RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 1:43:42 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Really? I'm familiar with one questionable reference by Josephus. What are some of the multitude of others?
Here are a few names...
Tacitus
Suetonius
Thallus
Pliny the Younger
Emperor Trajan
Talmud
Lucian
Mara Bar-Serapion
And of course Josephus.
Other notable accounts include the Acts of Pontius Pilate and the gnostics' Gospel of Truth.
These are just the accounts and records of non-Christian historians. Kinda hard to deny these, but some still do.
< Message edited by evry1needsgod -- 7/9/2008 3:56:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 1:27:12 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Really? I'm familiar with one questionable reference by Josephus. What are some of the multitude of others?
Here are a few names...
Tacitus
Suetonius
Thallus
Pliny the Younger
Emperor Trajan
Talmud
Lucian
Mara Bar-Serapion
And of course Josephus.
Other notable accounts include the Acts of Pontius Pilate and the gnostics' Gospel of Truth.
These are just the accounts of non-Christian historians and records. Kinda hard to deny these, but some still do.
How many of these are first hand accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 1:29:51 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Have you looked them up?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:18:17 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Have you looked them up?
Can you supply links? I am a rather lazy researcher. I may get around to these, I hope. But I would appreciate if you would give me something to start with. Heck, bring some quotes!
Later
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:31:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Have you looked them up? That's a nice double-standard, Method. You question the accuracy of secular historians yet will not accept the inerrant and authoritative Eyewitness account of creation. Tsk, tsk.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:35:02 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Have you looked them up?
Can you supply links? I am a rather lazy researcher. I may get around to these, I hope. But I would appreciate if you would give me something to start with. Heck, bring some quotes!
Later
Most of the relevant quotes are here. The Roman references (with which i'm most familiar) were not first-hand.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:36:28 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
That's a nice double-standard, Method. You question the accuracy of secular historians yet will not accept the inerrant and authoritative Eyewitness account of creation. Tsk, tsk.
Just calling the Bible inerrant doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:41:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Does it matter? In high school, a student will read his history textbook which records the days of Columbus, but did the writers of the curriculum experience first-hand accounts during the 1700s? Unless they are 300 years old, I think it's safe to say NO!  This is definitely a double standard here.
But, to make you feel better, I will do some research and will come up with some data for you to chew on. I can't guarantee any off these are first hand accounts though. Does this mean you will not accept their validity (even though they are non-Christian historians where conspiracy is not an possibility)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:45:39 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Most of the relevant quotes are here. The Roman references (with which i'm most familiar) were not first-hand.
Oh yeah, cool!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:47:47 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just calling the Bible inerrant doesn't make it so.
No one is claiming that. But the eye witness accounts by Christians is something that can not be ignored. Don't you think that if you saw someone raise someone else from the dead, that you would believe? When you did believe, you would become a Christian, and don't you think it would make you angry if non-Christians chose not to accept your accounts because you are now a believer? That makes no sense to me, and that is simply an example of a "pick-and-choose" way of thinking. Just pick the evidence that one likes and discard the facts that disproves them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:49:17 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can you supply links? I am a rather lazy researcher. I may get around to these, I hope. But I would appreciate if you would give me something to start with. Heck, bring some quotes!
Pick on of the names and I will present a quote. Anyone in particular that catches your eye?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 2:54:10 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
No one is claiming that. But the eye witness accounts by Christians is something that can not be ignored. Don't you think that if you saw someone raise someone else from the dead, that you would believe? When you did believe, you would become a Christian, and don't you think it would make you angry if non-Christians chose not to accept your accounts because you are now a believer? That makes no sense to me, and that is simply an example of a "pick-and-choose" way of thinking. Just pick the evidence that one likes and discard the facts that disproves them.
I agree with this.
However, a possibly unfortunate logical extension of this may be to say that we ought not dismiss outright claims of UFO witnesses -- or at least, we ought not to protest if they bristle at our skepticism. What do you think about that? I also started a thread on this. Though it is a silly thread, be warned.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:07:24 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, a possibly unfortunate logical extension of this may be to say that we ought not dismiss outright claims of UFO witnesses -- or at least, we ought not to protest if they bristle at our skepticism.
