Evolution or creation?

[Bob_Bytchin]

Teaching a child to ask questions, particularly difficult questions...
Yeah, no good ever comes of that.

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

 

[JudasIscariot]

Both.

Evolution up until a certain point; evolution went so far until 'someone or some' created the link to surpass natural evolution.

 

[JudasIscariot]

Candi, you live close to that museum? It's not much of a drive for me. I want to go and take my kids, but there's not a chance in "hell" that I'm giving them a penny. My oldest wanted to go when Bill Nye visited, but I still wouldn't budge on paying to get in. If they have a free admission day, we might stop in.

My kids are masters at being nice to stupid. They have the best timing at throwing me a knowing look and then going right back to patiently listening to the crap bring proselytized at them. Just keep answering bite size's questions. Kids are smart. Brainwashing them to worship imaginary deities disgusts me.

What makes you think all deities are imaginary?

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Explain, please.

Skynet...

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When confronted by government and the brutality of man empowered, were there no God, someone would invent one out of necessity if only to render the illusion of hope, even if in the next life.
A_J, the Atheist

 

[JudasIscariot]

Explain, please.

Using just 'modern' humans as an example, it's claimed fossil evidence shows a modern human up to 200,000 years old. Fair enough, they evolve from the first species of said humanity from 2.6 million years ago whom had the brain size of a chimpanzee.

Look at a chimpanzee today, in comparison to a modern day human. The difference while being 2.6 million years of evolution is still ridiculously huge. Based on the modern human from up to 200,000 years ago they evolved a larger brain but nothing significant to make a massive difference. Then fast forward to the ancient Sumerians or Egyptians. In terms of evolution the basically overnight go from animals to building ziggurats in the dessert while reading and writing.

Just look how far the human race has come in the past 3000 years compared to the previous 197,000 years of modern humans.

 

[JudasIscariot]

Because I do.

Which aren't? Where's your proof?

I understand religion, or the need for it. I think people have a need for more, for hope, for a reason, for explaining what they otherwise can't explain. I think many need a release, to "give it to their god." So, gods were created to fill these needs.

I need logic and reason. Scientific theories provide reasonable answers.

I'm cool with being responsible for my actions, that whatever dumb thing I did that has a consequence isn't part of an omniscient being's divine plan. I'm cool with decomposing after death being the end of my life but part of the food chain (unless I'm embalmed and buried in a fake casket - not the way I wanna go).

I'm ethical, kind, passionate - the kind of person who comes out of the atheist closet and hears, "But, but...you're so nice."

The same evidence as the majority of history we have, texts.

Saying someone like Jesus categorically didn't exist is like saying Constantine didn't exist.

We go by written texts for evidence of most parts of history. You're just choosing to have an agenda against a diety or dieties. I don't believe myself that tales or certain dieties did exist, but to just dismiss it because you want to think you're some modern think tank is unfair.

 

[Kalamain]

I don't *believe* in evolution at all.

I accept it because I have seen evidence of it and, if I find something I don't understand or don't think is right, I can do some research myself and either accept the evidence and change my mind or I can go in search of a new hypothesis and work my way to prove my point and win a Nobel award.

ID is just 'I don't understand it therefor, God' Which isn't an answer for anything.

Science. It works, Bitches.

 

[Kalamain]

The same evidence as the majority of history we have, texts.

Saying someone like Jesus categorically didn't exist is like saying Constantine didn't exist.

We go by written texts for evidence of most parts of history. You're just choosing to have an agenda against a diety or dieties. I don't believe myself that tales or certain dieties did exist, but to just dismiss it because you want to think you're some modern think tank is unfair.

The Romans were shit hot when it comes to writing and keeping track of things like taxes and money. They also kept local records of government business.

If there had been what is described in the Bible then it would have been written down by the Romans. Someone would have made a real big thing about what he did.
Shockingly enough bugger all made it into the texts... Funny that.

And if your deity of choice is actually real then SHOW HIM OFF!!!
Until then its a load of crap that some bugger made up to keep the stupid locals in check.

 

[subdued_passion]

Naah. I understand science better than you do. Its impossible to sense the world objectively and reasonably as our collective fund of knowledge is miniscule.

Back in 1841 one of my ancestors was an MD trying to fathom yellow fever. He knew plenty about the disease but didn't know about germ theory, and consequently couldn't account for what exactly mosquitos did to spread the disease. I mean, they suck blood outta people, theyre not snakes that inject venom! or a rabid animal. And that's kinda where you are.

If you really do understand science better than me, which I fully admit is possible, even probable, then you should have backed up your claim with objective evidence instead of a story about one of your ancestors.

Did you miss the point of the story?

 

[JudasIscariot]

The Romans were shit hot when it comes to writing and keeping track of things like taxes and money. They also kept local records of government business.

If there had been what is described in the Bible then it would have been written down by the Romans. Someone would have made a real big thing about what he did.
Shockingly enough bugger all made it into the texts... Funny that.

And if your deity of choice is actually real then SHOW HIM OFF!!!
Until then its a load of crap that some bugger made up to keep the stupid locals in check.

The Romans most likely would have believed; jesus to be nothing but a peasant who was most likely crazy. That would explain why he never made it into their texts and records. Is Pontus Pilate in any of those records? Or king Herod for that matter?

As for your last part about showing a diety off, behave you fool, they're not exactly porno magazines.

While you're there, show me proof of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

cite=Herman's Hermits

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

The Romans believed jesus to be nothing but a peasant who was most likely crazy. That would explain why he never made it into their texts and records.

