make it true.

2) The science of origins is not an exclusive science only available to evolution, though evolutionists try to claim that it is.

The science of origins, as you put it, is best described by evolution. It has been tested and proved. However, not everything Darwin postulated those years ago were correct, so new ideas had to be test, proved, etc. It may not be perfect yet, but it's the best thing out there to describe what we're seeing in the world.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist."

3) Now there are a growing number of creationist scientists who are making progress to show that this earth and all that is in it was created.

Um, no. While people may emphatically argue about creation, the theories and ideas they've put forth simply do not match up with what we can observe and test. Period.

They're making arguments along the lines of:

Invisible angels lift airplanes aloft. They're not detectible, but they're there.

They then try to show how these non-detectible angels *must* be the only appropriate explanation. They're defining the system with things that cannot be empirically studied.

4) Decades ago it was standard practice to use toxic metals with dental fillings. Do you want your dentist to continue with that practice?

While there is some concern about the use of amalgams in dental fillings, they have been shown to be safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy

Some people may be concerned about the mercury in them, and that's fine, unfounded, but fine. But amalgams are still used, and only recently have they begun to be replaced because of finally having cost effective materials able to withstand the abuse teeth see (chewing, grinding, bacteria, acid, etc.). Further, the material used as a filling has to be compatible with the tooth surface (adhering to/sealing it) and not toxic to the pulp of the tooth. There are also cosmetic reasons...

Amalgam fillings are still in use and are being replaced more by market forces than by any hard scientific evidence.

However, I will also point out that there is some concern over the fate of the fillings once people are dead, much like there is growing concern about the lead in the solder in electronic materials as those are thrown on the scrap heap.

I'll close here by saying what I told my in-laws, who are firmly in the anti-evolution camp. It all goes back to what that first spark of life was. You can claim a Supernatural Entity set the machine in motion. You can claim that it was just random collisions of molecules that started the avalanche. But it makes no sense, given all that has been seen, recorded, predicted, and noticed through the years to claim that evolution isn't happening/has happened.

To me, faith should come down to that initial spark, not how the machinery works.

cnsayre
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"A Scientific Analysis of Genesis" written by Edward F. Blick, Ph.D.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
Genesis was written in the Bronze Age, but the New Testament including the teaching of Jesus was written in a sophisticated society

This is pretty funny.

and it backs up many things written in the Old Testament.

Actually it turns most of the Old Testament on its head. The angry, punitive god of Israel miraculously turns into a loving, beneficient god overnight, for one thing. That's a rather significant change, wouldn't you say? Jesus eschews war, common in the Old Testament, in favor of "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Turn the other cheek."

"and it backs up many things written in the Old Testament." Really, it's hilarious how unexamined the Bible is for most believers.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You may think that God has done nothing to show who he is, but there is a strong record that he walked the Earth 2 thousand years ago

There's not one shred of physical or contemporaneous evidence for Jesus. Nothing. The closest texts date to about 40 years after his putative death. This was against the backdrop of a hotbed province governed by the Romans, who were quite particular about record keeping. A maverick country preacher whipping up trouble at the most politically febrile time of the year? Claiming he was the Son of God? Ending up before the governor himself? Stuff like that would have quite a chance of rating a mention.

Maybe it did and got lost. There's be acres of source material that didn't make it down the river of time. So, I'm not saying Jesus definitely didn't exist (I am willing to say he wasn't God), but he is far from proven as a historical certainty. As mentioned, the evidence from his days is totally missing.

the significance of the Christian faith is a testament to it

Exactly the same claim can be made of other religions that also number in the billions. Popular acclaim is hardly evidence.

The science of origins is not an exclusive science only available to evolution

But it's a science only available to science.

Which leads me to this...

creationist scientists

... have left science behind them when they turn to the Bible for data on the development of life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Now there are a growing number of creationist scientists who are making progress to show that this earth and all that is in it was created."

Paul, in the past you have said stuff very similar to this and I have asked you for some evidence that these creation scientists have found that shows the Earth was created. Unsurprisingly, you ignored that request.

So I will ask again. What evidence do creation scientists have that shows the Earth was created?

I am not talking about pointing to a gap in evolutionary theory, but actual evidence that shows the Earth was created. I am betting you will ignore this request just as you have ignored the previous requests. After all, you cannot show what you do not have.

I will also bet that in the future, you will again make another similar statement and then when called on it and asked to provide supporting evidence you will ignore those requests as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I see the Bible as Holy scripture. If the wrong attitude is taken when reading the Bible, it will never reveal anything to you.



