Facts About Evolution
A good example of such aggressive, evangelistic cluelessness can be found in a letter written by William E. Nowers and appearing in the The Free Lance-Star (ironically entitled "Let's get the facts straight"):
Taking advantage of the popularity of dinosaurs, the series used this to push the basically atheistic belief in evolution.
Evolution may not be compatible with Nowers' religion, but that doesn't allow him to conclude that evolution is therefore connected to atheism. There is nothing about atheism which requires a person to accept evolution just as there is nothing about evolution which requires a person to be an atheist. There are plenty of theists and Christians who accept evolution without a problem.
Very few Americans, even Christians, are knowledgeable enough to recognize that Darwinian amoeba-to-man evolution is nothing more than an adult fairy tale. The unbelievable complexity of microscopic cellular structure in every species makes this impossible.
William Nowers is a strange person to be talking about other people's lack of knowledge. Nowers here seems to be relying upon the idea that cells are too complex to evolve, something he might have picked up by mis-reading the work of William Dembski.
Macro-evolution is a change to a new species with new genetic information not present in either parent. If Darwinian evolution were true, there should be millions of intermediates or missing links between all species. Scientists frequently use examples of micro-evolution to prove macro-evolution, and this fraud is masked by simply calling everything evolution.
The distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists. There are no logical or biological barriers which prevent small changes (micro-evolution) from becoming larger changes (macro-evolution). William Nowers may try to describe the broad label of evolution as a "fraud" where scientists are attempting to mislead people, but all he has really succeeded in doing is demonstrating that he doesn't understand how biological evolution is defined and described by scientists.
How many examples of macro-evolution are known to be true? Can you say "zero"? Not a single proven example of macro-evolution, one species evolving to a higher species, has existed in all of recorded history, about the past 5,000 years.
Can you say "ignorance"? There have been quite a few examples of speciation, or macro-evolution, observed in both the field and the lab. Evolution, whether micro- or macro-, is an observed fact of life. It doesn't matter how often people like William Nowers keep repeating that it doesn't happen because life isn't limited by such people's limited knowledge or imagination. Sadly, some people reading that newspaper may actually believe what Nowers wrote. I wonder if they publish similar letters preaching the nonsense of flat earth?
Read More:
Comments
I totally agree. I know people that wont even accept the knowledge of evolution. There is soo much evidence.
Even if we didn’t have a single fossil anywhere on earth, the genetic code found in every living thing is, on its own, enough evidence to establish evolution as fact. It is unfortunate that the technology to examine DNA did not exist when Darwin was alive. Fossil records allowed us to establish evolution as a very very solid theory. The field of genetics independently establishes evolution as fact with no room for any uncertainty, at all, whatsoever.
evolution sucks
evolution still sucks
There may be no distict difference between microevolution and macroevolution in your book, except the fact that there a millions examples of microevolution and zero examples of macroevolution. So your book doesn’t cook. Provide the facts on Macroevolution or shut up. Quit blaming others for your inability to prove your own theory. 180 years of shoving your theory down everyones throat and not a single bit of evidence. Microevolution is not Macroevolution. That’s the Facts.
Why do you say that?
What do you define as “macroevolution”?
You seem to be unaware of the fact that evolutionary theory is as well support as any of the other fundamental theories in science.
Well, then, what do you claim the difference is?
Honest - Informed - Creationist
Which two are you, TLewis/”jesus”?
The fossil record contains numerous examples of transitional fossils. A partial list can be found here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.
There are so many links and proofs for evolution that it would be hard knowing where to start, most totally verifiable and scientifically proven.
T Lewis/Jesus
Could you please show me a SINGLE verifiable piece of evidence in a God’s existence, and equably verifiable proof of Creationism? Just one sane person’s actual sighting would be nice.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
I am very disturbed that you would make a stereotype that all creationists are not informed or honest. I know it’s hard to believe in something bigger than you are but there are examples all around us that show this is true. Ask yourself this, do you believe there is wind? Can you see it? No. Yet you can see what it affects and how it affects it.
Feel free to point to one who isn’t either.
No, it’s not hard at all.
Wind is the movement of air molecules and particles suspended in the air. Both the molecules and the particles can be seen with the right instruments.
The effects of their movement can also be seen, effects that cannot be attributed to any other force. If you think that this is somehow analogous to a deity, you’ll have to work hard to show how.
“Feel free to point to one who isn’t either.”
Have you met all Christians? Not every one of them fits your bill of ignorant.
Wind is the movement of air molecules and particles suspended in the air. Both the molecules and the particles can be seen with the right instruments.
You may think that this sounds strange and unrealistic but with the right instruments God can be seen as well. Not in the physical sense like you would hope but in the sense of knowledge and understanding. This may be difficult to understand but I assure it’s true. Test Him. You won’t be disappointed. If you don’t understand how, let me know. I’ll help you out.
No, but you aren’t answering my question: please point out a creationist who is neither uninformed nor dishonest.
Fine, prove it.
I am very disturbed that you would make a stereotype that all creationists are not informed or honest.
Gosh, if only those pesky Creationists had not insisted on using ad hominem attacks, falsified data, quote-mined passages from Darwin, mis-stated basic scientific principles, and argued from ignorance and incredulity, you might not have this problem of the stereotypical Creationist in the first place.
Concerned.
I refer you to my previous entry #9.
After that you propose, without supplying verifiable evidence, to KNOW of the existence of a “Being”. Furthermore you OFFER to show, but don’t, the proof.
