Who was this Jesus-guy anyway?

dedtekker wrote:
Also, I'd like to point out that my claims are not theistic, but rather existential in nature. We are not discussing the topic of Jesus' deity. We are discussing whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Yes, that is what we're discussing - but who cares? Perhaps even a Xsdljsdf of Aowwfslsdfsdfk has existed somewhere in time, but if he hasn't performed any miracles then I couldn't care less.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth only becomes interesting when we ask whether such a man performed miracles and made extraordinary claims about himself. Shouldn't we be asking whether that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

I'm sure that he didn't. We now have youtube and television: I've seen too many magicians perform Jesus' tricks. I've also seen Uri Geller, who can do 5 easy tricks but claims that he does not know tricks: He uses True Magic. He may be a magician, but he's also a liar.

If Jesus actually was a son of God, he might have done better than his quite stupid sermon of the mount, and party tricks like turning water into wine. He might have cured all disease, supplied the world with enough food, ban war - but no, he chose some tricks that thousands of tricksters can copy. Why? Perhaps because he was a trickster?

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The claims about Jesus are extraordinary, but the evidence is practically non-existent. The evidence is suspicious on his existence, and non-existent on the further claims. (The Bible is not a reliable source of factual information.)

Now, Niels, let's not be too cynical here. Yes, He could have done those things, but it wasn't yet time for that to be done. He will do those things soon. And have you ever met someone who could resurrect someone else after they had been dead four days?

When you say that "he could have done those things, but it wasn't yet time for that to be done. Yes I do agree, if the bible was an accurate representation of history and a factual portrayal of events that occured. But it's not. Infact, it's not even close. Niels was correct when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence that Christianity offers, is at best atrocious or non-existent. This is why Christians require faith.

have you ever met someone who could resurrect someone else after they had been dead four days?

Nope, and I don't believe anyone else has either.

This YouTube video is a nice short extract of Sam Harris describing the problems with miracles.

courtney wrote:Now, Niels, let's not be too cynical here. Yes, He could have done those things, but it wasn't yet time for that to be done. He will do those things soon.

In that case, let's hold off this debate until the evidence rolls in. It will roll in soon, right?

Clint wrote:When you say that "he could have done those things, but it wasn't yet time for that to be done. Yes I do agree, if the bible was an accurate representation of history and a factual portrayal of events that occured. But it's not. Infact, it's not even close. Niels was correct when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence that Christianity offers, is at best atrocious or non-existent. This is why Christians require faith.

have you ever met someone who could resurrect someone else after they had been dead four days?

Nope, and I don't believe anyone else has either.

This YouTube video is a nice short extract of Sam Harris describing the problems with miracles.

Yes, Christians do need to have faith, but which is the more extraordinary and which requires more faith- to believe we were created, or that we evolved from a single cell organism?

which is the more extraordinary and which requires more faith- to believe we were created, or that we evolved from a single cell organism?

Evolution doesn't require faith at all, so that just leaves Christianity for that vote. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, that's survived over 150 years of scrutiny and is now surrounded by an entire framework of evidence so overwhelming and still piling up. It's observable and you can reproduce it in the lab. If one were to deny evolution, then by the same standard of evidence one must also deny the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Heliocentrism (theory that planetary systems revolve around a central star), Plate Tectonics Theory, and the Germ Theory and so forth.

Look at the evidence. - Fossils evidence, Biogeography evidence, Vestigiality evidence, Geological Succession evidence, Embryology evidence, Genetic evidence ALL match up to support the exact same conclusion - evolution is not a matter of faith, but one of fact & knowledge.

...what is this repeated assertion that he's coming back soon. Christians have been saying this for two thousand years now, and he's been a no show. Not even a hint. Nada. It would have to be the worlds best case of denialism.

courtney wrote:Yes, Christians do need to have faith, but which is the more extraordinary and which requires more faith- to believe we were created, or that we evolved from a single cell organism?

I could forgive you for not "believing" that we evolved from single cells - but if you claim we were created as-is, then you deny that we're related to other apes, and that's a piece of denial that needs professional treatment. You would be denying the similarities in DNA, bloodtypes, bone structure, procreation, embryonic development and metabolism. You would be denying tons of fossils. You would be denying that life existed on earth before humans came around.

I don't want to accuse you of delusions without solid evidence, so please tell us: When do you think humans were created? What were earth and the universe like before that creation?

Niels wrote:

courtney wrote:Yes, Christians do need to have faith, but which is the more extraordinary and which requires more faith- to believe we were created, or that we evolved from a single cell organism?

I could forgive you for not "believing" that we evolved from single cells - but if you claim we were created as-is, then you deny that we're related to other apes, and that's a piece of denial that needs professional treatment. You would be denying the similarities in DNA, bloodtypes, bone structure, procreation, embryonic development and metabolism. You would be denying tons of fossils. You would be denying that life existed on earth before humans came around.

I don't want to accuse you of delusions without solid evidence, so please tell us: When do you think humans were created? What were earth and the universe like before that creation?

I do not deny that there are definite similarities between apes and humans. If we were to look at the DNA, for example. But then again, that is just one example. If we were to look at blood chemistry, one test showed that we are closest to the chicken. Another type of blood chemistry test showed that our closest relative is the butterbean. So what does the tests really prove, anyway?
I do not deny that life existed before humans came around. (I am not a believer in Fred and the Flintstones) I do not deny the fossils of dinosaurs and what-not. What I do deny is the "evidence" of transitional fossils. If, as some claim, we evolved from apes, or from anything else, where is concrete proof? All life on the planet did not just evolve. If it did, why do we not still see these "middle-evolved" creatures today?
I believe humans were created 6,000 years ago. However, I do not believe that the earth itself was created 6,000 years ago. There was a different time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (If no one has a problem with me quoting the bible). The earth was created an untold number of years ago, then somehow it was destroyed. Verse two of Genesis describes the re-creation of earth, and the creation of man, and all life on the planet today.

This blood chemistry nonsense comes from Henry Morris in his book The Twilight of Evolution, published in 1998, for the Institute for Creation Research. That pretty much says it all. Light on science, heavily in fiction.

Instead of me responding to it, I'll let the National Center for Science Education do the responding:

Tear enzymes.
The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Variants exist in tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Prager and Wilson showed that chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by fifty-one out of 130 amino acids (in E. F. Osserman, Lysozyme, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 127-141). Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. It is apparent that the creationists either had not bothered to look at this paper when they made their claims or they believe that fifty-one is less than zero.

Blood antigen A.
This is one of the molecules that determine blood types. They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high concentration (Gottschalk, Glycoproteins, 1972). Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical or nearly identical to those of humans (J. Ruffie, "Immunogenetics of Primates" in Perspectives in Primate Biology edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217). Butterbeans, having no blood, obviously have no blood antigens.

Cholesterol level.
Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.

Henry Morris pretty much is a dishonest person that's willing to lie to himself and others.
_________________
Transitional Fossils

Referencing my previous post when I said that evolutions is surrounded by an entire framework of evidence so overwhelming and still piling up. It's also successfully survived 150 years of scrutiny, with any attempt to disprove it falling short by a long shot. No serious biologist (which are by the way the ones who study this for a living) or any scientist for that matter denies evolution.

"There are no transitional fossils" ...It honestly staggers me how often this gets used. It's patently false. Even if we didn't have a single transitional fossil (which we do - we have thousands), evolution would still remain a fact as we have tons of other forms of evidence in support. Especially in genetics. That subject alone prove's evolution beyond any doubt.

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little research before asserting some things. Let me help you!

Aside from our library of evidence and our page on hominid evolution here. The following are results I obtained within 3 minutes of searching.

Click on any of the species in this list to see their transitions, hominid transitional skulls here, detailed horse evolution here and , here, Click on any of the cetacean transitions here, pbs evolution here, interactive berkely site here, and here, The millions of links at the TalkOrigins archive with their transitional fossil FAQ, a hominid transitional photo here.

Or if you want easy YouTube videos see:
Good video on evolution here, hominid evolution here, Whale evolution here, Excellent diatom evolution example here, examples and explanations here, I suggest you learn about natural selection here, and also, here for why there still are chimpanzees.

Again... Apart from our interactive contents, that have videos and pictures to help explain. There are many others also doing this. This YouTube channel also is very good for explaining natural selection & evolution.

Ignorance isn't a crime. But I suggest you learn about evolution first before denouncing it. Everyone has to live and learn :-)

Neils, I appologise for temporarily getting off topic :-)

Clint wrote:Neils, I appologise for temporarily getting off topic :-)

Unforgivable! But since I had done the same if you hadn't, I'll forgive you anyway. ;-)

@Courtney: Your arguments against evolution have been demolished. You'll have to accept that the person who told you these arguments was lying to you. Shame on him, but if you continue to spread these lies, then shame on you. If you need lies to make your case, then that case isn't worth making.