Sep 112006
 

I guess that just about sums it up for Darwinian evolution.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rahoggid
14 years ago

I assume this is a little comedy with a significant meaning. Let me add to the significant meaning.

There are people in the world, a relatively small number, that are immune to Aids due to a mutant gene. I would say that in terms of those people and Aids, “That which does not kill them, makes the human race stronger”.

Of course, unless you consider that God stepped in to save these people for some, yet unknown purpose. Oh, yes, sorry – I just remembered, the time when miracles were widely accepted has long since past, and now, thank goodness we have science.

teleologist
14 years ago

There are people in the world, a relatively small number, that are immune to Aids due to a mutant gene. I would say that in terms of those people and Aids, “That which does not kill them, makes the human race stronger”

Hi rahoggid, just so you know. What you are claiming is not science. You know that right? You are making a leap of faith. A mutant gene that gives resistance to AIDS does not make the human race as a whole stronger. Did you know bacteria that acquired resistance to certain antibiotics are not as adopted to survive in a normal environment? Does immunity to malaria make the human race stronger? Who knows, but to become immune to malaria you need to have a mutant gene that causes sickle cell anemia. Does that make the human race stronger?

In case you missed the point, any example of mutations that results bounded microevolution has nothing to do with the atheistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. The Darwinian fairy tale that you are supporting is using smoke and mirrors to promote a lie. Any putative survival advantage has never been empirically shown to create macroevolutionary changes. No amount of gene mutations has been shown to turn a bacterium into eukaryota or a fish into an amphibian. So please don’t talk to me about science, Darwinians are not interested in using science to support their fairy tale.

The cartoon does reflect the Darwinian fairy tale dogma. It has a funny twist because it shows the death and not the survival. That is essentially the problem with Darwinism. It makes a claim that is contrary to reality. You are right, the time for believing in miracles are gone for the atheists, they have descended to believing in fairy tales.

rahoggid
14 years ago

Fairy tales? Interesting analogy. I can think of no larger fairy tale than that of a supernatural being that created life, the universe and everything. Smoke and mirrors is also an interesting term. I would say that the discovery institute’s ‘wedge’ approach to promotinng religion through a flawed, unsubstantiated science that is termed Intelligent Design, is the best example of smoke and mirrors in recent times.

Science is based on what we can observe, test and theorise about. Genes exist. Commonality exists between all life on earth, with some life forms being closer than others. Physical and behavioural characteristics are passed on to human offspring, just like other life forms. Each life form is adapted for its environment, as well as adapted for obtaining the energy it needs from other life forms on the planet and/or the energy of the Sun. It is therefore not difficult to infer evolution as a theory, based on these first hand observations.

Now lets look at God. No one alive today can provide direct evidence of God – a tree existing is not evidence of God. If someone claimed today that a human being had risen from the dead, all humans, including yourself would want evidence of this. 2000 years ago, under the persecution of the Romans, humans beings needed to believe and were happy to believe in such miracles.

If you want to talk about smoke and mirrors and fairy tales, feel free. You are welcome to your fantasy world, and if you consider my world to be fantasy then why don’t you leave me, and all other athiests, to believe in our own fantasy world? Why does religion have to assert itself on those that do not choose to believe in God? If your belief helps you live a fulfilling life from your perspective, and being an athiest helps me to live a fulfilling life from my perspective what is the problem that needs solving?

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Oh, my. As far as I can see here rahoggid, you came to this blog and you posted whatever you felt appropriate and than you turn around and ask: “…why don’t you leave me, and all other athiests, to believe in our own fantasy world?”. If you wish to spread your atheistic propaganda, you are very welcome to do so, but don’t expect us here to swallow it. Rather, if science is so close to your hart, substantiate your claim with facts and explain how is mutant gene conected to your “significant meaning”.

rahoggid
14 years ago

Very simple really. In terms of a response to “Survival of the what?”. If a disease comes along that only a small proportion of the life forms are immune to, then all those other life forms infected by the disease that are not immune will die. This will leave only those life forms that exist (ie. that are immune to the disease) to pro-create, making them stronger in relation to fending of that disease. If you extrapolote this to those that are the fittest to obtain food, shelter and acquire mates to pro-create with, you end up with life forms that are fitter for their environment being successful. This sounds like evolution theory 101 to me.

The Aids example demonstrates this point. Man has not made a vaccine to protect these people; their current physical makeup, by chance, has provided them protection from Aids. If man had not progressed with science to help Aids victims survive through medicine, many would now be dead leaving those with this mutant gene to protect them, which they would pass on to their offspring, meaning they to are also protected, ultimately making humans stronger in respect of protection against aids.

The alternative religious view, related to these people who are immune to Aids, has to be that these people were designed this way. In which case, why were these people designed differently to others? Why were they chosen to be saved from this designed disease (ie. God must have also designed the disease)? I’m guessing, but it is unlikely that all of these immune people are devout Christians only. They are likely to be from all walks of life and all types of beliefs, including athiests. The disease does not discriminate based on a person’s beliefs, and neither does the immunity. Ergo, the significant meaning is that the statement above is valid, and holds up under facts known today.

teleologist
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

You seem to have an axe to grind with Christianity and as a result grasping on to Darwinian atheism as a crutch. I hope you can resolve your issues and be able to objectively reevaluate your worldview.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hello rahoggid,

What you said in your first two paragraphs is self-evidently true. No one is arguing that aspect of evolution, even the staunchest creationists, but I suspect you knew that already. Drug resistant bacteria is still the same type of bacteria and AIDS resistant human is still human. I suggest you do some reading about claims of Darwinian evolution and than also have a few books by your fellow atheists or agnostics (whom I truly respect) like M. Denton, D. Berlinski or D. Stove, and see for yourself what the problem is.

Regarding your last paragraph, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. You as atheist are telling us what our religious view has to be? Will you please refrain from that. And for your information, I don’t know of any Creationist or ID proponent who beleives that God or other agent created or designed spieces immutable. That is the claim of Darwin to start with and same claim is quite often found in Darwinian literature, that makes Darwinism a religious ideology in its own right.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid.

