Loch Ness Monster and Evolution\Resurrection

CalvinsBulldog · Post by **CalvinsBulldog** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:09 pm

FIRST QUESTION:
People have written a lot about the LNM. People have written a lot about evolution.
People BELIEVE the LNM is real. People also BELIEVE that evolution is real.

The evidence for the LNM comes from people who saw it.
The evidence for evolution comes from people who didn't see it.

The evidence for the LNM comes from old writings, living eyewitnesses, photographs, modern writings, sonar searches, and comparisons to fossils of similar beings.

The evidence for evolution only comes from modern writings by propagandists and their interpretation of incomplete fossils. In fact, there is no evidence for evolution except the evidence that comes from propagandists, paid researchers who "find evidence", the already convinced, and promoters who write propaganda about their favourite unseen theory of macroevolution.

But is there more evidence for the LNM than there is for evolution (specifically: the alleged macroevolution of human beings from cellular life and alleged ancestors)?

SECOND QUESTION: As part of the debate, compare the historical evidence for the Resurrection (NOT archeological or paleontological) with the historical evidence for evolution (not archeological or paleontological). Is the historical evidence for the resurrection better than for evolution?

(Many thanks to SallyF et al for this debating idea and for the wording.)

SallyF · Post by **SallyF** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:08 pm

Just a morsel of what you are after.

However, here are 17,500 scholarly articles you could possibly take to Bible class:

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q ... i=scholart

As far as Nessie goes â€¦

My answer to your first question is: NO

SallyF · Post by **SallyF** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:18 pm

SECOND QUESTION: As part of the debate, compare the historical evidence for the Resurrection (NOT archeological or paleontological) with the historical evidence for evolution (not archeological or paleontological). Is the historical evidence for the resurrection better than for evolution?

Before we can POSSIBLY proceed with the second question, you will need to CLEARLY define what you mean by "historical"

Which I shall quibble over and length and divert you along tangential paths.

THEN you will need to CLEARLY define just what it is YOU mean by "evidence".

Which I shall ALSO quibble over, and then take offence and huff and blow about your biographical background and prejudices and such.

And I won't EVER give you a direct, simple honest answer to your question.

CalvinsBulldog · Post by **CalvinsBulldog** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:22 pm

[Replying to post 2 by SallyF]

Just a morsel of what you are after.

So a diagram from propagandists is evidence now? What a pathetic effort. I can provide diagrams\maps\pictures of the LNM too. You give a diagram as if it is meant to prove something? Anyone can make a diagram. Propagandists frequently do. It's not even remotely on the same level as the direct eyewitness accounts of the LNM.

However, here are 17,500 scholarly articles you could possibly take to Bible class:

More propaganda from propagandists. I want more evidence than just the ramblings of some promoter of propaganda who are already convinced. You haven't come close to meeting the challenge. I'm looking for MORE evidence than just propaganda.

BTW: The resurrection is one of the most written-about events in history. Using the same Google scholar link I found 109,000 scholarly articles. Beats your count by more than 500%. The Resurrection is better attested in history than evolution. Wow!

Or maybe we can't just use the number of Google search results as evidence. Maybe we need to drag out eyeballs over text and do more than teeny-bopper analysis. Say goodbye to article counts as evidence. Bye-bye article counts.

As far as Nessie goes â€¦

The Loch Ness Monster has way more historical evidence than evolution. Just look at the Wikipedia article. At least 11 people have seen it directly. Evolution has squat eyewitnesses. Where's the eyewitnesses dude?

You've offered me a diagram based on what? Propagandists who never saw anything they describe. You've got to do better than this to make your case.

SallyF · Post by **SallyF** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:29 pm

[Replying to post 4 by CalvinsBulldog]

Where's the eyewitnesses dude?

So I'm a "dude" â€¦!

Perhaps you could also take an elementary biology book to bible class too â€¦ dude

CalvinsBulldog · Post by **CalvinsBulldog** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:32 pm

[Replying to post 3 by SallyF]

Before we can POSSIBLY proceed with the second question, you will need to CLEARLY define what you mean by "historical"

No problem. I'm happy to give definitions because 1.) I know how debates work, 2.) I'm intellectually honest and realise it's a reasonable request, and 3.) I have a clear idea of what I mean when I use words. Not at all difficult, mate!

By historical I mean something that has happened in time and exists in human records by people who were either present, saw it, or heard about it. A historical event must be supported by weighing the evidence (e.g. letters, legal documents, diary entries, coronation oaths of kings etc) with a standard historical methods that looks at context, interactions with contemporaneous events, and so on. History should be supported by primary source documents.

Which I shall quibble over and length and divert you along tangential paths.

You can quibble, but I teach history and my definition above is very standard. There's no need for tangential paths. I've explained what you've required, now you need to stump up or get out. There is better historical evidence for evolution than for the LNM. Ready, set, go!

THEN you will need to CLEARLY define just what it is YOU mean by "evidence".

Evidence in this context means primary source documents.

See how I did that? And it was just a few words. It's called intellectual honesty and responding to a fair request for clarification. See how much better that is than just repeating one's own assertions endlessly, prevaricating around the bushes, ignoring people, and claiming they are really afraid to give their evidence? Which approach do you think is more scholarly?

Which I shall ALSO quibble over, and then take offence and huff and blow about your biographical background and prejudices and such.

If you're that fragile, go for it. I'm still waiting for you to give the evidence to my totally fair and meaningful request.

And I won't EVER give you a direct, simple honest answer to your question.

Bull. If you're trying to imply this is what I did, then you're being flatly dishonest. I told you what I was doing and why I would not proceed without clarification. It's not my fault if you can't read or understand, dude.

CalvinsBulldog · Post by **CalvinsBulldog** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:34 pm

[Replying to post 5 by SallyF]

So I'm a "dude" â€¦!
Perhaps you could also take an elementary biology book to bible class too â€¦ dude

It's funny how many atheists show up around here without a basic understanding of common idioms. Relax. "Dude" is just an informal way of addressing someone. It's a very common expression in the English speaking world.

It's not meant as a confident pronouncement of the nature of your genitals. So you can breathe easy mate.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:39 pm

.
Moderator Intervention

Addressing people as "Dude" is not acceptable in this Forum.

Rules
C&A Guidelines

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

CalvinsBulldog · Post by **CalvinsBulldog** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:45 pm

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

I've read both of your links and can't see any rule that would prohibit addressing someone using common, friendly terms. If they are, I will remove them.

SallyF · Post by **SallyF** » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:08 pm

[Replying to post 6 by CalvinsBulldog]

If leave aside your "heard about" â€¦

We have, according to your definitions of "historical" and "evidence", NO historical evidence for the so-called "Resurrection" of the universe-creating, planet-flooding, virgin-birthing, fish-multiplying, death-defeating, heaven-ascending god-man call Jesus.