Did the Resurrection really happen?

by thinker 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JanH
    JanH

    DoubleEdge,

    My point was, science pronounced results are sometimes suspect because of faulty methods. Science can say we all evolved from a single cell 'creature', but the conclusion is a little premature when you have a missing "method" in your linkage.

    What "method" is missing, you think?

    Actually, the first single cell organism was not by any means the first lfe, but it is a safe bet that there once existed one single celled organism that happened to become ancestor of everything living on this planet today.

    - Jan

  • gsx1138
    gsx1138

    Your argument is compelling JanH and once again well written. I may not always agree with what you say but at least you say it well. As for the topic I would have to say, No. There are too many parallels between the resurrection of Christ and the beliefs of other earlier religions. It is more plausible that, like the most of the Bible, the story was borrowed from somewhere else and incorporated into the deification of Jesus. There is far more hard evidence of copying than there is of a unique event. I believe that there was a man named Jesus who was teaching an offshoot of Judahism and may have had some ability with shamanic healing (herb use and such). I do not believe he had supernatural powers or was the earthly incarnation of a spirit creature. There is little or no evidence of all of these miracles stated in the Bible other than in the Bible. I believe people can have faith but I do think there is a huge difference between religion and Spirituality. Religion requires a common belief regardless of evidence. To me spirituality only requires the amount of evidence we need to believe in something. Crap, that made no sense. Anyway, I hope some get the general idea I'm trying to make.

    gsx1138

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    Jan H.:

    What "method" is missing, you think?

    I don't know, you tell me.

    "Faulty Science": A+B+D+E+F = (ABCDEF) .... couldn't find the "C", but we know it equals ABCDEF

    Regarding evolution, "Newsweek" (3/11/80) stated it this way:

    "The missing link between man and apes...is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record missing links are the rule... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated...Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans were taught in high school; that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment."

  • JanH
    JanH

    Double Edge,

    "Faulty Science": A+B+D+E+F = (ABCDEF) .... couldn't find the "C", but we know it equals ABCDEF

    Ahh, the creationist missing link game.

    Let's say scientists have A and F at first, showing a transition in features consistent with evolution. "Look," says creationists, "there is a missing link!" Then, scientists discover the missing link D. "Hah," says creationists, "now there are two missing links! You have a missng link between A and D, and between D and F. Then scientists find B and E. The creationist says "Ha!..." etcetera etcetra ad nauseam ad infinitum.

    The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. To satisfy creationosts, we'd need to have the fossil of every single organism that ever lived. Naturally, that is impossible. The evidence also discriminates. WIth some creatures, we find an abundance of fossils. One example is hard shelled sea animals. They leave fossil prints that are easy to find, not the least thanks to petroleum geology having a commerical interest in finding them. Organisms without hard parts are much rarer, for obvious reasobs. Also, birds are rare in fossils, simply because they tend to die in ways that do not leave fossil evidence. Homonids tend to bury their dead, so same applies there. But this is offset by our personal interest in our own ancestors, which is the reason we have a very good record of human evolution.

    Creationists seem to coneviently forget that if it is a problem for evolution that some fossil evidence is lacking, it is totally destructive for creationists that any transitional fossils exist at all. And there is really an abundance of evidence, documenting a far range of evolutionary transitions, for example (but not limited to) the transition from reptiles to mammals.

    Just a tip: Newsweek is not generally considered a good source for scientific information. The quotation game is one played by creationists, but it has little bearing on the real world, and real factual evidence. And the evidence of genetics, paleontology, geology and a host of other sciences are all consistent with evolution, confirming it to an extreme degree.

    Your source seems to be creationist writings. I suggest you go and check up a bit about what real scientists do.

    For a very thorough overview of the direct evidence for evolution, I suggest you read "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    For an overview of human evolution, with images of fossiles, look at "Fossil Hominids -- The Evidence for Human Evolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

    If you want a shorter introduction to the topic of evolutionary biology, I suggest you start at this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

    Happy reading.

    - Jan

  • crownboy
    crownboy

    Great posts on this thread, JanH.
    I suggest that all the "bible people" read the link that was provided by Saint Satan. I am aware of several writings that refute Mc. Dowell, and even a cursary reading of his books raises questions. If any of you guys could get the link on the infidels site that refutes much of the "secular evidence" for Jesus, that would be great. I would do it myself, but I have to run and probably won't be on this site for a couple of days.

    The paralells between Jesus and pagan gods is ridiculous. It's obvious that either God isn't very creative, or there was a lot of Christain plagarism (and yes, the Jews were familiar with those cultures). Oh yeah, and read those evolution papers, too.

    Edited by - crownboy on 14 June 2002 17:4:35

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    Just a tip: Newsweek is not generally considered a good source for scientific information

    Duh....no kidding Jan. Newsweek is a weekly news magazine and reports on news worthy items...like maybe the science of evolution isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

    Your source seems to be creationist writings. I suggest you go and check up a bit about what real scientists do.

    Sadly, any opposition to evolution on scientific grounds is rarely heard. Any scientist who rejects evolution tends to be branded as a religious fanatic, or similar. The media either ignores them or discredits them by disparagement.

