Indeed I do. Except for the "no basis" part. There can be a "factual" basis for belief (faith), but it's not a requirement.


Heck, if Atlantis ever existed but sank below the waves, I could look for it now! I wouldn't have 2 wait a thousand years for the technology. And it's been done, and it isn't there (or it's not Atlantis and it's not in the Atlantic).


We shouldn't, if we don't want 2. We should be willing 2 prove 2 our own satisfaction if we have a strong opinion that deviates from the prevailing, peer-review-based conclusion, however.


I'm with medc on this one. Outside the Bible, there is no proof of his existence. Again, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, just that his existence hasn't been independently proven.


If it works for you, great. Doesn't for me. Again, I equate the term belief with faith-based approaches 2 understanding our place in and the substance of the spiri2al "world". For the physical world, and the stuff in it, I don't have 2 "believe without proof" in the existence of those things, because proving them myself isn't that difficult (though it can be expensive) if I need 2 do that.

Scientists can be working with hypotheses that necessarily assume some "fact" or behavior has been proven, even if they haven't proven it themselves. But the whole process of scientific investigation will require that, if the hypthesis doesn't hold up, the scientist will need 2 look for the point of failure, particularly if it's an area that they accepted without testing themselves.


1. Evolution is about how life changed over time, not about origins.

2. Origins have not been duplicated in the lab (though complex organic materials have been in simulated na2ural, sterile settings), but I bet they will be. 100 years ago, the artificial heart would have been unthinkable.


Fossils and stratigraphy. Hard facts.


What medc said.

-ol' 2long

Aka, Gilgamesh.

-ol' 2long

Again, this is a false statement. I guess I will have to list some "extrabiblical" citations of his existence as a real person in history.

"Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived circa 37-100 AD. His Hebrew name was Joseph ben Mattathias, and he received an excellent education in Jerusalem. After leading a failed revolt of the Jewish forces against Rome, Josephus was captured and became a Roman citizen. He served as pensioner of several Flavian emperors and is most widely known by the name he then acquired, Flavius Josephus.

Around 93 AD., Josephus published Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews in twenty books. Though not a prominent subject of his writing, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus' brother James are all mentioned in Jewish Antiquities. This represents the earliest historical record of Jesus from someone who was a professional historian."


James, the Brother of Jesus: Antiquities 20.9.1 "So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

Jesus, Wise Man and Teacher: Antiquities 18.3.3 "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ;) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Note: Interpolations, possibly added by others, are indicated in parenthesis.



"Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived circa 56-120 AD. He is believed to have been born in France or Gaul into a provincial aristocratic family. He became a senator, a consul, and eventually governor of Asia.

Tacitus wrote at least four historic treatises. Around 115 AD, he published Annals in which he explicitly states that Nero prosecuted the Christians in order to draw attention away from himself for Rome's devastating fire of 64 AD. In that context, he mentions Christus who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8 "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...""


"Jesus (also called Christ which means king or Messiah) was born in Israel 2000 years ago. Modern civilization marks his birth by dividing time B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini - or the year of our Lord). For his first thirty years, Jesus lived a traditional Jewish life, working as a carpenter. During this time, all of Israel was under Caesar's Roman dictatorship, including Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and Nazareth, where he was raised."

History itself is recorded based up a calendar that centers on the real person of Jesus, who existed as a real person, in history. Claims regarding his position AS the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament notwithstanding, the "man" Jesus of Nazareth DID exist as a real live person and not as "figment of someone's imagination." Pilate did not crucify an "imaginary person," he crucified, and reported as crucified, a real person, regardless of any religions claims for or against him.

Even the "geologic column" that you use is predicated on this method of "marking time," B.C. and A.D.

2long, there are MANY "persons of history" that are "proven" by the mention of them in historical records. We may not be able to "see" today that person or persons, but the historical record authenticates that they REALLY DID EXIST.

Now, someone like Alexander the Great, or Nero, or whoever else, may have thought they were a "god" and not "just a man," and perhaps even some others may have believed that, but there was no "authentication" of that "god-power" as there was with Jesus, both in the miracles He personally performed that "broke" or "transcended" the usual "physical laws" and in His own resurrection from the dead and His PHYSICAL appearance to over 500 people as "proof" that He had, in FACT, risen from the dead (against all known physcial laws).





I'd really rather not get into a discussion of these things at this time, perhaps some other time.

So all I will comment on is the confusion you present here between "facts" (data) and "interpretation" (opinion) of those facts.

Fossils exist. Strata within various geological formations exist.

