GWG's resource thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2014, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:10 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
The top 10 verses that were not originally in the New Testament
It seems that some of the most familiar verses of the New Testament were not originally part of the text, but were added by later scribes. The scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of earlier centuries. Some of the best-known English editions of the New Testament, such as the King James Bible, were based not on early manuscripts, but later ones, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in English speaking lands.

1 John 5:7 - there are three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

John 8:7 – let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11 – neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

Luke 22:44 – in his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:20 – and in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Mark 16:17 – these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 – and they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

John 5:4 – for an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the first to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.

Luke 24:12 – but Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 – and when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

Speaking of Mark; All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Work Cited:

Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. New York, Harper Collins. 2005. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
17-11-2014, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:11 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Tacitus
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

In regards to "christus".

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."

The Christian-preferred Latin of this sentence is as follows:

Iudaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings "of the Greeks in all ages, pre-Christian as well as post-Christian." Examples of these epithets can be studied in August Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. We read elsewhere that the epithet "Chrestos" appears commonly on the epitaphs of most citizens of Larissa, Greece, specifically in the form of chrestos heros , this latter term meaning "hero" and "demigod." The Greek word chrestos was popular also as an epithet or on epitaphs at various Egyptian funerary sites as at Alexandria and elsewhere.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation. Another artifact with significance in this analysis of the uses of chrestos in antiquity is the chi-rho symbol.

Chrestus/christus being disingenuously presented to mean christ or christians is disingenuous and conjecture at its best.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
17-11-2014, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:14 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Resurrection Fiction at its best
Matthew 27:51-53

King James Version (KJV)

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Consider hmmmmm and no one at the time thought a zombie invasion was noteworthy? no?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded pretty much EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

All the other global civilizations failed to mention it either...odd. A thinking person would suspect that if a zombie invasion occurred in town, some literate fellow or another would have thought it noteworthy...nope, apparently not one did...not even Philo, or Justus...

One would surmise...it is fiction. Yes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
12-02-2015, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2015 01:48 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
GWG's resource list
I go out of my way to use christian theological books in debates vice atheist books. It can be the same piece of information derived from the same resource but if it comes from an atheist book, it gets waved aside as atheist rhetoric. The same piece of information derived from a christian textbook or scholarly research book and it smacks the creationist in the face. So when I state for example, the gospels were written in:

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283).

With the citation reflecting Albl page 283 and then the reference of:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Even though that same info can be found on wiki under gospels, or a plethora of atheist books, it is harder for the christian to discredit it when this is a christian university textbook designed to teach christian history. So when they state, "no, matthew mark and luke actually wrote those", I can point to the evidence written by christian scholars based on years of research that states otherwise. So in a nutshell, I use their own books against them. Yes I came across most of these books as they were the required textbooks for my university classes when I got my degree in religious studies from saint leo university...(to know ones enemy is to defeat him).I have some outstanding atheist books as well. These are my favorite go to sources:

Xtian:

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press. (outstanding book, it takes great pains to be forensically accurate, to a fault, and as such, becomes a great weapon to discredit the OT)

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Stewart, Cynthia., The Catholic church: a brief popular history. Winona, Mn: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2008. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print.

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.



Atheist:

Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. New York, Harper Collins. 2005. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Wells, S. The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC. 2013. Print.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is not great: How religion poisons everything. New York, Hatchette Book Group inc. 2009. Print.

Hitchens, Christopher. Hitch 22: A memoir. New York, Hatchette Book Group inc. 2010. Print.

Hitchens, Christopher. The portable atheist: essential readings for the nonbeliever. Philadelphia, PA., Da Capo Press. 2007. Print.

Boghossian, Peter. A manual for creating atheists. Durham, NC. Pitchstone Publishing. 2013. Print.

Barker, Dan. Godless: how an evangelical preacher became one of america's leading atheists. Berkeley, CA. Bang Printing. 2008. Print.

Crossman, J. D. The power of parable: How fiction by jesus became fiction about jesus. New York. Harper Collins Publishers. 2012. Print.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The thinking person's answer to christian fundamentalism, makes the case against intelligent design. Berkeley, CA. Bang Printing. 2006. Print.

Pessin, Andrew. The god question: What famous thinkers from plato to dawkins have said about the divine. Oxford, England. Oneworld Publications. 2009. Print.

Bierlein, J.F. Parallel Myths: A fascinating look at the common threads woven through the world's greatest myths-and the central role they have played through time. New York. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1994. Print.

Helms, Randel. Gospel fictions. New York. Prometheus Books. 1988. Print.

Murdock, D. M. Did Moses exist? The myth of the Israelite lawgiver. Seattle. Stellar House Publishing. 2014. Print.

Price, Robert M. Deconstructing Jesus. New York. Prometheus Books. 2000. Print.


Neutral (sociologist)
Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god. New York. New York University press. 2008. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:19 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
The TRUE Messiah!
In the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern and of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he caught himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested.

After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonderworker? His name was Appollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 CE, and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Appolonius. Comparative mythology scholar Joseph campbell wrote in his book “the hero with 1000 faces”, both Apollonius and Jesus are examples of individuals who shared similar hero stories, along with Krishna, Buddha and Romulus. The followers of Apollonius believed he was the true son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

Then when you look at Romulus, 800 years BEFORE jesus, and you see the exact same hero god construct....ah, isn't mythology fun? Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-02-2015, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2015 02:56 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Mythical Global Flood date IAW the Bible
I love when creationists posit that the "global flood didn't neccessarily happen in 2348 BCE"...Atheists don’t posit the mythical flood happened in 2348ish BCE…The date for the mythical flood is part of Xtian’s fable, we just deal with the myth as it is presented...for example:

"Paul, a university trained Jew, well skilled in the Hebrew language, the religion of the Jews and the writings of Moses, wrote in the early years of the Christian era, a letter to the church at Galatia (Galatians 3:17). He stated that the Israelites left Egypt to return to the promised land 430 years after God gave the promise to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race.

According to Acts 7:4 and Genesis 12:1-4, Abraham was 75 years old when God gave him the promise and in the same year his father Terah was 205 years old and Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years of age (Gen.11:26-33).

The statements of genealogy in Genesis 11:10-26, are father-son statements and link Abraham to Noah’s son, Shem. The statements list the persons by name. Their year of birth against their father’s age is listed and their father is named. These chronologies do not have missing generations; there are no gaps.

If we add up the figures mentioned between Shem’s 100th year (Gen. 11:10) and Abraham (Gen. 11:26) we get 350 years. Since 9 names are mentioned it is 350 years ± 9 (9 margins of error of up to 1 year each).

Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was 100 years old, 2 years after the Flood had finished. When was Noah’s Flood? 1,981 years to AD 1 plus 967 years to the founding of Solomon’s Temple plus 480 years to the end of the Exodus plus 430 years to the promise to Abraham plus 75 years to Abraham’s birth plus 350 years to Shem’s 100th birthday plus 2 years to the Flood. The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years."

http://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood

Now I can eviscerate this "doctors" BS based on facts like...the exodus didnt happen either, but why bother. The point is, I have seen some variations, but all Xtian myth points to the area of 2300 BCE...which is what I said. Lets look at more delusion..

Our good friend Ken Ham from the Answersingenesis misinformation site says..

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359

wait there's more...

"First-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus used manuscripts available during his time to calculate that Noah's Flood occurred 1556 years after the creation of Adam. By adding the ages of the patriarchs listed in the Bible, other scholars have come up with roughly similar dates.

Irish archbishop James Ussher calculated that the creation of the world took place in 4004 BC. If 1656 is deducted from 4004 then the worldwide flood of Noah's time was around 2348 BC (if both chronologies are correct; but please note that there is some disagreement even among conservative Bible believers on these dates).

Josephus, Ussher, and other scholars disagree slightly on some of their dates. But most agree that a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates the Deluge must have taken place in the third millennium before the birth of Jesus Christ — probably between 2500 BC and 2300 BC."

http://www.creationtips.com/flooddate.html

well what do you know...it would seem those that sell the myth, all seem to say it occurred around 2300-2400ish BCE....so when I say weather conditions havent existed in the last 10k years to create greenland, that would be check mate.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-04-2015, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:21 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
To refute the popular Greenland Ice layer lost bomber argument
Basis of my argument from my Global Flood dismantlement here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674871

“Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions. The fact that Greenland even exists single-handedly refutes the flood.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Creationist claim:

“WW2 planes were found on Greenland buried in 250 feet of snow and ice, this discredits the dating of ice core samples to refute the global flood and age of earth claims."

Is this valid? To no surprise no, no it isn’t it. As usual this is a lame attempt to socialize misinformation in the hopes no one bothers to research it, and as we know, the majority of their audience won’t…

This Xtian apologist misinformation theory is thrown around in a disingenuous attempt to discredit the fact that the Greenland’s ice core samples single-handedly refute two things…the 2349 BCE Global Flood myth and the Young Earth Creationist’s claim that the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. Lets take a peek at actual facts…

"The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) was a multinational European research project, organized through the European Science Foundation. Funding came from 8 nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), and from the European Union. GRIP successfully drilled a 3028 metre ice core to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet at Summit, Central Greenland from 1989 to 1992 at 72°35′N 37°38′W. Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time. The results indicate that Holocene climate has been remarkably stable and have confirmed the occurrence of rapid climatic variation during the last ice age."

A portion of the core below

[Image: 198mx2.png]

19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.

...

"110,000 annual oscillations counted in the GISP2 core completely invalidate an age of just 6,000 years for the ice sheet."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

"In July of 1942, six pursuit planes (P-38’s) and two bombers (B-17’s) crash-landed on the Greenland ice cap. By 1990 they were found under c. 250 feet of ice and snow, which depth corresponds to c. 250 years of accumulation for the GISP2 ice core. In his 1992 paper, Larry Vardiman mentioned the surprising burial depth of the Lost Squadron planes, but he admitted that their depth of burial could not be simplistically used as evidence that the ice cores are being misdated. Some young-earthers have not been as wise and have argued from the depth of the WWII planes to the rejection of the age of the ice cores.

Carl Wieland wrote a short paper in 1997 arguing on the basis of the depth of the WWII airplanes that the 3,000 meter long GRIP ice core “would only represent some 2000 years of accumulation.” Allowing for some compression of lower layers and the greater snowfall for a few centuries after the Flood, he concluded, “There is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up.” Kent Hovind, who has a four-minute tape on the Internet about ice cores, calculated that the WWII planes were covered at the rate of c. 5½ feet of snow/year. He then said that if you divide that rate into the 10,000 foot ice core, you only get 1,824 years; so “4400 is a really reasonable assumption.” Hovind also telephoned Bob Cardin, who was one of the main people who raised one of the planes to the surface and asked him if he had noticed how many layers there were in the ice in the hole made to excavate the plane. Cardin answered off the cuff, “Many hundreds of them.” On the basis of this answer, Hovind concluded that the lines in the ice cores are not summer/winter, but warm/cold lines and that thirty of them could be made in a single year.

Two experienced glaciologists stated that Hovind is largely correct about the “hundreds” of lines in the hole dug to remove the WW2 planes. They both said that the area where the planes landed is a relatively warm area because of its lower, southern elevation, and several melt layers can be formed every year in regions like that which would appear as layers in the hole. Add to these melt layers the actual annual layers, which near the top show up as several lines within the space of a few inches, and you can have an off the cuff estimate of “hundreds of lines.” One can understand Hovind’s confusion.

But let’s make this perfectly clear: The 110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not due to melting. They are definitely not melt layers. Even if melting had occurred more often in the past, layers due to melting are readily recognized and would certainly not be counted as annual. This leaves the question: How could some 250 feet of snow in the area of GISP2 cover a period of c. 250 years while 250 feet of snow in the area of the Lost Squadron planes only covers c. 50 years? In Richard Alley’s book, The Two Mile Time Machine, he says he is often asked this question. The answer is: “The World War II planes landed in one of the regions of Greenland where snow accumulates fastest.” And in answer to the question: Did anyone ever figure out why the Lost Squadron planes were buried so much deeper than expected? Bob Cardin stated that it was because the average snow accumulation in that area is c. 7 feet/year (7 x 50 = 350 feet deep). If you allow for some compression, it is easy to understand how the planes got buried 250 feet deep.

So, the area in which the Lost Squadron landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10 miles from the east coast, with its high rate of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its comparatively low rate of snow accumulation (1 foot or so/year) is why 250 feet of snow represents just 50 years for the Lost Squadron but around 250 years for the GISP2 ice core. And, of course, as one goes down the core, the snow/ice is compressed more and more so that each foot of ice represents greater and greater lengths of time.

In conclusion we see that creation science has offered little more than wild speculation as evidence to disprove the validity of the dating of the GISP2 ice core. Opposing this speculation is solid empirical evidence that the layers of hoar frost, dust, and electrical conductivity are seasonal, not from storms, melting, different climate conditions or any other such supposition. Although one of the methods of counting annual layers may fail on rare occasions, the other methods fill in and sustain the accuracy of the counting; and the three methods regularly and repeatedly corroborate each other. In addition, the validity of the dating is established by the fact that there is a dovetailing of the dates of GISP2 with the dates of solar cycles, sea cores, tree rings, volcanic events, and more. The GISP2 ice core thus provides clear, scientific proof that there was no global flood any time in the last 110,000 years

Science, it exists to refute the absolute BS the creationists try to peddle as evidence.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
18-04-2015, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 05:23 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Shroud of Turn part 2
More on the fabricated stage prop called the Shroud of Turin..

There were at least 26 "authentic" burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one.... The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigation which found paint in the image areas. The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.

Carbon-14 dating has demonstrated that the shroud is a 14th-century forgery and is one of many such deliberately created relics produced in the same period, all designed to attract pilgrims to specific shrines to enhance and increase the status and financial income of the local church.

About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: letters in Jesus' own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on...

At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship." The list of absurdities and frauds goes on, and, as Pope Leo X was depicted as exclaiming, the Christ fable has been enormously profitable for the Church.

Despite claims to the contrary, carbon-14 dating conducted in 1988 has proved the shroud cloth was created during the 13th or 14th centuries CE.

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.... In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.

Although some claim the shroud impression contains human blood, that contention has never been proved by science, and the trickles of blood on the head appear to confirm that the image is a forgery, as the blood would have been matted in the hair, not running down the scalp.

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."

In 2009, the discovery of a "Jesus-era" shroud in a tomb of a Jewish priest in Jerusalem demonstrated the primitive nature of weaving at that time and place. This fact was not lost on the researchers, who released statements to the press that this rare discovery essentially proved the Turin shroud to be a much later fabrication with a twill weave far too complex and intricate for the appropriate period.

In addition to this discrepancy in the weave, the burial cloth genuinely dating to the relevant era is composed of two pieces, whereas the Shroud of Turin is a single cloth. As MSNBC concludes: "If the remains in the Jerusalem tomb represent typical burial shrouds widely used at the time of Jesus, this casts strong doubt that the Turin Shroud originated from Jesus-era Jerusalem."

A type of "soft-brush" technique can be found in books from the relevant era that specifically address the painting of a dead man and wounds. In this regard, Craig and Bresee also remark:

...the 12th century work of Theophilus, De diversis artibus, and the 14th or 15th century work of Cennino d'Andrea Cennini, Il libro dell'arte, revealed step-by-step procedures for artists of that period. Cennini's handbook includes instruction for grinding pigment into powder, brushing charcoal with feathers, and burnishing an image onto cloth. His handbook contains chapters containing specific instructions on "how to paint a dead man" and "how to paint wounds."

These considerations indicate that the inspiration, knowledge and tools necessary for an artist to create the image on the Turin cloth were probably available during the 12th and 13th centuries, although the specific combinations of individual techniques we used in our dust drawing technique may not have been described. It is clearly possible that an artist created the image on the Turin cloth. Of course, radiocarbon dating also supports this hypothesis, because this analytical technique determined that the Turin cloth originated between 1260 and 1390 CE.

oh how the faithful conspire to perpetuate their lie.

YET ANOTHER XTIAN LIE DEBUNKED

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-05-2015, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 06:46 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
microevolution v. macroevolution
What is the distinction between micro and macroevolution? Can one accept one idea and not the other?

I often hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution.

This is a heavily abused play on words. Allow me to expound. In debating circles we call it creating a straw man; a sham argument set up to be defeated, a common type of argument or informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a strawman argument requires the audience to be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument or subject matter. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covert replacement with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition. This is a favorite tool of proponents of intelligent design or creationism as they lack any evidence to support their belief system outside of philosophical made up propositions centered around the "possibility" of a transcendental reality.

The false distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, are two terms often used by creationist in their pathetic and misinformed attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in a gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. These changes which would not result in the newer organisms in considered as different species. For example; a change in coloring or size.

Macro evolution, and contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Again, you can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. This is the beginning of the strawman attack.

First let's look at the definition of the two terms and the use within the scientific community. When scientist uses the terms microevolution and macro evolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationist. Why is this? This is because for biologist there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macro evolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do you use the different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms however, it is for ontological reasons; which means they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. Creationist's act as if there’s some magic line between microevolution and macro evolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macro evolution is merely the result of lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

Basically creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which have specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error, as creationist misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis in their attempt to discredit empirical evidence in support of evolution.

In summary, evolution is a result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from resulting in microevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanism of operation and adaptation in all genes are the same. When I find a creationist who tries to argue that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, I simply ask him/her what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter… and listen to the silence…and the stammering and stuttering to begin as they try to tap dance themselves out of the corner they got themselves into, yet again. I find it hard to accept that you can understand microevolution, and then somehow deny macroevolution, when they are both the same thing, just over different lengths of time. Overall, to simplify the concept…there is only evolution….over short or long periods of time depending on the series of successful mutations being examined. The play on words micro-evolution and macro-evolution are concepts misunderstood and presented in a fallacious manner by creationists who do not understand basic scientific principles.

“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change” (Berkeley 2014)

Reference:

Berkeley (2014) Understanding evolution.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
13-07-2015, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 06:09 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Countering faith analogies
Oh I agree the bible was a brilliant sales job, make up a ridiculous story, then say it requires "faith" ...the belief in the unproven and unseen...*applause* I gotta take my hat off to them. Here let me try it...

NORGG the creator of all life resides in hollow neptune, and every night at midnight he rises in the sky like the great pumpkin, granting wishes to all who "truly" believe....unseen by those with little faith, it requires complete acceptance of the great NORGG then all things are possible. Rolleyes

I have created a couple of analogies that I use when teaching how false an epistemological method faith is....I call it the golden apple....and the greatest sales job.

.......................................
You are hungry, you have been searching for something to satisfy your hunger...you explain this to me, I say "I have the solution to your problem"

I put my hand in my pocket, and pull it out and extend it to you. "Here, enjoy this beautiful golden apple." You look at my empty hand and say, "you aren't holding anything."

Oh, I reply, this apple came from the transcendental tree, you can't see it, but if you believe, and have faith that it is truly in my hand, it will satisfy your hunger with the knowledge that once you die, you can enjoy it in the afterlife.

You shake your head in disbelief, "that is ridiculous, I have to die after spending a lifetime believing that you gave me an apple, so that I can enjoy it once I'm dead?"

Well, I reply, as I reach my hand back into my pocket, here, take this apple than, it comes from the evolution tree. You look at the beautiful golden apple in my left hand and take it.

Yes, take it, smell it, look at it, feel it, taste it, it is real.

You turn the apple over and examine it, hey, you state, there is a sliver missing in the back.

Yes, it is not a complete Apple, but it is 98% whole. That small gap missing we are still looking for, but you can still enjoy the rest of the apple, as it is real, tangible, and in your hand.

It would seem, you like the invisible apple better, while I enjoy the real apple, in the real world.

.........................................
or how about this one, I use this almost daily, both of these analogies are my creations...like the bible was a creation....

...........................................

It comes down to sales tactics. If you had a valid, obtainable, real product to offer the world as a means for living a better life, you could trot it out, point to it, briefly cover its features and it would sell it self.

If you have an invalid, fabricated, made-up transcendental product, which is invisible, and offer it to the world as a means for living a better life, you will have to embrace a lot of aggressive slippery used car salesman tactics to try to convince the gullible, elderly and stupid it is legit. Lets look:

Dear sir, can I interest you in paradise for eternity?

"But how do I know it is real?"

No worries, it just takes faith, belief in the unknown, and once you die, you will see it in all of its glory, now just sign here, here and here.

"But I don't see the product"

Exactly! isn't it marvelous? It is so wonderful, the creator of it makes it visible to only a select few who sign up, make the full payment, and believe...now sign here, here and here.

"But I read in consumers reports that previous buyers have figured out it is all a lie...a fake product".

Of course they said that, that is the "other guy" working hard to steal away our perspective customers...you don't want to buy from that guy...he planted that evidence to deceive people, now don't you worry your pretty little head with all of those logical questions, you are just cluttering your mind with the inconsequential, that is the other guy messing with your head...now, if you sign right now, I will throw in an ocean front condo with an executive suite for ever and ever, rent free, but you don't get the keys until you die.

"I have to die first to get this product?"

Minor detail, did you see the brochure?.....

...........................

So it comes down to sales tactics, and the dismissal of dissension via the faith model.

Feel free to try these or your own version, it makes the point without coming across as combative.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: