Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the N.T. the man born blind was healed by Jesus. The priests asked the man who healed him. He said Jesus healed him. Even though the former blind man could not prove Jesus healed him to the priests could not be easily dismissed without proof.
Putting aside whether that story is to be given any credence, The claim to have been born blind and healed by Jesus is not evidence of anything.
Even if they saw it done themselves, how could they be sure the whole thing was not a set up? I can tell you that, many of the salient miracles - the healing at a distance, the daughter of Jairus, Blind bar - Timaeus, Lazarus and indeed the resurrection, all have strong signs of being faked display healings.
No, the only way that such miracle -claims can be validated is if they clearly and repeatedly work under controlled conditions. And then we say 'That seems to be actual data. Let's not see why it works. Even Then, you see, miracle healing is just too much of an assumption.
You may shrug off this view, but that, mate, is Science. If you prefer to use anecdotal claims of miracles or answered prayers that cannot be checked, verified or repeated under controlled conditions, then your science is not even the 'bad science' of ID; it is non -science.
Quoting weird old myths as decent evidence of anything is notable non -science and dismissal of forensic evidence of the kind used in court cases every day as 'opinion', 'cartoons' a 'few bones' is also not even good enough to be 'bad science'. It is closing the eyes to science altogether.
You can do that, of course. It's your life and your brain. But don't have the brass neck to talk about 'bad science' to us.
Hmm ... that's a good question. But I'm sure they have some orifice they can pick.
Yeah I think you and I are basically on the same page when it comes to our opinions on religion. I don't really see anything in your post that I would disagree with.
Grandstander was asking me to PROVE my assertions. Turn-about is fair play.
No, actually, it is not fair play. In fact, it is wholly fallacious. You are the one making the initial claim (God created Adam fully formed) therefore it is up to you to prove it.
You can't make a bare assertion and then tell the doubters to go disprove it. NO! It doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Your pontificating does absolutely nothing to help him out. He still has no leg to stand on as well as you. Either you and grandstander prove God didn't create Adam and Eve in a day, whole, mature humans then all you two are doing is pounding air.
Prove that the Egyptian god Ptah didn't create all life simply by speaking its various names with his tongue.
There are thousands of creation myths. You have to prove YOURS is the correct one. Otherwise you're just barking at the moon, one howl among many that is neither louder or stronger than any other.
For that reason, I don't have to disprove your myth, you have to prove yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
We aren't talking about mythological figures such as Santa, fairies purple rabbits etc.
Actually, we are talking about mythological figures - because, to me, the fully formed Adam of Genesis is as mythological as Perseus, Hercules, the Kraken, and Pegasus. Sorry, but you don't get to use the "special pleading" argument here. Once more, if you claim that YOUR myth is true, then you have to prove it. Otherwise I can just as easily claim that Cerberus, Charon, and Persephone are real. Can you prove that theyr'e not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Try to keep focused here. We are talking about a real human being named Adam who is in the genealogies in the Bible, who was created in a day.
Well I'm talking about a real three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hades, beyond which a beleaguered Persephone lives with the God of the Underworld who shares the same name as his realm - Hades. I'm talking about the skeletal boatman who requests silver to silenty ferry you across the river Styx to the entrance to Hades.
Yeah, it's all real, it's all historical fact. And YOU have to disprove it. Scientifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If you can't prove, and by "prove" I mean actually PROVE Adam evolved or didn't exist at all, then you have no leg to stand on but are just yelling in the wind.
Sure, and if you can't prove, and by "prove" I mean actually PROVE that Persophone was never taken to Hades in a golden chariot sent by the god Hades, then guess what you're doing. Yep, you're yelling in the wind.
Hmm ... that's a good question. But I'm sure they have some orifice they can pick.
It is assuredly best not to Go There.
Quote:
Yeah I think you and I are basically on the same page when it comes to our opinions on religion. I don't really see anything in your post that I would disagree with.
You are giving me too easy a time by far.
Good posts all, even Eusebius, because without the really basic Faith - claim, shorn of all the specious dressing up 'The Bible says this - why should I not accept it as true?' We couldn't really give the low down and dirty answer - the evidence seems to discredit it. The internal story doesn't seem to hold water. It requires re- writing to make it look even half -way credible.
In view of the much better story that science tells, with a huge amount of supportive evidence, then the burden of proof has, even for me, been shifted:
"Why on earth should I accept the Bible account as true?"
As Shirina points out, there are many other creation myths. Dismissing them as nonsense -made up stories - is special pleading. The Bible appears to be a book of reliable history, because that's the sort of book it is - it is not about the doings of a mythical being, but about what the Mythical being did for his own tribe of people. The new Testament looks even more 'Historical' being written by people with a tradition of writing histories.
But examination shows that it has no more claim to reliability than the Bhagavad Gita, the Enuma Elish or the greek myths. People do or did believe them to be true and if they are obsolete, well, ask Eusebius:
"If nobody else believed in God, would you cease to believe in Him too?"
I would risk a large stake on the reply being:
"Of course not. God exists even if everyone stops believing in Him."
So, while familiarity and book - sales and bums on seats seems to give the Bible claim some kind of veracity, in fact in logical and evidential terms, it gives it none, and the question remains:
'If it is so much at variance with what verified data we have, why should we believe this Adam -Eve - Eden stuff, or indeed any of the other stories?'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-27-2013 at 11:42 AM..
The historic record as found in Genesis is good enough.
No ... it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It is more proof that God created Adam the way He did than the non proof of evolution. Just because YOU say it is without a credible foundation actually proves nothing. If you said the moon was made of cheese does not prove it is. Get it?
Yes, I get it. You get to make bare assertions and we're supposed to believe you on the basis of some ancient Bronze Age book of mythology. But if we bring to the table entire libraries filled with evidence for evolution, all of the scientists in the world are wrong because you said, "Nuh uh" to evolution.
I get it quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It is impossible for science to disprove the creation account in Genesis.
I know I'm wasting my time right now, but you're still missing the point. Completely. Science cannot disprove any of the Greek myths, either, so why aren't you at the Parthenon right now giving tribute to Athena? Seriously, you just don't get it - or don't want to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No scientist can go back in time
Oh, but Christians can, I take it? Can I have a ride in the Delorean? Just keep the flux capacitor charged with Mr. Fusion, k? Wouldn't want you stuck in time in the Bronze Age hunting down Adam or Jesus or whomever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
go to the spot God formed Adam out of the soil of the earth and say it was impossible scientifically for God to create Adam the way the Bible says.
Ad Nauseum fallacy. Next ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Evolution, based on cartoon characters and fuzzy so-called science, is being discarded at an alarming rate by really educated scientists. They question the cartoon characters and the non-scientific approach to evolution and the bogus claims.
LOL! Wow, the Christian apologists really got a hold of you, didn't they. My advice is to go have a banana and think about how it was specifically created by God to be eaten by humans. If you can muse about this in an Australian accent, it really helps with the effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
All you have are cartoons and a bone here and there with no actual links proving, actually PROVING we evolved from primates. I kind of feel sorry for you that, with all your education, you are influenced by cartoons and very very bad "science."
Yeah, sure ... uh huh. Because Christians have so much more than that, right? Let's see, a primitive book and a lot of faith. Yeah, I don't see any real evidence - I don't see the original pile of dirt or, hey, didn't God station a cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the path back to Eden?
Yes, he did!
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
So ... WHERE IS IT? That should be easy enough to find, don't you think? Surely if the story of Adam and Eve is true, you should be able to find the cherubim and flaming sword still there performing their divine duties. Right? Why don't you run along and find those guardians and get back to us with your results. We'll wait.
My king just knocked your king off the board. Sorry about that. :-)
Why did you say I was unable to insert Adam into the timeline? I just did. I said Adam goes in with the first character to the left, the first chimp. Can't you read?
So the Smithsonian Institute has a cartoon. I bet they also have all the Bugs Bunny cartoons too. Does that prove Bugs Bunny was a real bunny that could do that which the cartoons depict? But . . . but . . . Bugs Bunny is in the Smithsonian!
Game over. I win.
A perfect example of playing chess with a pigeon, who knocks over all the pieces, poops on the board and struts around claiming victory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