What is different is the intrepretation of those facts based upon a presupposed reality that is NOT itself backed by any proof that is "proven" and not subject to valid alternative explanations. You know, as well as I do, the "limitations," for example, of things like radiocarbon dating and that the "timeline" for the generally used advocacy for evolution IS the supposed "geologic column" itself, of which the complete "column" exists nowhere in the world.

"Alternative explanations" of the very same data are "rejected out of hand" by evolutionists simply because they WILL NOT "allow" any other possible explanation other than "evolution," even when the facts fit another "model" better, especially from the standpoint of facts verifying what a given model would PREDICT should be seen in fact.

Rather, proponents of "evolution" as "the answer" continually come up with "ingenious" ideas to explain the LACK of proof that might substantiate the theory (opinion) that evolution can explain how life began from non-life and how the vast diversity of life and increasing complexity of life-forms came into being, against the Laws of Science (i.e., the 1st and 2nd Thermodynamic Laws; the laws of Information Science, etc.). The "latest" in this chain of "ideas" that are presented to the general public as "fact," is that of Stephen J. Gould and his hypothesis of "Punctuated Equilibrium." No facts, just conjecture spun out of whole speculation with the intent to try to answer glaring flaws in the "logic" of the "evolutionary theory."

You, yourself, once told me that you didn't think anyone who believed in creation COULD be a "scientist," yet many many "men of science" were, and many today are, believers in God and creation AND in science and scientific inquiry. ONLY a presupposition, a "bias" if you will, FOR evolution as the ONLY (and itself totally UNPROVEN) means by which LIFE "evolved" from non-life and that the diversity and increasing complexity of life can account for the refusal to acknowledge men of science who also believe in God and the "creation model."

No, evolution is NOT "about how life changed over time," EVEN IF you want to ignore the fundamental evolutionary hypothesis that LIFE itself ORIGINATED (evolved, if you will) from NON-living chemicals.

There is absolutely NO proof of origins.

There is absolutely NO proof of the "Theory" of evolution. All there is is speculation about how life got here and how the diversity of life might be "explained" WITHOUT an intelligent creator CAUSING that life according to His will, design, and purpose. It is based SOLELY on the proposition that "God did NOT create because there is no God." Therefore, the "impossible" MUST have happened even if there is no proof for it because the ONLY other alternative IS GOD. Mathematically alone, there is insufficient "time" in the known universe, using the supposed age of the universe to even come close to allowing a "random chance combination of elements" to assemble in the REQUIRED order to produce even the "simplest form of life." There is just to enough matter and not enough time to allow for "random chance." And the argument, "well, it MUST have happened anyway because there IS life on earth" is NOT an answer nor is it a proof. It is, at best, a "sincere belief" that is held by someone who WILL NOT believe in the existence of God. At worst, it far less than "scientific reasoning" and is only "speculation" designed to "prove" an "unproveable" want or desire that excludes God and anything that might "break" the Laws of Science that are based on what IS "observable" today.



I'm sorry 2long, but the artificial heart you appeal to here is not sufficient, but in reality is more likely to be "proof" that evolution does NOT exist a viable answer to HOW THINGS GOT HERE. All that an artificial heart "proves" is that a "thinking, rational, purposeful, being" CREATED something that nature would not create on it's own.

This is precisely what took place in the realm of the "Origin of Life." A mess of chemicals did NOT "magically" assemble themselves into a complex, and LIVING, self-replicating, organism that then somehow "miraculously" managed to survive, reproduce, AND add information that did not exist in order to enable it to "evolve" into something different and more complex.

What DID take place is that a "Living Being" set about the "task" of creating life and USED the various chemicals according to His specific design and purpose, creating life where there had been no life. That IS the "Biogenetic Law" of the Science of Biology (i.e. Life BEGETS Life, it does NOT "spontaneously generate" from the non-living).

Furthermore, there is absolutely NO proof that the required "new and additional INFORMATION that is necessary and REQUIRED for more and more complex organisms was even possible in an undirected, unpurposeful "nature," let alone "randomly added by chance" to existing "lower forms of life."

Yes, I think this is part of it, if not all of it.

I don't disagree w/ most of what you have written.

I agree that faith is a gift from God. W/o it you can't see or know the truth. W/o it you won't believe what the Scriptures tell us about ourselves or about God.

Evolution is not about the "Origin of Life", but the "Origin of Species". Nowhere did Darwin even suggest life came from chemicals - that's a completely different theory. The Origin of Species describes evolution in terms of natural selection. Species with traits that don't offer an advantage over others under the existing conditions don't compete well and die off while others thrive in their absence. Genetic changes occur with every generation in every living species - those that can survive in their location, do. This is an observable phenomenon in species with a short generation time, such as bacteria, yeasts and molds - and can even be seen in longer generation time species such as some plants.