    One of the biggest scientific movements founded to try to give 'equal weighting' to pure scientific and natural evidence contrary to evolution is 'The Evolution Protest Movement', founded in England in 1932 by Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.S.c., F.R.S., (Physicist). Past President of the Victoria Institute and Philosophical Society of Great Britain, Fleming also invented the thermionic valve, which gave us the high quality radio-broadcasting we have today. Members of this institute must, at the very least, possess a Masters Degree in a scientific discipline. There are over seven hundred members in Britain.

    Previous 'Giants' of science who rejected evolution:

    Sir Ernst Chain, F.R.S., Nobel Prize winner for penicillin.

    Louis Vialleton, who was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at Montpelier University, France.

    Professor Louis Bounore, former President of Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Zoological Museum; became Director of Research at the National Centre of Scientific Research in France. Bonoure wrote: " Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

    Dr. Paul Lemoine, Past president of the Geological Society of France, and Director of the Museum d'Histoire; an editor of the French Encyclopedia.

    Professor W.R.Thompson, F.R.S. For thirty years, Director of the (worldwide) Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada; a biologist of such eminence that he was invited to write a preface to the centenary edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species." His preface demolished Darwinism gently but completely; but, such was his international status, the preface was published with the centenary edition.

    Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., (Physicist) - past President of the Victoria Institute and Philosophical Society of Great Britain.

    Professor Albert Fleishman, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Earlangen University, Germany. He stated :"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination."

    Professor H. Nilsson, Genetics, Lund University; a Swedish scientist of world standing.

    Michael Faraday, Physicist - one of the greatest research scientists of Modern Physics. Faraday was responsible for the massive research into electromagnetism and the earth's magnetic field.

    James Joule, Physicist - another outstanding figure of Modern Science. Joule's research into mechanisms of energy transfer established many common fundamental laws of physics.

    Professor Thomas Barnes, Physicist - world renowned researcher into the earth's magnetic field and author of several textbooks on the subject.

    At the end of the day, like religion and politics, this is a subject that will continually bring out various opinions....each one impossible to totally prove correct.

  • JanH
    JanH

    Double Edge,

    I noticed you ignored any and all arguments, as is typical of creationists. If you want to post any actual arguments against evolution, feel free to do so. All you posted here was an appeal to authority, and mostly false authority too. Most of those you refer to are outdated, or in totally different fields of science, or both. Even if a few oddballs manage to keep their religious ideas through scientific studies, it doesn't mean their arguments have any merit whatsoever.

    Duh....no kidding Jan. Newsweek is a weekly news magazine and reports on news worthy items...like maybe the science of evolution isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

    It is written by journalists. What does a journalist know about biology?

    The fact is that there is a total scientific consensus that evolution is a fact. You don't like it, but it happens to be true. For every oddball creationist scientist, there are thousands of evolutionists. And the reason scientific journals do not carry creationist writings is simply because they are not science. It is religion dressed in scientific-sounding jargon to sell to the masses of under-educated True Believers.

    But, as I said, if you feel you have any arguments, come forward with them.

    - Jan

  • Valis
    Valis
    " Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
    :"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination."

    That's what I like to hear from a scientist....*L* They probably had a bible verse ready to quote as well. You know none of this would fly now...I wonder when those quotee were taken...

    Double, what do you think of Greogor Mendel? He knew living things could be changed w/external environmental stimulus, and all he was trying to do is make better peas!! A man of Dog able to alter and manipulate natural order? Sounds like the process of evolution to me and one of many examples of the important contributions to the understanding of biology and how genes work.

    Sincerely.

    District Overbeer

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    Double, what do you think of Greogor Mendel?

    Perfect example. Gregor Mendel's findings of genetic mutations by way of dominant genes, laid to rest Darwin's assumptions that certain variations were to continue beyond the species, jumping across barriers of genera and family. Mendel's work was extremely critcized when it came out, but eventually Dawin supporters reemerged with a 'new' theory consistant with Mendel's to explain evolution.

    A few postings back I wrote:

    My point was, science pronounced results are sometimes suspect because of faulty methods. Science can say we all evolved from a single cell 'creature', but the conclusion is a little premature when you have a missing "method" in your linkage.

    JanH..you wrote:

    I noticed you ignored any and all arguments, as is typical of creationists. If you want to post any actual arguments against evolution,

    You might have an ax to grind with someone for whatever reason, but not with me....YOU seem to be ignoring my statements (typical of evolutionists)...Previously on this thread I wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally discounting evolution, in fact I believe in it to a certain extent, only I also know "science" flip flops all the time, it's not the "KNOW ALL" some claim it to be.

    The Darwin/Mendal 'disagreements' are the 'flip flops' I was referring to.

    BTW.... I don't believe this world was created in six 24-hour days. I do believe a lot of the 'life' on this planet evolved.

  • Panda
    Panda

    AHEMmmm,

    These changes are not flip flops they are paradigm shifts. In order for this change(shift) many occurances present themselves along the previous paradigm. The shift occurs because of a more complete understanding of the available data. Sometimes this means an advancement in scientific tools, or release of related materials. Paradigm shifts take time. Because the science of evolution allows for paradigm shift we will never need to have blind faith that in fact ,the depth of understanding correlates to the enormity of data available and the complexity of life.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit