Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[GhostWriter16]

how

He's just trying to say the Bible makes no sense. I propose we remain silent until he proves it.

 

[useless]

@ pshifter avoiding the question are you

He was making the point that there is just as little evidence to support those statements about Elvis, as there is to support Jesus' "miracles".

 

[ParadigmShifter]

how

I look like Jesus!

 

[useless]

He's just trying to say the Bible makes no sense. I propose we remain silent until he proves it.

Obviously the Bible makes complete and utter sense, with its allowance of fathers to tell sell their daughters into slavery, it's outright homophobic view and desire to see homosexuals killed and it's questionable views of women and their rules.

Oh and it's view on what the world looks like and is, makes no sense whatsoever given that the world rotates around the sun and that we are not covered in a glass dome in which stars are suspended from said dome.

 

[useless]

I look like Jesus!

Ironically, the bible isn't too kind on those who who have long hair...

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Bible: written theory lacking evidence.

Evidence against the Bible? Here, the same level of evidence presented as proof of Jesus' miracles. I give you excepts from the book of Pizzaguy.

1. Jesus was NOT born of a virgin (Pizzaguy 1:25).
2. Jesus NEVER changed water into wine (Pizzaguy 2:6-10).
3. Jesus NEVER caused the disciples to catch a large load of fish (Pizzaguy 5:4-6).
4. Jesus NEVER cast out demons (Pizzaguy 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
5. Jesus NEVER healed diseases (Pizzaguy 4:23,24; 8:3 Pizzaguy 6:17-19; 17:14).
6. Jesus NEVER healed the paralytic (Pizzaguy 2:3-12).
7. Jesus NEVER raised the dead (Pizzaguy 9:25; Pizzaguy 11:43-44).
8. Jesus NEVER restored sight to the blind (Pizzaguy 9:27-30; Pizzaguy 9:1-7).
9. Jesus NEVER cured deafness (Pizzaguy 7:32-35).
10. Jesus NEVER fed the multitude (Pizzaguy 14:15-21; 15:32-38).
11. Jesus NEVER walked on water (Pizzaguy 14:22-24).
12. Jesus NEVER calmed a storm with a command (Pizzaguy 8:22-27; Pizzaguy 4:39).
13. Jesus NEVER rose from the dead (Pizzaguy 24:39; Pizzaguy 20:27).
14. Jesus NEVER appeared to disciples after resurrection (Pizzaguy 20:19).
15. Jesus NEVER ascended into heaven (Pizzaguy 1:9).

So, if we accept the Bible's "evidence" then we will also accept my evidence with equal weight. They cancel each other out unless there's something else, something more verifiable, to back up those claims.

Honestly, why bother posting in a science and evidence thread when you don't know the very first thing about science?

Science is more than words in a book. Science can demonstrate its claims, backed up by evidence, data, peer-review, and can make predictions.

The Bible has failed to demonstrate any claims, has no evidence, contains data that is known to be false, is not subject to peer-review, and makes pretty lousy predictions. Oh, except of course predictions it says have come true, and how do we know they came true? It's written in the Bible. Nice circular logic.

 

[Samson]

Only the disciples saw this. Therefore, they fabricated the ascension.

1. It is possible that they lied, but then we are still stuck with explaining why they would lie, why they would continue in the lie, why they would preach and teach honesty and truth based upon a lie, why they would suffer persecution for a lie, and why they would die for a lie. It just doesn't make sense.

Explain the above.

There are many possibilities:

They were mistaken.
They lied (perhaps because they thought it was in the interest of christianity as an early religion if people thought this).
They did not say they saw the ascension, but later writers reported such (see above).
The assention happened.
...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Bible: written theory lacking evidence.

Evidence against the Bible? Here, the same level of evidence presented as proof of Jesus' miracles. I give you excepts from the book of Pizzaguy.




So, if we accept the Bible's "evidence" then we will also accept my evidence with equal weight. They cancel each other out unless there's something else, something more verifiable, to back up those claims.

Honestly, why bother posting in a science and evidence thread when you don't know the very first thing about science?

Science is more than words in a book. Science can demonstrate its claims, backed up by evidence, data, peer-review, and can make predictions.

The Bible has failed to demonstrate any claims, has no evidence, contains data that is known to be false, is not subject to peer-review, and makes pretty lousy predictions. Oh, except of course predictions it says have come true, and how do we know they came true? It's written in the Bible. Nice circular logic.

There are many possibilities:

They were mistaken.
They lied (perhaps because they thought it was in the interest of christianity as an early religion if people thought this).
They did not say they saw the ascension, but later writers reported such (see above).
The assention happened.
...

The first two make no sense. There's no evidence that that many people would go insane or lie even though it meant death.

The third one makes no sense because their martyrdom is an established fact.

The fourth one obviously makes sense, and that's what I hold too

 

[useless]

Even if the bible was partially correct (which it isn't), it's authority and veracity would be diminished by the fact that it was clearly written by different people, at different times with vastly opposing views on moral issues and scientific ideas (at the time of it's writing) which would render it inconsistant and filled with opposing and perhaps even hypocritical messages and views.

The Bible is surely one of the worlds greatest piece of literature, but it isn't filled with information that should be taken as true.

 

[Haseri]

The problem with the 'explanations' the 'skeptic' gives on that website is that they aren't skeptical enough. He takes the idea that these miracles actually happend without saying 'Wait, where's your proof that actually happened?'

I mean, turning water into wine and raising the dead. Those are pretty extraordinary claims. And, as a very wise man once said, those require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Seon]

The first two make no sense. There's no evidence that that many people would go insane or lie even though it meant death.

Hmm...

Oh right.

The third one makes no sense because their martyrdom is an established fact.

...how does it make no sense?

 

[El_Machinae]

Years ago, on CFC, I brought up the idea of miracles. One of the younger Christians thought that miracles were commonplace, because his church frequently had testimonials and so he was raised to believe that 'miracles happened'. Now, I mentioned that there's never been a case of an amputee growing back an arm or leg, and he thought that was wrong. A miracle like that had to have happened, you see, because miracles happen amongst the believers.

Amazingly, we've never seen an amputee grow back a limb due to prayer. There're healing conferences (I've been to a few), where hundreds of people will feel their arthritis and their headaches disappear. These conferences are full, with tens of thousands of fervent believers.

And yet, amputees never get healed.

The fact that amputees never get healed wasn't so much of a surprise. The surprise was that the Christians assumed that they regularly must get healed, because miracles commonly happen.

 

[duckstab]

And...

And...

Martyrdom proves nothing.

 

[useless]

I do not know what I would call that view El_Machinae, it's close to delusion (with all respect of course) and desperation to be "healed". It seriously disturbs me.

 

[bathsheba666]

how

Read your own comment that i was quoting and commenting upon, grasshopper.

Enlightenment is like an extended finger pointing at the moon.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do not know what I would call that view El_Machinae, it's close to delusion (with all respect of course) and desperation to be "healed". It seriously disturbs me.

Yeah, having been 'within' that view (when I was younger) and being 'outside' the view, now that I'm older ... the perspective is very different. We were frequently told of miracles: there were testimonials and there were always stories about miracles happening to missionaries.

Learning there were no provable miracles, and that all the ones I 'witnesses' were placebo or self-delusion was tough.

I don't know if I'd call it 'delusional'. It's more 'misinformed' more than anything. The kids just don't know better, and the adults don't really attempt to vet the stories for logic and reasonableness.

 

[useless]

I meant no offense, apologies however. I have never personally experienced such an up-bringing or been privy to such "miracles", but to be honest it's seems like an un-concious self-imposed ignorance of some kind, that when religion is involved enquiring minds and questions about the veracity or truthfulness of the texts are simply either shut down or not asked at all.

 

[Samson]

There are many possibilities:

They were mistaken.
They lied (perhaps because they thought it was in the interest of christianity as an early religion if people thought this).
They did not say they saw the ascension, but later writers reported such (see above).
The assention happened.

The first two make no sense. There's no evidence that that many people would go insane or lie even though it meant death.

A) Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
B) "They were mistaken" does not nessaserally mean insanity. What about a group hallusination caused by contaminated bread and clever suggestion? A lightening strike at an oportune moment? A simple disapearance later embelished to fit the story?

The third one makes no sense because their martyrdom is an established fact.

The fourth one obviously makes sense, and that's what I hold too

I think you missunderstand me. I am not saying their martodom could have been a later addition to the story, but the assention. You are not saying that their marterdom is incocevable without the assention?

Yeah, having been 'within' that view (when I was younger) and being 'outside' the view, now that I'm older ... the perspective is very different. We were frequently told of miracles: there were testimonials and there were always stories about miracles happening to missionaries.

Learning there were no provable miracles, and that all the ones I 'witnesses' were placebo or self-delusion was tough.

I don't know if I'd call it 'delusional'. It's more 'misinformed' more than anything. The kids just don't know better, and the adults don't really attempt to vet the stories for logic and reasonableness.

The thing that gets me about these movements, that claim frequent miraculous events, is what do the leaders really believe? Is it that there are scientifically provable miricals occuring? If so, why do they not get doctors and scientists in on the act, get it published in Nature and see there religeon take over the world as it is scientifically proven.

Is it that they do not happen, or happen so rarely that it would not be possible to prove to attendant scientists, but the God they preach about is real and what they are doing if good for his church? Then are they not bearing false witness and so sinning (at cutting themselves off from god)?

Or is it that they see it as a good money spinner, and believe the story they are telling no more than let us say Richard Dawkins. Unfortunatly this introduces the least logical inconsistencies do is the one I am most inclined to believe.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I propose we remain silent until he proves it.

Really? You were doing such a cracker jack job proving Creationism.

Thats the subject isn't it, so lets not stop on his behalf; persuade me damnit!

 

[useless]

It is pretty telling that despite the various threads and comments, no one has been able to provide any actual scientific evidence for Creationism that could stand up on it's own merits.