You said “Now lets look at God. No one alive today can provide direct evidence of God – a tree existing is not evidence of God. If someone claimed today that a human being had risen from the dead, all humans, including yourself would want evidence of this. 2000 years ago, under the persecution of the Romans, humans beings needed to believe and were happy to believe in such miracles.”

If I remember correctly, the last time you appeared on this blog we were discussing evidence for God and I made a statement that the resurrection of Jesus is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of God. You then you left off from commenting saying that you were going away to do some research.(Your own comments are reproduced below.)

“it seems to me the only direct evidence for Jesus/God is the Bible itself, and for me, the key basis for a belief in Jesus being the Son of God is whether the miracles that Jesus performed were real.” and again “To this end I will do some investigation into the history of the texts for the Bible and research alternative possibilities for those miracles.”

Now it seems you are back and from your above comments you seem to be suggesting that the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus has some “other” explanation. I assume that you have finished your research now and so perhaps you could enlighten us with your explanation of the resurrection.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

hi Ford Prefect (or Perfect?) đŸ™‚

Well I wonder. He did not say that he want’s to find out if Resurrection is true or not. His asumption is that it is not true, hence he is looking for alternatives. With that approach what can you expect? It perfectly mirrors attitude of most Darwinians.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Inunison

No it’s Ford Prefect. With a hat tip to the late Douglas Adams for the “nicely inconspicuous name”

And no Rahoggid didn’t say that he wanted to find out if the resurrecion is true or not, but he was going to investigate the “miracles” in the Bible and look for alternate explanations. Any assumption of the resurrection not being true is fine in principle, but if Rahoggid wants to maintain his intellectual credibility with that position he will need to provide a watertight explanation of the events surrounding it.

He wants proof that God exists and I said that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and His claims to be God were proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the resurrection proves that Jesus was telling the truth about Himself. If Rahoggid is to maintain any credibility he will need to show why Jesus was not telling the truth when He claimed to be God and then show why the resurrection never happened. To date Rahoggid has not done this. He cried off previously, claiming that he needed to do research. Now it seems that he is back. Well does he expect us to have just forgotten the earlier challenge, so that he can use the Darwinian “oh that old chestnut, that was dealt with years ago” approach? I for one am still waiting!

rahoggid
14 years ago

I do not have an axe to grind with Christianity. I am responding in defence of my current belief that Christianity, at least via this website, seems to have an axe to grind with – ie. Athiesm/Darwinism. Why do I say this?

When I first came to this website I spent some time with people here asking questions to understand the basis for the Christian belief – science and faith. I got to the point where I felt the need to go and investigate some of the points raised for myself, and decided I would check in on the website from time to time to keep up with the science/faith topics being discussed. I was expecting posts related to the science/faith of such topics as Adam & Eve, Intelligent Design, the Miracles of Jesus, the Eternal Soul, etc, especially as the latter two are key to the Christian Faith. However what I found is summarised as follows:

1. Criminal activities by Animal Rights extremists being associated with a root cause based in Darwinism/Athiesm; even though the belief of extremists who believe that animals should have equal rights to humans, including in relation to being killed for food, is inconsistent with the theory of evolution which requires a food chain, and human beings are omnivores.

2. The start of a discussion that Darwinism has to explain how Good and Evil concepts can apply; even though good and bad can easily be identified in relation to survival – ie. if everyone indiscriminantly and randomly went round killing each other, this would not be conducive to our survival, so killing can easily be recognised as bad. Ironically, the whole basis of the Christian belief is in relation to survival – ie. if you have faith in X, and do Y and Z you will survive after physical death by being saved.

3. Finally, there is this posting that is a flippent mocking of Darwinism belief. The equivalent would be for me to place a link to a picture that shows Jesus in his last dying moments on the cross, with a thought bubble showing him thinking “I think I may have taken this Son of God pretence a little too far….”.

As you have said, my belief in the theory of evolution is a matter of faith. You place your faith in the authors of the bible – you have not seen first hand the miracles of Jesus, and you have no first hand evidence of an eternal soul. Likewise, I place my faith in modern day scientists – I have not seen first hand the experiments they have done and have not seen first hand how all these experiments and findings conclusively point to evolution. However, it seems that you are happy to mock and belittle my belief system with subjective views and opinions, but are not happy when I then defend my belief and start questioning/mocking yours.

This last point relates to my question about “…what problem are we trying to solve?”. You place your faith in the authors of the bible, I place my faith in modern day scientists, neither has sufficient evidence to provide a definitive, unquestionable case to support their belief system, so why do you continue to mock and belittle my belief, when at the end of the day either one could be the absolute truth, or the absolute truth could turn out to be something we haven’t even considered yet?

rahoggid
14 years ago

Just to confirm – my investigations are still ongoing. I have been looking into the culture of people around the time of Christ – ie. were miracles considered common place, were many other people recognised as healers/miracle workers. Also I have been looking at the religions of the time – for example, that the Jews already believed in life after death at the end of time, etc. I have also been looking at the impact of the Roman persecution at that time to see if that could have given people an extra need to believe in a savour and to have a sense of unity and belonging. I have only started this in the last couple of months and do not see this as something that will take a short amount of time – I see it as a journey, not a weekend with my head buried in some books.

The hardest thing is to find unbiased historical accounts – I either find ones that have a religious bias or ones that are clearly anti-religious, hence I have been trying to find ‘unbiased’ historical data of the time that is independent of religion or anti-religion.

I hope this helps with my credibility….?

rahoggid
14 years ago

I thought it might be worth me explaining my current thinking on the ‘fact’ about the resurrection as the subject has been specifically brought up here.

Everywhere I look, the basis for the resurrection of Jesus being factual is on the authenticity of the documents written by the apostle Paul. [If I have missed any other evidence, I apologise and please let me know].

On the basis that my above statement is a fair and accurate assessment then it appears to me that there is a significant discrepency between the level of science required to support the resurrection and the level of science required to support evolution. There is not a level playing field.

In todays society, if an individual wrote a document about a miracle that they claim happened 30+ years ago, with no other way of validating the event with any other person, it is clear that this would not be sufficient in itself to consider it to be a fact. Even if a handful of people all claimed the same thing, their words alone would not be considered sufficient to consider the miracle they claim to be a fact. Psychological or neurological possibilities would be considered, as well as conspiracy and even a group hullicination. Without tangible evidence of the event, this would not be considered to be a fact. If it were, then every time an individual person, or group of people, reported seeing an alien space craft, that event would have to be considered as fact, which would mean that we would now have to accept that alien space craft exist.

If we compare the evidence for evolution today, against that for the resurrection, then we find that there are numerous peer reviewed documents and books relating to experiments and findings for both evolution and the age of the earth/universe. Based on genetics, archaeology, astronomy, physics, etc, these same people have reached a concensus that human beings evolved on this planet, along with all the other life forms we see, over millions of years.

So this is where I see the discrepency. A miracle such as the resurrection of a human being is accepted as fact by Christians based on authenticity of the document of one human being 2000 years ago (Paul); the authenticity based on how close to the event the documents were written – ie. 30+ years after the event. With evolution, those same Christians demand scientific evidence to today’s standards for evolution – ie. verifiable tangible proof – even though this same level of verifiable tangible proof does not exist for the resurrection, and even though the current level of authentic documents for evolution far outweighs that that exists for the resurrection.

I am finding it difficult to reconcile this significant difference in the scientific demands of proof to determine fact. If I am correct on my assessment that the resurrection is considered fact solely on the assumed authenticity of the account of one person, then I will cease my investigations at this point, as I cannot place my faith in one individual’s account of an supernatural event, written 30+ years after the event happened, 2000 years ago; especially when their is an alternative explanation for our existence that is supported by 1000’s of humans, based on today’s scientific standards. To use an analogy, it is like someone offering you the option of a length of cotton (Paul) or the same length as a collection of string strands wound into a strong rope, before they ask you to abseil down the Empire State building.

I apologise if I have missed any specific verifiable tangible proof that supports the resurrection. If I have please enlighten me.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

You should know by now how science operates. Science is unable to investigate unique events in history. Like any other such event resurrection of Jesus Christ is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Hence you need to use historical method. What you are asking is simply irrational. Listen rahoggid, I know where are you coming from (in a way of thinking), I was atheist myself and therefore considered resurrection story a fairy tale, suitable for old grannies and uneducated people. Resurrection is accepted by Christians as a fact not just by faith, but also using legal and historical methods of determining truth. So Christians do not claim resurrection is scientific fact and we don’t use Paul’s writings to prove it either. I don’t know where you got that idea from. He was not a witness to Jesus’ death and resurrection. His writings can be instructive on the meaning but not of the fact. In any case you should get familiar with some basic facts about resurrection first and than we can discuss it further. Books that you need to go through “Who moved the stone” by Frank Morison, “The Resurrection factor” by Josh McDowell and “An examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice” by Simon Greenleaf.

As for Christians demand for scientific evidence regading Darwinian Evolution, is bacause of its claims. It claims to be scientific theory (not religion), that can explain emergence of life from inanimate matter and further development of ALL complexity of life. Grand claim indeed, so we would like to see some scientific evidence instead of hand waving and just-so stories. That is why many non-Christians are sceptical too. You can check for yourself “Evolution-Theory in Crisis” by M. Denton and “Darwinian Fairytales” by D. Stove to name just these two. First one deals with Biology and the second with Darwinian logic (or lack thereoff). Happy reading.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

I can’t help but agree with Inunison when he says that you cannot examine the evidence for the resurrection scientifically, as it is an historical event and must be examined in that context. As an illustration, there is nothing that you can do to demonstrate scientifically that Napoleon fought the Battle of Waterloo, but we know that he did. To prove that event you must use the rules of evidence as would be used in a court of law. In other words, call eye witnesses, examine forensic evidence, call for expert testimony etc, just as Inunison states regarding the resurrection.

The list of books that Inunison gives is a great place to start. I would also add “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” books 1 & 2 by Josh McDowell, “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis and “The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable” by F.F Bruce which is available online here: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

I also disagree with your statement that the resurrection is accepted “as fact by Christians based on authenticity of the document of one human being 2000 years ago (Paul)” Nothing could be further from the truth! Like Inunison, I too was an athiest for many years,(up until I was 32.) I came to faith in Jesus because I examined the evidence of the claims of Jesus and the resurrection and was willing to go where the evidence pointed.

I am convinced that when the evidence for the claims of Jesus and His resurrection are examined by an honest person who doesn’t seek to find a pre determined answer and is willing to go where the evidence leads, they will be drawn inexorably to the realisation that Jesus is exactly who he said he was and (as unbelievable as it sounds) the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts. This has not only proven to be that case in my life but also the lives of countless others who have followed a similar path. It seems that Inunison is another example and this experience has been borne out many times in the past by such luminaries as C.S Lewis (of Narnia fame) who described himself as “perhaps the most reluctant convert in all of England” at the time of his conversion because of his reluctance to come to faith. He may have been reluctant to come to faith, but he also had a total commitment to follow the facts and so became one of the greatest defenders of the faith. I challenge you to follow and examine the evidence for yourself and check out for yourself the claims of Jesus. Someone once said that “Christianity is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.” This is a true statement and your own hammer is no exception.

As far as making claims about an alternate explanation that is supported by thousands of people, I think you’re on thin ice there. If it’s a numbers game, Christianity wins hands down. The number of Christians in the world is estimated at 2 billion, not counting all the Christians who have passed on. Does Darwinian evolution have anywhere near this number of supporters? I think not. Besides which I have seen Darwinians claim that “Darwinian Evolution is based on fact and is not a popularity contest” so it’s a bit rich to start quoting numbers in support of your theory.

Ultimately, my disbelief in Dawinian Evolution is because of Jesus. Darwinian evolution is not true because Jesus said that He made the world and everyhing in it. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people. If Jesus was and is who He said He was, then Darwinian Evolution never happened.

Having said that, don’t think that because I made that statement that I am using a faith based position only. Such a thing is not true. I have also read many of the same books as Inunison mentions, (have read Denton and am currently reading Stoves Darwinian Fairytales.) I know that there is no demonstrably true scientific evidence that unambiguously support Darwinian Evolution, (just a lot of hand waving and just so stories.) To me the fact that it is now becoming clear that there is no evidence of Darwinian Evolution and that it is failing on all fronts as a theory is simply an example of the scientic world catching up with the reality that God created. Of course this supports a teleological viewpoint quite nicely. Showing once again that it is the teleologists who have the truest grasp of reality, and Christian teleologists truer again!

