Intelligent Design / Evolution podcast

[G4Z]

One final point before you bring it up, the energy for driving a flagellum comes from a process called respiration, you may be familiar with it as you are doing one form of it right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

[fuddam]

One final point before you bring it up, the energy for driving a flagellum comes from a process called respiration, you may be familiar with it as you are doing one form of it right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

yep, was studying it before you were born.

Not that age is a qualifier, of course.

[EvilWeevil]

your mistaken assumption. stop jumping to conclusions.

[2p]

When you look at it, jumping to conclusions is exactly what people who believe in or promote ID are doing. The philosophy behind it is purely - "we can't explain why stuff happens, therefore it must be some higher being or creator which made it happen". You could replace this philosophy with "we can't explain why stuff happens, therefore it must be because of a bloke in Milton Keynes who watched TV".

Jumping to conclusions is exactly how stupid ideas like this are formed, so I reckon iranu's entitled to a bit for himself...

With this in mind, why believe in ID?

We can't prove that either of the preceding philosophies are wrong. But that's no reason to believe that they are true.

If I told you that there was a planet made of jam which could talk French, would you believe me, just because you couldn't disprove it? Or would you take into account the common knowledge that planets can't talk and are made of elements and simple compounds such as oxides and silicates, not of complex biochemicals?

I think not.

[/2p]

[fuddam]

[2p]

When you look at it, jumping to conclusions is exactly what people who believe in or promote ID are doing. The philosophy behind it is purely - "we can't explain why stuff happens, therefore it must be some higher being or creator which made it happen". You could replace this philosophy with "we can't explain why stuff happens, therefore it must be because of a bloke in Milton Keynes who watched TV".
[/2p]

can only comment on the course my path took:

1) Knew Christ first - through direct, undeniable experience. Rational examination of such experience.

2) came to understand that God is the originator of all existence

3) ID is the most logical explanation for how the world is. While I know God could have created the earth literally in 6 days, the evidence suggests He did not.

So, rather than Christians simply copping out by saying that "we don't understand or know anything better therefore there must be a God", it is usually the other way around.

[TeePee]

Yup, I called you stupid. Prove me wrong?

[Firebar]

I love all the quoting from Wikipedia, the most eminent source of correct information in the universe ever!

Pity the thread has gone down the pan.

[nichomach]

Yup, I called you stupid. Prove me wrong?

Then I'd apologise and retract the statement if I were you. It's a breach of the forum guidelines.

[fuddam]

This is a religion based around some guy for whom there is no evidence of his existence, based solely on a religious text which doesn't fit in with recorded history, and which has been very badly translated and yet it is accepted by followers that every word, even the mistranslations, are true.

to quote the beloved wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

which includes his quote:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius

and

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources

from http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...letru.html#fn9

A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence.

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (8)

Other Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, talk about Jesus and his miracles. Surprisingly to many atheists, they never denied that miracles took place, but attempted to explain them as a result of evil (9). More information about Jesus in the Talmud can be found at Jesus Christ In The Talmud.

Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire):

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." (10)

Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the earthquake and darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. Mara Bar-Seraphon wrote a letter to his son in 73 A.D. which tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." Jesus is also mentioned by Phlegon, a first-century historian, Lucian of Samosata (in The Passing Peregrinus), and Plinius Secundus, (Pliny the Younger).

Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." (11) The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (12)

Even the atheist H. G. Wells spoke of Jesus, "...one is obliged to say, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented." (13)

and here - Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

and here - Extrabiblical, Non-Christian Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

and here - http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...rabiblical.htm

and here - Secular Historians Outside The Bible That Record Jesus Christ And Christianity.
http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

of course, there is a lot of overlap in those references, but I was not looking for unique references.

THIS is taken from www.infidels.org, an atheist think tank:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

which concludes:

Conclusion
I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus.

and another article by him on the same site:

I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material,"[19] we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed.

there are many articles on the site, some of which (of course) adopt your assertion that he never existed. But it is interesting that there is disagreement on this issue, on a site which seeks to expose Christianity for being myth / lies / etc

[TeePee]

Hmm, let me quote a page, I learnt this from you, but at least mine is slightly relevent...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on.

Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:

'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...'

Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

4. The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

Tacitus also have a fake paragraph and Pliny is only a witness to christians. Read through the other 'witnesses' you posted.. I note this conclusion in what YOU posted:

I originally thought that I would end up saying that the Thallus' evidence for the death of Jesus was positive, but (it's) shaky at best

and the writer goes on to note that one reference to an eclipse is some strong evidence, and this is the problem. All of these websites are so desparate to prove something, they list every early reference to christians just to make it seem like there are a lot more actual witnesses, but there aren't.

[fuddam]

As I mentioned at the bottom of my post, infidels.org has people who will assert everything to the contrary of what I have stated, and yet there are writers there who say Jesus DID exist, historically.

Which one is right? If ALL assertions on that site claimed Jesus did not exist, you would have a stronger case, but.....

All depends who you quote, and what one judges their integrity to be.

That doesn't bother me - people can say what they like.

[TeePee]

I supported my case with evidence, and showed your evidence to be incorrect. If you have any more, I'd be happy to look into it, but I suggest you do some reading first.

[fuddam]

I supported my case with evidence, and showed your evidence to be incorrect. If you have any more, I'd be happy to look into it, but I suggest you do some reading first.

give me the source of your quote, please

2nd, and for all the aetheists out there, have a gander at these 2 books:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/atheism.html

by the way, Dawkins interviewed McGrath for that Root of all Evil? program. He left all of the interview on the editing floor, since it contradicted and exposed Dawkin's claims as fallacious.

also, a book called Explorations in Scientific Theology coming out soon:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/orderofthings.html

Edit: just to add some room for criticism of McGrath's work, here are some references:

The three volumes of Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology (2001-3) were subjected to detailed scrutiny in both theological and scientific journals. The following reviews are the most thorough, extensive, and critical, and may be recommended as critical introductions to, and evaluations of, the project:

Brad Shipway, “The Theological Application of Bhaskar’s Stratified Reality: The Scientific Theology of A.E. McGrath.” Journal of Critical Realism 3 (2004): 191-203; Benjamin Myers, “Alister McGrath’s Scientific Theology.” Reformed Theological Review 64 (2005): 15-34; Elmer Colyer, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 1 - Nature.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 226-31; idem, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 2 - Reality.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 492-7; idem, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 3 - Theory.” Pro Ecclesia 13 (2004): 244-40. For a landmark evaluation from a Catholic perspective, including criticism of my views on the limited capacities of human reason, see James F. Keating, “The Natural Sciences as an Ancilla Theologiae Nova: Alister E. McGrath’s A Scientific Theology.” The Thomist 69 (2005): 127-52. An important assessment of my approach up to 1999 can be found in Ross H. McKenzie, “Foundations of the Dialogue between the Physical Sciences and Theology.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56 (2004): 242-54. This review is especially significant on account of McKenzie’s status as one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists.

[TeePee]

McGrath is pretty interesting, particularly his book on Atheism. But his arguements are not that a rise and fall of atheism are defined by evidence for the non-existence of a god, but by social and political change. I actually think it's pretty sad that 9/11 and The Da Vinci Code probably have more influence on the popularity of relgion than McGrath, Scientists or the Pope. What you choose to believe should be your own decision, not one forced on you from birth, and as such I'd be interested to hear what McGrath has to say about Jean Piaget.

Dawkins root of all evil was designed to make good TV for the masses, so I'm not surprsed if a high level discussion was deleted, and I welcome it. If the masses can be shown how evil some of the brainwashing techniques used by evangelical christians are, that's likely to be more effective than academic discussion . Dawkins was a crap interviewer, and most of the interviews he did show ended up being covered by a voiceover.

[Firebar]

Dawkins is a muppet by all accounts. His work isn't worth looking into, and this is what a lot of Scientists I work with say! He's blinded by his arrogance and spouts opinionated rubbish. No offence intended, but your views about so called Brainwashing are similar to his, have you been reading his work?

edit - bah crappy English

[TheAnimus]

no one has ever seen a machine that put itself together without a designer, and no cell could possibly live without a good number of miniature molecular machines all present and functioning.

Actually, I have, its called EVOLUTION, and in this case, lady luck similed on me, it was only 4.5% likely to find a good solution when it did, but it found it, you might say thats proof of god, i however have a grasp of statistics.

A intresting feild in SCIENCE is EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION. This normally uses a survival of the fittest idea to find solutions to problems. The problem could be as complex as desigin a propultion system (or just solving the good old Taveling Salesmen Problem). The reason i bring this up, is because for an assignment a few weeks back i had to design an evolving AI. It played against a stupid AI first, trained loads, then against a mathematically proven perfect player. Guess how long it took it to evolve to a state to match it? It hasn't. Pure and simple, my quad proccessor 3ghz box isn't enough (banging for some 4 months). But its worth noting its still getting better all the time.

When you think how much time has gone by (its more than 6,000 years) since the earth came to be, and then how many planets like earth there must be in the universe. The odds of it happening aren't all that!

[TeePee]

The fact that most christians are taken to church because their parent's believe is brainwashing from birth, sure, it's a bad thing, but parent's do worse.

An example of the kind of brainwashing which I consider abusive, are so called 'Hell Houses'. I'm sure you can read about them on the web, but basically, young children (there are no age limits, the makers think 12 is a good age to watch) are frightened out of their lives by such scenes as graphic fake abortions, where the baby (it's full grown) starts screaming half way through and rivers of blood flow accross the stage. Then the children are told 'This is what happens if you don't believe, pray with us now, and you'll be saved'.

How is that not brainwashing? How is that not abuse?