I do not believe issues like Christian historians should not be investigated. THEY SHOULD, and ought to be! But the thing is, THEY HAVE, and to simply out-right dismiss all Christian accounts of Jesus w/o even a second thought to investigate the claims to see if a conspiracy is in the mix is literally intellectual dishonesty. Do I believe aliens exist? No. But, I will not debate against those who do without first studying the issue and deciding for myself, with plenty of evidence to back me up, that aliens don't exist.
quote:
Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming....Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long takes it for granted." (Sherwin-White, RSRLNT, 189)
E.M. Blaiklock, professor of classics in Auckland University, concludes that: "Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks" (Blaiklock, AA, 89)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:10:08 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
However, a possibly unfortunate logical extension of this may be to say that we ought not dismiss outright claims of UFO witnesses...
Or the first-hand revelation of the Koran to Muhammed, or the eyewitnesses who saw miracles associated with him. Or Joseph Smith's first-hand account of finding the golden plates.
Does evry1needsgod accept these eyewitness testimonies or does evry1needsgod also suffer from a "pick-and-choose" way of thinking?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:16:38 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do I believe aliens exist? No. But, I will not debate against those who do without first studying the issue and deciding for myself, with plenty of evidence to back me up, that aliens don't exist.
cool
I agree with you BTW that the Bible ought to be considered among the historical references, if that's what you mean. The other (non-Christian) ones are also really interesting! I guess maybe es's point may be that most do not reference Jesus' as an extant individual, but rather refer to Christians. Christians, presumably, were brought to be such after heaing the accounts of Paul and others, putting them at not too far a remove from the historical Jesus, so-called, but also being not independent from the Biblical account as such.
Your points are quite valid though every1, I say. Sometimes incredible claims are made to which we are not initially party to. Of course, I would say that if someone claimed that a man was god, I would indeed be skeptical. However, I am being only hypothetical.
The difference between such hypothetical claims and that of Jesus is that one ought not consider Jesus "historical," but a claim is made that He is present in some sense, or that we at least ought to consider ourselves contemporary with him. There is a difference, I would say, between accepting the claim of another human and being faced with the contemporaneity of Christ via the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Advocate of confession and so on. :)
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/9/2008 3:26:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:25:15 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
Just to get us back on track (I'm as guilty as any)... Here's what the thread is supposed to be about.
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case....
Here are a few ground rules, just to make sure we get a quality discussion:
Present the absolute best scientific evidence you know of that supports 6 day creation (or some variant of YEC). You have slam dunk evidence of a young earth? Show it here.
Please be able to expound upon and discuss any evidence you preset... no deluge of factoids from a lengthy copied and pasted list. If you want to use info from such a list, fine, but just pick one or two arguments that you feel are the absolute best and be prepared to support and discuss them.
This is about science, not theology/philosophy. Present objective scientific evidence. Even the most religious among us should realize that Bible quotes arent considered scientific evidence. Lets keep it objective and scientific.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:31:49 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does evry1needsgod accept these eyewitness testimonies or does evry1needsgod also suffer from a "pick-and-choose" way of thinking?
I'm here, you could just ask me. I doubt HHH knows my answer.
quote:
Or the first-hand revelation of the Koran to Muhammed
How would you, or I, know this was true revelation? By what Muhammed tells us? Was there anyone else around witnessing the "revelation?" Was it revealed to more than one person? The answers to these questions is a NO. So yes, on a historical bases you may reject the validity of the Koran.
quote:
Or Joseph Smith's first-hand account of finding the golden plates.
Challengers of the Witnesses Testimony:
Several well known critics of the Latter Day Saint movement, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and the Institute for Religious Research, allege that the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be taken at face value. They note that several pieces of evidence exist that call into question the impartiality and credibility of the witnesses, which casts doubt upon the authenticity of their experience. Frequently cited criticisms include the following:
* The three witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer), all left the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime,[4][5][6][7] and considered Smith to have transgressed.[8] Although all three of them later rejoined Latter Day Saint denominations, some scholars dispute the sincerity of their conversion.[9]
* All of the witnesses were close to Joseph Smith, being family, close friends, or had a large investment in the movement[10]
* Martin Harris later stated, "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state."[11]
* After Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer became dissidents, Joseph Smith alleged they both had abused the saints by being thieves and counterfeiters [12]
* Martin Harris was heard saying that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates, and "hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it"[13]
* Years later, Brigham Young noted that "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel."[14]
Apologists[who?] note that Harris and Cowdery later returned to the fellowship of the church. Additionally, it is widely cited by leaders of the LDS church[who?][citation needed] that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony as it was written in the Book of Mormon, or denied that Smith was a true prophet when he translated the book[citation needed].
Note the bold, because I think that point is the most telling. If Joseph Smith truly witnessed revelation from God and wanted to bring witnesses to see this revelation, do you think he was THAT stupid to bring his family and close friends, all of which comprise a mere 2 families? If I had witnessed an event such as this from God, I would NEVER bring my dad and brothers. I'd choose someone who is in no way related to me or friends with me.
Something else I noticed...
Although Smith said the angel had commanded him not to display the plates to others, under pressure from his associates, in 1829, he said God would allow eleven witnesses to see them.
Now think about this REAL hard. One of God's angels commands him not to show anyone the plates, BUT, after so much peer pressure Joe says that God would allow it. SERIOUSLY?! So no, with plenty reason I do not accept these eye witness accounts at all. Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 3:58:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh, at first I was offended by that -- but then I realized you were making a joke! Yeah, cuz I'm the "third person."
LOL! My bad, no offense was meant. Ya, he was asking you what my answer would be, which is a bit odd...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:03:41 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Just to get us back on track (I'm as guilty as any)... Here's what the thread is supposed to be about.
yeah, this is pretty much the exact opposite of what this thread was supposed to be about... so where are we?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:08:47 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
How many of these are first hand accounts?
Have you looked them up?
Have you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:16:43 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Have you?
Is this how you debate? I gave you the names, look 'em up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:28:19 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Have you?
Is this how you debate? I gave you the names, look 'em up.
Is this how you back up your claims? There is no doubt that people believed in the existence of someone named Jesus, but if all you have are second hand accounts of second hand accounts then it does little to evidence the existence of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:41:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I'm here, you could just ask me. I doubt HHH knows my answer.
Sorry, just sorta replying to two different posts at the same time.
quote:
How would you, or I, know this was true revelation? By what Muhammed tells us? Was there anyone else around witnessing the "revelation?" Was it revealed to more than one person? The answers to these questions is a NO. So yes, on a historical bases you may reject the validity of the Koran.
The burning bush appeared to Moses alone, I believe. John's revelation was his alone. Therefore we can discount these testimonies.
You also sliced off the miracles associated with Muhammed, which were witnessed by multiple people.
quote:
* All of the witnesses were close to Joseph Smith, being family, close friends, or had a large investment in the movement[10]
Matt Mark Luke & John had a large investment in the early Church. So we can discount their testimony.
quote:
So no, with plenty reason I do not accept these eye witness accounts at all. Do you?
No, I don't accept them. But I reject the Bible for the very same reasons you reject these other holy books.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:42:45 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Have you?
Is this how you debate? I gave you the names, look 'em up.
Is this how you back up your claims? There is no doubt that people believed in the existence of someone named Jesus, but if all you have are second hand accounts of second hand accounts then it does little to evidence the existence of Jesus.
That is, provided it deals with Christianity. We have four "historians". Two followed Jesus for three years, one was a physician who collected facts from the eye witnesses, another a companion of Jesus' head disciple (who also wrote about him in two letters). How many accounts of Christ do you require in order to believe that he existed? Or do you think that all of these accounts with their various writing styles were made up by some neerdowells intent on flooding the world with the evils of Christianity?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