As for fact vs. faith, I know of no religion based purely on fact (though I must say there are millions of religions that I've never even heard of). Many have fairly sound factual evidence for some, but not all of their beliefs. If you want to offer the Bible as factual proof, why not the Koran? Christ was a real person, but so was Mohammed. Jesus turned water into wine. Mohammed moved mountains. There's no concrete evidence of either of these - just historical documentation.

So who is right and who is wrong? You can only know for yourself what is right for you. As MEDC said, it's a calling that one feels on a personal level. As such, you must respect others who believe something different from you and may have felt a different calling. For Christians, this should be easy as one of the most unique and special aspects of Christ's teachings (as opposed to other religions) was to love others, even those that are not the same as you.

Tabby, I DO respect others, as fellow beings created in the image of God. I do not, and do not "have to" respect opinions of others anymore than they have to respect my opinions.

In the arena of "debating," especially when debating "opposing" IDEAS, the most "successful" debaters are those who thoroughly understand BOTH sides of the "argument," the strengths and weaknesses of both "sides."

I grew up throughout my "formal educational years" immersed in Evolutionary thought and teaching and saw the "strengths" presented as "proven" thought and the "weaknesses" ignored or ridiculed.

When you ask, "So who is right and who is wrong?", the answer is NOT one of "both can be right." TRUTH is like that, you know. Truth cannot be both "true" and "false" at the same time. Both "models" of origins cannot be simultaneously true. For example, either God DID create, or He did not. Either we all came into being by random natural processes, or we didn't.

The same sort of reasoning applies to the idea that "evolution" first can be "limited" to ONLY AFTER life "appeared," however it appeared, and second can only offer ONE explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. Even Darwin himself was SICK about the idea of how anyone could "prove" that the EYE could "evolve."





"If one can't have one's way, one must give in. For example, Since you can't come here for the holiday, I'll go to your house--if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain. This expression is based on a tale that Muhammad once sought proof of his teachings by ordering a mountain to come to him. When it did not move, he maintained that God had been merciful, for if it had indeed moved they all would have been crushed by it. [Late 1500s]"





My goodness, if Jesus had NOT turned the water into wine, perhaps he could have said that "God had been merciful, for if it had indeed been turned into wine, all the wedding guests would have been intoxicated."

But He DID turn the water into wine. The miracles performed by Jesus were NOT performed "in secret," they were open to all to see, and with respect to the wedding guest who had the best wine ever made, they would have KNOWN the difference between "grape juice" and wine or between water in the jugs instead of wine.

One of the reasons the Pharisees sought to kill Jesus was BECAUSE the miracles were known and attested to, not even the Pharisees denied them as being factual occurances.

Historical documentation of real and true events IS "concrete evidence." That is why MUCH of history is believed as being TRUE, even though we are not there, in person, to "see" it for our own eyes. That is what "eyewitness testimony" is all about also, the same as eyewitness testimony in a court of law is used to establish "truth" even though the judge and jurors were not present to "see it with their own eyes."





Do they? What might some of those "facts" be for some of them?

Also, Mohammed NEVER claimed to BE God as Jesus did, and "backed up" that claim with "proofs" of His command over nature.




I am familiar with the "Origin of Species," and the attempts to explain the diversity and complexity of life that Darwin observed.

Let me ask you a question pertaining to the idea of "natural selection" being the "cause" of increasing complexity and the differences of species? WHERE and HOW did the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION come from necessary to the existence and survival of something TOTALLY different, to say little of being much more complex, than the supposed "original specimen" undergoing this "evolutionary change" by "natural selection?"

Please understand that "natural selection" DOES occur within species, but it does NOT account for the rise of entirely new and different forms of life.

You mentioned bacteria. There are changes in bacteria, but they are STILL bacteria. How would a bacterium acquire the needed new information, and where did that information come from, in order to BECOME something other than a bacteria?

So let me "grant you" also, for the moment, that you can "Parse" evolution to ONLY apply to life AFTER it "Got Here." It STILL begs the question of HOW did life originate in the first place, to be able to undergo ANY sort of "evolution" from the simplest "original life-form" to the explosion and diversity of complex life-forms?

When the terms "creation and evolution" are used, they are used not only in the context of the diversity of life, they are used to explain a "model of origins," of HOW everything that exists, living and non-living, "got here."

That is where the terms "Creation Model" and "Evolution Model" come from.