Eventually Darwinian Evolution will fail for one simple reason. IT’S NOT TRUE! On the other hand, despite how much Christianity has been attacked for the last 2000 years, it will always be around for precisely the opposite reason. IT IS TRUE. And it describes the true nature of reality and mankind.

rahoggid
14 years ago

Thanks for the responses – I have a number of comments to respond to regarding the above, but I have a quick question before I do. Can you bullet point the key items of evidence that support the fact that Jesus truely was resurrected. For example, the first bullet point I assume would be….

1. The documents of the bible were written close to the time of the actual event. (or reword as you see fit)

What are the other bullet points?

teleologist
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

I know you said you don’t have an axe to grind with Christianity. Others can answer your question if they want but I have a question for you. How much or what evidence do you need to be convinced that the resurrection is real? e.g. A video recording of the event, an autopsy of the body, and a 2000yr old living eyewitness of the event.

rahoggid
14 years ago

Teleologist, my question is a valid one and a sincere one. The miracle of the resurrection is the primary trigger for the existence of Christianity and the belief that Jesus was man’s saviour. If the documents simply said that Jesus had died on the cross, and that was the end of it, I doubt that Christianity would exist.

Ford Prefect, as one example on this forum, has stated categorically that the resurrection is fact…and I quote:

“I am convinced that when the evidence for the claims of Jesus and His resurrection are examined by an honest person who doesn’t seek to find a pre determined answer and is willing to go where the evidence leads, they will be drawn inexorably to the realisation that Jesus is exactly who he said he was and (as unbelievable as it sounds) the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts.”

Most people consider religion to be a matter of faith, and yet repeatedly this is refuted by Christians, on the grounds that it is not faith alone, but evidence and facts. Inunison has stated “Resurrection is accepted by Christians as a fact not just by faith”

Something being a matter of fact, as opposed to a matter of faith, requires a little more evidence than one person’s account of a miracle that cannot be verified or corraborated; if it was, then every documented account of alien abduction would have to be considered to be fact.

So with reference to Ford Prefect’s and Inunison’s quotes above, I am here and ready to examine the evidence with an open mind, to see if it fits all the facts. All I have asked is for the evidence of the resurrection, that compliments the faith part of the equation, to be listed.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

Thanks for your post regarding the bullet points. I don’t think that you understand the magnitude of the task that you are asking when you ask for the bullet points. You need to understand that the amount of evidence supporting Christianity, the historicity of the Bible etc in general and Jesus’ claims about Himself and the resurrection is very large.

Unlike Darwinian Evolution, when a Christian says that Christianity is supported by mountains of evidence we are being serious. Jesus is the most famous person in all of history and the most famous person today. The writings about Him and His life are voluminous to say the least. (Not bad for someone who came from a nowhere village in Israel, who only had a 3 year public ministry and died a criminals death!)

As both myself and Inunison have stated, the evidence for the identity of Jesus and the historical fact of the ressurrection is one that needs to be approached as one would hear a court case using the rules of evidence etc. If you are asking me (us) to give you the evidence in a nutshell I’m not sure that I can do it. If however, you are asking for a summary of evidence that would be covered at a court case (kind of like opening statements if you like) here is a list of the topics that probably need to be covered (If someone else wants to add to them please feel free)

Taken from “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel

1 The Eyewitness Evidence. Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?
2 Testing the Eyewitness Evidence. Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny?
3 The Documentary Evidence. Were Jesus’ biographies reliably preserved for us?
4 The Corroborating Evidence. Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside His biographies?
5 The Scientific Evidence. Does Archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus?
6 The Rebuttal Evidence. Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith?
7 The Identity Evidence. Was Jesus really convinced He was the Son of God?
8 The Psychological Evidence. Was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God?
9 The Profile Evidence. Did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God?
10 The Fingerprint Evidence. Did Jesus and Jesus alone match the identity of the Messiah?
11 The Medical Evidence. Was Jesus’ death a sham and His resurrection a hoax?
12 The Evidence of the Missing Body. Was Jesus’ body really absent from His tomb?
13 The Evidence of Appearances. Was Jesus see alive after His death on the cross?
14 The Circumstantial Evidence. Are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection?
15 The Verdict of History. What does the evidence establish and what does it mean today?

As you can see from the above list, there’s a lot to consider. I’m sure that this list is not exhaustive but it is a good place to start.

My suggestion is to start with Frank Morrison’s “Who moved the Stone?” It is one of the first books that I read and is still a classic. This excerpt is taken from the back cover:

“English journalist Frank Morrison had a tremendous drive to learn of Christ. The strangeness of the Resurrection story had captured his attention, and influenced by skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he set out to prove that the story of Christ’s Resurrection was only a myth. His probings however, led him to discover the validity of the biblical record in a moving, personal way”

To reiterate. Happy reading.

teleologist
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

I think I understand the motivation for your question, but do you understand the reason for my question? We can present all the evidence to you in the world but if your criteria for “convincing evidence” can’t be met, then there is very little point in wasting both our time. If I were a skeptic even the example that I gave above would not be sufficient evidence because it just opens the resurrection to another set of questions. Therefore my question is a valid one. What would be sufficient evidence for you to accept the resurrection as merely faith and put it in the category of historical facts? e.g. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were Presidents of the U.S.A., Martin Luther was a real person that started the protestant reformation, Julius Caesar became the title for all subsequent emperors of Rome, the conquests of Alexander the Great, Homer wrote the book Odyssey, Stonehenge were built by human beings.

My question is a very important one, because I need to know your epistemological criteria for determining historical facts. We don’t want to be chasing a moving target that can never be met.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

I concur with Teleologist in that his question needs an answer. I have wondered myself if any evidence we supply will be sufficient for you.

