Quote:Original post by dagarach Your description of Mohammed is no different to a Jew's description of Jesus - "Nowhere in My holy book does it say that Jesus is the Messiah". Accounts of him fulfilling prophecies can be dismissed as the work of propagandists.
The gospels do not contain multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus, they contain 4 third-hand descriptions of multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
they were not 3rd hand descriptions, these 4 were active in Jesus' life. Matthew and John were 2 of the 12 Disciples..who which were always around Jesus..what better source would you expect to have? Mark was the son of Peter(also a Disciple) who constantly was in contact with Peter as Peter told him about Jesus in during his life. that is not to say mark did not ever see Jesus. Mark was with Peter numerous times and Peter would tell him about what was happening or what just happened. in modern day terms, think of it as a broadcaster for the weather channel in Florida covering the hurricanes giving information to the viewers on the weather channel etc etc. Luke was a doctor who worked with Paul and was in the same situation as Mark getting info from Peter. However John went out of his way to take local eye witness accounts of Jesus during his life. He also, being a doctor, not surprisingly talks about Jesus' birth and Mary's extended family.
how you can say that these gospels were written from 3rd or 4th hand knowledge shows you really dont know much about the 4 gospels.
In fact, that statement is so important, I'm going to quote it again...
Quote:Original post by Stonicus If I tell my brother a story today, by tomorrow, 3 people down the grapevine, the story has changed. And this happened to the stories in the Bible for hundreds of years. There's very little chance they are accurate enough to be taken literally. We can't get accurate info on what happened in Iraq yesterday. But the Bible is an accurate account of what happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago? It's just not logical.
Quote:Original post by OpenGL_Guru they were not 3rd hand descriptions, these 4 were active in Jesus' life. Matthew and John were 2 of the 12 Disciples..who which were always around Jesus..what better source would you expect to have? Mark was the son of Peter(also a Disciple) who constantly was in contact with Peter as Peter told him about Jesus in during his life. that is not to say mark did not ever see Jesus. Mark was with Peter numerous times and Peter would tell him about what was happening or what just happened. in modern day terms, think of it as a broadcaster for the weather channel in Florida covering the hurricanes giving information to the viewers on the weather channel etc etc. Luke was a doctor who worked with Paul and was in the same situation as Mark getting info from Peter. However John went out of his way to take local eye witness accounts of Jesus during his life. He also, being a doctor, not surprisingly talks about Jesus' birth and Mary's extended family.
But how do you know these facts to be true? If it's just because the Bible says so, then we're stuck in an infinite loop.
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight Islam is incompatible with Christianity because it claims Jesus was just a prophet, not the Son of God. That's a really big difference. You have to either accept Jesus as the Son of God or declare him a lunatic, there really is no middle ground.
...or as just some guy who was nice to people (not a lunatic) who was turned into a deity by Emperor Constatine some 200+ years after Jesus died.
The Bible has too much "post-Jesus" editing and translation and addition to make it a reliable source of true fact. If I tell my brother a story today, by tomorrow, 3 people down the grapevine, the story has changed. And this happened to the stories in the Bible for hundreds of years. There's very little chance they are accurate enough to be taken literally. We can't get accurate info on what happened in Iraq yesterday. But the Bible is an accurate account of what happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago? It's just not logical.
God being all that He is...all-knowing, perfect, omnipotent and divine. Holy then yes its perfectly logical..again the Bible was written by human nature but through divine intervention.
Quote:Original post by Chris81 As a side note to evolutionists, please explain irreducible complexity as presented by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in his book Drawin's Black Box--The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. It basically takes the stance "I don't know how <x> could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed". This is a clearly fallacious position.
Furthermore, many (if not all) of his so called 'irreducibly complex' systems have been shown to be completely reducible. The eye for example - throughout the animal kingdom there are creatures alive today demonstrating eyes at all stages of complexity, ranging from simple light sensitive cells, to the complex eyes of a mantis shrimp. With a bit of research, it's not hard to come up with an evolutionary pathway for a structure like the eye.
Actually, I am thinking in more of a smaller structure, such as the cell and blood clotting.
Here's an excerpt from a review of the book:
Quote: Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death. Timing and speed are the vital keys.
Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks: “Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood . . . has solidified?” He explains that “the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot” make up an integrated biological system. If any part fails, then the system fails.
Russell Doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks: “How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?” Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an “enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places.” He shows that Doolittle’s explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties.
Thus, one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states: “I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future.”
