Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Never mind you are in the process of posting a counter, I will respond to them once I've read them

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(03-08-2015 10:19 AM)Worom Wrote:  And you're alternative without evidence is God did it the classical god of the gaps argument.

No, the god of the gaps argument is if I said "I don't know, therefore, God did it". But that is not what I am saying. I am saying "It is impossible for the universe to have existed throughout past eternity, therefore, a timeless cause is needed".

This timeless cause could not have existed nor originated in the material world, therefore, an immaterial cause is necessary...and God is the only explanation given the fact that I laid out above.

So no god of the gap arguments here. I don't believe "God did it" based on what I don't know, I believe "God did it" based on what I DO know.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  We may not be able to go into a lab and demonstrate life coming from non-life yet, but we are getting ever closer

The above quote sounds like nonsense to me, similar to me saying "With every passing day, we are getting ever closer to the return of Jesus"....sounds like nonsense to you, doesn't it?

Well, the feeling is mutual. You are basically hoping for science to give you an answer at a future date, just like believers are hoping for Jesus to return at a future date.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , getting amino acids was a big step, getting RNA was an even bigger step. Its only a matter of time before another gap in our knowledge is closed.

So basically you are telling me that a mindless and blind process (nature) was able to do something that intelligent human beings haven't been able to do?? Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  And if the evidence takes us away from abiogensis into another possibility then, regardless of how I feel about it, I have to follow what the evidence points to. But for now it is the best explanation we have.

The only other possibility is theism, my friend.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Miller-urea wasn't meant to get a living cell out of the experiment it was just to find out if we could get something out of non-living matter and we did.

Well, then when I bring up the abiogenesis problem, don't come to me talking about the Miller-Urey experiment.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Further refinements to the experiment have yielded even better results. And other experiments have resulted in very simple self replicating RNA strands. And as far as information in DNA this is a limitation in our language, its not like a computer program, dna is nothing but a sequence of different acids.

Oh, so now you are gonna downplay DNA, trying to make it less significant than it is?? We can save that for another debate.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Specified information does imply meaning, PER SE. But again, we can save that for another debate.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the theory, its just not complete yet.

Well, again...you are telling me that a mindless and blind process was able to do that humans, in all of our intellect and capabilities, HAVEN'T been able to do. So nature is smarter than humans, correct?

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

Thats why I said we may have an account of the darkness that you claimed there was no written account of, I never claimed the account was written in gold. Second, your above quote proves my point, there may have been accounts of the darkness that have been lost over time. Third, it is obvious that if Thallus' account does exist, then it is a non-Christian account, because a Christian wouldn't have attributed the darkness to an eclipse, now would he? So if Thallus' account is geninue, then it is the earliest non-Christian source regarding a darkness that occured during the time of Jesus that an unbeliever tried to explain away as just a mere eclipse of the sun...which makes a lot of sense, as one would look for a natural explanation first.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Hardly, and time is not a god. And no not anything can happen with large amounts of time, whatever happens is still bound by physical laws.

What are the physical laws that will give you life from nonlife, and consciousness from unconsiousness? No point in your efforts to keep fighting it...you admit that science have yet to explain it, so lets move on, shall we Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Not yet, but that is only a matter of time, we already have organic amino acids and RNA strands.

You asking me: "Has Jesus returned?"

My response to you: "Not yet, but it is only a matter of time before you see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory".

Sounds like nonsense to you, huh? Well, guess what I think about your quote? Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Its hardly foolishness, as I've repeatedly admitted, the theory isn't complete and scientists are working to figure it out, and we have never observed a once living thing die and then come back as that same living thing

We have never observed an inanimate thing coming to life from nonliving material, either. But AHHHHH, you believe that crap, don't you?

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and the bible supposedly has this one exception

Not just one, a few exceptions. Jesus is just the Don Dadda of all them all.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  and yet provides no proof of it?

Hey, the proof is there. You reject it, and thats fine.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  And your view is that god did it end of argument, stop even trying to explain it.

Stop? Hey, it is people like you that give people like me a job Thumbsup

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  I would call your viewpoint very foolish, and mine as the search for answers

Laugh out load

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Pfft, believers have been saying that for centuries, and still a no show.

Well, I've been waiting on a reptile-bird kind of transformation that I am being told happens every hundred million years or so...and if I live to be that old, I will be saying the same thing..."still no show".
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(03-08-2015 10:27 AM)Worom Wrote:  Critical thinking? Common Sense? If that was used you would see the gospels for what they really are, and that is just stories. What you described was an omission but the overall information remained intact.

Overall information? That is exactly what you have with the Gospels!!! The overall information is that a group of women went to visit the tomb, where they were met by at least two men and all the while discovering the tomb to be empty....thus, the "EMPTY TOMB"...that is what ALL GOSPELS agree on...that is the overall information...that is the focal point...and they all agree on the focal point.

But that isn't enough for unbelievers, oh no. They want to pitch a bitch about small details, details that believers don't give a darn about. The fact of the matter is, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Point blank, period.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  But what would have happened if I decided to write about the same conversation, and I said that there were two people there and they both described the weather in flagstaff

Ok..

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and that I was standing outside the warehouse area and I saw you also standing outside the supply area talking to you about the weather.

Then another person says you weren't at the warehouse at all and were actually in the front office talking to one of the people you mentioned about the weather.

Then what would you do? You have three different scenarios describing you talking about the weather all taking place at the exact same time?

The coversation could have moved to the outside or to another location where other individuals could have overheard the conversation, and reported what they heard. Stuff like that happens, ya know?

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Who do we believe is telling the truth? Who is lying?

Easily reconcilable.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except that's all he saw was the blinding light

Let me get this straight, so If I wake up in complete darkness except a bright light that I see at my doorway and I hear a voice that is obviously coming from the direction of the light, and the voice says "I am Jesus, your Lord and Savior, and I have come for you".

And whatever happens after that happens...and a year later, I tell my friend...I would be incorrect in telling my friend that "Last year, Jesus appeared to me?"

Cmonnn.

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and heard a voice claiming to be jesus, sounds like a hallucination to me hmmmm

Paul hallucinating doesn't explain the origin of the disciples belief, nor does it explain the empty tomb.
Find all posts by this user
14-08-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No it is not, there is significant evidence that Julius Caesar was stabbed, several non-conflicting independent accounts.

Well, if it was/is one big ass conspiracy/lie from day one, then it comes as no surprise that there aren't any conflicting accounts. If you get enough liars to tell the same lies, it will all sound like one big harmonizing account.

Except my claims are backed up with evidence, the Bible is your claim you need to back it up with evidence which you have not.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As well as finding the location he was stabbed as it was described by those sources.

Sources? How do you know those sources weren't lying?

Simple, when the written works describe a location and we find the location that adds great credibility to the sources, combined in that they don't contradict each other then you have a reasonably good basis for a claim. And getting back to the topic here, Since your claim is that the Bible was written by the disciples of Jesus or the friends of Jesus you need provide evidence for that claim. And you can't use that claim as evidence to your claim.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The gospels lack this evidence.

So basically you are telling me that you believe the Caesar thing because of sources which state that the assassination took place...well, I believe the Gospels because of the sources that tell me that the Resurrection took place. How is your sources more credible than mines?

Your sources could be lying just like you give forth the possibility that mines are lying.

My sources are more credible than yours because my sources aren't using the claim as the evidence your sources are trying to use the bible to prove the bible you can't use the claim as proof of the claim that is circular reasoning.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  They could, however none of the ones that are historical have supernatural events in them. Facepalm

Whether or not the event is supernatural or natural, what matters is the TRUTH value of the claim.

How can a claim have truth value with supernatural events in it? When a claim has supernatural events it either needs to provide extraordinary evidence for that claim, or the claim is false.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And on top of that we look for other evidence confirming the events happened such as multiple accounts form multiple sources that don't conflict with each other. As well as physical evidence, from archaeological digs.

Well, show me a body or any remains of a man that was stabbed 100 times (or however many times). And if you find one, I will move the goal posts and ask you how do you know that this is the actual body/remains of Julius Caesar.

Anyone can be skeptical.

A body will not survive that long, unless it was preserved in a very specific matter such as how the Egyptians used to mummify the dead of thier rulers and high level officials for example.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And yet we see no modern evidence that any of these miracles have occurred, funny it seems as soon as we could record video and photos of events all the "miracles" stopped. And things that used to be thought of as miracles ended up being explainable.

I don't see any modern evidence that reptiles evolved into birds, that life originated from nonlife, that the universe is static and eternal, and that consciousness can come from unconsciousness.

We have videos and photos now, and I STILL don't see any evidence for any of that stuff.

This is a false equivalency, there is significant evidence of the evolution of birds, here is a small easy to understand except from Berkeley.

Also no claim has been made in this debate that the universe is static and eternal, and given that we are conscious sapient beings and we have evolutionary history that shows how we evolved, then the claim that consciousness if we are talking about human consciousness arose form simpler forms of consciousness that can be traced back to organisms that lack consciousness would be a reasonable claim on my end.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_06

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Lets see Abiogenesis the theory isn't complete

Neither is our knowledge of history. You patiently wait for new discoveries regarding science and naturalism, and while you are waiting on that, Christians are waiting on the return of Jesus.

A futile endeavor, this makes me sad actually that so much potential is being wasted on something that will never happen. And your attacks on history are on events that any high school student would have been presented the evidence for in history books and would have a basic understanding of these events. I have also in previous posts sourced to how we determine historicity, and how we verify historical events.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  but we have far more evidence that we are on the right track at least, the miller-urea experiment never meant to show that we would get life but that we would at least get amino acids from non-living material which we did, and further refinements in the experiments over the years have lead to us getting even more amino acids out of the experiment. Also we have been able to create very simple forms of RNA, which would have proceeded DNA

Hold your breath while waiting on science to tell us how a living cell originated, and where did the information that is contained in the DNA, where did that information come from?? A mindless and blind process is the source of all that information??? I see believers aren't the only ones playing the faith game.

Faith is not involved in any way, faith is accepting something with absolutely no evidence, in the science world speculation is part of the process, those speculations must be testable or they are not accepted as a possibility. Once the speculation is tested if it the speculation is proven false its thrown out and a new speculation is tested and that speculation now has evidence behind it we can move it towards a scientific theory and continue testing to ensure that its the correct answer or to falsify it.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science...ethod.html

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

Before you get to the point of life evolving, you have to explain how life originated first. If you are going to take God out of the equation, then abiogenesis could be false, therefore, evolution can't be a brute fact.


Except evolution via natural selection is not reliant on abiogenesis, evolution is how we went from super ultra simple forms of life to complex life and how life continues to change.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Spiegelman took advantage of natural selection to synthesize the Spiegelman Monster, which had a genome with just 218 nucleotide bases. Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a similar system with just 48 or 54 nucleotides.

"Took advantage of natural selection"....any work being done on what happened after life originated does nothing to explain how life originated naturally.

Actually it does, its referred to as the top down approach instead of going for the bottom up approach. Since we already have life this is a good way to approach things to see how simple we can make a genome, it gives us more clues how approach future experiments.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And why do you think mind/body naturalism has never been observed? We know there is a link between the mind and consciousness, if that link didn't exist then drugs, and damage to the brain would have no effect on consciousness.

Then all we know is that there is a correlation between the mind and the brain, but I am talking about the ORIGINS of consciousness, not what happens after consciousness originates.

That was not your argument though this is what you stated
"Never been observed? Lets see...we have the concept of life from nonlife, which has never been observed, but naturalists believe that it occurred....we have the concept of mind/body naturalism, which naturalists have never observed, yet they believe it occurred naturally.
I will just stop there. " - Call of the Wild

You claimed that mind/body naturalism had never been observed, my response to that is that we have evidence that suggests that the mind and body are linked, while the exact origin of consciousness is still being researched our observations highly suggest a that the brain is the source of consciousness. If it was not, then how do drugs alter our consciousness?
http://www.biologyreference.com/Po-Re/Ps...Drugs.html

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Hell, there is a correlation between my remote control and my television. But the origins of my television has nothing to do with the origins of the remote, and vice versa. To explain the origins of one is not to explain the origins of the other.

I can also alter the programming of that remote control to make it so it doesn't work with the TV at all, or alters what each button does, this would be the effect of altering or destroying the conscious mind. The TV and the Remote are linked to each other, if you assume a TV that doesn't have any physical buttons on it to control it then the TV is useless without the remote control they are inherently linked.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  While we don't know yet exactly what processes in the brain lead to consciousness we can say that they are linked based on observable effects.

Correlations and origins are not the same thing.

Except the Wikipedia article you linked is someone trying to explain the origins of the conscious mind and since our observations show the conscious mind can be altered then his theory has a good deal of merit.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The theory as I've said is incomplete, however there is significant evidence that we are on the right track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Hey, you can theorize all you want, but until you are able to perform an experiment, and get the desired result, then it is just a theory that you BELIEVE occurred, thus, utilizing your faith in science.

There is a huge difference between speculation and faith, faith means that I accept it as absolute truth with no evidence, or worse I still accept it as absolute truth in the face of contradictory evidence.

faith (feɪθ)

n.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics or standards of merit.
5. a system of religious belief: the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.

spec•u•la•tion (ˌspɛk yəˈleɪ ʃən)

n.
1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise.
5. engagement in commercial transactions that involve risk with the hope of profiting as a result of market fluctuations

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  And like I said that whole section is a forgery in total, the source you link to is an old apologetic website, the source I linked to is from an educational paper repository, hence the .edu in the web address.

My source highly cited. If you are that big on citations, then I would expect you to read the article and take a peek at the listed citations at the bottom. Second, since you posted your .edu link, I will assume your source is backing up YOUR position...which leads me to believe that your source may be just as biased as mines is.

Except the article you referenced admits and makes the assumption that the Testimonium Flavianum is a partial forgery, I go one step further and agree with the scholars that say it is a total forgery. And the conclusions the author makes in the article he posted assumes quite a lot from two short passages.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I wouldn't go that far, the way the passage is written seems that he is describing what he was told, by the early Christians.

The entire genre of history is based on things that were TOLD. Even if he was told this by early Christians, you shouldn't discount it just because it came from the mouths of Christians, as if there can never be any truth value to a Christian claim. At this point, we aren't even talking about a Resurrection, we are talking about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the MAN. Not the Deity, but the MAN.

Now, if you are not willing to grant that Jesus the MAN existed, then there is no point in even talking about the Resurrection, then.

Could a man named Jesus exist that went around preaching and got himself killed for his efforts and then eventually lead to Christianity , sure its possible. However the evidence that I've seen so far leaves me on the not sure fence. Jesus as the bible describes though didn't exist.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I'm sure you will contest this point but looking at the wording at least suggests it. Either way even if he did exist, he is not the person described in the gospels.

Based on what? Certainly not Josephus' account.
I was referring to Tacitus

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You do realize if the discovery of the new world was all a big con game we wouldn't be sitting in the "new world" right?

Um, we could be sitting here because an Indian that was already living here could have traveled across the ocean and told people about it, and that sparked Columbus' interest for him to come and check things out. Columbus came here, and over time the lie spread that he "discovered" America, and now our history books are tainted.

That is a theory, too.

Actually the native Americans, and the vikings were in the Americas first, so no Columbus wasn't the first to discover American in itself, but he was the first to discover it for the European nations of the time, would be a more accurate statement as far as we can tell historically.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The next section assumes if Jesus existed, but the story of Jesus could have been just thought up as well.

"The split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries of the Common Era. It is commonly attributed to a number of events, including the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus (c. 33), the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the destruction of the Second Temple and institution of the Jewish tax in 70, the postulated Council of Jamnia c. 90, and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135. While it is commonly believed that Paul the Apostle established a primarily Gentile church within his lifetime, it took centuries for a complete break with Judaism to manifest, and the relationship between Paul and Judaism is still disputed.

The traditional view has been that Judaism existed before Christianity and that Christianity separated from Judaism some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. Recently, some scholars have argued that there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land during the Second Temple period, and that those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. Some of these scholars have proposed a model which envisions a twin birth of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rather than a separation of the former from the latter. For example, Robert Goldenberg asserts that it is increasingly accepted among scholars that "at the end of the 1st century AD there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'"."

Well, I will have to disagree. Christianity had reached Corinth by the early 50's CE, and had reached Turkey by the early second century CE, according to Pliny the Younger's writings. So I don't know where people get this "centuries after" stuff. But this is the common theme, for people to paint the picture as if stuff happened so much later after the events, contrary to evidence that things happened much earlier.

Only someone that is at least half way knowledgeable on this stuff can point out the bullshit.

Whoops forgot my source on that copy and paste, here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_e...nd_Judaism

I would say the people that wrote the source material the article cites, would be knowledgeable on the topic.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Alright so the Jewish people feel like they are being oppressed.
Someone comes along, could have been someone named Jesus could have been someone else and starts preaching about being the messiah that will deliver the Jews out of oppression and fulfill old testament prophecy.

It was more than just claims, it was claims, and certain "deeds". You know, like turning water into wine, walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead...you know, stuff like that.

Prove that these events happened.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  This person ends up getting executed, and makes it so the prophecy in the old testament cant be fulfilled.

Can't be fulfilled?
Nope here is what the prophecy said

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach. http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

And if we go over the the stories in the Bible
1. The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David Debatable
2. He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments Hmm this would probably be a no given who Jesus hung out with
3. He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example Hmm this he seems to have accomplished
4. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions As far as i'm aware he wasn't a traditional Judge in Jewish terms
5. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel He didn't win a single battle for Israel, and got himself killed, whoops there goes that part of the prophecy
6. But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being. Ooo now we have a real problem here, The claims the Bible make is that Jesus was God, and that he performed supernatural feats

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Someone goes to the tomb and steals the body and starts saying he is resurrected, to restore the prophecy.

The problem is, the narrative states that there was a guard put at the tomb just so what you said above couldn't have happened. So not only do you have to explain that, but if the body was stolen, you would have to explain the origins of the disciples belief that Jesus has risen and appeared physically to them.

Now, if you are claiming that the disciples stole the body, then you have to explain why the narratives state that the disciples were ignorant regarding the Resurrection, if you are claiming that they stole the body and created the Resurrection story.

You make the assumption that the disciples wrote the gospels, or the friends of the disciples. The simplest explanation is that the gospels were made up. Besides the gospels are the claim you need to provide evidence to prove that claim.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  They may be in the minority at this point, however they bring up some rather compelling arguments against the majority opinion.

Since we both agree that Carrier got spanked by Craig...check out WLC vs Robert Price in their debate. What do you think here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gToP2XG3zss

Wow Craig has been using the basically same argument for well over a decade, I think Price did really well in the Q&A Section.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Irrelevant, you can intend something to be taken as non-fiction all you want, but it doesn't make it non-fiction or vice versa.

So you telling me about Jean Luc Picard was irrelevant.

No, I'm saying the intent is Irrelevant, me telling you about Jean Luc Picard was to try and show you the ridiculousness of the point you were trying to make that biographies have to be on real people.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except you don't understand what abiogensis is fully, it is getting life from non living materials, however there is an explained hypothetical process that doesn't violate the laws of physics on how we got from non-life to life.

Laugh out load Until you can go in a lab and conduct some kind of experiement and the end result is life, then you are in no position to say whether or not the theory violates natural law.

The only way you can determine if a law can/cannot be violated is if you first substaniate the law, which you haven't done yet.

Here are 88 papers substantiating Abiogenesis
1 to 10:

A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)

A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)

A Rigorous Attempt To Verify Interstellar Glycine by I. E. Snyder, F. J. Lovas, J. M. Hollis, D. N. Friedel, P. R. Jewell, A. Remijan, V. V. Ilyushin, E. A. Alekseev and S. F. Dyubko, The Astrophysical Journal, 619(2): 914-930 (1st February 2005) {Also available at arXiv.org]

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Activated Acetic Acid By Carbon Fixation On (Fe,Ni)S Under Primordial Conditions by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächetershäuser, Science, 276: 245-247 (11th April 1997)

An Asymmetric Underlying Rule In The Assignment Of Codons: Possible Clue To A Quick Early Evolution Of The Genetic Code Via Successive Binary Choices by Marc Delarue, The RNA Journal, 13(2): 161-169 (12th December 2006)

Attempted Prebiotic Synthesis Of Pseudouridine by Jason P. Dworkin, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 27: 345-355 (1997)

Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

11-20:

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Chemistry for the Synthesis of Nucleobase-Modified Peptide Nucleic Acid by R. H. E. Hudson, R. D. Viirre, Y. H. Liu, F. Wojciechowski and A. K. Dambenieks, Pure Appl. Chem., 76(7-8) 1591-1598, 2004

Coevolution Of Compositional Protocells And Their Environment by Barak Shenhav, Aia Oz and Doron Lancet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1813-1819 (9th May 2007)

Computational Models For The Formation Of Protocell Structures by Linglan Edwards, Yun Peng and James A. Reggia, Artificial Life, 4(1): 61-77 (1998)

Conditions For The Emergence Of Life On The Early Earth: Summary And Reflections by Joshua Jortner, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1877-1891 (11th September 2006)

Coupled Growth And Division Of Model Protocell Membranes by Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 5705-5713 (2009)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Early Anaerobic Metabolisms by Don E Canfield, Minik T Rosing and Christian Bjerrum, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1819-1836 (11th September 2006)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Evolution And Self-Assembly Of Protocells by Ricard V. Solé, The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41: 274-284 (2009)

21-30:

Evolution Of Amino Acid Frequencies In Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order Of Introduction Of Amino Acids Into The Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk and Mona Singh, Molecular and Biological Evolution, 19(10): 1645-1655 (2002)

Formation Of Bimolecular Membranes From Lipid Monolayers And A Study Of Their Electrical Properties by M. Montal and P. Mueller, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 69(12): 3561-3566 (December 1972)

Formation Of Protocell-Like Structures From Glycine And Formaldehyde In A Modified Sea Medium by Hiroshi Yanagawa and Fujio Egami, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 53: 42-45 (12th January 1977)

Formation Of Protocell-Like Vesicles In A Thermal Diffusion Column by Itay Budin, Raphael J. Bruckner and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 9628-9629 (2009)

Generic Darwinian Selection In Catalytic Protocell Assemblies by Andreea Munteanu, Camille Stephan-Otto Attolini, Steen Rasmussen, Hans Ziock and Ricard V. Solé, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1847-1855 (2007)

Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

Hyperthermophiles In The History Of Life by Karl O. Stetter, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1837-1843 (11th September 2006)

Implications Of A 3.472-3.333?GYr-Old Subaerial Microbal Mat From The Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa, For The UV Environmental Conditions Of The Early Earth by Frances Westall, Cornel E.J de Ronde, Gordon Southam, Nathalie Grassineau, Maggy Colas, Charles Cockell and Helmut Lammer, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1857-1876 (11th September 2006)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Interstellar Glycine by Yi-Jehng Kuan, Steven B. Charnley, Hui-Chun Huang, Wei-Ling Tseng, and Zbigniew Kisiel, The Astrophysical Journal, 593: 848-867 (20th August 2003)

31-40:

Kin Selection And Virulence In The Evolution Of Protocells And Parasites by Steven A. Frank, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 258: 153-161 (1994)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

"Living" Under The Challenge Of Information Decay: The Stochastic Corrector Model Versus Hypercycles by Elias Zintzaras, Mauro Santos and Eörs Szathmáry, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 217: 167-181 (2002)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

Molecular Dynamics Simulation Of The Formation, Structure, And Dynamics Of Small Phospholipid Vesicles by Siewert J. Marrink and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 15233-15242 (2003)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

41-50:

Nutrient Uptake By Protocells: A Liposome Model System by Pierre-Alain Monnard and David W. Deamer, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 147-155 (2001)

Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

Peptide Nucleic Acids Rather Than RNA May Have Been The First Genetic Molecule by Kevin E. Nelson, Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller, Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA., 97(8): 3868-3871, 11th April 2000

Peptides By Activation Of Amino Acids With CO On (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications For The Origin Of Life by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser, Science, 281: 670-672 (31st July 1998)

Phenotypic Diversity And Chaos In A Minimal Cell Model by Andreea Munteanu and Ricard V. Solé, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 240: 434-442 (2006)

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Materials From On And Off The Early Earth by Max Bernstein, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

51-60:

Replicating Vesicles As Models Of Primitive Cell Growth And Division by Martin M. Hanczyc and Jack W. Szostak, Current Opinion In Chemical Biology, 8: 660-664 (22nd October 2004)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Assembling Amphiphilic Molecules Synthesis In Simulated Interstellar/Precometary Ices by Jason P. Dworkin, David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(3): 815-819 (30th January 2001)

Self-Assembly Of Surfactant-Like Peptides With Variable Glycine Tails To Form Nanotubes And Nanovesicles by Steve Santoso, Wonmuk Hwang, Hyman Hartman and Shuguang Zhang, Nano Letters, 2(7): 687-691 (2002)

61-70:

Self-Assembly Processes In The Prebiotic Environment by David Deamer, Sara Singaram, Sudha Rajamani, Vladimir Kompanichenko and Stephen Guggenheim, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Simulation Of The Spontaneous Aggregation Of Phospholipids Into Bilayers by Siewert J. Marrink, Eric Lindahl, Olle Edholm and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 8638-8639 (2001)

Synchronisation Phenomena In Internal Reaction Models Of Protocells by Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Alessandro Filisetti and Irene Poli, Artificial life, 13: 123-128 (2007)

Synchronisation Phenomena In Protocell Models by Alessandro Filisetti, Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Irene Poli and Marco Villani, Biophysical Reviews and Letters, 3(1-2): 325-342 (2008)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

Synthesising Life by Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel and P. Luigi Luisi, Nature, 409: 387-390 (18th January 2001)

71-80:

Synthetic Protocell Biology: From Reproduction To Computation by Ricard V. Solé, Andreea Munteanu, Carlos Rodriguez-Caso and Javier Macia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1727-1739 (October 2007)

Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Emergence Of Competition Between Model Protocells by Irene A Chen, Richard W. Roberts and Jack W. Szostak, Science, 305:1474-1476 (3rd September 2004)

The Generality Of DNA-Templated Synthesis As A Basis For Evolving Non-Natural Small Molecules by Zev J. Gartner and David R. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 6961-6963 (2001)

The Lifetimes Of Nitriles (CN) And Acids (COOH) During Ultraviolet Photolysis And Their Survival In Space by Max P. Bernstein, Samantha F. M. Ashbourne, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, The Astrophysical Journal, 601: 3650270 (20th January 2004)

The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment by Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves., Jason D. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 322: 404 (17th October 2008)

81-90 (ending at 88):

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Prebiotic Molecules Observed In The Interstellar Gas by P. Thaddeus, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (7th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

Toward Synthesis Of A Minimal Cell by Anthony C. Forster and George M. Church, Molecular Systems Biology (2006) doi:10.1038/msb4100090

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Two Step Potentially Prebiotic Synthesis Of α-D-Cystidine-5'-Phosphate From D-Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate by Carole Anastasi, Michael A. Crowe and John D. Sutherland, Journal of the American Chemical Society (Communications), 129: 24-24 (2007)


(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  We know that chemicals can form new chemicals, and under the right conditions could have formed life.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Go in a lab and simulate the "right conditions", and form life. Until then, let the speculating continue.

Please see the 88 papers above, they haven't gotten to the point of life yet but that is some significant evidence that we are on the right track

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except I was referring to the books and I would have hoped that you knew they were books well before they were movies, and the books came before the movies. How would you tell those are fiction or not by using the same logic you say the bible isn't fiction?

It all goes back to the authors intent. If the person that is writing the material doesn't view it as nonfiction, then why should I?

And how do you know what the authors intent is? By what they wrote? That doesn't still solve the problem, and what if Harry Potter was intended to be taken as non-fiction what would you do then? Believe it like you do the Bible, or would you agree with intent being irrelevant?

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You still haven't resolved the argument though, why would someone making an eyewitness account need someone else work at all?

Because no human being is omniscient. Hell, I may have grown up with my sister, but does that mean that I know everything about her? No. My cousin (who is close to her) may be able to provide me information on her that I may not know. So if I was to write a biography of my sister, I would take the information that I witnessed first hand, but I would also rely on other testimony from other people that she knew.

Then the accounts would be independent, the difference in your writing style and the information within would be different from what your cousin writes, however it is likely the information wouldn't conflict but complement. And a linguist would be able to easily tell that the authorship of the two books is different, and with that difference in style you wouldn't have the duplication we see in the Bible, also known as the Gnostic problem


(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As for John he went flying off the wall compared to the other three gospels, and was written well after any eyewitnesses would have been dead.

Or he could have lived to be a very old man.

I highly doubt that, what is your proof of this? And again the Gospel of John basically wen flying off the wall compared to the other three.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  He can say whatever he wants, it doesn't make it factual and we have nothing to corroborate what is said outside of the bible.

Ok, so based on that fallacious reasoning, since we have no records of King Tut that is outside of Egypt, therefore, the knowledge that we have of King Tut from within the realms of Egypt, we shouldn't rely on it, because "we have nothing to corroborate what is said about King Tut that is outside the realms of Egypt".

See how fallacious that reasoning is??

You're straw manning my argument, Your claim is based on the Bible, and the Church which also bases its claims on the Bible. You need to provide evidence for your claims outside of the bible itself and your own shaky reasoning. King Tut had a tomb, we found his mummified remains, in his tomb and writings that he existed
http://www.ancient.eu/Tutankhamun/

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Every word in the the book of Luke COULD be true regardless of whether or not there are outside books to corroborate it. You seem to have this irrational mindset of "the Bible needs to be corroborated by external sources, otherwise, it isn't reliable"...well in that case, when I use a U.S. History book, the book isn't reliable unless I have external U.S sources.

Makes no sense.

Again you are straw manning my argument, you have not provided any sources that corroborate what the bible says, beyond that a man named Jesus may have existed, nothing you have provided has substantiated the gospels claims.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're assuming that the interpretation is true, without evidence for it. In other words your taking it totally on faith.

I am assuming that the interpretation is true based on what I believe to be the propondence of evidence which favors it. Now, this may not do it for you, but it does for me.

Kind of the same way you believe that life naturally arose from nonlife, and that intelligence originated from a mindless and blind process..the difference is, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever for your belief, yet you seem to have no problems believing it.

So you are the last person that should be talking about someone relying on faith Laugh out load

What evidence do you have your interpretation is true? You have yet to present any evidence. The bible is the claim you need to provide evidence.

As for abiogenesis some of it is speculation, which is very different than faith, and see above for the 88 papers on it.

And at the end of the day abiogenesis happened weather you like it or not since life exists, my viewpoint is that of a naturalist, yours of a super-naturalist.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  But in order for the prophecy to be true it has to fulfill every piece of it, and since there have been a ton of blood moons and a whole lot of no show then I'd say the prophecy is bunk.

It also stated that before the blood moons there will be blood and fire and clouds of smoke (Acts 2:20). Has that happened yet? No.

Trust me, when the time comes, no one will have to play the guessing game. It will be quite apparent.


Actually its Acts 2:19 for the blood and fire and clouds of smoke, the prophecy is false as the events are out of sequence. Since we have had several blood moons but the prophecy says there would be blood and fire and clouds of smoke before the blood moons.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Ahh the Ken Ham were you there argument, I was wondering when someone was going to try and use that on me. I'm glad it was you because I can easily turn that argument right around on you.

Were you there when the gospels were written?
Were you there when Jesus was crucified?
Were you there when the Bible was compiled?
Were you there when Jesus supposedly performed his Miracles?
Were you there when the Church was forming?
Were you there when the temple was destroyed?
How do you know that the bible wasn't forged?

The difference between us, I admit that I accept by faith...not blind faith, but reasonable faith. You, on the other hand, make it seem as if everything you were taught about history is 100% brute facts...but when it comes to the Bible, all of a sudden it is time to play the role of super duper skeptic.

The taxi cab fallacy at it finest.

Faith by its very definition is blind, faith is accepting something without any evidence.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Faith is not needed when I have evidence, we know it wasn't forged because of consistency in the writing, and the signatures that we can use as comparisons.

Yeah, ASSUMING that the comparisons are authentic themselves!!! See how much faith you are ultiizing?? You are using so much faith, and you don't even realize it.


Do you have any idea how unlikely it would be to have hundreds of forgeries?

The link below links to volume 3 of Benjamin Franklin writings
https://books.google.com/books?id=haAQAA...gs&f=false

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I could have sworn I built that case in the very first post I made? Hmm

Nonsense. I still don't know why you believe the Gospels couldn't have been written pre 70-AD.

I posted my sources for this in my first post that kicked off this debate proper.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I wouldn't have described it so crudely, but essentially yes. Although it doesn't need to be slang it just has to be any type of wording that didn't exist up until that point.

Really? Words like what??

I'm going off what others have written, in linguistics, refer to those posts.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  One passing mention in one document, a historical figure does not make.

Thats what makes it geniue, it was mentioned in passing. "James, brother of Jesus..." that is something that was mentioned in passing. If we are talking about ASU and I say "Oh, Kevin's brother Marvin went to ASU"....I am matter-of-factly acknowledging a person name Kevin who has a brother named Marvin. It was common then, and it is common now.

Fair enough in regards to the Tacticus, and the ASU example

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No, it would make your argument even more laughable than it already is.

How so? Or are you just being a smart ass?

Simple, because when we are dealing with books with multiple authors, and a dates span outside of when peter would have lived it makes the argument even harder

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  No, the authorship of the books is only a very very tiny piece of why I'm no longer a Christian. All it would have done is made our entire debate futile, and at least we would know, or at least have a strong claim on who wrote the gospels.

We do.

Then prove it, so far all I've seen is you using the Bible(your claim) and a couple hearsay claims by the early church.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  If I dug hard enough I'm sure I could find a few college papers that survived electronically.

Could your parents do the same thing? No, they couldn't. The point is, over time, shit like that gets lost. History isn't open and shut. New discoveries COULD be made, and even if they aren't, I am convinced with the evidence that we do have. Now, that may not be good enough for you and others, but hey, you can't please everyone.

Are you sure? My mom still has filing cabinets full of my Dad's stuff. I might be able to find something if I looked hard enough in paper copy. Sure new historical discoveries happen all the time, none of them have gone hey people rose from the dead.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  As for grade school, I was writing to satisfy the requirements the teach laid forth, not to keep a historical record to stand the test of time.

Well, if the ancient ones felt the same way you feel right now, then there is no wonder why we don't currently have other written accounts.

I'm just one person, living in a highly technological advanced civilization that the world has never seen before. Comparing me how I felt as a child to how the ancient ones felt is factitious as best.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  The more something is copied the more prone it is to have transcribing errors, or alterations.

True, but that says nothing about the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the Bible were written a lot closer to the events than any other book in antiquity (relative to the events that the books are describing).

Here is the link to describing oldest known bible http://content.time.com/time/specials/pa...30,00.html

There are 27,000 corrections between the 4th and 12th centuries.


(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  False equivalency here
Because a power outage is hardly unusual

The sky going black for hours is highly unusual

Well, if you have faith that life arose naturally from nonliving material despite the fact that as of right now, such an event is "highly unusual" to occur, then you shouldn't have any trouble accepting by faith that God caused the sky to go black for hours.

You will believe in anything, as long as it fits your worldview. Me, on the other hand, even if I weren't a Christian, I would still be a theist of some sort. Why? Because of the outrageous and "unusual" stuff that you believe occurred without divine intervention....I just can't get myself to believe in abiogenesis and mind/body naturalism.

To me, that is "highly unusual"...which is why it doesn't surprise me that no one has ever written about having witnessed any of that stuff that YOU believe.

You think its highly unusual and unnatural but that comes from a lack of understanding in the topics, there is nothing supernatural about what I base my worldview on.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  , well if you take the bible literally all the land would mean just that, all the land everywhere.

No, that is what it COULD mean, but that is not what it NECESSARILY mean. You understand the difference. If I say Barack Obama holds the highest office in the land, obviously I am not talking about including China in that "land".

Either way, no one else wrote about it. Even if it was a local event something that unusual should have gotten the attention of enough people that could write.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  That and you mentioning it here, just put it into the records as well Tongue

Yeah but if me mentioning it here was the only surviving mention of the incident, 3,000 years from now a skeptic would call into question the incident based on just my one account, wouldn't he?

That would be hard to predict, if the record is complete the skeptic would know what we were arguing about and our positions.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except the bible says all the land.

All land where?

Since it isn't specific I would assume all the land, everywhere. AT a minimum all the land of Israel

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  For just the biographies yes

Well, the biographies of Jesus were written much closer to his life than Alexander the Great's biographies Laugh out load

So what? The biographies aren't the only source we have of Alexander the Great existing.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  or for the love of.... a Creed by definition is a profession of faith, not fact.

It is a creed to those that it was passed on too, it was a fact to those that it was passed FROM. Verse 8 "and last of all, he appeared to me". Personal testimony.

No it was a creed from those who it was passed from, and it stayed a creed when Paul received it.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes and they brought all 66 books together and they all contradict each other hard core.

To who? To you? All seems fine to me. I've already seen your "contradictions", which are not even contradictions by the mere definition of what a contradiction is.

(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Here is a nice visual representation for you of those contradictions. http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Crimson

Which is meaningless, since I can easily post a link that refutes those alleged "contradictions".

You set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

Then post the link, post your proof that can explain away over a thousand contradictions.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  I never said our knowledge was complete, but someone not writing about how king tut died, is small potatoes compared to the claims the bible is making.

Not really. You are telling me what you would "expect" regarding which things should have been written down when it comes to Biblical claims. Well, I would "expect" certain things to be written down when it comes to natural claims. King Tut, head of state, Pharaoh of Egypt...his manner of death has never been recorded. The events of his reign has never been recorded, either. I would expect these things to have been written down. They were written down during the reigns of other Pharaohs, like Ramessess The Great, Thutmose, Akenaten. Why not King Tut?

So I guess King Tut never existed, then. All that we've found could be one big giant lie, because the events of his reign wasn't written down during his lifetime, or even after his lifetime.

I posted what we know about king Tut above, we know quite a bit.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  My point, is they weren't making extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence.

Ok, and as far as I'm concerned, you are telling me that life arose naturally from nonliving material. You are also telling me that in the distant past, reptiles evolved into birds. You are also telling me that this inanimate matter that came to life somehow began to think as it arose consciousness.

To me, those are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence...evidence that YOU cannot provide me at this time. So don't come to me with the played-out atheist quip "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence".

You provide me evidence for your extraordinary claim, and I'll provide you mines.

See above for the 88 papers on the subject.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  Again that is not the definition of a creed, by definition a creed is a profession of faith, either change the word your using. Or change the definition of the word.

It was a creed to future believers, it was personal testimony to the original disciples.

*sigh* If it looks like a creed, reads like a creed, and was written like a creed it is a creed regardless of who wrote it and who has it at that current time.

(14-08-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:48 AM)Worom Wrote:  How is this hard to understand? If I read a book and then write something about the book, I can make it sound like it matches up with the book without any issue.

So if you read a book, then write something about the book, you can "make it sound like it matches up with the book"...I am curious as to what the "it" is in this context. If you are writing about the book, of course you will make it sound like the book because that is what you are writing about!!!

And you just proved my point, thank you

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Worom's post
14-08-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  No I haven't believed a lie that I told, but there are people that do, we call them pathological liars.

I think you need to do some research on pathological liars before you start giving out definitions.

Alright then we can call them delusional instead then.

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  That and by your logic anyone that has written a story book, or other work of fiction actually believes that thier story is true.

When someone writes a book, they either believe what they are writing, or they don't believe what they are writing. The Gospel authors believed what they were writing. Paul believed what he was writing.

So by that reasoning if J. K. Rowling believed that her Harry potter books that she wrote were absolutely true. How would you know that they are actually fiction or non-fiction then?

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're making an assumption, and as I pointed out by your reasoning anyone writing any work of fiction would have reasons to believe that thier stories are true, experience is totally irrelevant, to someone making up a story.

I don't know who wrote anything in antiquity, as I wasn't there (and come to think of it, neither were you)....so I simply examine the evidence for and against, and I make a determination based on what direction I think the evidence is pointing.

You call it an assumption, I call it having good reasons to believe that the books in question were either written by eyewitnesses, or the story was derived from eyewitnesses.

Now with that being said, again, in his preface, Luke stated that the story he is about to tell originated from eyewitnesses. You call this hearsay, but that is like your mother telling you "Your father said he wants you to have your room clean by the time he gets home from work".

And you tell her "I can't believe what you are saying, mother, as what you told me is hearsay". Laugh out load

Except I can verify that when my father gets home, or I could call and ask, just wanted to make sure you wanted me to clean the house. The bible is making the claim and so far no verification of those claims. So you need to prove they were eyewitness accounts, and that they were true. You are trying to compare a verifiable situation to one that is not.

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  So they could have just made the whole thing up.

They could have done the same thing regarding any other person or event in history that you have no problems believing. Just take your above quote, and apply it to any other person or event in antiquity, if you want to be consistent in your logic.

Now, if you want to continue to be inconsistent in your logic, then just continue to believe everything else you were told regarding historical events and people, but once it comes to Gospels, just continue to put on your Super Skeptic costume, and go out and fight crime (fight against believers).


I can verify historical events, I can't verify the bible.

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  And the way the stories are written make them sound just like that, stories.

To the billions of Christians in the world, we believe the stories are true stories.

argumentum ad populum


(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  You assume that the body wasn't just snatched away

The body being snatched away doesn't explain the post mortem appearances.

So Paul asserts that Jesus appeared to himself, 500 witnesses, Peter, James the Brother of Jesus and the apostles and disciples. And not a single one of the 500 witnesses decided to write about the appearance of Jesus? Not even a single hearsay account? Nor did the disciples either since the gospels weren't written by them. And Paul is the only one to write about the 500 witnesses. Now the messiah was nailed to a cross and died so thier cult of Jesus being the son of God took a major blow, so based on what we know of human behavior and and Psyche. Paul would have serious motive to lie. Throw in the total lack of corroborating evidence outside the bible by these supposed witnesses and you have an easily visible lie.

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and that the tomb actually existed. We have never found the tomb.

Even if we did find it, then you would be saying "how do we know that is the actual tomb". Again, those goal posts would be in motion.

That question would be asked of course, however if we were able to verify it was Jesus tomb then that would a mark in your favor on Jesus existing at least as a man.

(14-08-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now unless God personally came down from heaven and smacked unbelievers across their faces, there really is no single best way for the Resurrection account to have taken place, or for the story to be told...because at the end of the day it isn't about believing, because some people don't want or like the idea of there being a God.

The fact of the matter is, the stories are what they are...either accept it, or reject it. You've obviously made your choice, correct? Laugh out load

Seeing as God is supposed to be Omnipotent, omnipotent, and omniscient I don't see any reason why he couldn't come down and smack me across the face right now. Hmm look no smacking.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Worom's post
14-08-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 10:19 AM)Worom Wrote:  And you're alternative without evidence is God did it the classical god of the gaps argument.

No, the god of the gaps argument is if I said "I don't know, therefore, God did it". But that is not what I am saying. I am saying "It is impossible for the universe to have existed throughout past eternity, therefore, a timeless cause is needed".

This timeless cause could not have existed nor originated in the material world, therefore, an immaterial cause is necessary...and God is the only explanation given the fact that I laid out above.

So no god of the gap arguments here. I don't believe "God did it" based on what I don't know, I believe "God did it" based on what I DO know.

I've seen that cosmological argument before, if God can have a timeless cause so can the Universe, what you did there is special pleading.


(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  We may not be able to go into a lab and demonstrate life coming from non-life yet, but we are getting ever closer

The above quote sounds like nonsense to me, similar to me saying "With every passing day, we are getting ever closer to the return of Jesus"....sounds like nonsense to you, doesn't it?

Well, the feeling is mutual. You are basically hoping for science to give you an answer at a future date, just like believers are hoping for Jesus to return at a future date.

Science has given us many answers in the last 3 centuries, you've been waiting 2 Millennium. Science is also a cumulative process we can see hits at the answers before we get the full answer.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , getting amino acids was a big step, getting RNA was an even bigger step. Its only a matter of time before another gap in our knowledge is closed.

So basically you are telling me that a mindless and blind process (nature) was able to do something that intelligent human beings haven't been able to do?? Laugh out load

Yes, over billions of years. Humans are trying to replicate those processes within a human lifetime, its a bit more difficult.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  And if the evidence takes us away from abiogensis into another possibility then, regardless of how I feel about it, I have to follow what the evidence points to. But for now it is the best explanation we have.

The only other possibility is theism, my friend.

No it is not.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Miller-urea wasn't meant to get a living cell out of the experiment it was just to find out if we could get something out of non-living matter and we did.

Well, then when I bring up the abiogenesis problem, don't come to me talking about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Which is why I have given you a list of 88 papers to look at in a previous post.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Further refinements to the experiment have yielded even better results. And other experiments have resulted in very simple self replicating RNA strands. And as far as information in DNA this is a limitation in our language, its not like a computer program, dna is nothing but a sequence of different acids.

Oh, so now you are gonna downplay DNA, trying to make it less significant than it is?? We can save that for another debate.

DNA is hardly the ultra complex substance you seem to be making it out to be, at the end of the day DNA is nothing more than arrangement of nucleotides.
http://www.livescience.com/37247-dna.html

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the theory, its just not complete yet.

Well, again...you are telling me that a mindless and blind process was able to do that humans, in all of our intellect and capabilities, HAVEN'T been able to do. So nature is smarter than humans, correct?

Nature doesn't have intelligence, we are trying to replicate a process that took millions of years, into a time span of a human life time.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

Thats why I said we may have an account of the darkness that you claimed there was no written account of, I never claimed the account was written in gold. Second, your above quote proves my point, there may have been accounts of the darkness that have been lost over time. Third, it is obvious that if Thallus' account does exist, then it is a non-Christian account, because a Christian wouldn't have attributed the darkness to an eclipse, now would he? So if Thallus' account is geninue, then it is the earliest non-Christian source regarding a darkness that occured during the time of Jesus that an unbeliever tried to explain away as just a mere eclipse of the sun...which makes a lot of sense, as one would look for a natural explanation first.

We don't have Thallus account, we have the equivalent of a guy said this about a guy about another guy. That we have absolutely no record of.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Not yet, but that is only a matter of time, we already have organic amino acids and RNA strands.

You asking me: "Has Jesus returned?"

My response to you: "Not yet, but it is only a matter of time before you see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory".

Sounds like nonsense to you, huh? Well, guess what I think about your quote? Laugh out load

Except my viewpoint is based on what evidence we do have, yours is totally based on faith.

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Its hardly foolishness, as I've repeatedly admitted, the theory isn't complete and scientists are working to figure it out, and we have never observed a once living thing die and then come back as that same living thing

We have never observed an inanimate thing coming to life from nonliving material, either. But AHHHHH, you believe that crap, don't you?

I can't wait for the day when we create life, when we do I wonder how you will explain your way out of that one. Oh and we are getting rather close to that dream
http://www.livescience.com/1659-engineer...teria.html

(14-08-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Pfft, believers have been saying that for centuries, and still a no show.

Well, I've been waiting on a reptile-bird kind of transformation that I am being told happens every hundred million years or so...and if I live to be that old, I will be saying the same thing..."still no show".

Wait are you trying to go crocoduck on me?

Here is a fossil of a transitional form
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Worom's post
14-08-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 10:27 AM)Worom Wrote:  Critical thinking? Common Sense? If that was used you would see the gospels for what they really are, and that is just stories. What you described was an omission but the overall information remained intact.

Overall information? That is exactly what you have with the Gospels!!! The overall information is that a group of women went to visit the tomb, where they were met by at least two men and all the while discovering the tomb to be empty....thus, the "EMPTY TOMB"...that is what ALL GOSPELS agree on...that is the overall information...that is the focal point...and they all agree on the focal point.

But that isn't enough for unbelievers, oh no. They want to pitch a bitch about small details, details that believers don't give a darn about. The fact of the matter is, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Point blank, period.

The gospels are the claim, you can't use them as evidence

(14-08-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  But what would have happened if I decided to write about the same conversation, and I said that there were two people there and they both described the weather in flagstaff

Ok..

(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and that I was standing outside the warehouse area and I saw you also standing outside the supply area talking to you about the weather.

Then another person says you weren't at the warehouse at all and were actually in the front office talking to one of the people you mentioned about the weather.

Then what would you do? You have three different scenarios describing you talking about the weather all taking place at the exact same time?

The coversation could have moved to the outside or to another location where other individuals could have overheard the conversation, and reported what they heard. Stuff like that happens, ya know?

Except I said that all the events happened at the exact same time, so you did nothing to resolve my example.

(14-08-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Who do we believe is telling the truth? Who is lying?

Easily reconcilable.

Then reconcile it, keep in mind I said all these events happened at the same time

(14-08-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  Except that's all he saw was the blinding light

Let me get this straight, so If I wake up in complete darkness except a bright light that I see at my doorway and I hear a voice that is obviously coming from the direction of the light, and the voice says "I am Jesus, your Lord and Savior, and I have come for you".

And whatever happens after that happens...and a year later, I tell my friend...I would be incorrect in telling my friend that "Last year, Jesus appeared to me?"

Cmonnn.

I'd call bullshit right away, sounds like a hallucination to me. Heck i'd probably have you seek psychiatric help or ask you if took drugs or something.

(14-08-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 09:49 AM)Worom Wrote:  , and heard a voice claiming to be jesus, sounds like a hallucination to me hmmmm

Paul hallucinating doesn't explain the origin of the disciples belief, nor does it explain the empty tomb.

You underestimate the power of hallucinations, they can seem very very real. As for the empty tomb the bible makes that claim, now where is your proof?

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Worom's post
23-08-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except my claims are backed up with evidence

Think so?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  the Bible is your claim you need to back it up with evidence which you have not.

I have reasons to believe my evidence is more probable than not.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Simple, when the written works describe a location and we find the location that adds great credibility to the sources

The Bible describes locations we can find, too.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  combined in that they don't contradict each other then you have a reasonably good basis for a claim.

As I said before, if a group of people are conspiring to tell the same lies, I expect perfect harmony.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And getting back to the topic here, Since your claim is that the Bible was written by the disciples of Jesus or the friends of Jesus you need provide evidence for that claim. And you can't use that claim as evidence to your claim.

I said that it is based on the second century disciples that we know who wrote the Gospels. Skeptics will argue that these disciples weren't around to "know" who wrote the Gospels, and that they were relying on tradition...and my response to that is traditions could be true...and it is based on the "modest" factor that I kept mentioning, that is why I believe the early church father's accounts.

And I already presented why I believe the Gospels were written pre-70 CE. Now, none of what I presented are "knock-down" arguments...more of a circumstantial case if anything...but then again, the entire genre of history is based on circumstantial evidence...unless someone has a time machine that I don't know about.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  My sources are more credible than yours because my sources aren't using the claim as the evidence your sources are trying to use the bible to prove the bible you can't use the claim as proof of the claim that is circular reasoning.

When we "use the Bible to prove the Bible" (another played-out atheist quip), we are using what we believe to be internal evidence which demonstrates the reliability of the books in question, and there is plenty of it.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  How can a claim have truth value with supernatural events in it?

So, if an event is said to be supernatural, it can't be true? That's fine, if that is what you believe. The problem is, there is no way you can prove or even remotely demonstrate that a supernatural reality doesn't exist. You can't conduct a scientific experiment, nor can you form any kind of syllogism or thought experiment. You just can't do it.

So asking the above question is fallacious...circular reasoning.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  When a claim has supernatural events it either needs to provide extraordinary evidence for that claim, or the claim is false.

Until you can go in a lab and get me life from inanimate matter, then I shouldn't see any demands for "extraordinary evidence"....when you can't even provide evidence for the simple naturalistic stuff that you claim/believe occurred.

In my opinion, you have a lot of nerve to even request anything of the kind.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  A body will not survive that long, unless it was preserved in a very specific matter such as how the Egyptians used to mummify the dead of thier rulers and high level officials for example.

Then we will just have to continue relying on what we were "told", right?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is a false equivalency, there is significant evidence of the evolution of birds, here is a small easy to understand except from Berkeley.

I don't want links...I want YOU to tell me. I can just as easily post a link debunking the whole reptile-birds crap. Then what?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also no claim has been made in this debate that the universe is static and eternal

Lets save this one for a debate on the cosmological argument, shall we Big Grin

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and given that we are conscious sapient beings and we have evolutionary history that shows how we evolved

See, thats where I disagree. I don't believe in macroevolution...I don't believe we all share a common ancestor. I think evolution is one big ass lie..con...scheme. But we don't even need to talk about evolution until someone can explain how life originated naturally.

Abiogenesis COULD be a false hope...a false premise. And as long as abiogenesis COULD be false, then evolution is not a brute fact, because you can't have changes in life forms if you don't have life!!!

That is the point that naturalists overlook...but it isn't going anywhere.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , then the claim that consciousness if we are talking about human consciousness arose form simpler forms of consciousness that can be traced back to organisms that lack consciousness would be a reasonable claim on my end.

That is all theoretical stuff. Yeah, if humans evolved without divine intervention, then of course human consciousness also evolved. But the problem is, until you can explain how life came from nonlife, then you can't ever get to the point of life which evolved. That is the point....plus, lets face it, we can prove that consciousness is not a physical construct in the first place....so we have evidence AGAINST the concept.

But these are all debates for another day.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  A futile endeavor, this makes me sad actually that so much potential is being wasted on something that will never happen. And your attacks on history are on events that any high school student would have been presented the evidence for in history books and would have a basic understanding of these events. I have also in previous posts sourced to how we determine historicity, and how we verify historical events.

If you don't see the faith involved in your worldview, then I can't help you.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Faith is not involved in any way, faith is accepting something with absolutely no evidence

What definition of faith are you using?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , in the science world speculation is part of the process, those speculations must be testable or they are not accepted as a possibility.

Ok, well conduct an experiment that proves the actual hypothesis, which is that life arose naturally from nonliving material. Anything outside of that is worthless speculation.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Once the speculation is tested if it the speculation is proven false its thrown out and a new speculation is tested and that speculation now has evidence behind it we can move it towards a scientific theory and continue testing to ensure that its the correct answer or to falsify it.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science...ethod.html

Right, so you believe that life arose from nonliving material, and I am asking what test have you done that proves your belief to be correct?

All you are telling me is "we will get there eventually", which isn't an answer at all. It is faith, a trust you have in your methodology that will answer all the tough questions...which is the EXACT same thing believers have in our worldviews.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except evolution via natural selection is not reliant on abiogenesis, evolution is how we went from super ultra simple forms of life to complex life and how life continues to change.

Right, evolution assumes pre-existing life. Thats the point. If you take God out of the equation (which is what naturalists do), then you are telling me that life originated naturally, and it gradually began to change. But you can't scientifically prove that life originated naturally...that is something you accept by faith...but you can't empirically demonstrate it.

Since evolution depends on pre-existing life, yet abiogenesis isn't necessarily true...then evolution isn't a brute fact, like you want it to be.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Actually it does, its referred to as the top down approach instead of going for the bottom up approach. Since we already have life this is a good way to approach things to see how simple we can make a genome, it gives us more clues how approach future experiments.

Hey, top down, or bottom up...there is no law of nature that will get you life from inanimate matter, or consciousness from inanimate matter. You can hypothesize, theorize, and any other "ize" you like, the fact of the matter is, you can't scientifically prove it...and until you can do that, you are playing the faith game just like us religious folks Laugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  You claimed that mind/body naturalism had never been observed, my response to that is that we have evidence that suggests that the mind and body are linked, while the exact origin of consciousness is still being researched our observations highly suggest a that the brain is the source of consciousness. If it was not, then how do drugs alter our consciousness?
http://www.biologyreference.com/Po-Re/Ps...Drugs.html

We can just save this for a future "Argument from Consciousness" debate...which is one of my favorite arguments for theism Laugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I can also alter the programming of that remote control to make it so it doesn't work with the TV at all, or alters what each button does, this would be the effect of altering or destroying the conscious mind. The TV and the Remote are linked to each other, if you assume a TV that doesn't have any physical buttons on it to control it then the TV is useless without the remote control they are inherently linked.

Again, you are talking about correlation, not origins. No one is denying that the mind and the brain are linked...but that doesn't mean that one is the origins of the other...again, lets save this for another debate.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except the Wikipedia article you linked is someone trying to explain the origins of the conscious mind and since our observations show the conscious mind can be altered then his theory has a good deal of merit.

Save it.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  There is a huge difference between speculation and faith, faith means that I accept it as absolute truth with no evidence, or worse I still accept it as absolute truth in the face of contradictory evidence.

Well Worom, however you slice the cake, guess what, you still can't go in a lab and get me a living cell from raw material.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except the article you referenced admits and makes the assumption that the Testimonium Flavianum is a partial forgery, I go one step further and agree with the scholars that say it is a total forgery. And the conclusions the author makes in the article he posted assumes quite a lot from two short passages.

Not every scholar thinks it is total forgery, though. You are making it seem as if it is a 100% brute fact that the entire passage is forgery and that scholars are all in agreement of this.

The link I gave you gives the actual reasons why certain parts of it can be taken as geniune and others as interpolations.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Could a man named Jesus exist that went around preaching and got himself killed for his efforts and then eventually lead to Christianity , sure its possible.

Well, the vast majority of scholars believe that it is more than quite possible...they believe it is a historical fact. And the great thing about it is, not all that believe in the historical Jesus are Christians.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  However the evidence that I've seen so far leaves me on the not sure fence. Jesus as the bible describes though didn't exist.

Of course, because if you believe in Jesus as recorded in the Bible, then that would make you a Christian...but we can't have that now, can we?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I was referring to Tacitus

What about it?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Actually the native Americans, and the vikings were in the Americas first, so no Columbus wasn't the first to discover American in itself, but he was the first to discover it for the European nations of the time, would be a more accurate statement as far as we can tell historically.

Point granted.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Whoops forgot my source on that copy and paste, here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_e...nd_Judaism

I would say the people that wrote the source material the article cites, would be knowledgeable on the topic.

I need a direct refutation of what I said about Paul's EARLY writings to the various Churchs across the empire...plus Pling's writings from modern day turkey...plus the persecution of the Christians by the Nero, in the first century CE.

Let's keep the irrelevant smokescreens to a minimum...and let's keep things in their proper perspective, and leave it there.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Prove that these events happened.

Prove that Caesar was stabbed.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Nope here is what the prophecy said

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David).

Again, just looked up random translations of Jeremiah 23:5...and I see nothing about a "political leader". Don't know how it crept in there. Makes me nervous.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel.

I don't see anything about being a military leader and winning battles for Israel. Don't know how that crept in there, either. Again, makes me nervous.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15).

Dude, that is not the context of this particular scripture...it says nothing about him "being a great judge". It says "he will do what is right and just throughout the land".

Where are you getting that from??? Or you didn't bother reading the damn verse?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

And that is why this particular scripture is not one of our "Trinity proof" texts, obviously.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach. http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

And if we go over the the stories in the Bible
1. The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David Debatable
2. He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments Hmm this would probably be a no given who Jesus hung out with
3. He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example Hmm this he seems to have accomplished
4. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions As far as i'm aware he wasn't a traditional Judge in Jewish terms
5. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel He didn't win a single battle for Israel, and got himself killed, whoops there goes that part of the prophecy
6. But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being. Ooo now we have a real problem here, The claims the Bible make is that Jesus was God, and that he performed supernatural feats

At this point, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, so I shall move on...

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  You make the assumption that the disciples wrote the gospels, or the friends of the disciples. The simplest explanation is that the gospels were made up. Besides the gospels are the claim you need to provide evidence to prove that claim.

I am quite sure you wouldn't be positing alternative explanations to a book that you believe is fiction, would you? I am simply asking why are you giving explanations that are contrary to the actual narratives.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Wow Craig has been using the basically same argument for well over a decade

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I think Price did really well in the Q&A Section.

I am actually a fan of Robert Price.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  No, I'm saying the intent is Irrelevant, me telling you about Jean Luc Picard was to try and show you the ridiculousness of the point you were trying to make that biographies have to be on real people.

Well, we have enough historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth...so the point is mute.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Here are 88 papers substantiating Abiogenesis

Please tell me the law at which life will arise from nonliving raw material. I want the actual law. What you gave me is what I like to call "bio-babble", full of technical bio stuff, but all talk, and no action. The readers are dazzled with the big words and technical nonense, but at the end of the day, there is no actual life being produced.

If abiogenesis is substantiated, then there should be a law which, if I abide by it, I should be able to go in a lab and get life from nonliving material.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Please see the 88 papers above, they haven't gotten to the point of life yet but that is some significant evidence that we are on the right track

So basically, you are a few fries short of a happy meal? Got it.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And how do you know what the authors intent is? By what they wrote? That doesn't still solve the problem, and what if Harry Potter was intended to be taken as non-fiction what would you do then? Believe it like you do the Bible, or would you agree with intent being irrelevant?

No, I wouldn't believe Harry Potter despite the authors intent...why? Because I have what I believe to be strong evidence AGAINST IT.

Now, as far as my Christian faith is concerned..even if I weren't a Christian, I would be a theist, at best. The evidence for theism is so strong that even as the bible say "The fool says in his heart, "there is no God" (Psalms 14:1).

The evidence for theism is not something I accept by faith, it is something that I believe is a 100% brute fact, and I can actually prove it. So I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that some kind of god exist.

The question then becomes "Which god exists"...and I think that of all of the supernatural deities, there is more evidence for the Christian God than all others...but I admit that I can't prove, nor am I convinced beyond a reasonable doubt....but I think there is more evidence for it than against it, and I believe based on the proponderence of the evidence.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then the accounts would be independent, the difference in your writing style and the information within would be different from what your cousin writes, however it is likely the information wouldn't conflict but complement. And a linguist would be able to easily tell that the authorship of the two books is different, and with that difference in style you wouldn't have the duplication we see in the Bible, also known as the Gnostic problem

But that goes back to my point regarding the differences...all three of the Gnostics has differences right along with the similarities. Now, of course it is convenient for the skeptic to focus on the similarities, but no one focuses on the differences.

There are people out there that have given explanations as to why the three are similar in certain ways, and these same explanations can answer the question as to why they are also different.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I highly doubt that, what is your proof of this?

I am just saying it is possible. Just my personal opinion, but if you at John 21:15-23, it would seem to hint at a long life lived by John. This is not a knock-down argument, but hey.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And again the Gospel of John basically wen flying off the wall compared to the other three.

Agreed.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  You're straw manning my argument

Aw thats bullshit. You've said on more than one occasion that we need extra-biblical sources to corroborate the Gospels, as if we need something outside of the Bible to give the Gospels credibility...well, that is like saying King Tut didn't exist until we have an independent ancient nation that can vouch for the guy, as if the stuff within Egypt isn't enough.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , Your claim is based on the Bible, and the Church which also bases its claims on the Bible. You need to provide evidence for your claims outside of the bible itself and your own shaky reasoning. King Tut had a tomb, we found his mummified remains, in his tomb and writings that he existed
http://www.ancient.eu/Tutankhamun/

You don't know who the hell that mummy inside the tomb is, do you?? Or are you just relying on what you are told?? Hmmm.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Again you are straw manning my argument, you have not provided any sources that corroborate what the bible says, beyond that a man named Jesus may have existed, nothing you have provided has substantiated the gospels claims.

Again, you are making it seem as if the Bible was written by one person...sure, some books were written by the same author but the vast majority of books were written by different people. So each of the four Gospels confirms the others, and Pauls writings also confirm the Gospels. They are all independent books.

Just because the books are Christian writings concerning Christian things don't mean you get to discount them because you don't like the message that is spewing out of them.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  What evidence do you have your interpretation is true? You have yet to present any evidence. The bible is the claim you need to provide evidence.

I already gave my evidence. My religion tells me that the path to eternal life is narrow, but the path to eternal damnation is wideeee open. In other words, not everyone will believe no matter what evidence you give them.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  As for abiogenesis some of it is speculation, which is very different than faith, and see above for the 88 papers on it.

You've already admitted that despite those 88 papers, the abiogenesis problem is far from over. Well, until it becomes a scientific fact and can be observed, and experimented on...continue to utilize your faith.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And at the end of the day abiogenesis happened weather you like it or not since life exists

So because life exist, abiogenesis happened?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , my viewpoint is that of a naturalist, yours of a super-naturalist.

Exactly.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Actually its Acts 2:19 for the blood and fire and clouds of smoke, the prophecy is false as the events are out of sequence. Since we have had several blood moons but the prophecy says there would be blood and fire and clouds of smoke before the blood moons.

20 The sun will become dark,
and the moon will turn blood red

It seems to me as if the immediate understanding of this verse is the sun will become dark and the moon will turn blood red, simultaneously. Both will occur at the same time.

We may have had some bloody moons, but it didn't occur simultaneously with the sun becoming dark.

And besides, we can predict when the next blood moon will occur, but when it turns red at that particular time, it will be wayyyy before the time that it naturally occurs.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Faith by its very definition is blind, faith is accepting something without any evidence.

You say we don't have evidence. We say we have evidence. It's not about the evidence to us, we know God exists...it is about trust in him...our faith is exercising our trust.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Do you have any idea how unlikely it would be to have hundreds of forgeries?

The link below links to volume 3 of Benjamin Franklin writings
https://books.google.com/books?id=haAQAA...gs&f=false

So you believe Ben Frank wrote those things based on what you were told by someone else??? Correct? Yes, or no?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I posted my sources for this in my first post that kicked off this debate proper.

Laugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then prove it, so far all I've seen is you using the Bible(your claim) and a couple hearsay claims by the early church.

If I have reasons to believe that the sources for my claims are credible, then of course, I use it.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Are you sure? My mom still has filing cabinets full of my Dad's stuff.

Lets see if that stuff will be around in 2,000 years.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I might be able to find something if I looked hard enough in paper copy.

Do you think that kind of stuff will be just laying around 2,000 years from now?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Sure new historical discoveries happen all the time, none of them have gone hey people rose from the dead.

Have you ever heard of Christianity?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I'm just one person, living in a highly technological advanced civilization that the world has never seen before. Comparing me how I felt as a child to how the ancient ones felt is factitious as best.

Forgot what this was about...

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Here is the link to describing oldest known bible http://content.time.com/time/specials/pa...30,00.html

There are 27,000 corrections between the 4th and 12th centuries.

Those corrections were probably scribal errors. Nothing major.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  You think its highly unusual and unnatural but that comes from a lack of understanding in the topics

Oh, I understand the topics. But understanding and accepting are two different things. The understanding of the concept is the easy part, the difficult part is believing something that goes against my common sense.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  , there is nothing supernatural about what I base my worldview on.

Point?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Either way, no one else wrote about it. Even if it was a local event something that unusual should have gotten the attention of enough people that could write.

Whose to say they didn't? The writings could have been lost over time!!! The reason why the Bible account survived is because of the obvious preservation of sacred texts...but the average Joe Schmo writing would undoubtedly be lost over time.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  That would be hard to predict, if the record is complete the skeptic would know what we were arguing about and our positions.

Huh?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since it isn't specific I would assume all the land, everywhere. AT a minimum all the land of Israel

Didn't it happen in Jerusalem? That was a religious city, was it not (and still is)? Now, if the darkness was isolated to just that one city...chances are, the only folks that would have written about it was people of faith, but then the skeptic would argue for someone OUTSIDE OF THE FAITH to have witnessed it or written it down...that would be the criterion at that point. In other words, the goal posts would be moved.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  So what? The biographies aren't the only source we have of Alexander the Great existing.

And the Gospels aren't the only sources we have of Jesus existing, either. Now of course, if you do a side by side comparison in terms of mere quantities, then no one can deny that Alexander the Great may have more sources...but I think there is a bigger point. The fact of the matter is, the legacy of Jesus of Nazareth by FAR surpasses the legacy of Alexander the Great.

No one talks about Alexander the Great anymore. No one today cares about what he did. But every single day, every single hour, at least SOMEONE in this world is mentioning Jesus Christ. His name is coming up in a discussion, sermon, prayer, etc. Can't say the same for Alexander the Great.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  No it was a creed from those who it was passed from, and it stayed a creed when Paul received it.

Don't you find it amazing that Paul mentioned that Jesus appeared to the Twelve, despite the fact that he wrote the book before the Gospels were written, and the Gospels is the later believers introduction to the Twelve??

Hmmm.

Think about that. We only know who the Twelve is, based on our knowledge of the Gospels. But Paul wrote this before the Gospels were written, meaning that it was already common knowledge that Jesus had 12 disciples, who were known at "the Twelve".

Ahh, I just love harmonization.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Then post the link, post your proof that can explain away over a thousand contradictions.

Here, play with this one for a second http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm and if that doesn't satisfy you..there is always more Big Grin

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I posted what we know about king Tut above, we know quite a bit.

For everything we "know", we "assume" even more.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  *sigh* If it looks like a creed, reads like a creed, and was written like a creed it is a creed regardless of who wrote it and who has it at that current time.

Facepalm

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And you just proved my point, thank you

SMH.
Find all posts by this user
23-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 02:43 PM)Worom Wrote:  Alright then we can call them delusional instead then.

That won't work because even if they were all delusional (which contradicts what it means to be "delusional"), that still doesn't explain the empty tomb.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  So by that reasoning if J. K. Rowling believed that her Harry potter books that she wrote were absolutely true.

Not at all. It wouldn't mean that what she wrote was true, but it WOULD mean that she wasn't lying. If she believed what she was writing was true, then no one could say that she is lying. Now sure, she may be sadly mistaken, but she wouldn't be deliberately misleading folks.

That is actually the point...if the authors believed that what they were writing is true, then no one can say they were lying...so the question becomes, what is the origins of their beliefs?? What reasons did they have to believe what they were writing?

That is the million dollar question.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  How would you know that they are actually fiction or non-fiction then?

Based on certain background evidences.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except I can verify that when my father gets home, or I could call and ask, just wanted to make sure you wanted me to clean the house.

Or you could also trust your mother, right?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  The bible is making the claim and so far no verification of those claims. So you need to prove they were eyewitness accounts, and that they were true. You are trying to compare a verifiable situation to one that is not.

I thought I presented a pretty good case, but of course I didn't expect to gain a Christian convert out of you, so I'm not surprised that you don't think my case is any good. Laugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I can verify historical events, I can't verify the bible.

And it just SO HAPPENS that you can't verify something that is against your presupposed worldview?? Coincidence? I don't think so.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  argumentum ad populum

It would be argumentum ad populum if my argument was because x many people believe it, therefore, it is true. But that isn't what I said nor implied now, is it? Big Grin

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  So Paul asserts that Jesus appeared to himself, 500 witnesses, Peter, James the Brother of Jesus and the apostles and disciples. And not a single one of the 500 witnesses decided to write about the appearance of Jesus?

Not surprising considering the average person in that time and that culture couldn't read or write. That was a different time, and culture. Children weren't required to go to formal schools to learn reading and writing fundamentals.

Those 500 witnesses, though...maybe they are the ones that contributed to the plague-like spread of Christianity throughout the empire.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Not even a single hearsay account?

Yet, Christianity still spread. Think about that, how you are harping on the lack of written accounts....yet somehow, Christianity still spread, and it has now grown to be the world's largest religion at this time.

So this worldwide SPREAD, despite the lack of "written accounts" that one skeptic that is living 2,000 years later on an atheist forum requires.

I guess what I am saying is, those written accounts that you so adamantly require...wasn't needed. The goal was for the message to get out, for the good news to spread (Matt 28:19), and that is exactly what the disciples did, and that is exactly what happened.....despite the inadequate number of written accounts that you so adamantly desire.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Nor did the disciples either since the gospels weren't written by them.

You don't think so, eh?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  And Paul is the only one to write about the 500 witnesses. Now the messiah was nailed to a cross and died so thier cult of Jesus being the son of God took a major blow, so based on what we know of human behavior and and Psyche. Paul would have serious motive to lie.

Serious motive to lie? Dude, Paul became a convert after Jesus' death, and he was a Christian skeptic and persecuter, so he was the last one that would have participated in a Christian cult/conspiracy.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Throw in the total lack of corroborating evidence outside the bible by these supposed witnesses and you have an easily visible lie.

Sooo, about that empty tomb and why the disciples would have believed they saw the risen Jesus if his body remained in the tomb?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  That question would be asked of course, however if we were able to verify it was Jesus tomb then that would a mark in your favor on Jesus existing at least as a man.

You still wouldn't be able to verify that that would be Jesus' actual tomb, though. It would be a hearsay/tradition kind of a thing, you know, the kind of stuff that isn't credible, in your eyes.

So we would be right back at square one, wouldn't we?

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Seeing as God is supposed to be Omnipotent, omnipotent, and omniscient I don't see any reason why he couldn't come down and smack me across the face right now. Hmm look no smacking.

Is that the only thing it will take?
Find all posts by this user
23-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(14-08-2015 03:10 PM)Worom Wrote:  I've seen that cosmological argument before, if God can have a timeless cause so can the Universe, what you did there is special pleading.

Actually, I'm not special pleading...the cause has to be immaterial, because the cause of nature cannot itself be made up of matter...see how that works?

But again, that is another debate. We can debate the cosmological argument next, if you dare Laugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Science has given us many answers in the last 3 centuries, you've been waiting 2 Millennium.

Prayers have been answered for 2 millenniums, too.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Science is also a cumulative process we can see hits at the answers before we get the full answer.

There is no logical, scientific, or mathematical way you can get consciousness from inanimate matter. Thoughts are not material, and that is the point....we are not even remotely close to solving the mind/body problem, or the life/nonlife problem.

Which furthers my point, who is smarter, humans, or nature? If your answer is nature, then you are saying that a mindless and blind process is more smarter than human beings with intellect and vision. If your answer is humans, then please explain why humans aren't able to figure out something that a mindless and blind process was able to figure out.

So with either answer, you are screwed.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes, over billions of years.

Yeah, but the only problem with that is, the whole "billions of years" thing is part of the theory...and the theory has yet to be proven to be true...and the only reason to believe it would be to just simply play the faith game.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Humans are trying to replicate those processes within a human lifetime, its a bit more difficult.

The only reason it took so long is because it didn't know what it was doing (nature). If it knew what it was doing, then it wouldn't have taken that long, would it? Well, if humans know what they are doing, I would expect faster results.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  No it is not.

I will wait for you to enlighten me on the other possibilities.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Which is why I have given you a list of 88 papers to look at in a previous post.

You already admit that abiogenesis has not been proven, so those 88 papers are meaningless.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  DNA is hardly the ultra complex substance you seem to be making it out to be, at the end of the day DNA is nothing more than arrangement of nucleotides.
http://www.livescience.com/37247-dna.html

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine ©, and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

Look at the last sentence..."the order, or sequence of these based determines the information available and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences".

Do you see that??? Words and sentences...when you read a word or a sentence, you are looking at specified information. DNA is the specified information on what it takes to make you...YOU.

It is a code...now my question is; how in the hell does a process that can't think or see, ever get to the point of building and sequencing that kind of specified information all the way down to the molecular level??

That kind of information absolutely requires an informant, an informant of maximum intelligence and capabilities....that, followed by a universe that was engineered to a maximum degree of precision...intelligence is required, and the only being that is capable of producing such results is what we call "God".

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  We don't have Thallus account, we have the equivalent of a guy said this about a guy about another guy. That we have absolutely no record of.

True, but at the same time I refuse to believe that Julius Africanus was just making shit up. I believe that Thallus' account as Julius mentioned is genuine, but it has been lost over time just like hundreds if not thousands of other accounts of antiquity have been lost.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Except my viewpoint is based on what evidence we do have, yours is totally based on faith.

The evidence that you have isn't sufficient evidence based on what I am asking you to provide evidence of and for.

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  I can't wait for the day when we create life, when we do I wonder how you will explain your way out of that one. Oh and we are getting rather close to that dream
http://www.livescience.com/1659-engineer...teria.html

Good luck. I doubt it. Even if you do get life from non-life, (which I don't believe you have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting), but even if you were able to pull that one off, you would STILL have to explain how to get that life to the point where it is thinking (consciousness), which is a a different set of problems for the naturalist.

That is like being deep in a forest and running from Leatherface (Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and you are successfully out-running him...and as you are running, you are approaching a road, and Leatherface is about 50 yards behind you...so it is safe to say you will get away from him...however, you continue running full speed ahead to cross the road and once you get to the middle of the road.......BAM, you are hit by a mac truck going 70 miles per hour.

Yeah, you escaped one problem, but now you have a whole nother' set of problems Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

(14-08-2015 02:11 PM)Worom Wrote:  Wait are you trying to go crocoduck on me?

Here is a fossil of a transitional form
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html

The good ole archaeopteryx, huh? So because we have a fossil of a prehistoric bird that had teeth, we immediately draw the conclusion that it is the transitional fossil of a reptile to a bird?? Consider

Man oh man. I once thought only religious folks had faith...but now I think the naturalist has us beat by a landslide.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: