Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Naming three or four geologists that support the YEC Creationist view in opposition to ALL the remaining thousands of geologists which reject this foolishness does not present a convincing case on your part.

    The actual short list is; Dr. Emil Silvestu, Dr Tasman Bruce Walker, Dr. Steven A. Austin and Dr. Kurt Patrick Wise.

    John D. Morris, Ph.D. a geological engineer and son of the founder Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research who was an ardent supporter of YEC Creationism now rejects it.
    See: http://rethinkingao.com/?p=91
    Shuny, look at your link again. The article was published on April Fool's Day. The last link in the article (purporting to give more information) links to the Wikipedia explanation of April Fool's Day.

    This was an April Fool's Day joke. Which you fell for.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      Shuny, look at your link again. The article was published on April Fool's Day. The last link in the article (purporting to give more information) links to the Wikipedia explanation of April Fool's Day.

      This was an April Fool's Day joke. Which you fell for.
      Ok! But I am optimistic that the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind to reality will awaken the think again.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
        Beyond the scientific issues, I see YEC as intensely theologically problematic.
        Nice to know you have another religion than St Pius X ...
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
          Shuny, look at your link again. The article was published on April Fool's Day. The last link in the article (purporting to give more information) links to the Wikipedia explanation of April Fool's Day.
          Nevertheless this does not invalidate the point that the so-called "educated geologists like Tas Walker and Emil Silvestru" referenced by hansgeorg are YEC's who believe (contrary to the vast majority of geologists), that the geological evidence supports the Great Flood and associated mythology. It doesn't.

          This was an April Fool's Day joke. Which you fell for.
          It's easy to understand how Creationism could be confused with an April Fool's Day joke. It's the ultimate POE.
          Last edited by Tassman; 01-04-2017, 04:16 AM.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Your only explanation of the supposed Miracle of Fatima is that the sun was interfered with by “angel of the sun”. This is an unacceptable explanation of a supposed historical event at every level.
            Only for those to whom it is unacceptable as cosmology (old sense of the word, description of how cosmos works).

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            There is no “historically reliable status” re miracles.
            Only for prejudiced Humeans.

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            You jest! This is readily explained in that they are all Creationists with an agenda. The vast majority of geologists do not consider that the Flood and associated mythology are literal facts.
            Even with a Creationist agenda, they also have to have arguments of a scientific nature.

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            There were numerous reputable historians available at the time of Jesus, not one mentions him or the dramatic events surrounding his life and death.
            such as?

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            What we have in ‘Acts’ as per the gospels (and apocryphal gospels) are lots of sources promoting the faith, which were completed several decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses and, unlike Tacitus and Suetonius, their goal is the historical propagandising of their faith.

            There is also evidence that the gospels and Acts were heavily edited over the decades to better reflect the emerging doctrines of the proto-orthodox Church. This is also evident in the selection of gospels comprising the canon of scripture.
            Tacitus and Suetonius were born too late to be strictly contemporary historians. Tacitus was probably eight years old when Sts Peter and Paul were executed in Rome - or just outside, St Paul beheaded at San Paolo fuori le Mure and St Peter beheaded at St Peter's basilica. And Suetonius was born the year after that.

            There WERE contemporary historians of Roman culture, and they are lost, except for fragments in Tacitus and Suetonius.

            Also, Tacitus and Suetonius also had their agendas, it is not as if they were historians with scrupulous objectivity.

            Dio Cassius was even later.

            The so called "heavy editing" would normally be identified as a Church or community clinging to its resources rather than accepting the narratives of rival Gnostic sects.

            In other words, the Gospel of St Matthew, though used by Ebionites (or rather misused, that is why St John was asked to write the fourth Gospel), was never circulating among Gnostics.

            Inversely, the Gospel of St Thomas was never circulating among Catholics, except as a curiosity in poison closets.

            Neither of the groups originally had a much broader canon, as you seem to imply, and then narrowed it down by intense editing.

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            We have the original Jewish Church under James based upon personal knowledge of his sibling Jesus, as opposed to the Gentile Church of Paul, based upon his vision of the “Heavenly Jesus”, which is demonstrably at variance with the Jerusalem Church. At best there was uneasy compromise between the two.
            You have no evidence whatsoever they started out as two separate Churches.

            We have later evidence of Ebionites being, very briefly, a separate Church. And it went down very quickly.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Nevertheless this does not invalidate the point that the so-called "educated geologists like Tas Walker and Emil Silvestru" referenced by hansgeorg are YEC's who believe (contrary to the vast majority of geologists), that the geological evidence supports the Great Flood and associated mythology. It doesn't.
              agreed.

              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              It's easy to understand how Creationism could be confused with an April Fool's Day joke. It's the ultimate POE.
              And it's easy to see how someone can fall for an April Fool's Day joke which suggests something that he would like to believe. But sometimes it is wise to take an extra minute or so to verify that a story is actually true, even if the story comes from the internet, where everything is supposed to be 100% accurate.
              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                agreed.


                And it's easy to see how someone can fall for an April Fool's Day joke which suggests something that he would like to believe. But sometimes it is wise to take an extra minute or so to verify that a story is actually true, even if the story comes from the internet, where everything is supposed to be 100% accurate.
                I believe it is overly naive to expect 100% accuracy in most source. I, of course, do not mind at being corrected in an error like this.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post

                  And it's easy to see how someone can fall for an April Fool's Day joke which suggests something that he would like to believe. But sometimes it is wise to take an extra minute or so to verify that a story is actually true, even if the story comes from the internet, where everything is supposed to be 100% accurate.
                  True of course! But 'confirmation bias can be found in all disciplines and it's obviously more likely when, as in this instance, it reinforces the conclusions arrived at by the vast majority of specialists in the field.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    agreed.


                    And it's easy to see how someone can fall for an April Fool's Day joke which suggests something that he would like to believe. But sometimes it is wise to take an extra minute or so to verify that a story is actually true, even if the story comes from the internet, where everything is supposed to be 100% accurate.
                    To add I believe the biggest April Fool's jpke of all time is the those 'few' scientists who dishonestly propose a YEC Creationist view of the origin of our physical existence, followed close by the belief that the origin of our physical existence follows the belief of OEC Creationism. and then you can see the Great Wall from the moon and then the water goes down the toilet in reverse in the southern hemisphere.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      Only for those to whom it is unacceptable as cosmology (old sense of the word, description of how cosmos works).
                      It is unacceptable to the vast majority of cosmologists that an “angel of the sun” brought about the Miracle of Fatima.

                      Only for prejudiced Humeans.
                      Hume’s dictum re miracles can be easily rebutted by producing substantive, verified evidence of miracles.

                      Even with a Creationist agenda, they also have to have arguments of a scientific nature.
                      They are arguments grounded in Creationist presuppositions and the “evidence” is not accepted by the vast majority of geologists.

                      such as?
                      Philo of Alexandria for one. He had a special interest in Judean and Hellenistic religious history and was an exact contemporary of Jesus with important family connections in Jerusalem. And yet we get nothing from Philo re Jesus or the alleged dramatic events surrounding Jesus' life and death.

                      You have no evidence whatsoever they started out as two separate Churches.
                      We have good evidence of the Jerusalem Church based upon the actual teaching of Jesus with a Jewish-based agenda. And by contrast we have evidence of the mission to the Gentiles by Paul, self-appointed apostle, based solely upon his alleged vision of the ‘Heavenly Jesus’ and the "gospel which came from no man”. At best there was uneasy compromise between the two Christian churches.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                      14 responses
                      42 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post tabibito  
                      Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                      21 responses
                      129 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                      Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                      78 responses
                      411 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post tabibito  
                      Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                      45 responses
                      303 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                      Working...
                      X