And this explains evolutionists lack of explanation:
Quote: Professor Behe states that some scientists have studied “mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data.” However, he concludes: “The mathematics assumes that real-world evolution is a gradual, random process; it does not (and cannot) demonstrate it.” (Last phrase italics ours.) He earlier said: “If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.”
This raises a series of questions for conscientious scientists to consider: “How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?” Behe adds: “The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.”
If Darwin’s theory cannot explain the complex molecular foundation of cells, then how can it be a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the millions of species that inhabit this earth? After all, evolution cannot even produce new family kinds by bridging the gaps from one family kind to another.
In fact, that statement is so important, I'm going to quote it again...
Quote:Original post by Stonicus If I tell my brother a story today, by tomorrow, 3 people down the grapevine, the story has changed. And this happened to the stories in the Bible for hundreds of years. There's very little chance they are accurate enough to be taken literally. We can't get accurate info on what happened in Iraq yesterday. But the Bible is an accurate account of what happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago? It's just not logical.
Read my previous post:
Quote: The copyists in bible times were very maticulous about correctly copying the bible. They would triple check every letter, as they believed it to be holy and a grave sin to incorrectly copy the book. This is why all known copies of the bible have so few differences between them, including comparing the latest pre-printing press copies with the oldest scrolls and copies, dead sea scrolls, etc. They were many copies and they are all the same. They were not changed. If they wanted to remove a "false prophecy" from the bible, they would have to remove it from all known copies. And given the intense reverance of the bible by the copeists, it is highly unlikely.
In fact, that statement is so important, I'm going to quote it again...
Quote:Original post by Stonicus If I tell my brother a story today, by tomorrow, 3 people down the grapevine, the story has changed. And this happened to the stories in the Bible for hundreds of years. There's very little chance they are accurate enough to be taken literally. We can't get accurate info on what happened in Iraq yesterday. But the Bible is an accurate account of what happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago? It's just not logical.
Read my previous post:
Quote: The copyists in bible times were very maticulous about correctly copying the bible. They would triple check every letter, as they believed it to be holy and a grave sin to incorrectly copy the book. This is why all known copies of the bible have so few differences between them, including comparing the latest pre-printing press copies with the oldest scrolls and copies, dead sea scrolls, etc. They were many copies and they are all the same. They were not changed. If they wanted to remove a "false prophecy" from the bible, they would have to remove it from all known copies. And given the intense reverance of the bible by the copeists, it is highly unlikely.
Err... ok. But if copy something that's already broken, you won't fix it.
do you believe in evolution as a scientific theory or as philosophical dogma? You'd be surprised how many people treat evolution almost as if it were a religious belief. as a scientific theory, you would agree that it should be held as long as it seems to be a consistent explanation of the evidence we have available, right?
there is a problem that exists...the problem of trying to use the scientific method to investigate any event that took place in the past. You see, to qualify as a scientific theory, any ideas must be testable in a controlled laboratory setting. The experiment we run must be capable of being repeated by any other qualified scientist. The most that laboratory experiments could ever hope to show is that natural selection or spontaneous generation or some other evolutionary mechanism can work under certain conditions. And all that would prove is that it could have been the way life evolved. An experiment could never say that this was the way life did evolve.
that being said, science can never make positive statements about historical events of any kind; it can only investigate current processes...i.e. evolution is really historical speculation, nothing more.
****************************************
lets go through an exercise shall we as a simple and as ONE of many examples? anyone have a coin? get it out and flip it. its either going to be heads or tails. lets assume its tails. now what do you think the chances would be that you could flip 10 more tails in a row? not too good? you would be right. ...anyone good with permutations/combinations? Let's suppose that you sat here and flipped this coin steadily, five flips every second. How long do you think it would take for you to get 10 tails in a row? 30 mins? an hour? 24 hours? And what if I made you flip it until you got a hundred tails in a row. How long might that take? maybe days? weeks? now what about a million tails in a row??? guess what.. you wouldnt live that long.. it would be (nearly) impossible..at least in your lifetime.
there are studies done on very simple molecules that have been studied and verified through numerous calculations that the odds of even ONE of these forming purely by chance is one in one hundred trillion trillion..one of the most popular molecules worked on in this matter is the protein called polypeptid...of course you wouldnt ever hear about this being done in the mainstream media. Even if you could flip that coin a hundred times a second, it would still take you 31 billion years to flip your coin the equivalent number of times to equal the odds of that one simple molecule. if you are talking about a fish you are talking about many multiple times that for the odds. and humans?? unimaginable.