It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what you can produce positive evidence for.




It has to be taken in faith that God created the earth. The Earth had to come from somewhere.


If God could just exist without a cause, then the same applies to the earth.



How do you know which is right and which is wrong. It all lies where you place your faith.



On the other hand, you can wait for evidence instead of making up your mind to believe something simply because it's comforting.



there is a strong record that he walked the Earth 2 thousand years ago and the significance of the Christian faith is a testament to it.



The fact that people believe something is not evidence that it is true.





Now there are a growing number of creationist scientists who are making progress to show that this earth and all that is in it was created.



Evidence, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Some things have to be taken in faith.

Why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There's not one shred of physical or contemporaneous evidence for Jesus. Nothing. The closest texts date to about 40 years after his putative death. This was against the backdrop of a hotbed province governed by the Romans, who were quite particular about record keeping. A maverick country preacher whipping up trouble at the most politically febrile time of the year? Claiming he was the Son of God? Ending up before the governor himself? Stuff like that would have quite a chance of rating a mention.

Maybe it did and got lost. There's be acres of source material that didn't make it down the river of time. So, I'm not saying Jesus definitely didn't exist (I am willing to say he wasn't God), but he is far from proven as a historical certainty. As mentioned, the evidence from his days is totally missing.


The following article gives a good account for the historical reliability of the New Testament:

http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

JMHO

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The following article gives a good account for the historical reliability of the New Testament:

... and the following article addresses every single point made and more:-

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

The historicity of Jesus is far from proven. Nor is it ever likely to be.

The big guy could clear it up all so easily, supposedly. A five minute interview in Times Square followed by some hocus pocus would do it. What's stopping him?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
... and the following article addresses every single point made and more:-

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

The historicity of Jesus is far from proven. Nor is it ever likely to be.


Maybe not to your satisfaction, but historians disagree with you. For example, N.T. Wright says

How Do We Know That Jesus Existed?

It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world . . . the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure in the 20s through to around 30 of the first century. And the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period (even though much of it was eventually written down a generation later) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus. . . It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest.

(in Flew, "There is a God", 2007, p187-88 )

I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus, but you are out of step with scholarly opinion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus

For starters it could be that Mr. Wright's claims seem to be both undocumented and completely at odds with the very researched article linked by JDCRex. What, I ask, has Mr. Wright contributed to the debate other than a simple "yes it is!"? Seriously -- that paragraph provides no evidence or data or cites of any kind in support of his claims.

There's certainly a credibility gap here between what you've offered and what JDCRex pointed us to.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus
-------------
For starters it could be that Mr. Wright's claims seem to be both undocumented and completely at odds with the very researched article linked by JDCRex. What, I ask, has Mr. Wright contributed to the debate other than a simple "yes it is!"? Seriously -- that paragraph provides no evidence or data or cites of any kind in support of his claims.

There's certainly a credibility gap here between what you've offered and what JDCRex pointed us to.


Wright's claims are hardly undocumented. I suggest you start with "The Resurrection of the Son of God"

What has he contributed? Here's a list:
http://tinyurl.com/yp3bz3

The paragraph I provided offered no supporting evidence. You'd have to look that up yourself. It does make the claim that historians accept the existence of a man named Jesus. That you don't puts you at the very fringe of scholarly opinion on the matter.

The fringe may be fine, after all I believe ID is scientific :-)

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"A Scientific Analysis of Genesis" written by Edward F. Blick, Ph.D.

... who happens to be a retired petroleum engineer from Oklahoma who decided to become an "expert" on the subject. As others have stated, good scientists don't pretend to be authoritative outside of their area of specialization. Would he really be the go to guy for evolutionary biology? Really?

-Wes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The big guy could clear it up all so easily, supposedly. A five minute interview in Times Square followed by some hocus pocus would do it. What's stopping him?

Lack of existence??

That's my guess.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world . . . the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure in the 20s through to around 30 of the first century. And the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period (even though much of it was eventually written down a generation later) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus. . . It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest.
(in Flew, "There is a God", 2007, p187-88 )

I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus, but you are out of step with scholarly opinion.


Excuse me, but the bolded phrase is IMHO clearly and demonstrably an enormous exaggeration. There are thousands of figures from the ancient world of whom we do have contemporary witnesses, correspondence, written works... People of whom we have images, who have left physical traces still for us to see and touch and who have a grave.
I suppose that that final statement (about all historians agreeing ) can therefore be taken with at least as many grains of salt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Paul,

I won't bother with "creation geologists meet" and other such stuff. Just the meat.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

Halos: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
radiometric dating (this one is VERY detailed): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

I'll give you the conclusion of the dating article: Thus Cook’s (28) proposition and calculations, enthusiastically endorsed by Morris (92) and Slusher (117), are based on data that do not exist and are, in addition, fatally flawed by demonstrably false assumptions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

This one is a known mechanism of decay of uranium-thorium isotope series.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/heavens-declare-young-solar-system

Oh puhleeese....(this one is lame, Paul...easy answer below). Velikovsky was a moron. He's also the one who suggested reoganizing the Egyptian kingdoms in order to force them to line up with Exodus, based on no other data than Exodus itself. And since we know Exodus didn't happen...but I digress.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
(follow the link for a little more discussion)

Try looking up REAL science, Paul. Or at least look up more than one source. I've been through all these articles on AiG. My coworker said I would be amazed. I was...but not the way he thought. I was amazed at the sloppy reasoning, poor data, dubious conclusions based on the poor data, etc.

I am not a real expert on this, but I do what I can.

And that's the real 'gotcha', Paul. You aren't. Most people aren't. It's unreasonable to expect most people to be experts. That's why we have a huge web of experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and who suffer the slings and arrows of their peers as new data is beaten to death to extract the truth from it. Tens of thousands of scientists from any given discipline read, review, critique, verify, etc. You can't do that, and neither can I. In the end this process produces a solid result that has weathered everything thrown at it.

Sites like AiG can't make that claim**. They don't publish in refereed journals, they don't have tens of thousands of eyes scrutizing their work. They're a handful of guys (Austin, Humphreys, Vardigan, Snelling) who review each other for their compliance with scripture (assuming any review occurs at all, which I honestly see no evidence of). If the fossilized wood is so significant, get it published in Nature or even Scientific American. Not an online creationist website. That's no better than a blog.

1poorguy

**They were pushing the "vapor cloud" theory for years (earlier this year when I checked they still advocated it, but now they don't), when any physics grad student could have shown why that theory was impossible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much [good] evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world [Obviously there are some characters from the ancient world for whom we have statues and inscriptions. On the other hand, we have statues of gods and goddesses in the ancient world too, and so you can never be quite sure. But in Jesus' case,]the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure in the 20s through to around 30 of the first century. And the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period (even though much of it was eventually written down a generation later) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus. . . It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest.
(in Flew, "There is a God", 2007, p187-88 )

I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus, but you are out of step with scholarly opinion.

-------------
Excuse me, but the bolded phrase is IMHO clearly and demonstrably an enormous exaggeration. There are thousands of figures from the ancient world of whom we do have contemporary witnesses, correspondence, written works... People of whom we have images, who have left physical traces still for us to see and touch and who have a grave.
I suppose that that final statement (about all historians agreeing ) can therefore be taken with at least as many grains of salt.


I've gone back and filled in the ellipsis for you (bracketed material) . . . hope you are happy now.

But since you disagree that historians almost unanimously accept that Jesus existed, you should be able to provide info on the scores of historians who don't??
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Gotta agree with T, Bryan. There really is no significant evidence, and none contemporary to Jesus. Unlike many other figures of the same time for whom we have extensive records.

That said, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Biblical scholars believe he was real. However, everyone concedes that there is no contemporary evidence. I tend to think someone lived during that time that preached love and peace. Was it "Jesus"? Dunno. We'll never know, in all probability. But given that the oldest works "documenting" Jesus post-date his death by 20-40 years, I'm skeptical that those works are actually accurate. Whoever he was, however, it is highly unlikely he died on the cross (again, no records), and more likely he settled with a spouse and raised a brood of children. We have no reason to believe otherwise. The only compelling writing (to me) is Josephus, and I find it compelling because he mentions Jesus while discussing other things. I.E., it's not about Jesus. It's a mention of Jesus in passing. He (Josephus) clearly didn't have anything he was trying to sell. Despite the attempts of Christian vandals to elaborate Josephus' writings.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't know why you take such a hard line against Jesus

Huh!?

THIS is a "hard line"?:-

I'm not saying Jesus definitely didn't exist (I am willing to say he wasn't God), but he is far from proven as a historical certainty.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26238394
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
THIS is a "hard line"?:-

I'm not saying Jesus definitely didn't exist (I am willing to say he wasn't God), but he is far from proven as a historical certainty.


Not the hardest imaginable stance to take, no, but suggesting that there's any doubt amongst historians (those who are trained in the art, have studied the evidence, and are arguably most able to make a reasoned judgement) would put one at one extreme of opinions on the matter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

But since you disagree that historians almost unanimously accept that Jesus existed, you should be able to provide info on the scores of historians who don't??

Bryan, you have misread my post. I agree nor disagree with the notion that all historians believe in the existence of Christ, simply because I 'm not involved in that world and don't even know the major actors. However, if I read a quote containing two statements, the first of which is an obvious exaggeration, then I'm not too eager to take the second one all too literally either.
Now please give us some of these historic facts about Jesus, but please something other than a quote from early christians or a chronicler writing about early christians with the simple mention that the movement was founded by a guy called Christus or something similar (where do you think that chronicler would heve obtained that information ?). According to the words of your expert there must be tons of evidence making JC at least as documented as Julius Caesar or Cicero or the Herod kings...
So can we put the nature of this "evidence" in perspective please. Perhaps many of these historians simply believe the fact that Christianity was started by the teachings of some guy in the first half of the first century, but if that's all there is and it is sufficient to prove the historic existence of Christ then the whole question seems fairly trivial IMO.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bryan, you have misread my post. I agree nor disagree with the notion that all historians believe in the existence of Christ,

Ok, I read too much into what you said, but it's not Christ they believed existed/lived, but the man Jesus. Christ is a whole nother ball of wax.

Now please give us some of these historic facts about Jesus, but please something other than . . .

In other words, you want something beyond what the historians rely on to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps many of these historians simply believe the fact that Christianity was started by the teachings of some guy in the first half of the first century, but if that's all there is . . .

That's close to all there is. But see this debate for an example of what historians tend to agree on about Jesus:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

It's an interesting discussion about what *can* be known about history in general, as well as details of the beginnings of Christianity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
historians accept the existence of a man named Jesus.


Define "Jesus." Exactly what must this alleged person have said and done to qualify?


If any of the following didn't happen:

born of a virgin
give the sermon on the mount
the loaves and fishes thing
chase away the moneychangers
last supper
betrayed by Judas
get crucified
rise from the dead



was he still Jesus?

That's just eight things off the top of my head. If only six of them happened, was there ever a Jesus? How about four? Two?

Suppose none of them happened, but there was still a person to whom all the legends can be traced. Was he Jesus?

I'd say the answer is no. I'd say every single one of them (plus whatever I left out) must have happened, or Jesus didn't exist. Because if he didn't do every one of these things, he wasn't Jesus.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If any of the following didn't happen:

born of a virgin
give the sermon on the mount
the loaves and fishes thing
chase away the moneychangers
last supper
betrayed by Judas
get crucified
rise from the dead



was he still Jesus?

That's just eight things off the top of my head. If only six of them happened, was there ever a Jesus? How about four? Two?

Suppose none of them happened, but there was still a person to whom all the legends can be traced. Was he Jesus?

I'd say the answer is no. I'd say every single one of them (plus whatever I left out) must have happened, or Jesus didn't exist. Because if he didn't do every one of these things, he wasn't Jesus.


good Questions.


=
[ imo .. you could drop a couple things from the list and it's still Jesus ..but the Gospels are Wrong. Drop the wrong ones and it's Jesus, but not Christ.

... someone will be along to tell us that NONE of this matters to Christianity.
]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IDrop the wrong ones and it's Jesus, but not Christ.


Oh gawd, there's a difference?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Drop the wrong ones and it's Jesus, but not Christ.


Oh gawd, there's a difference?



of course. you joking?



-
[ crudely .... "Jesus" was the guy of the Gospels .. an amateur Rabbi (or group of Rabbis) who spoke in parables and maybe cobbled together the Sermon on the Mount.

"Christ" was whatever appeared to Paul when he fell off his Donkey.

...and that's why they call it "Christianity" ..not "Jesusism"
]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
[ crudely .... "Jesus" was the guy of the Gospels .. an amateur Rabbi (or group of Rabbis) who spoke in parables and maybe cobbled together the Sermon on the Mount.

"Christ" was whatever appeared to Paul when he fell off his Donkey.

...and that's why they call it "Christianity" ..not "Jesusism"
---------------

I'll go along with this delineation.

Iv'e always thought of Jesus as the man, Christ as the transcendent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's just eight things off the top of my head. If only six of them happened, was there ever a Jesus? How about four? Two?

Suppose none of them happened, but there was still a person to whom all the legends can be traced. Was he Jesus?

I'd say the answer is no. I'd say every single one of them (plus whatever I left out) must have happened, or Jesus didn't exist. Because if he didn't do every one of these things, he wasn't Jesus.


What if there was a man named Jesus who was a Messianic Jew who preached love and tolerance instead of war and violence who was crucified by the Romans, and that message was embellished by pacifists at the time who hoped to change the world? Would that man have been Jesus?

Assuming this is so, even by altering the message and delivering it in such a clever way, they still failed to accomplish that end, a sad testimonial to we humans who are so engrossed in a "my way or the highway" mentality.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
imo .. you could drop a couple things from the list and it's still Jesus ..but the Gospels are Wrong. Drop the wrong ones and it's Jesus, but not Christ.



This discussion is about whether historians believe that the evidence for Jesus' existence is beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that most historians can attest to every detail that Christians believe about Jesus.

Most of the items certainly can't be accepted by historical investigation of the evidence. The virgin birth, the resurrection, for example, are not something that can be determined that way. But early *belief* in those things can be established. Two different things.

The loaves and fishes? It is consistent with the contemporary belief that Jesus was a miracle worker. But not proven historically.

The crucifixion is one of the events that has wide acceptance among historians.

When I say historians agree that Jesus was a historical person, I'm not saying they accept that he did genuine miracles or was the son of God.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
To add to the reading list I rec the following book which is actually quite good and gives insight into why Creationist/ID'ers believe as they need to:

"Evolution vs. Creationism by eugenie C. Scott" which is readable and as the author states a "Primer on the subject".

She also talks quite a bit about the nature of science and some about the philosophy of science....I find her writing similar to Sagans in his book "The Demon Haunted World".

md
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For Xmas, I got the book '40 Days and 40 Nights' by Matthew Chapman (Darwin's descendant) about the Dover trial. It's very well done, interviews with pretty much every player from both sides. He met them all, including the hard-to-reach ones, and also had dinner at the Judge's house. Could have been a bit more focused on the facts instead of entertaining us with witicisms about the quirkyness of the people, but still very much worth the read.

There is a lot of text describing how things led up to the lawsuit. It was like a trainwreck that you could see coming, but there was nothing you could do about it. Even if you saw the PBS special, I recommend this book for a more in-depth take on it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Iv'e read that md & thought it quite useful.

May I also pose an older book:

Loren Eiseley - The Invisible Pyramid (a naturalist analyses the rocket century 1970)

Quirky writing from my fav archaeologist / paleontologists way before his time. Has allusions toward evolution & selection of species down to microbial doings.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not quite a "creationist" book. More one that tries to reconcile science with Genesis. Anthony Flew mentioned this as an important influence in his conversion to deism/theism. The author, Gerald Schroeder is an MIT-trained Israeli physicist and orthodox Jew.

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199832302&sr=1-1

Flew quote: "...I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation."

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Iv'e read that md & thought it quite useful.

May I also pose an older book:

Loren Eiseley - The Invisible Pyramid (a naturalist analyses the rocket century 1970)

Quirky writing from my fav archaeologist / paleontologists way before his time. Has allusions toward evolution & selection of species down to microbial doings.


Will add it to my reading list.

I should have also stated that reading Sagans book, Demon Haunted World, is also well worth it...have you read it?

Also I found Demings book, Darwins Dangerous Idea, a good read although it verges on "study" and is not light reading....I read some of Behe's stuff (Dawins Black Box, and The Edge of Evolution) and found them quite unconvincing (argumentum from ignorance and argumentem from "you cannot explain this" are "lame").

Not to say stating that there are holes is wrong....you do need to follow up with data and logic to show how your idea fills the holes without creating bigger ones though.

Also creationism/ID IMO is a, "stopper" idea, since it does not promote asking/pursuing more data and ideas but just the opposite...i.e. don't pursue further, "There be Dragons and Gods there".

After all, if there really were a ID agent, some of my first questions would be:

1.) What does it look like.
2.) Why did it design "life" in the first place.
3.) And explain the dumb thinking about my "nut sack" bucko!

All questions ID/Creationists say I cannot pursue or ask about since it implies the Id/Creator is less than perfect...i.e. Id/Creationism is christian god/religion not "science".

md
Print the post Back To Top