Knowledge is an acquired, verifiable, and quantifiable, experience.Your knowledge may,to you, be quantified but unless it can be verified we see that it only exists in your own imagination.
Unless you can give some sort of discernible and reliable evidence may I suggest you go back to your, superstitious, co believers. Leave the serious thinking to us.
If Concerned has an instrument or instruments to prove the existence of “God” PLEASE come forth and demonstrate! You are a great secret weapon. Theists everywhere would probably nominate you for sainthood. For crying out loud! Concerned seems to want a double standard of proof. Theists shouldn’t have to prove that their god exists in “the physical sense” but everyone else is held to a stricter concrete visible standard of proof. Until theists are willing to debate on a level playing field, the rest of us are blowing in the wind!
Theism, by definition, presumes a tilted playing field though it’s proponents think it’s played as if it were level.
An example of a creationist who is both informed and honest is Kent Hovind and you could probably find his works online as well as in stores to see for yourself.
To the statement made about my physical evidence: Fair enough. There is no “physical evidence” as I have stated before and unless you are seeking to find and see God you will never find Him. Once again I state that you CANNOT SEE Him but he is there through understanding and knowledge.
The instrument that makes God visible is the Bible.
Everyone else is not “held to a stricter concrete visible standard of proof.” How could I ask of anyone to provide concrete evidence if I myself can provide none in return.
I apologize if all of this seems jumbled. I’m answering alot of your comments.
As it has been written, “knowledge is an acquired, verifiable, and quantifiable, experience.” My knowledge is that. It is acquired as I have it, it is verifiable with others who have experienced it as well, and it is quantifiable because I know it is definite and true.
George.
I would like to ask, to what side of the playing field is it tilted. From another angle it would appear to be tilted in just the opposite direction.
I would like to leave you all with this:
If I am wrong in all my beleifs about life here on earth and life after death then what will happen to me? I’ll go into the ground and stay there. No consequence.
What then on the opposite side will happen if those who believe there is no God or heaven or hell are wrong then what is their price? Eternity in hell. My question is: are you willing to take that chance?
Concerned .
In your blissful ignorance you resort to the same old cliched sayings of the poorly educated, intensely religious, hill billies that we constantly see here. Your final sentence containing “Pascal’s Wager” has been repeated ad nauseum by the semi literate and has absolutely no credibility. Life may well be a gamble, but the odds are considerably on the side of the non believer at death. If in the extremely unlikely scenario it is not so,
then a God that takes retribution for a person exercising the free will, purportedly by God given, especially when it has never made itself manifest, is the sort of God I can do without.
The Bible’s presentation of the unknowable who seems to be known by those who should know better is one of an egotistic, wrathful, autocrat, with a tendency to viciousness and revenge plus an overwhelmingly sadistic attitude towards any one who questions. Furthermore there is a tendency towards an obsession with sexual behaviour and a superior attitude to women.
In short, using an Australian euphemism. A right bastard. A person who displayed these qualities, and tried to exercise them today would be, rightfully, institutionalised.
You may have acquired an experience but it hardly qualifies as verifiable knowledge, even if like minded and motivated people support your experiences by imaginary repeats of psychologically distorted mental aberrations. This is a common enough phenomena in mental institutions when several inmates become soul mates in seeing imaginary beings. Psychologist even use this phenomena to cure, calling it group therapy. People of like mind can easily be manipulated especially those of a simple nature.
I leave you with the questions. Why do you try to proselytise here, amongst the enlightened?
Why do you think you are so advanced in learning that you imagine we will see your light on the hill, and then be blinded by its brilliance so much so that we will start believing in what we can’t see, touch, smell, nor find verifiable evidence of existence.??
I am already familiar with Hovind. He treats the origin of life as if it were part of evolutionary theory, which means he is indeed ignorant at best.
Prove it.
Well, then, you can provide the verification.
Pascal’s Wager, about the worst apologetics argument that exists.
Why must you constantly bash on me or other Christians when you do not even know me? I have not made biased comments or statements about you. All I ask is that you hear my statements. I do not ask you to believe them, although my hope would be that you would, it is simply a tool to turn the wheel. In other words to make you think a little. Take it or leave it. No simpler than that. You’re absolutely right about what the Bible refers to. It does constantly make a reference to sexual impurity and immorality. This is to show that we all are sinful. It is not a glorification. It is there to show that we do all these things wrong but that we can still be forgiven.
“Why do you think you are so advanced in learning that you imagine we will see your light on the hill, and then be blinded by its brilliance so much so that we will start believing in what we can’t see, touch, smell, nor find verifiable evidence of existence.??”
I do not think I am advanced in my learning however I will not say that I am ignorant for that would be a falsified statement.
God is revealed to us through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who walked this earth. There is extensive historical confirmation of this fact. Even Thomas Paine, a man antagonistic to Christianity, has written, ” He [Jesus Christ] was a virtuous and amiable man. The morality that He preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucious, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.”
This is just one example.
Feel free to show where you are being “bashed”.
Feel free to provide evidence of the fact that there was a Jesus who was who/what you claim.
You invite the response of Christians when you insult the intelligence of those who oppose your beliefs. Why do you resort to name-calling and insults? If yours is the only belief which adheres strictly to intellectual standards then your intellect should be self-evident.
As to the questions of evidence, how do you explain the numerous examples in nature of animals which would not exist if natural selection were infallibly true? Consider the giraffe: a sponge in its head, its long neck, and strong heart. How did it survive until all those things had “evolved”? Do you simply dismiss gaps in the theory you defend and if so, is that the intelligent thing to do?
As to the earlier referral to insanity among those who believe in Creationism and God, I urge you to follow the lives of many who aggressively opposed belief in God throughout history. Many, by the end of their lives, had become disillusioned and frustrated; some went insane and others even committed suicide. Investigate the later writings of Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche.
The odds of the existence of God outside of your knowledge are extremely high; unless you yourself are all-knowing. I assert that it is not so much that you cannot believe but that you will not. The reasons for that are certainly individual. However, to assert that any who do not agree with you are ignorant, and that because you do not know God therefore He does not exist, that could be viewed as arrogance.
Continually, Concerned is asked to prove Creationism and the existence of God. I ask you to prove that He does not!
What are you talking about?
Feel free to identify any name-calling or insults above.
What belief are you talking about?
OK, you assert that it couldn’t exist “if natural selection were infallibly true.” Now, prove it.
And no, it’s not “proof” to say that you can’t think of how it could happen.
Feel free to point out any gaps you find relevant.
There is no earlier reference to insanity among any group.
I must honestly and sincerely question your ability to understand what you are reading.
Really? Claims about “odds” are pretty definitive and require some verifiable numbers to back them up.
The challenge has been made to supply an example of a creationists who is not either dishonest or ignorant (or both). I notice you don’t try to meet this challenge.
Actually, what’s arrogant to is presume to tell me what I believe — for example, that “because I do not know God therefore God doesn’t exist.”
In the future, consider the value of asking what people think before pretending to know what they think.
This may come as a surprise to you, but no one is obliged to disprove random, baseless claims which strangers on the internet choose to assert. When you make an assertion, you assume an intellectual and ethical obligation to support it; I don’t assume any corresponding obligation to disprove it merely because I stumbled across it while online.
“Feel free to show where you are being “bashed”.”
Here it is:
From Tom Edgar,
“In your blissful ignorance you resort to the same old cliched sayings of the poorly educated, intensely religious, hill billies that we constantly see here.”
“,even if like minded and motivated people support your experiences by imaginary repeats of psychologically distorted mental aberrations.”
“Unless you can give some sort of discernible and reliable evidence may I suggest you go back to your, superstitious, co believers. Leave the serious thinking to us.”
From MrMarkAZ,
“Gosh, if only those pesky Creationists…and argued from ignorance and incredulity,”
And from Austin Cline himself,
“A good example of such aggressive, evangelistic cluelessness…”
“The distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists.”
_____________________________________________
“Feel free to provide evidence of the fact that there was a Jesus who was who/what you claim.”
First off I would like to ask if you doubt the existence of Jesus or if you are doubting who He was? In any case however I shall oblige both questions.
According to Habermas, ” Cornelius Taticus (c.A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the ‘greatest historian’ of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral ‘integrity and essential goodness’.” (Habermas, VHCELJ, 87)
Taticus’s own writing of the reign of Nero points to Christ’s death and the existence of Christians in Rome. Says Taticus:
“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflaguration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
This quote cannot be disclaimed. It is written historical fact. That covers the existence of Jesus. I would have written more on the existence but thought I was taking up too much space as it is.
Josephus, a Jewish historian writing at the end of the first century A.D. has this fascinating passage in “Antiquities”, 18.3.3:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved him from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And even now, the race of Christians, so named from him, has not died out. (Josephus, AJ, 18.3.3)
Again more sightings and writings could be given if you would like. They might take up alot of space though.
Did you write this? Is the text in question really not aggressive, evangelistic, or clueless?
This is actually true and a good way to tell when a creationist is ignorant or dishonest.
I’m still waiting for you to show where I have bashed you.
Both.
The existence of Christians in Rome fails to support either claim.
I’m sure you can prove that the text is not an interpolation, as believed by many to most scholars?
Irrelevant (Tacitus) and false (Josephus) writings would take up a lot of space. Relevant and genuine ones, though, would not.
Tom Edgar Must respond.
If I respond to someone, who makes assertions and refuses to back those with factual, verifiable proofs, I fail to see that as “Bashing” Being an octogenarian I am not exactly as well equipped as heretofore to indulge in a biff and bash.
If I am forthright in my observations and judgmental on a persons character that I can only evaluate from the writings presented, then I do not see that it is I who has made the wrong impression.
That your submissions lead me to the conclusions that you come from, to my mind, the same intellectual and religious backwoods mentality of a Tennessee Hill Billy, is hardly my fault, when you persistently follow the same terminology, lack of comprehension and unwillingness to not only back up your assertions but when you state you can show “PROOFS” you either won’t or, more likely can’t.
I fail to see my interpretation of religious experiences and visions as being nothing but
psychologically distorted imaginary aberrations is bashing. It is a statement of fact.
Schizophrenia is described in some medical books as distortions of mind patterns, and illusions,quite often of a religious nature.
Not my words but a recognised medical condition. When occasioned with the religious nature this is invariably because of many years of “Brainwashing.” This conditioning is not unique to Christianity.
All religions have varying degrees of indoctrination, sometimes fatally, leading to the extremism we experience , not only today, but throughout history.
You were not BASHED. Just confronted with thoughts for which you have no answer and your vulnerability, because you have no way of proving your assertions, makes you feel defeated. Bashed? No sir. Beaten probably.
To Austin Cline or whoever it may concern:
“Did you write this? Is the text in question really not aggressive, evangelistic, or clueless?”
No sir you wrote this. You may consider checking what you write as it appears your memory fails on this statement.
“This is actually true and a good way to tell when a creationist is ignorant or dishonest.”
In your opinion. Since you have questioned my logic on a “quantifiable and actual” scale I would like to ask if you can show me if there is some “instrument” as you have written in earlier texts with which to measure a persons character and integrity?
“I’m still waiting for you to show where I have bashed you.”
I am willing to say that maybe this was a misunderstanding between you and I. I cannot judge what you meant in your writings and if you say they were not meant to be offensive then I believe you. For one Tom Edgar I am not willing to say the same as he has not shown that it was not meant to offensive but rather that it was quite intentful in the things that he wrote.
“The existence of Christians in Rome fails to support either claim.”
If you remember back to the rest of the writing it does just state that there were Christians but that there was a man named “Christus” or Christ, that they followed and that he was sentenced to be crucified by Pontius Pilate.
“I’m sure you can prove that the text is not an interpolation, as believed by many to most scholars?”
Fair enough. You’re right that Josephus’s text is not fully backed by all historians. I will write you some different, more “fully backed” texts if you would like.
“Irrelevant (Tacitus) and false (Josephus) writings would take up a lot of space. Relevant and genuine ones, though, would not.”
Don’t worry about the relevance for I have now shown that to you. The “false” writings are not so much false as they are not proven; conversely they are neither disproven. I, however, will not refer to that text any longer because of this matter.
To Tom Edgar and whoever it may concern:
“If I respond to someone, who makes assertions and refuses to back those with factual, verifiable proofs,”
I refer to comment #25 in which I haved backed up historically, as you should appreciate, the existence of Christ.
“Being an octogenarian I am not exactly as well equipped as heretofore to indulge in a biff and bash.”
Given the number of years that you have existed perhaps the issue of mortality is more relevant to you coming to the end of life.
“when you persistently follow the same terminology, lack of comprehension and unwillingness to not only back up your assertions but when you state you can show “PROOFS” you either won’t or, more likely can’t.”
I ask of you sir to show me where I have used the same terminology. In your statement of “lack of comprehension” you doubt my itelligence as if seeming to say that your many years somehow makes you more intelligent and that somehow I fail to meet your qualifications of intuition. I give you respect for years and I do not take that away from you.
“I fail to see my interpretation of religious experiences and visions as being nothing but
psychologically distorted imaginary aberrations is bashing. It is a statement of fact.”
No sir. It is a statement of opinion. The medical condition of schizophrenia is a definition of fact; not your statement of religious experiences.
“You were not BASHED. Just confronted with thoughts for which you have no answer and your vulnerability, because you have no way of proving your assertions, makes you feel defeated. Bashed? No sir. Beaten probably.”
Do I need to perhaps use a lighter term for the word “bashed” as you seem to have a problem with descriptive picture? I will then, for the sake of political correctness, use the words “uncourteously criticized without cause”. In the definition of defeat you attempt to allude that I have in some way been in a contest which would require someone to “win” and someone to “lose”. I was unaware that I entered into some sort of competition. If it were however a contest of the use of derrogative terms then yes I claim you the winner.
I was referring to the original text that I was commenting on. You were supposed to be providing examples of where I had bashed you. Or did your memory fail you on that?
Since it’s a fact the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists, it is also a fact that it’s a good way to tell when a creationist is ignorant or dishonest.
This isn’t a statement of opinion here. People who misuse scientific terms when attacking science cannot be described in any other way but ignorant or dishonest.
I haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
“The existence of Christians in Rome fails to support either claim.”
Tacitus is simply referring to what Christians say about themselves and we know that based on two facts.
First, he describes Pilate as “procurator” when Pilate was actually prefect. Had Tacitus been using Roman records (assuming there were any (which is unlikely as the incident wouldn’t have merited them), he’d have gotten that correct.
Second, the word “Christus” would be the Jewish title Messiah. It’s not Jesus’ last name. Romans obviously didn’t acknowledge any Messiah nor did the Hebrews. There is only one group who would use that title: Christians.
So Tacitus is not an independent source of information that any such person actually lived. He either grabbed a Christian to find out what they were about or asked some official who in turn got his information from a Christian at some point.
Do you understand what an independent source of information is? An independent source of information is one which does not rely on the sources that are already given and/or in dispute.
Those are the only sort you ever should have offered. There’s no sense in offering weak or false evidence if you have something better. Why hold it back?
“Since it’s a fact the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists, it is also a fact that it’s a good way to tell when a creationist is ignorant or dishonest.”
If “the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists” were fact then yes it would be a good way to sort out people who don’t know what they’re talking about. But what proof do you even have that it is a fact? You have given me nothing but your own words that this is so. Futhermore,if there is no distinction then why are they two seperate words? Do you know that “macro” means big and “micro” means small? It is plainly stated in the essence of their definitions that they are two seperate and opposite ideals.
“I would like to ask if you can show me if there is some “instrument” as you have written in earlier texts with which to measure a persons character and integrity?”
Are you copying this back to me? The point was to you that there is no such instrument and yet you talk about a person’s character and intelligence as if it can be plainly seen. You are saying, by what you are writing, that there is some measurable way to tell if one is ignorant or dishonest which in fact is almost impossible to do unless you are all-knowing.
“Tacitus is simply referring to what Christians say about themselves and we know that based on two facts.”
I am glad you had a chat with him and know this for yourself.
“First, he describes Pilate as “procurator” when Pilate was actually prefect.”
A procurator can fall under the category of a prefect because a prefect has varying ranks.
“Second, the word “Christus” would be the Jewish title Messiah. It’s not Jesus’ last name.”
No one said it was His last name. You should know that they didn’t have last names. They were called by the names of their cities such as “Jesus of Nazareth”.
You’re going to have to try harder than just varying words and last names to disprove what was written in history.
Simple: reading biology texts where this distinction has little importance.
Would you like the titles of some biology texts to start reading?
Of course, if you are unfamiliar with how these terms are actually used in science and scientific texts, won’t you be admitting ignorance?
You did notice my use of the word “primarily,” right? For scientists, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is simply a difference of degrees.
Perhaps you missed where I said that I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.
Sometimes it can. For example, some people don’t know the difference between “ignorance” and “intelligence.” When you notice that, you’re seeing something very plain and important about them.
No, you just have to see if they demonstrate a lack of knowledge of relevant matters (ignorance) or pretend to be ignorant of things that have been shown (dishonesty). A person who acts like the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is more significant than a difference of degree is either ignorant of the basic science or is being dishonest about science.
I explained why it’s not possible for him to have gotten the information from Roman records. That’s assuming that records would even exist, given how minor the matter would have been and how many fires Rome had suffered, burning so much of what they had stored away.
Procurators didn’t have control over the region in Pilate’s time, only in Tacitus’ time. Pilate’s correct title was prefect, not procurator. Any records of Pilate still around would have had him listed as prefect, not procurator. Tacitus used a title that would have been correct for his own time.
Thanks for focusing on an aside rather than the key point: no Roman records would have listed Jesus by such a title if they ever listed him at all. Using a title that would only have been used by Christians demonstrates Pilate didn’t use Roman records and, therefore, isn’t an independent source of information.
I notice you don’t directly address the question of whether you understand what an “independent source.” You don’t explain why you think Tacitus is an independent source. …
…but you do indirectly answer the question: no, you don’t know what an “independent source” is. If you did, and if you understood why it’s important, you’d realize that the burden is yours to show that Tacitus qualifies. In doing so, you’d have to rebut the problems I outlined.
And of course you didn’t provide the “more fully-backed texts” you claim to have. This is in fact the best apologists have and that’s why your anxious to shift the burden of proof to me while doing nothing more than saying “no it’s not” yourself, as if you had no obligation to demonstrate the validity of your own so-called “evidence.”
What’s particularly disturbing is the fact that Josephus is actually the best evidence apologists have; Tacitus is worthless and not bothered with anywhere but perhaps apologetics aimed at school students. Josesphus is what serious scholars focused on but that’s the one you stopped trying to defend.
You don’t even know your own material, much less know enough about the counter-argument to address them. You also don’t know enough basic historiography to be able to adequately deal with questions about what qualifies as genuine independent sources, why, and how to demonstrate that.
It’s possible to make an argument on behalf of the idea that it’s reasonable to believe that someone named Jesus probably existed. No more than that, but such a position is possible to defend … but you’re actually undermining that by poorly defending the worst material you have to work with. You need to step back and reorganize before you convince some reader to become an atheist.
To all of your above comments: I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you in your time of need and beyond that.
“Josesphus is what serious scholars focused on but that’s the one you stopped trying to defend.”
I did not stop trying to defend it but rather realized that it was not my strongest argument as it has not been proven valid as I thought validity was important to you.
“I notice you don’t directly address the question of whether you understand what an “independent source.”’
I did not realize that this was so relevant in your manner of thinking. Yes, to “directly answer your question”, I do understand what an independent source is. I see that you will only however accept what you believe and not even historical proof. This is why I have not bothered with examples anymore. I will instead give you the name of a book and you can do your own reading. If you are so set on disproving what I believe then you will read it. The title is “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” by Josh McDowell. Feel free to disprove whatever you like in that book. It may be harder than you think.
I never asked you if ever did end up testing God like I suggested awhile back?
“Of course, if you are unfamiliar with how these terms are actually used in science and scientific texts, won’t you be admitting ignorance?”
I am familar with these terms and their use in science.
“You don’t even know your own material, much less know enough about the counter-argument to address them. You also don’t know enough basic historiography to be able to adequately deal with questions about what qualifies as genuine independent sources, why, and how to demonstrate that.”
I know my own material and true that I know less about the counter-argument. I guess I am still learning as I am only sixteen. You have provided me with much food for thought for the next time I will defend my beliefs to someone and don’t worry I promise that I will be more prepared next time.
Thank you for this test of my own faith as speaking with you has only made it stronger.
2 Peter 2:1-3; But there were also false prophets among these people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them- bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has been long hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Matthew 5:44; But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,…
I will pray for you and don’t forget to take a look at that book.
Well well! Not only have you a lot of nerve and the arrogance of unschooled youth to venture on a site with the expressed intention of entering debate to convince people who have diametrically opposing religious views, that they are WRONG. These men, some having extensive experience,. and others with very high educational qualifications.
You further end with supreme arrogance in offering prayers and incantations along with Hill Billy Tract references and you DON”T even know, that is exactly of which I accused you.
Your interpretation of “Bashing” and the modification of “Uncourteously Criticise.”
only shows your lack of worldliness. Australians aren’t known for their devious terminology, or hiding behind words when they mean something totally different.
When we say something it is usually direct
and to the point. I often found it amusing when in the “States” I was obsequiously referred to as “Sir”. I had imagined Americans to be more egalitarian. I was wrong.
They are as class conscious as the Brits if not more so. Oh all countries have varying caste systems. Australia included except mostly Ozzies don’t really give a stuff.
You weren’t bashed just baffled.
You don’t even know you talk in religious cliches, you are so brain washed with religion from birth along with patriotism it is like breathing. I found exactly the same attitudes and terminology with Muslims and Hindus.
You then have the impertinence to insult my intelligence in offering prayers to a, nothing in particular, whilst making reference to my approaching final departure as if that was going to scare me to death.
For your information kid. Before I reached your claimed age. I had already been bombed.
Helped in digging out buried survivors, saved a young girl from drowning in the River Thames, been shot at, and was working a sixty hour week. At seventeen I had already crossed the Atlantic a few times on a Gasoline Tanker, survived storms and torpedo attacks.
On my mountain top retreat I have gone through several bushfires, one claimed the life of my young (Christian) neighbour, whilst I was trying to save the next door (atheist’s)neighbours property. I have been near death both in war and peace, in lifeboats and ashore on more than a dozen occasions. I don’t mean imagined demise I’m talking actual. No Gods were ever in my mind nor did they save me whilst killing the others
Praying never saved a living thing. This very week over a hundred of my countrymen have died in Bushfires. Odds are at least half would have been, unsuccessfully, praying. The others were cursing. Same bloody outcome.
Pull your head in kid you don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t come here to DEFEND your beliefs. DEFEND is what you would do if we came to your church. You came here to ATTACK ours.
This is an atheists site. You came, uninvited, but still welcome. Just have a little consideration and realise that when you offer to intercede, pray, offer, assistance, we are not all doddering, senile, semi educated, useless old men/women.
Now if you’ll forgive this old fellow I’ll be away, I have nine tons of block wood just arriving, and it has to be split and stacked. I do cook on a wood fired cook stove.
Takes a time, so if I could find a sixteen year old capable of swinging an axe and block splitter……… Nah!! I need the exercise.
Yes, you did stop trying to defend it — in fact it’s obvious you did because you dropped it to focus on Tacitus. Why would you fail to tell the truth on that? It’s precisely my point that you think your stronger argument is the weaker one.
And, again, that’s my point: you don’t realize how relevant it is for a source to be independent.
Why am I not surprised? That’s about the worst apologetics book out there, surpassed almost solely by McDowell’s original.
Then you know that they carry far more significance for creationists than for scientists. Therefore, you know that how they are used is a sign of a creationist being ignorant or dishonest. As I originally said.
If you did, then you’d know that Josephus is a stronger argument than Tacitus. Not only do you not know your own material, you don’t even know how little you know. You simply cannot claim to know your own material once you’ve demonstrated that you can’t differentiate between your stronger and weaker positions.
What you need to do is look to more sophisticated apologetics, like William Lane Craig, and leave behind apologetics-for-children like that written by McDowell.
That would only be possible if you first recognized just how ignorant you are of even the most basic facts.
So long as you imagine that prayer has any value, and so spend more time on that than on thinking, reasoning, and learning, you’ll never get anywhere.
As one of the commenters mentioned the bible as an instrument of truth?
god talking to the israelites?
Noah, story taken from Babalonya.
circumcisism from the Egyptians.
Yea, the bible is full of proof and truths
A bit off topic but Tom dgar mentioned the huge bushfire problems we are having down here in Australia. There was an interview on the news with a woman who’se house had been saved while all her neighbours had burnt down with some loss of life. She gushingly told the Journalist that” Jesus had put a line around her house and saved her”.
My immediate question was why didn’t he go a little bit further and save some of her neighbours?. Presumably there can’t have all been atheists?. Alternatively why the hell didn’t he stop the fire ou put it out?.
Love this loveing Christian God.
you all just should shut up and go look at the opposing sides for a second. all most of you do is assume you are right and the other side is wrong. this arguing could go on for eternity unless both sides are open to alternatives. if not, why even put your opinions up. no one is going to change there mind and neither are you. so go find some creationists and evolutionists that actually get off their lazy butts and do some research without an extreme bias
trewq.
Shutting up is what atheists have always been told to do. Theists are now running scared since the days of Huxley,Horton,and Russell, the men who were amongst the pioneers in not shutting up.
With the majority in countries such as Australia and the U K now not attending religious institutions,+ nor contributing to their wealth, these same corporate bodies are
losing both financially and numerically. So No, whilst we do not proselytise in the manner of “Believers” touting for fools. Shutting up is not something to which we are likely to be doing.
Concerned.
You want refutation of that Josh McDowell No joshing. Go to the Jeffrey Jay Lowder site where he shoots him down most emphatically in all areas. He exposes him for the charlatan he is. Complete with facts, figures and interpretations proving McDowall is very selective in which lies he will present and which facts he will ignore. Not only that McDowell was invited to debate the critique on the Infidels site and refused to do so. So bang goes your earlier invitation to debate with the man.HE won’t. Because he CAN’T.
Marty Wilson. grazie Sport.
At the risk of repeating myself and only reinforcing your observations. I went through a big one six years ago, and at the moment we are ringed by smoke, but I’m not braying to Hughie.
In that bushfire an elderly couple at the end of our road were rescued by two “Bush” workers
Close? Well the guys hair and beard were burnt. My elderly neighbours (Five kilometres down the road) were heard telling a news outlet that they owed their lives to God. Now I thought it was the non Believing Bushies, who deserved a medal, and the accolades. This all said in close proximity to my next door neighbour (2km away)
who had just lost his home, car,farm, and his much loved thirty year old wife, leaving him with three young children. Guess God looked favourably on the Russian Orthodox, but not the Ozzie Methodist. Me. Well my son and I had helped to save our atheist neighbour’s place, then settled in to do the same for ourselves. Gods, Politicians, Pastors and Priests. ALL THE ACCLAIM BUT NONE OF THE BLAME.
O.K A little rain and all will be forgiven. So send her down Hughie, on saint and sinner alike.
Microevolution and Macroevolution are CLEARLY different, and unrelated. Just because so-called “scientists” have so-called “evidence” for microevolution DOES NOT prove macroevolution.
Belief in macroevolution is a LEAP OF FAITH, that is based purely on a wish to avoid God’s judgement. But it’s the bad kind of faith, ike faith in every other religion except mine. Not the good kind, like faith in my religion.
But this isn’t the ONLY faith-based THEORY that “scientists” have devised to deceive and corrupt the INNOCENT and RIGHTEOUS. Recently, I conducted some analogous SCIENTIFIC (note: not Atheistic) experiments that will illuminate how clearly EVIL these Atheist “scientists” are.
Firstly, I went to a local wooded area and observed a sapling, supposedly of a tree. I went to observe this sapling every day for 6 weeks, and it barely grew at all. It CERTAINLY didn’t stop being a sapling and start being a tree.
And yet these so-called “scientists”, the same ones that have FAITH in macroevolution, tell us that trees come from saplings!
How ridiculous! I can easily acknowledge microgrowth, the slight alteration of one sapling to become a larger sapling, but I have never seen an instance of macrogrowth, a sapling becoming a tree.
Neither has any scientist. I imagine. I haven’t read any scientific papers, obviously, but I’m not going to let that stop me commenting.
I don’t really care about rational investigation into reality, I only care about supporting my religion. But my religion is True, and more importantly makes me FEEL better, so all’s fair.
Atheistic “scientists” just have FAITH in macrogrowth because they can’t face the obvious reality that God created saplings and trees as fundamentally different kinds through separate acts of special creation. As described in the Bible. Probably. I haven’t read it, but I can guess what’s in it.
Checkmate, Atheists!
I then studied a baby, the daughter of a friend of mine. Again, I checked her every day for 6 weeks, and while she grew slightly she never stopped being a baby, and CERTAINLY didn’t become an adult.
Again, Atheistic “scientists” clearly have to cling to the faith-based “THEORY” of human (!) macrogrowth so that they can deny the reality that God created adults and babies as fundamentally separate kinds in acts of special creation. And We humans are THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE! Which is clearly true.
Atheistic “scientists” need to deny this so they can go on being hedonists who only care about themselves and have no problem murdering anyone they see.
And, in case you’re wondering, I made sure to tell the baby repeatedly that she’d burn forever at the hands of a loving, forgiving and compassionate god if she didn’t worship Jesus in precisely the right way. She’s not really talking yet, but I’m confident she got the message.
Finally, I went to a local river valley. I observed the side of the valley every day, this time for 8 weeks. There were some windy and rainy days over that time, and while some of the sides of the valley were indeed worn away, the landscape didn’t change. The river certainly didn’t change course. Large boulders in the river stayed in the river, and stayed the same shape.
Atheistic “scientists” have evidence for microerosion, but they PROSELYTISE the FAITH-BASED “THEORY” of macroerosion to DENY the TRUTH that GOD CREATES ALL LANDSCAPE in ACTS OF SPECIAL CREATION! AND THEY PREY ON OUR CHILDREN, SPREADING THEIR LIES!
They have to promote the LIE of macroerosion or else they’d have to behave morally, which we all know you can only do with GOD, or at least, some general faith in vague godishness, if there are other theists around so I can pretend to be on the same side as them against nasty Atheists.
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS, Your macroevolutionary, macrogrowthery, macroerosionary DOGMA will NEVER damage the FAITH of GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE.
THIS IS THE ONLY FACT ABOUT EVOLUTION YOU NEED TO KNOW! GOD IS LOVE!
Mark Barrat, wow, that kinda sums up my thoughts on your gibberish. I will clearly take this as a joke since it is very incoherent and full of misconceptions that you have. Let me try to clear some things up.
“MB wrote:Belief in macroevolution is a LEAP OF FAITH, that is based purely on a wish to avoid God’s judgement. But it’s the bad kind of faith, ike faith in every other religion except mine. Not the good kind, like faith in my religion.”
First of all where is your evidence that proves your faith and your religion are good or better than others? This is arrogant of you to assume that your faith and religion are the right one. Macroevolution is widely accepted by many scientist and only dismissed by a few, mainly creationists.
“MarkB wrote: Neither has any scientist. I imagine. I haven’t read any scientific papers, obviously, but I’m not going to let that stop me commenting.”
So you will make unverified claims which you have no understanding about and unwilling to read on. Wow you have some strong “faith” there since your claims have no evidence like you god/s. Your childish experiments are very funny yet disturbing since you are a grown man. Oh please don’t stop from commenting I could always use a good laugh.