Having dealt with an atheistic family member for 16 years I know that, as in my family members’ case, with many atheists there is no amount of evidence that will satisfy due to their entrenched pre existing position. Up until now I have assumed you were genuine in your enquires and I still believe that to be the case. However in the interests of none of us wasting our time I feel that Teleologist raises an important matter that needs addressing.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

I am under impression that you already made up your mind that Resurrection is a myth and you are not sencere, as you claim. But I might be wrong, which you can prove by letting me know which book (books) have you read from the list that I gave you.

rahoggid
14 years ago

You say….“the historical fact of the ressurrection is one that needs to be approached as one would hear a court case using the rules of evidence etc”, whilst at the same time you provide me with a list of books to read and tell me that if I read them with an open mind I will come to the truth that Jesus was indeed resurrected. You would not walk into a court room and hand the jury a selection of books, ask them to read them to determine the truth; you would need to present a case to the jury “using the rules of evidence” as you have stated

To ask me what evidence I require to believe in the resurrection is irrelevant. You would not walk into a court room and say to the jury….”what evidence would you like to see to convince you that the accused is innocent or guilty?”. If you believe you have the absolute truth, then you must have seen the evidence that enabled you to reach that absolute truth, and the approach in a court room is for that evidence to be presented to the jury, to enable them to reach an understanding of what the absolute truth is.

For example if I was putting a positive case together for the theory of evolution I would probably put a case together in the following structure bringing in the experts in the relevant fields to present the facts in each section:

– Age of the Univese (eg. WMAP, CNO Cycle, Planck units)
– Galaxy Formation (eg. Primordial Fluctuations)
– Age of the Earth (eg. Radiometric Dating)
– Fossil Record (eg. Findings and Radiocarbon Dating)
– Biology (eg. BioDiversity, BioChemistry, etc)
– Evolution Timeline (eg. Self-Producing RNA molecules through to current Life Forms on the planet)

For the record, I do not believe evolution to be an absolute fact; evolution is a theory supported by a number of supporting facts, covered in the sections above. You are claiming that it is absolute fact that Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, based on the evidence that you have already seen – ie. you believe in the resurrection not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of fact. In the same way as I have listed the evidences above to support a positive case for evolution, I am asking you to provide a list of evidences that supports a positive case for the resurrection. To put it another way, which experts would you bring into the court room in front of the Jury and what evidence would they discuss and/or provide?

If you cannot do this, then you cannot meet your own statement of approaching the historical fact of the resurrection as one would approach a court case using the rules of evidence.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

It seems to me that you are running in a circle and you want us to run with you. No thanks, I’ll pass.

Let me also put few things for the record:

1. It is evident from your posts that you don’t have a good grasp on the issues involved (otherwise you would not ask for scientific evidence for, once off, historical event and you wouldn’t claim that resistance to AIDS somhow proves evolution true) regarding Darwinian Evolution as well as Resurrection.

2. I did not give you above book titles in the hope that you will change your worldview. You yourself said that you have sincere questions and that your investigations are still ongoing. That and above point 1. were the ONLY reasons why I gave you those book titles, so that you can clearly see issues at hand from BOTH perspectives (pro and contra).

3. You said: “In the same way as I have listed the evidences above to support a positive case for evolution, I am asking you to provide a list of evidences that supports a positive case for the resurrection.”
Have you not looked into post #19? You were given list of 15!

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

As for your positive case for the Darwinian Evolution first three are irrelevant and for the rest, I would also bring experts from the relevant scientific fields who would interpret data differently. Hence, again, you show that you have no good understanding of the issues e.g.:

a. there are Creationists and ID proponents that do not dispute old age of the Universe and Earth (I am personaly not convinced)

b. fossil record and Radiocarbon Dating. Carbon 14 in any amount cannot theoretically exist beyond 75,000 to at most 100,000 years and limit to carbon 14 dates of all organic specimens is less than 43,000 years. So how is this relevant to fossil record?

c. Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself” so your “Self-Producing RNA molecules” are figment of imagination.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

I must admit to the fact that I am starting to lose patience with this exchange.

You said “whilst at the same time you provide me with a list of books to read and tell me that if I read them with an open mind I will come to the truth that Jesus was indeed resurrected. You would not walk into a court room and hand the jury a selection of books, ask them to read them to determine the truth; you would need to present a case to the jury “using the rules of evidence” as you have stated”

I’m not sure why you are finding so hard to understand. The evidence that would be presented at a trial (if we were to have one) is in the books that you were given to read. If you like, think of yourself as the jury and the books as the arguments presented by counsel.

I can’t help but think that your continued resistance to examinining the evidence that is presented in the books is simply a tactic of some sort. Well as far as I’m concerned I have no wish to “go around the merry go round” one more time for your entertainment and I suspect that others here probably feel the same way.

It’s time to put up or shut up. You have been given the evidence, or at least been shown where it is. You now have a choice to make. Either examine te evidence so that you can comment on it or don’t examine it. However if you choose not to examine it lets not hear any more stupid claims about there being no evidence of the existence of God because that line of argument simply won’t wash anymore.

teleologist
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

inunison and Ford Prefect has given you a lot to respond to. I appreciate the civil manner that you have engaged us in this debate. I don’t want to overwhelm you but I will toss this out for the other readers and you can respond at your leisure.

rahoggid: To ask me what evidence I require to believe in the resurrection is irrelevant. You would not walk into a court room and say to the jury”.” what evidence would you like to see to convince you that the accused is innocent or guilty?” .

I hate to keep dwelling on this but it is not irrelevant. Your attempt to avoid answering the question makes me suspects that you don’t have an open mind in this issue. You seem to be more worry about being trapped by the question or get locked into an answer that you might have to concede Christianity has some validity; that you refuse to answer the question. Beyond that your analogy is faulty. In a courtroom, the jurors are bound by certain rules of evidence. e.g. Polygraph test are not admissible.

Are you telling me that you will accept evidence under the American jurisprudence system? It is vitally relevant in this sense to know what you would consider as acceptable evidence. i.e. Eyewitness testimonies are strong evidence of an event. Furthermore, why are you so adverse to let us know if you accept other historical figures and event in history as factual and what criteria you use to make that determination? What are you afraid of? Are you trying to give yourself room to create some sort of double standard, one standard for secular history and another for Christian history? Do you understand why I am skeptical of your “open mind” ?

rahoggid: If you believe you have the absolute truth, then you must have seen the evidence that enabled you to reach that absolute truth

Let’s not put up a straw man here. I’ve never said that we can prove Christianity is the absolute truth. Let me remind you of what I said in another discussion that I had with you on faith. Previous comment by teleologist

Your speculation, like the FSM, is completely devoid of any data points for evidential evaluation. Contrary to your proposition, Christianity is based on an actual person in history; it makes claims of actual people, places and events. All of these data points can be tested and evaluated. Are there any absolute proof? No. However, consider this analogy; is it possible to prove that the Sun will without a doubt rise January 1, 2007? No, but there is a very high confidence from our understanding of orbital mechanics and quantum theory about the composition and operation of the Sun, that it will indeed rise on that day. Beyond that, sunrise has been such a regular event in the human experience that just intuitively we would have confidence that it would rise.

As far as I know, I don’t think others here are saying that we have absolute proof either. I’ve chosen my words very carefully. I believe that Christianity and specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be shown to be as a historical fact. Others have given you some resources to justify this assertion. You seem to be skeptical. So again, it is fair to ask what specifically do you dispute from the evidence that was presented? Since you didn’t want to give specifics as to what you dispute in regards to the evidences we referenced, I ask again, what acceptable evidence do you use to determine a historical fact?

For example if I was putting a positive case together for the theory of evolution I would probably put a case together in the following structure bringing in the experts in the relevant fields to present the facts in each section:

– Age of the Univese (eg. WMAP, CNO Cycle, Planck units)
– Galaxy Formation (eg. Primordial Fluctuations)
– Age of the Earth (eg. Radiometric Dating)
– Fossil Record (eg. Findings and Radiocarbon Dating)
– Biology (eg. BioDiversity, BioChemistry, etc)
– Evolution Timeline (eg. Self-Producing RNA molecules through to current Life Forms on the planet)

Let’s try to analyze the list of criteria that you’ve put forth.
— Age of the Universe & Earth, how does this prove that evolution is a fact. According to Darwinian evolution, for it to be true it must have a very long period of time. How long? No one knows specifically but just very long. However, the fact that the age of the Universe might be long does not mean that Darwinian evolution is true. Because we don’t know how much time is needed for one form to morph into another. Is 15 million years enough? Or is 15 billion years the magic number? i.e. For it to have rained, the grass needs to be wet. If we see the grass is wet does this mean that it rained? So is this the type of logic and evidence we need to prove the resurrection?

— Galaxy Formation? What does this have to do with Darwinian evolution? Actually this is evidence for ID as demonstrated through the Anthropic Principle. This is off topic but informative.

ratio of protons to electrons
• if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
• if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

expansion rate of the universe
• if larger: no galaxy formation
• if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe
• if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
• if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

initial uniformity of radiation
• if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
• if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
• if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
• if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

galaxy type
• if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
• if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.

parent star distance from center of galaxy
• if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
• if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.

Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,j we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.k No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil,121 among others,140 have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth.

— Fossil Record shows that there is no continuous small incremental transformation between phyla, therefore Darwinian evolution makes an inference that if we see a fish and an amphibian, one must have evolved into the other. Or if we see a bacterium and eukaryota then we must infer the prokaryotic cell have somehow evolved into a proto symbiotic eukaryota. So is this the type of logic and evidence we need to prove the resurrection?

— Biodiversity as distinct units of life without any empirical evidence of preexisting forms. Is this what you accept as evidence for evolution? So is this the type of logic and evidence we need to prove the resurrection?

— Evolution timeline supported by baseless conjectures (e.g. RNA abiogenesis) instead of empirical evidences. Is this what you accept as evidence for evolution? So is this the type of logic and evidence we need to prove the resurrection?

For the record, I do not believe evolution to be an absolute fact

For the record, I don’t know which expert you have in mind, but the ones that are recognized in the evolutionary world, all state emphatically that Darwinian evolution is an absolute fact. e.g. Dawkins, Myers, Pigliucci, Provine, Ayala, EO Wilson, Margulis, Carroll, etc, etc. How do you feel about these experts that you would rely on to form your judgment on evolution? Would you also challenge them to present an ironclad case for evolution? Should you doubt their objectivity for what you would consider as an unwarranted claim of “absolute fact” ? Or will you just trust them on blind faith because they are fellow atheists and anti-Christian?

rahoggid
14 years ago

Inunison and Ford Prefect, with all due respect, you guys are giving me the run around, not the other way round. You have stated that the resurrection is fact, and you have not provided one item of evidence to support that statement, only a list of books to read. Surely you can list some key evidences to support your case in addition to the scriptures that I already accept exist?

All 14 points in post #19 make reference to different kinds of evidence not the evidence itself – ie. Eyewitness Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Medical Evidence. If I applied this same categorisation to my list of evidences for evolution I could simply write two words – “Scientific Evidence”.

I also find it interesting that you, and Teleologist, have started to cross-examine my billion mile high summary of evidences that I would put forward to support a case for evolution, and you have even started questioning the expert witnesses I may bring into the court room. Cross-examination comes after the case has been put forward for each position. I am still waiting for the billion mile high summary of your case.

Worse than that you tell me to “put up or shut up”, accuse me of having some sort of tactics, and keep telling me that I do not have an “open mind”. So let’s assume I read your books and come back to this post and say I am not convinced…let me guess, you will tell me that my mind was not “open enough”? Interesting basis for a positive case for the resurrection….”keep an open mind”…..”no, your mind was not open enough, please try again”…..”sorry you need to have a more open mind even than that”.

Finally, an insult that Christians hate is thrown in my face….”Or will you just trust them on blind faith because they are fellow atheists and anti-Christian?”.

I do not accept the scriptures themselves (ie. the words written in the Bible) to be absolute evidence of the resurrection. I will demonstrate why in the following example:

The Letter

On a new housing estate, digging work was being carried out to place the foundations, and a box was discovered containing a letter dated 1976. The letter read:

This afternoon was a distressful afternoon – 17th June 1976. Whilst working in the field with my family, two men ran towards us and as they got to within 10 feet of us the man behind stabbed the other man in the back and killed him. The man that did the sinful deed then told me that if we ever breathed a word of it he would kill my family. He then picked up the dead man and walked off into the distance. I decided to write this letter as writing does not involve breathing the words, and I have decided to bury it in the corner of my field in the hope that someday someone will find it and justice will be done. I do not know the name of the person that was killed but the killer was a prominent, well known politician called [insert your name]. Signed Timothy Jones.

When the letter was discovered, it was passed to the authorities to investigate. They identified the following:

1. Timothy Jones and his family did live on the farm in 1976 and were outstanding members of the community, and were devout Christians.

2. Timothy Jones and his family all tragically died in their home by an accidental fire in 1982. A memorial was errected in the town in their honour.

3. Through analysis, the letter is consistent with being 30 years old.

4. The letter was found in the corner of the field as Timothy Jones had stated.

5. The prominent, well known politician called [insert your name] was in town between 15th and 18th June 1976, attending a conference.

6. On the 17th June 1976, the well known politician had an afternoon free from the conference, as the conference finished at midday on that day.

7. The well known politician spent the afternoon alone, in a quite corner of the bay, and has no one to corraborate him being there.

8. Although the victim is not known, there were 25 people that went missing in 1976, 19 of them were male. Only 7 of them have ever been found so far, leaving 11 still unaccounted for.

Based on this historical evidence, the investigators conclude that it is a matter of fact that the well known politician killed the unknown man. Although we do not have a body or any tangible evidence of the event, and even though we have no eye witnesses to the event alive today, we know that Timothy’s family saw the event as he has told us in the letter, and we know that Timothy Jones was an outstanding member of the community and a devout member of the church, and therefore judged to be of good character. We also know that the well known politician was in the area and was available when the murder took place. Finally, we know that 11 men went missing that year, who have not yet been found. Yes. The historical evidence is undisputable. [insert your name] is guilty”

The End

Would you consider this to be historical fact? If not, what is missing? If so, then I assume you would happily be convicted and put on death row based on this evidence if it was your name in the letter?

teleologist
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

Please take a deep breath and calm down, then provide substantive responses to my detail and lengthy comment. You are not doing your case any good by going on this tirade without addressing any of my arguments.

I at least have the courtesy of giving you a point by point response, is it too much to ask that you would do the same?

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

Let me first say that my intention is not to insult you in any way and frankly I don’t understand why are you implying it. In any case I am sorry that you feel insulted.

Furthermore you said, “my billion mile high summary of evidences that I would put forward to support a case for evolution” when you listed 6 (six) points that are either not relevant or make no sense (listing Evolutionary Timeline to prove Evolution). Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect you to re-write the whole evolutionary library in this blog. It seems to me that you expect that from us regarding Resurrection evidences. Hence teleologists’ question in post 17 and 20.

You also said: “I do not accept the scriptures themselves (ie. the words written in the Bible) to be absolute evidence of the resurrection.” Neither do I. They are historical document, containing written record of the events written by, mostly, eye witnesses. Either they fabricated the whole thing, or being somehow tricked into believing it or are telling the truth. So how can you or anyone else make a decission which one of these three options is most probably true, when you never opened document to read it and refuse to consider books that can help you make informed decission? Unless, of course you a priori made that decission based on your atheistic worldview. If that is the case (and I am not claiming it is) any further discussion on the matter will be very frustrationg for all of us.

To contrast that with Darwinian Evolution. I for one am familiar and have in my library many books on Darwinian Evolution that are written by Darwinists and can make informed decission. If somebody points me to the book or article or paper that contains evidence for evolution, I go and read for myself.

As for the “open mind” issue, it is totaly meaningless. None of us have an “open mind”, we are not some “tabula rasa” on which books or people write messages indisciminately. However, all of us have (or should have) critical mind that is capable of comparing evidence for and against a claim and than make a decission.

If you, after realy getting to know core issues involved in Darwinism as well as Resurrection, make a decission that is opposite mine, I would not have a problem with it and as a matter of fact would respect you for it. And I repeat, that is the only reason why I gave you those book titles, so you can make informed decission whichever way it goes.

Ford Prefect
Ford Prefect
14 years ago

Hi Rahoggid,

You said:

“Worse than that you tell me to “put up or shut up” , accuse me of having some sort of tactics, and keep telling me that I do not have an “open mind” . So let’s assume I read your books and come back to this post and say I am not convinced”let me guess, you will tell me that my mind was not “open enough” ? Interesting basis for a positive case for the resurrection”.” keep an open mind” “..” no, your mind was not open enough, please try again” “..” sorry you need to have a more open mind even than that” .

No I’m sorry, but this kind of argumentation just will not wash. Nowhere has anyone said that we will be doing what you accuse us in advance of doing. Speaking personally I have always stated to anyone who will listen (and in this I think I have a common ground with Inunison) that if someone is willing to objectively examine the evidence for the resurrection and at the end of it all decides that there is no case, then as far as I’m concerned that is the end of the matter. Their choice is entirely up to them. I’m certainly not going to ask them to change their mind, and like Inunison I will respect your decision. I would even go so far as to say that I would defend your right to hold that opinion.

The difficulty that I’ve always found is to get people sit down and to examine the evidence thoroughly. (Which is what seems to be happening in this case.) Usually it seems that people always want to have opinions based on popular thinking, or current fashion, or what’s happening on the latest talkback radio or as is often the case, what their atheistic lecturer taught them at university. (In fact, the family member that I mentioned earlier still regurgitates the same stuff he learned at university back in the early 40’s) Very few people seem interested in taking the time to actually examine the issue for themselves. However those of us that have, probably more often than not, have been very surprised at the strength of the evidence. Perhaps this is why people won’t examine the evidence. Perhaps deep down they know that the evidence is strong but don’t want to admit it in case they have to rethink their entire lives. Is this true in your case? Speculation on my part I know… but often accurate.

The fact is is that you came to this blog shouting the odds and making unsubstatiated claims about there being no evidence for the existence of God. Well… you have been presented with the evidence in the form of books that you can examine at your leisure and judge for yourself whether or not there is a case for the resurrection. So far you have resisted all attempts to examine the evidence.

As I said earier if you decide (after examining the evidence) that there is no case then at least you will be able to make claims on this blog and then back them up with (hopefully) good logic as to why you believe one way rather than the other.

Until then, your position is looking untenable to say the least!

rahoggid
14 years ago

Teleologist,

I appreciate your comments but I was not asking you to comment on my summarised court case submission – this was not about arguing the case for evolution, it was about understanding the positive case for the resurrection. If you consider the case to be flawed then that is good for you when the postive case for the resurrection is put to the same Jury. That is all I have been asking for – what is the positive case for the resurrection.

Ford Prefect:

You have said “The difficulty that I’ve always found is to get people sit down and to examine the evidence thoroughly.” In a courtroom you do not have the luxury of working your way through a number of books – you need to present your case – as you said yourself the resurrection “…needs to be approached as one would hear a court case”. It seems that you are now unable to support such a claim of approaching it like a court case, as in order to understand the evidence behind the resurrection the Jury need to read a handful of modern day books.

Inunison

You have said “all of us have (or should have) critical mind that is capable of comparing evidence for and against a claim and than make a decission.”. I fully agree. But you have provided no evidence other than to suggest reading a set of modern day books.

All

I see a lot of discussion like evolution theory is flawed and the resurrection requires blind faith, etc, and having been told that “the historical fact of the ressurrection is one that needs to be approached as one would hear a court case using the rules of evidence etc” and that “the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts” all I have done is asked the obvious question. What is the evidence that supports a positive case that would be provided to a Jury?

Instead of a brief summary such as “well, there’s the scriptures that have been dated to close to the time of the event, and then there is …..etc, etc” – all I have been given is a list of modern day books. Would you walk into the court room and point to a stack of modern day books and say to the jury, “There is the evidence for the Resurrection”. If you did, would you expect to win the case?

At this time, I have concluded that there is no evidence for the resurrection other than the intepretation of the scriptures from near the period of the event. All evidence is based on the analysis of those scriptures and by reaching conclusions based on that analysis. Basically you have given me nothing else to go on than to read a handful of modern books as evidence for an event that you are claiming is fact. Modern day books cannot be considered evidence, they are simply the writings of someone making reference to something else.

You have even said yourself that if I am not convinced by what I read in the modern books then that is the end of it and you will respect me for that – meaning that there is no where else to go for any further evidence. This clearly, by any definition, demonstrates that faith is the primary basis for the belief in the resurrection, not factual evidence. However, having exausted all attempts to get you to summarise the case for the resurrection, I will take you up on your offer. I do not want to buy or read loads of books, so out of all the books you have mentioned, which one should I purchase and read that will be the book that would most likely make an athiest realise they have been wrong all along? I will obtain it, read it and let you have my thoughts.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

I do hope you realize than no single book (and nothing but a single book) can convince anyone of anything. That is not how our mind operates. In any case it is not necessary for you to by any book on a subject of Resurrection. If you visit these links you can maybe appreciate why are we reluctant to spend hours re-writing the evidence just to satisfy your curiosity. That will, hopefully, give you some information that you can understand.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html (short summary)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html

If you still want a book that approaches Resurrection from a legal perspective this is the one:
“An examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice” by Simon Greenleaf.

I must also let you know that your thinking (as displayed in your last post) is flawed.

1. I did not give you list of (very few) books as an evidence for Resurrection! Did you get that? Books are given so you can (after reading) understand the issues surounding that event as I don’t feel spending hours re-writing them on this blog for your pleasure.

2. You do not accept “modern day” books! So tell me, I beg you, how did you get knowledge about Evolution or about anything else?

3. “You have even said yourself that if I am not convinced by what I read in the modern books then that is the end of it and you will respect me for that – meaning that there is no where else to go for any further evidence.”

Don’t you see how irrational this sentence of yours sounds? Where else would you like to go for further evidence? What is the difference between reading books and reading this blog? I do hope you finaly get it.

rahoggid
14 years ago

Inunison – thanks for the links and the book reference. I will read the links and take a look at the book you suggest. Just to respond to your final comments:

1. I was asking for a bullet summary of the key evidences. That was all.

2. The books themselves are not the evidence, they are just pointers to the evidence. In terms of evolution, yes books contain the evidence, but the key evidences can be summarised. Even if my list of the top of my head was not perfect, I was able to provide a list of evidences that could form the basis of a case for evolution that could be investigated in more detail and/or put forward in front of a Jury.

3. It was based on the assumption that the books will simply provide analysis of the scriptures, in which case the scriptures are the only evidence in existence today. So if I read the analysis of the scriptures and consider this to be insufficient to find the resurrection to be a fact, then there is no other evidence to consider. To give a simple example: If Paul writes that 500 people witnessed Christ alive after the resurrection, and this forms the Eye Witness Evidence, then how can this ever be corraborated. You have to take it totally on trust that what he wrote was true. I do not consider this Eye Witness evidence, I consider this one individual claiming that others witnessed the event. If that is the Eye Witness Evidence then that seems to me to be a matter of faith, not fact. As I said I will read the information you have provided and consider the evidence.

Thanks again.

inunison
inunison
14 years ago

Hi rahoggid,

Your post #34 refers

1. given to you by Ford Prefect in post #19

2. no matter how you turn it, your summary is no different from post #19 summary

3. here we go again, my head is spinning. Let me put it to you this way; assume that Scriptures describing Resurrection are fabrication from a later century written by a group of people trying to manipulate others. In other words totally not trustworthy. Because they (Scriptures) are the only written document about the event in question (Resurrection) anyone who wants to expose the hoax needs to examine them. Would you not agree? So, does that mean that “you have to take it totally on trust that what he wrote was true.”? Of course not, but you still have to examine the document (Scriptures) in order to prove the hoax.

I’ll say something here and I am sorry if you already know these facts. Bible consists of 66 books of wich 27 make New Testament. These books are written by different people, hence Resurrection is not only described by Paul but at least four others (not counting Old Testament writters who also mention it). Because of that it presents perfect opportunity for anyone to examine if these writters (witnesses) are telling the truth or not. Record thus presents itself for deductive logic excercise.

I can asure you that Christians are not all stupid and that we don’t build our faith on just what Paul (or anyone else) said. Please give us some credit. And for your information Paul (Saul at the time) is not eye witness to the Resurrection. At the time he was through and through anti-Christian.