He was nothing but a crazy peasant because the records that don't exist about him say so?

 

[JudasIscariot]

He was nothing but a crazy peasant because the records that don't exist about him say so?

No, he was a carpenter whom believed he was a prophet.

To the Roman army he would hardly have been a messiah now would he?

Edit I was supposed to have most likely before believed. My mistake.

 

[Brollyanna]

Kosher and Halal make such diety sense now.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

No, he was a carpenter whom believed he was a prophet.

To the Roman army he would hardly have been a messiah now would he?

Edit I was supposed to have most likely before believed. My mistake.

So...basically a non-recorded opinion of a person who has no records of having existed is supposed to be believed?

That is supposed to compete with years and years of empirical evidence, scientific reasoning, and proving or disproving of hypotheses?

So basically faith versus facts.

 

[Sunshine]

Evolution. Why do I believe in evolution and not intelligent design?? Because one has been proven and makes logical sense and the other is a fairytale.

 

[JudasIscariot]

So...basically a non-recorded opinion of a person who has no records of having existed is supposed to be believed?

That is supposed to compete with years and years of empirical evidence, scientific reasoning, and proving or disproving of hypotheses?

So basically faith versus facts.

Non recorded?

I'm not saying he existed or did not exist. I am just playing devils advocate, my point being to just dismiss certain things from history while choosing to believe another when both are only proven by written text is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if these same people who dismiss anything to do with dieties or religion; in fact believe in King Arthur and his round table.

 

[Que]

The Romans most likely would have believed; jesus to be nothing but a peasant who was most likely crazy. That would explain why he never made it into their texts and records. Is Pontus Pilate in any of those records? Or king Herod for that matter?

As for your last part about showing a diety off, behave you fool, they're not exactly porno magazines.

While you're there, show me proof of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan

Or King Arthur, who in some version likely existed, if in composite of several actual historical people.

The idea that Jesus was made up of whole cloth as a (then) contemporaneous person and talked about for 2000 years since seems less likely than that he was an actual person, known about at the time. Not everyone then or now did or should believe he was the son of god, that is a separate argument.

The stories don't start, I had a cousin who had a friend. Actual people using 2000 year old writing materials wrote about him as a contemporary, or a recently passed person.

For the sake of discussion lets say it is all a grand conspiracy...they could just as easily made him fred the baker who happened to be the son of God. Why not base the earthly part of the legend on an actual guy named fred the baker?

Skeptics that seem to have the need to disbelieve any portion of this story will argue fred the baker never existed. Why? Maybe Fred the baker did exist and never thought of himself as the son of God, but all the people that wrote about knowing this guy, knew he was an actual person.

 

[Que]

Jinx! you were typing king arthur as I was.

The trendy "debunk religion as proof of academic prowess" was popular at the turn of the 19th century. All the great skeptics of the historical reality of some guy named jesus have, themselves been debunked. For example an early "proof" that jesus was fiction was the belief that the josephus manuscript was fictional and of very modern origin. Later archeological digs showed the same manuscript in existance within a 100 years of his life.

Whether he was divine is a theological question, whether some guy named jesus lived is a historical one and based on numerous texts within years of his life.

What, a bunch of novelists that didnt know each other, didnt read each others work suddenly all thought up a similar character to weave through their novels?

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Jinx! you were typing king arthur as I was.

The trendy "debunk religion as proof of academic prowess" was popular at the turn of the 19th century. All the great skeptics of the historical reality of some guy named jesus have, themselves been debunked. For example an early "proof" that jesus was fiction was the belief that the josephus manuscript was fictional and of very modern origin. Later archeological digs showed the same manuscript in existance within a 100 years of his life.

Whether he was divine is a theological question, whether some guy named jesus lived is a historical one and based on numerous texts within years of his life.

What, a bunch of novelists that didnt know each other, didnt read each others work suddenly all thought up a similar character to weave through their novels?

All stories of Jesus were third-hand accounts of third-hand accounts. Basically the telephone game played for a few hundred years before the "Gospels" were even written down. The gospels tell the same general story, but with many details completely different. Some of the other gospels didn't even make it into the bible because they didn't elevate "Jesus" to messiah status.

Comsidering that a clear definition of death didn't come about for a long time, it wouldn't be much of a leap to think that some guy name Yeshua was crucified, assumed dead, put in a cave, woke up and walked away.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Or King Arthur, who in some version likely existed, if in composite of several actual historical people.

The idea that Jesus was made up of whole cloth as a (then) contemporaneous person and talked about for 2000 years since seems less likely than that he was an actual person, known about at the time. Not everyone then or now did or should believe he was the son of god, that is a separate argument.

The stories don't start, I had a cousin who had a friend. Actual people using 2000 year old writing materials wrote about him as a contemporary, or a recently passed person.

For the sake of discussion lets say it is all a grand conspiracy...they could just as easily made him fred the baker who happened to be the son of God. Why not base the earthly part of the legend on an actual guy named fred the baker?

Skeptics that seem to have the need to disbelieve any portion of this story will argue fred the baker never existed. Why? Maybe Fred the baker did exist and never thought of himself as the son of God, but all the people that wrote about knowing this guy, knew he was an actual person.

Assumptions without evidence is faith. Even if you knew that someone named Yeshua lived at that time, was a carpenter, had disciples, disrputed trade at the temple, and was crucified, that doesn't make him a diety.