“Mark B. worte: Atheistic “scientists” just have FAITH in macrogrowth because they can’t face the obvious reality that God created saplings and trees as fundamentally different kinds through separate acts of special creation. As described in the Bible. Probably. I haven’t read it, but I can guess what’s in it.”
Wait you haven’t read the bible so you’re just assuming that it will explain or reinforce your claims? I’ve actually read the whole bible, a few times, and that was the problem it doesn’t have many answers. Most of my questions have been answered either on here, through reading, reason and logic. You might want to do some reading at least the bible that you proclaim is the “one true way.”
“MarkB wrote:I don’t really care about rational investigation into reality, I only care about supporting my religion.”
That much is very obvious.
“MarkB wrote:And, in case you’re wondering, I made sure to tell the baby repeatedly that she’d burn forever at the hands of a loving, forgiving and compassionate god if she didn’t worship Jesus in precisely the right way. She’s not really talking yet, but I’m confident she got the message.”
Really?? You put the fear of god in her? You keep suprising and disturbing me more. Is this how you propose to convert or convince anybody that this is the right way by chanting into a baby’s ear superstitious, inconsistent,ramblings? This is one of the main reasons why I dismissed your type of religion perhaps you can relate to Abraham who was tested by god to kill his son.
“MarkB wrote:They have to promote the LIE of macroerosion or else they’d have to behave morally, which we all know you can only do with GOD, or at least, some general faith in vague godishness, if there are other theists around so I can pretend to be on the same side as them against nasty Atheists.”
I highly doubt anyone will allow you to side with them considering how uninformed you are about many subject such as science, religion, atheism and more importanly your own bible.
r.l. baron
You may have answered him old chap but as the “Good Book” or should that be the “God Book.”
says. Seed sown on stony ground will not grow.
When you have such brain dead people as this it is hardly worth the time discussing the subject because no amount of proof will convert the “Believing Non Thinker.”
I loved that little bit about atheists murdering every one they see.
Just like all those Christian Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan sent my G W Bush who vows he got his orders from God. Just like all those murderers and rapists you have in jail who attend the church services every Sunday. Atheists are very thin on the ground in such institutions. Wall Street was over run with believers of one sort or another.
What a nutter.
#40 r.l.baron
You actually fisked that comment! And very well, too!
For the record, yes it was a joke. I thought the “human macrogrowth” thing would give it away. As would the admission of not having read any scientific papers or even the Bible but still being happy to comment. But I’ve seen too many theist attempts to argue to be surprised that you couldn’t be sure it wasn’t for real.
Also, the phrase “checkmate, atheists” is regularly used by Edward Current, in his excellent parody videos. Check out YouTube for them.
It was an attempt at a sarcastic response to the quotes in the original article, to show how incoherent objections to “macroevolution” actually are by comparing them to analogous scientific observations that aren’t denied by creationists but should be if they want to be consistent.
Objections to human and plant macrogrowth are obviously wrong as the changes can be observed within a human lifetime, it’s just that a 6-week period is to short to see the full extent of the changes. It’s easy to see the problem with the microevolution/macroevolution distinction that way.
However, macroerosion is exactly analogous. If somebody denies macroevolution they should deny macroerosion, but they never do for some reason, which is a point that should always be made.
Poe’s law, I’m afraid. It’s impossible to make a parody of creationists that is so insane that nobody will mistake it for the real thing.
As an exercise, you made a very good attempt at rebuttal and identified a lot of flaws clearly and concisely and it was comprehensive, but if you were responding to a real creationist you’d have fallen for the Gish Gallop tactic.
You refuted some of my insane claims but not all of them. I can just respond that you addressed SOME points, but you didn’t deny that atheists love killing people or whatever, so that must be true. I could then rest my case on the one or two minor points that you didn’t cover and pretend that you didn’t completely destroy every major point I made.
I could also pretend I made a point that I didn’t actually make at all, and declare victory because you didn’t deal with that point. You didn’t provide a completely comprehensive naturalistic account of the first 300 years of Christianity, for example. Any believers reading would think that you were comprehensively trashed.
I don’t know the best way to deal with tactics like these, as common as they are, but maybe showing them up for what they really are as I tried to do is a good thing to try. I certainly think Sam Harris did it brilliantly in the recent Edge responses to Jerry Coyne’s big science vs religion article
#41 Tom Edgar
Also a good response. Although those politicians, murderers and rapists aren’t TRUE Christians, obviously. Christianity’s all about being nice, niceness, acting nicely, being nice and niceness.
I imagine your response to mine at 41 was pure irony. Not into funny pictograms myself but presume you were extracting the fluid body wastes
Pure cast irony.
I went to the link that supposably showed evidence in the field and in the lab, and there was not a single bit of evidence there. Just a bunch of rambling about “proof” like this post here.
And why do you think that numerous instances of where speciation has been observed somehow doesn’t qualify as “evidence” that speciation occurs?
That’s a bit like saying that numerous pieces of evidence that John Smith committed a murder doesn’t qualify as “evidence” that Smith did anything — or even that a murder occurred in the first place. Yet most who goes to jail for murder does so on the basis of exactly such evidence. Is it your contention that they should all be let out? After all, weren’t they jailed on the basis of a “bunch of rambling about “proof”"?
Thanks for the pointers Mark, I was a bit concerned with the post until I say you elaboratelty refute “claims” on another post using sound logic and reasoning. Then I started laughing at your post, or intention.
I always enjoy reading your and Tom’s post and of course Austin’s.