A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7754
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post #231

Post by Clownboat »

For_the_Kingdom wrote:Well, there was no drop of water to prevent Christianity from spreading from 11 devout men to now the worlds largest religion.

Again, not an argument ad populum, just a fun fact that I enjoy sharing whenever I get the chance.
I feel that this needs to be put into perspective.

The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimated 34,000 denominations in 2000, rising to an estimated 43,000 in 2012. These numbers have exploded from 1,600 in the year 1900.

It is for this reason that I personally find the claim that Christianity is the largest religion on this planet to not be all that meaningful. Your (generic) milage may vary of course.
You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible being’s wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #232

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote: "Scientific support

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[17][18][19][20][21] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution
It seems like this is a text book example of argumentum ad populum. It is fallacious reasoning, is what I am trying to say.
alexxcJRO wrote: Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
I don't see any similar features between an ostrich and a T Rex.
alexxcJRO wrote: Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Common designer.
alexxcJRO wrote: Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
Not sure how this is evidence that a reptile evolved into a bird.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
Fossils only document the existence of now-extinct past species....to determine anything beyond that is speculation.
alexxcJRO wrote: Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
What does these "small scale" observations have to do with the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird? Oh, I get it...small changes lead to big changes over time, right?
alexxcJRO wrote: In fact the circumstantial evidence for Jesus ressurection is far more weak then the circumstantial evidence which points to evolution. Yet you believe in the first but not the latter.
I am not saying anything is wrong with circumstantial evidence..I am saying that I just don't see any circumstantial evidence as it relates to macroevolution.
alexxcJRO wrote:
Off course you have. My point was to show how moronic is to say “I've never observed it in nature�.
I thought science was supposed to be based on observation? No?
alexxcJRO wrote:
God(Yahweh) creating the universe.

So, let me get this straight; no one no one living at any arbitrary point in history has EVER observed it? So no one living in the past ever saw it...no one living in the present will ever see it...and no one living in the future will ever see it. 
You don't see the con/scam in this? It is clearly a scam.

Q: See how moronic it sounds? :)
Well, the creation of the world was a one-time event in history...so if you blinked, you missed it LOL.

Evolution, on the other hand (macro)..has allegedly taken place hundreds/millions of time in the Earth's history...yet, no one has ever seen it.

Coincidence?

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Post #233

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: It seems like this is a text book example of argumentum ad populum. It is fallacious reasoning, is what I am trying to say.
I did not say the scientists who support evolution are right because they are many.
My response was to yours: "no scientific backing". ;)


For_The_Kingdom wrote: I don't see any similar features between an ostrich and a T Rex.
Fossils only document the existence of now-extinct past species....to determine anything beyond that is speculation.

Here an illustration of Archaeopteryx lithographica chasing a juvenile compsognathid (Compsognathus longipes) through Late Jurassic Germany at night.
Image

and here a bird:
Image

Here a fossil of Archaeopteryx lithographica which is currently displayed at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.
Image

"Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[2] Moreover, fossils of more than thirty species of non-avian dinosaur have been collected with preserved feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer in 2009 concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[3] Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Image

Q: What is this dear sir from the above image; a reptile, bird, mammal?

Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.

Q: What kind does it belong to, huh?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: What does these "small scale" observations have to do with the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird? Oh, I get it...small changes lead to big changes over time, right?
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames?

Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution). 


For_The_Kingdom wrote: I am not saying anything is wrong with circumstantial evidence..I am saying that I just don't see any circumstantial evidence as it relates to macroevolution.
Common designer.
Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
The difference in chromosome numbers must be explained. It was initially rather puzzling to scientists based on the common ancestry of these two species, and so this led to the hypothesis of chromosomal fusion in the lineage that led to modern humans.

Genetic evidence shows clearly that while orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos have 24 chromosome pairs, humans and our closest extinct ancestors (Neanderthals and Denisovans) have 23.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... osome-two/

So please address this process.

Q: How does intelligent design and/or creationism explain the difference in chromosome number in orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos and modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans?

The is an abundance of evidence that human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. This event did not occur in our closest ancestors, hence we have one less chromosome pair. In fact the sequence of human chromosome 2 contains the relic of an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 0-0197.pdf

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I thought science was supposed to be based on observation? No?

Dear sir humans cannot observed a process that take millions of years because humans only live few decades.

Q: How is this so difficult, huh? :) :-s


For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, the creation of the world was a one-time event in history...so if you blinked, you missed it LOL.


Yeah but your point was that "macro"-evolution it is a scam because no human has observed it in real time.

But if we followed your logic so the supposed creation of the universe by Yahweh it's a scam because was never observed in real time by any humans.

Therefore you should believe Yahweh creating the universe it's a scam too to be logically consistent.

But since you do not you are just babbling nonsense and being illogical. 8-)
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #234

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 230 by Clownboat]
I am not the poster Tiredofthenonsense, but I sure do find the alternative found in the Bible that he has studiously pointed out as convincing...
There's no point in even addressing the accusation. I know I did myself...but merely to prove a point.

There is no point in you and TotN being one and the same person. What possible reason could there be? As I noted when I addressed it, it would mean "you" would have had to have been on this site for nearly ten years, making a combined total of 11,000 odd posts and the moderators (and most especially site owner otseng) would never have caught you, even with logs of your IP addresses (something I hear most sites with user accounts keep track of).
What would be your motivation for it? None that I can think of.

No, the accusation was thrown out, simply to distract from your and TotN's arguments.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #235

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 232 by For_The_Kingdom]
It seems like this is a text book example of argumentum ad populum. It is fallacious reasoning, is what I am trying to say.
...I really can't believe what I am seeing.

So...in post 231, we have Clownboat quoting from FtK thusly...

Well, there was no drop of water to prevent Christianity from spreading from 11 devout men to now the worlds largest religion.

Again, not an argument ad populum, just a fun fact that I enjoy sharing whenever I get the chance.


In Post 232, we have FtK quoting from alex the support for evolution among scientists...and FtK's response?

It seems like this is a text book example of argumentum ad populum. It is fallacious reasoning, is what I am trying to say.

So by sheer fiat, FtK can point to Christianity being the world's largest religion and somehow not have it be argument ad populum, as if that mere fact somehow proves something...but when somebody else points to support for evolution among the majority of scientists...somehow THAT's a logical fallacy!
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #236

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote: I did not say the scientists who support evolution are right because they are many.
My response was to yours: "no scientific backing". ;)
And my point is, evolution is backed up by the scientists; rather than the science.
alexxcJRO wrote: Here an illustration of Archaeopteryx lithographica chasing a juvenile compsognathid (Compsognathus longipes) through Late Jurassic Germany at night.
Image

and here a bird:
Image

Here a fossil of Archaeopteryx lithographica which is currently displayed at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.
Image

"Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[2] Moreover, fossils of more than thirty species of non-avian dinosaur have been collected with preserved feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer in 2009 concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[3] Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Image

Q: What is this dear sir from the above image; a reptile, bird, mammal?
Archaeopteryx was apparently an ancient bird with teeth. All we should conclude is; "apparently, x million years ago, birds had teeth".

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Instead, some of us draw the conclusion of; "apparently, x million years ago, reptiles evolved in to birds".

That is the difference.
alexxcJRO wrote: Lays eggs like birds and reptiles.
So, because they both lay eggs, therefore, one evolved to/from the other. Non sequitur.
alexxcJRO wrote: Has a tail like a beaver(which is a mammel).
It has a beak just like birds.
It is otter-footed.
It has a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands. It nurses their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands.
Any similarities are only matched by just as many differences.

alexxcJRO wrote:
Q: What stops the small changes to become bigger ones when we are talking about such big time frames? Please describe the mechanism that must be in place in order for small changes(micro-evolution) to not lead up to large changes(macro-evolution). 
So basically, you are asking me this question to imply that there are no LIMITATIONS to "genetical" information. That there is just no limit as to what an organism can change to after a hundred million years?? The possibilities are endless, correct?

Well, that is your unscientific theory. My point is simple; I see no reason to conclude this, certainly not based on observation, and also not based on anything empirical.



For_The_Kingdom wrote: I am not saying anything is wrong with circumstantial evidence..I am saying that I just don't see any circumstantial evidence as it relates to macroevolution.
Common designer.
Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
The difference in chromosome numbers must be explained. It was initially rather puzzling to scientists based on the common ancestry of these two species, and so this led to the hypothesis of chromosomal fusion in the lineage that led to modern humans.

Genetic evidence shows clearly that while orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos have 24 chromosome pairs, humans and our closest extinct ancestors (Neanderthals and Denisovans) have 23.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... osome-two/

So please address this process.

Q: How does intelligent design and/or creationism explain the difference in chromosome number in orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos and modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans?

The is an abundance of evidence that human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. This event did not occur in our closest ancestors, hence we have one less chromosome pair. In fact the sequence of human chromosome 2 contains the relic of an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 0-0197.pdf

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I thought science was supposed to be based on observation? No?

Dear sir humans cannot observed a process that take millions of years because humans only live few decades.

Q: How is this so difficult, huh? :) :-s


For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, the creation of the world was a one-time event in history...so if you blinked, you missed it LOL.


Yeah but your point was that "macro"-evolution it is a scam because no human has observed it in real time.

But if we followed your logic so the supposed creation of the universe by Yahweh it's a scam because was never observed in real time by any humans.

Therefore you should believe Yahweh creating the universe it's a scam too to be logically consistent.

But since you do not you are just babbling nonsense and being illogical. 8-)[/quote]

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #237

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 228 by liamconnor]
The Logic of the argument embedded in the OP is that a small-time preacher, appreciated by a minority of disciples, could not, later, be made into a big deal by those very disicples...?

Put another way: logically it is impossible for disciples to make grandiose claims about their teacher after that teacher has passed away.

Obviously the argument is false.
Well, I suppose my argument would be false if I ever said: "...logically it is impossible for disciples to make grandiose claims about their teacher after that teacher has passed away." You've posted a textbook example of a straw-man argument. What I am arguing in the OP is that there is a conflict in the historical claims about Jesus. On one hand Jesus has been shrunk to explain away the fact that historians of his day never mentioned him. On the other hand he has been inflated to explain his inspiring the world's largest religion.

If you carefully read the OP, then you'll see that I already explained all this.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post #238

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 235 by rikuoamero]
So by sheer fiat, FtK can point to Christianity being the world's largest religion and somehow not have it be argument ad populum, as if that mere fact somehow proves something...but when somebody else points to support for evolution among the majority of scientists...somehow THAT's a logical fallacy!
But facts and logical consistency are totally beside the point. What really matters is to get to heaven by hook or by crook.

Post Reply