RWC

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 197 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by RWC

• 
  29

  Questions for Evolutionists

  by RWC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

  to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

  1. where did plants come from?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  I have learned alot. Thank you all.
• 
  67

  Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

  according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

  matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Thanks for the reply Joseph. I think that the NIV is more correct that the abrupt ending in verse 8 indicates that the actual ending has been lost. So we may never really know if Mark didn't know of Mary meeting Jesus as you assume or if he did and his version was lost.
• 
  29

  Questions for Evolutionists

  by RWC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

  to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

  1. where did plants come from?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  I read the talk origins sites that were posted. Although they were very technical I took from them the following:

  1. We can say that animals evolved from one species to the other because we established the species in the first place. That sounds alot like fitting science to the theory which would violate the principles of science.

  2. Because we have established what it takes to be a bird and what it takes to be a reptile, because we hae found one animal that seems to have elements of both, that is a transitional animal and evidence of macroevolution. A major leap that should not be made if we established the definitions of a species in the first place.

  3. There is alot of assumptions and faith in the theory to make it sound scientific, but at the end of the day, these scientists are believing in things that they have little if any evidence of or that they are sure there will be evidence of discovered later.

  4. The idea that because everything is so closely related to the other that it must have come from a common source is not a very big leap from saying that God created everything. The dispute is the source of course, but science has not found that common source, so it has faith in something that it can't prove. People who believe in God for the same thought process are called stupid and uneducated. Scientists who express that same thought process are simply putting their faith in man and the scientific process.

  In the end, it appears that both scientists and creationists are believing in what each would call the unknown.
• 
  37

  Prayer, Pascal, and the Anthropic Principle

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the anthropic principle .

  it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.

  these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  The idea expressed by stocwatch that the apostles willing died is worth more thought than it has been given. The issue is not that these apostles "believed" in something that had been told to them be someone else but had no way to test it. The issue is that they had been told by Jesus that he ws the Christ and that he would die and rise again and than they saw him and talked to him, so they knew it was true. David Koresch is not the same, neither are the terrorists. They and their followers may believe something to be true, but theirs is a belief on faith alone. The apostles had the evidence to back up their believes and likewise, if it never happened had the eveidence to know that their believes were wrong. What you have is evidence of men who either went to their deaths knowing because they never saw the ressurected Jesus that they were preaching a lie or they went to their deaths preaching what they knew from their eyewitness evidence was the truth. It is clearly more logical to assume that they went to their deaths preaching the truth.

  And you can't say with any degree of logic that all of these men were mentally delusional. Jesus appeared to numerous men who than were killed for their believes. The available evidence is that these men acted normal in all other aspects of their lives and there is no evidence that they were mentally insane. Also, the belief that all of them would be so insane is not very probable.

  So Christianity is based upon the preaching of numerous individuals who preached that they saw and talked to the risen Lord and than went to their deaths for this knowledge. Logic does not support the thought that Christianity is based upon the preaching of numerous men who went to their deaths with the knowledge that what they were preaching was a lie or a hoax.
• 
  67

  Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

  according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

  matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Joesph,

  I do not mind and in fact actually enjoy having these dbates with you, because on most occasions, despite our differences, you present your points accurately from scripture in the sense that you quote it correctly and then place your spin on it. Here you did not.

  I agree that Mark chapter 16:9-20 do not apear in the earlist manuscripts of Mark. However, Jesus' ressurection and Mary talking to the angel appears in Mark Chapter 16 verses 4-8. The angel specifically tells her that the tomb is empty because Jesus had risen from the dead.

  As to the verses 9-20 the NIV says : "These verses do not appear in two od the most trustworthy MSS. of the NT, though they are part of many other MSS and versions. If they are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending of verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost."

  The truth remains: The evidence of Jesus' ressurection appear in every Gospel.
• 
  29

  Questions for Evolutionists

  by RWC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

  to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

  1. where did plants come from?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Thank you for the replies. I wasn't just attempting to start things up. I engage in some discussions with individuals on the existence of God and such and we occasionally end up discussing evolution. My questions were directed towrads evolution as the basis for the origins of life in a macro sense, not in a micro sense such as the devlopment of different variations of the same animal over time. That is where I believe that the theory falls apart.

  Clearly animals have evolved within their species over time, but have they changed from one species to the next?

  My understanding is that the thought is that over millions of years as different chemicals mixed over the earth that one celled organisms, presumably plants at first, began to evolve. That was why I asked the question regarding the DNA. If plants do not have DNA and animals do, where did it come from?

  Thanks for the cites. I will study.
• 
  29

  Questions for Evolutionists

  by RWC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

  to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

  1. where did plants come from?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  It appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life. To those people I would sincerely ask the following:

  1. Where did plants come from?

  2. Where did the DNA come from to make animals?

  3. Why aren't molds and other simple celled life forms continuing to evolve into more complex life forms?

  4. Why aren't entirely new creatures being evolved today from other ones that already exist?

  5. What is the fossil evidence to support the change from one animal to another as opposed to a different variation of the same animal?

  If there are no answers to these questions, than aren't you believing in something that you think will be figured out in the future and thus you are exhibiting faith in the unkown?
• 
  67

  Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

  according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

  matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Joseph,

  I do not think that the Gospels are ambiquous as you imply. I was simply pointing out that you can ask for alot of details that were not included in every Gospel to the point of being silly in an attempt to disprove them. The fact is that each writer wrote what he thought was important for his intended audience in his own writing style. The essence of each Gospel is the same and the accounts match on the truths attempting to be conveyed.
• 
  67

  Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

  according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

  matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Joseph,

  Were her feet moving or were they not? I don't know. How far did she run, from the tomb when she met Jesus? Was she still at the tomb and had only run a few feet? Had she stopped running and was she standing still when she met Jesus?

  Do you see how silly this becomes when you try to find a contradiction that is of no substance? The story is the same. The result is the same. One writer says it slightly different than another. So I say, so what? Does that invalidate the account completely?
• 
  67

  Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

  according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

  matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Joseph,

  Your response reflects that my analogy about the trip was correct. You are concerned about showing that the Bible has errors in it to show that the Gospels writers didn't know what they were talking about, thus you cannot believe in what they wrote. However the alleged inconsistencies that you point out do not support that conclusion. You show different versions of the same event with some differences in the account, yet the event is never contradicted. All of the Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead. All say that Mary discovered he had risen from the dead at the tomb , that she met him, and that she talked to angels and that she went to tell the disciples. You cannot find an alleged difference in the end result of that account.

  To answer your question though:

  Matthew mentioned one angel who spoke to Mary, John mentions two. Maybe John was more inclusive than Matthew, but the essense of the accounts match.

  Matthew mentions that Mary was filled with joy when she met Jesus, John says that she was filled with joy after she realized she was speaking to Jesus. In both accounts Mary sees and speaks to Jesus and is filled with joy.

  Are you saying that the truth in these stories cannot be believed because they are not exactly alike word for word? To me it is nothing more than a rationalization for choosing not to believe.

  Abaddon, Have a great weekend.

  I am not saying that an atheist would not be moved by Schindler's List. Of course anyone who has feelings for their fellow man would regardless of their belief in God. My point was that I cannot attribute to mere societial evolution that this disgust at that behavior would be so universal. Man's history doesn't show that without a believe in God, man would have developed that sense of justice. Societies that have attempted to be built without a religious basis or that even allowed religious practice have not proven that this type of justice can be achieved. Man on his own is incapable of seeing past himself enough to develop the sense of common good for all involved. This even happens when religious organizations are corrputed and lose sight of their calling as you pointed out with the Spanish inqusition. Bur my point is that at somw point in our distant history, man collectively had to begin thinking that there was a greater good and that they were more than merely surviving so that they devolped emotions and moral that went beyond survival of themselves or those that they cared about. These led to universal moral truths. That thinking in my belief had to come from God because man has not been shown to develop that on his own.

  God bless