Was Jesus a real person?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
crowTrobot said:
I'm not particularly interested in debating evolution, at least in this thread which you kinda hijacked, but you should really study other sources since everything you've posted is based on propaganda-style misrepresentation (michael denton is a long-time ANTI-evolution author, not a leading evolutionist; every single fossil ever found has fit in with a pattern we would expect if evolution were true etc.)



because conditions were so much more competetive our humanoid ancestors likely were much less social and more small clan-oriented than modern man. they also were very likely relatively uncommon in number compared to some dinosour species that may have existed in herds of millions as with modern plains mammal species. presumably being a little smarter than dinosaurs they also would have been less prone to lemming effects where a group dies the same way before individuals can adjust to what is going on, which is likely the case where groups of dinosaurs drowned together etc.
Click to expand...

Ou guess you didn't read the quotes I just posted above that aren't propaganda based; but actual direct quotes from PHDs scholars and evolutionists.

And this does relate to the topic and your argument ofjesus not existing becuase of your claim there is no physical proof he ever existed yet evolutionists, who hve no proof thru fossils or other physical evidence that evolution has ever existed. It's using the very same concept and theory
 
Last edited:
Rastapopoulos said:
What do you mean "evolution exists"? Do you mean you want proof that things have evolved?

I never understand exactly what people are doubting. Do they doubt that organisms can change? What's happening in dog breeding, then?
Click to expand...

Micro evolution =/= macro evolution, which there is not a shred of evidence for anywhere.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
What do you mean "evolution exists"? Do you mean you want proof that things have evolved?

I never understand exactly what people are doubting. Do they doubt that organisms can change? What's happening in dog breeding, then?
Click to expand...

No I want proof that man has physically evolved. Where are the missing links? If man came to be, where are the fossils to prove the evolution of organisms that make up man, birds, lions, whatever. This is all theory.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Micro evolution =/= macro evolution, which there is not a shred of evidence for anywhere.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Just because a Asian breeds with a white man, that you have a mix of race. This is no proof of the missing links to major evolutionary changes. Nothing...
 
magnifier661 said:
Ou guess you didn't read the quotes I just posted above that aren't propaganda based; but actual direct quotes from PHDs scholars and evolutionists.
Click to expand...

individual PHDs and scholars can be just as biased in their motivation as anyone else, and it only takes a few of those among millions of scientists to fuel a creationist website. the fact is 99%+ of scientists working in fields related to evolution believe in it.
for the few actual evolutists who you referenced such as Gould, their quotes were taken out of context. they in fact were just pointing out that we don't seem to fully understand the mechanism behind evolution, which is true, NOT that it's likely or necessarily even possible that common descent didn't happen.

And this does relate to the topic and your argument ofjesus not existing becuase of your claim there is no physical proof he ever existed yet evolutionists, who hve no proof thru fossils or other physical evidence that evolution has ever existed. It's using the very same concept and theory
Click to expand...

again, if you really care about this argument you should at least read other sources besides creationist-specific material. since you like wikipedia as an unbiased site -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

this is also pretty comprehensive -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 
crowTrobot said:
individual PHDs and scholars can be just as biased in their motivation as anyone else, and it only takes a few of those among millions of scientists to fuel a creationist website. the fact is 99%+ of scientists working in fields related to evolution believe in it.
for the few actual evolutists who you referenced such as Gould, their quotes were taken out of context. they in fact were just pointing out that we don't seem to fully understand the mechanism behind evolution, which is true, NOT that it's likely or necessarily even possible that common descent didn't happen.



again, if you really care about this argument you should at least read other sources besides creationist-specific material. since you like wikipedia as an unbiased site -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

this is also pretty comprehensive -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Click to expand...

That they believe in them?! Lol u have been talking about how idiotic Christians are because they just believe and here you are saying that %99 of scientists ad scholars believe. Talk about contradictions
 
magnifier661 said:
That they believe in them?! Lol u have been talking about how idiotic Christians are because they just believe and here you are saying that %99 of scientists ad scholars believe. Talk about contradictions
Click to expand...



contrary to what you think it is possible to believe something is true based on evidence rather than faith. if you don't think there is any evidence read through those links. the second is a little more from a perspective of refuting creationist arguments so might be more readable for you.
 
crowTrobot said:
contrary to what you think it is possible to believe something is true based on evidence rather than faith. if you don't think there is any evidence read through those links. the second is a little more from a perspective of refuting creationist arguments so might be more readable for you.
Click to expand...

Don't back peddle. Your major argument is how idiotic it is without physical proof, then use it to prove your idea. For every 100,000 PhDs that believe in evolution, there are millions of creationists that believe in god. Shoe me proof or don't make claim. Isn't that the jest of your arguments?
 
See evolution is the god of atheists. If ou don't believe in god, then you must believe that we were created in a natural process. So because most atheists have a scientific or "mathematical" background, it must be proven in order to work. And this is their two edged sword. They must have proof god exists yet they are willing to believe in a theory of evolution without any physical proof. Their faith is in evolution, their God is evolution.
 
magnifier661 said:
See evolution is the god of atheists. If ou don't believe in god, then you must believe that we were created in a natural process. So because most atheists have a scientific or "mathematical" background, it must be proven in order to work. And this is their two edged sword. They must have proof god exists yet they are willing to believe in a theory of evolution without any physical proof. Their faith is in evolution, their God is evolution.
Click to expand...

there is a mountain of physical proof, proof beyond any reasonable doubt. read the links.

why do you find evoution so threatening anyway? although it is easier to fit with atheism, it's by no means specifically an atheist belief. almost 1/2 the christians in the USA believe in it. the pope has even endorsed it more or less.
 
magnifier661 said:
For every 100,000 PhDs that believe in evolution, there are millions of creationists that believe in god.
Click to expand...



that's a pretty funny statement - exactly like something lewis black would say. i think you really are an undercover atheist comedian.
 
crowTrobot said:
there is a mountain of physical proof, proof beyond any reasonable doubt. read the links.

why do you find evoution so threatening anyway? although it is easier to fit with atheism, it's by no means specifically an atheist belief. almost 1/2 the christians in the USA believe in it. the pope has even endorsed it more or less.
Click to expand...

Another generalization again. I don't answer to the pope. I am not Catholic. I am just like you man... Why do you believe in that Evolution Religion? It's dangerous to believe in blind FAITH.

And I have read the links and still found no physical proof BTW.
 
crowTrobot said:
that's a pretty funny statement - exactly like something lewis black would say. i think you really are an undercover atheist comedian.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in religion. I just believe in Jesus and God.
 
Last edited:
magnifier661 said:
I don't answer to the pope. I am not Catholic.
Click to expand...

no but you are treating theism and belief in evolution as mutually exclusive for some reason.

I don't believe in religion. I just believe in Jesus and God.
Click to expand...

you apparently believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. you may not believe in the necessity of church or whatever, but you are overtly a religious fundamentalist by definition.
 
magnifier661 said:
I don't believe in religion. I just believe in Jesus and God.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of somebody I knew who told a story about a clergyman who was asked if he believed in infant baptism and he said "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it."

From your distinction above, I take it you think they're two different, um, people?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
That reminds me of somebody I knew who told a story about a clergyman who was asked if he believed in infant baptism and he said "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it."

From your distinction above, I take it you think they're two different, um, people?
Click to expand...

Well I just wanted to point out there is god the father and god the son
 
crowTrobot said:
no but you are treating theism and belief in evolution as mutually exclusive for some reason.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I? If the genesis of evolution is connected to scientific faith. It's at the same theoretical idealism as creationism.

you apparently believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. you may not believe in the necessity of church or whatever, but you are overtly a religious fundamentalist by definition.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. But telling me the pope agrees doesn't mean much to me.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Perhaps you can explain
(a) the distinction and
(b) how you came to be omniscient.
Click to expand...

If you don't even know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution then why do you believe in evolution at all? And sorry, I should have said that not a single shred of evidence for macro evolution has been discovered.
 
magnifier661 said:
Why wouldn't I? If the genesis of evolution is connected to scientific faith. It's at the same theoretical idealism as creationism.
Click to expand...

nonsensical comparison. whether you accept the evidence or not, the scientific view of evolution is based entirely on evidence. if evidence were found tomorrow refuting evolution science would change its views to accommodate it. if evidence that god exists were found tomorrow science would change to accommodate that also.

your "idealism" on the other hand is not evidence based in any way and does not allow you to change your mind on anything.

But telling me the pope agrees doesn't mean much to me.
Click to expand...

maybe not, but you should be aware that other people who believe in the same jesus and god as you with the same amount of faith as you feel there's no reason not to think that god meant genesis to be allegorical. accepting scientific consensus on biology and geology doesn't have to be a deal breaker to your faith.
 
He is a real person. He was my waiter the other night.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
If you don't even know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution then why do you believe in evolution at all? And sorry, I should have said that not a single shred of evidence for macro evolution has been discovered.
Click to expand...

I think people look at things like this:

493px-Horseevolution.png


And assume this is the jest of "Evolution"; yet not a single shred of fossils, or other remains show a connection of single cell organisms, that evolved to macro organisms, then evolve to a prehistoric mammal, then evolve to a hyracotherium. This is the missing link. This is why evolution is just as much "faith driven" as Christianity.

Many Atheists say "It's just logical that supernatural creation doesn't exist". Yet these same Atheists know they need evolution to support their logic it doesn't exist. So they theorize what they think is logic; without any physical proof that it ever took place and call it God.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
If you don't even know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution then why do you believe in evolution at all?
Click to expand...



macro is just a summation of micro evolutionary changes over long periods of time, but they both refer to the same type of changes. creationists like to imply that they are difference processes or different claims about what is going on, but that is false. just more misrepresentative propaganda.
 
crowTrobot said:
nonsensical comparison. whether you accept the evidence or not, the scientific view of evolution is based entirely on evidence. if evidence were found tomorrow refuting evolution science would change its views to accommodate it. if evidence that god exists were found tomorrow science would change to accommodate that also.

your "idealism" on the other hand is not evidence based in any way and does not allow you to change your mind on anything.
Click to expand...

Total bullshit... Just because a scientist or groups of scientist "logically" make up a scenario of creation it must happen. Talk about a hypocritical generalization. Science is based on facts. Facts would be digging up an ameba fossil, then finding another that has legs, then another having lungs, then another with hair, then another a form of a horse, to the existing horse.

Just because certain species micro evolve, doesn't mean the "Creation evolution" exists. It just means our normal body adapts. Until there is physical proof of the major physical evolution that is preached in science books is found; it's as Theological as Creation.

maybe not, but you should be aware that other people who believe in the same jesus and god as you with the same amount of faith as you feel there's no reason not to think that god meant genesis to be allegorical. accepting scientific consensus on biology and geology doesn't have to be a deal breaker to your faith.
Click to expand...

Oh so when an evolutionist believes there is a higher power to organize evolution; then you are going to agree too?
 
crowTrobot said:
macro is just a summation of micro evolutionary changes over long periods of time, but they both refer to the same type of changes. creationists like to imply that they are difference processes or different claims about what is going on, but that is false. just more misrepresentative propaganda.
Click to expand...

Huh really? Please show me a medical, scientific or archeological journal that has any species "missing link"? I mean if it's so easy to understand and the norm, then why haven't any discoveries of these links been published? I'm still searching for them.

I am going to use one of your arguments from another thread... "Yeah I know, my father is an Scientist"
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Yay, I was hoping I would get an opportunity to post this:
Click to expand...

Fair enough, how about this one (from a professor of Folklore at Berkeley):

[video=youtube;v0Zxee3yWI4]

More:

[video=youtube;kUBqgucLXzk]

More:

[video=youtube;xAPIngDjJVo]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top