Eyewitness testimony IS used in court...BUT, any testimony that is not written down for years or decades would be laughed out of a court of law. It isn't a matter of being there to see it...it is a matter of appropriate record keeping, chain of command (who tested the "water" and then the "wine" and what were the results...). I HAVE spent considerable time in court and I can tell you first hand that the use of hearsay testimony that was written years or decades after the events took place would not be acceptable as evidence. Not even close.

Okay. What IS the "statute of limitations" on murder?

Are "cold cases" ever solved when evidence is obtained, even years after the fact?

And did I mention that "evidence" WAS written down by eyewitnesses and NOT by "hearsay?"

Did I mention that the written evidence was widely circulated and there was ample time for opponents to provide contradictory proof, which they did not, even though they were contemporaneous to the events in both time and place?

By the way, where is the evidence AGAINST Jesus 1)existing in time and place and, 2)against the miracles, including His resurrection from the dead?

Even Pontius Pilate KNEW and STATED that Jesus was "innocent," yet acceded to "mob rule" to "keep his position in life."

FH, you can debate this all you want...it doesn't change the fact that these things would not come close to meeting a standard of proof required in a court of law.

You know there is no statute of limitations for murder. That isn't even remotely relevant here. The evidence to convict a person years later would be evidence found...not created years later.

The evidence was written by "eyewitnesses" years or decades later. They referenced the experience of others. that is hearsay.

Do we have evidence the blind man was in fact blind?

Do we have evidence that Lazarus was in fact dead?

Do we have direct testimony from the Roman guards?

Look, I know this stuff is true...but I will not allow myself to make up or twist history to prove a point....it is too easily argued against.

The "science" that suggests the world is millions of years old has stood up in court. The science of evolution has stood up in court. The science of creation has been shot down in court. If there existed "proof" that would withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom one would think it would have already done so.

Faith.

Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul…."hearsay?" Not eyewitnesses? Not relevant to establishing truth? If you say so I guess.

You quote Hebrews 11:1 as your basic argument, but WHO was the author of Hebrews? The author is unknown, even though there are several who think Apollos may have been the author. Regardless, doesn't that also render your reliance on Hebrews 11:1 to be "hearsay" as you say?

Pontius Pilate including references to Jesus in his reports to Rome, hearsay? I guess so?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, medc, but isn't the eyewitness testimony of someone who SAW the events in question (murder, etc.) considered valid "eyewitness testimony of the facts" EVEN IF they have "kept silent for decades" and not revealed the truth of what happened until then, perhaps not even until they were on their own "death bed?"

I would also refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16 for the biblical "opinion" on all of Scripture, its veracity and its appliction to all regarding the truths that are contained in the Bible.




This seems a bit strange for you to class as "made up" or "twisted history" medc.

On what basis do you reject recorded eyewitness testimony to the facts, especially in the absence of any definitive "objection" to the recorded facts other than someone's "feeling" that they don't want to accept the testimony as factual?

Where are the written refutations by the people who WERE there at the time?

Even, as I said earlier, the Pharisees did NOT dispute the facts, they sought to "kill Christ and Christianity its cradle," as Saul (Paul) sought to do even as he was "aware of the facts" but felt he was doing "God's work" according to the desires of the Sanhedrin?

You are, apparently, challenging the historicity of the Bible, the accuracy of the Bible, and the truth contained in the Bible, especially the truths concerning Jesus. Why? On what basis do you conclude that the Bible is NOT a "reliable document" that accurately records the events that took place? Note: I am NOT asking you why you "believe" what is written in the Bible or what you have "faith in" if NOT the accurate information that is recorded in the Bible. I am simply asking you why you don't think the information IN the Bible is true testimony?


http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/CanWeTrustTheTextOfTheBible.htm




Now you KNOW this is not true. The "establishment" clause has been parsed to eliminate the "free expression of religion" and to ensconce "Evolution Theory" as the "religion" of the land. It has nothing to do with evolution being "proven."

Shoot go back to the original case and you'll find that the arguments used FOR evolution in the Scopes trial was based on erroneous information that was later proved to be FALSE. Did that change the ruling? No. Why? NOT because there was any science to "prove" evolution.


Now, as for the "science" you refer to, do you expect evolutionists to present evidence that would contradict their assumptions that they present as truth?

Do you think that "bias" cannot keep things from being discussed or presented? If you think that, just look around MB and see many examples of one opinion "trumping" another opinion.

Science "assumes" evolution because the alternative to evolution IS God.

But by the same token, I CAN "call into legitimate question" many of the "assumptions" of evolutionists, including the "total accuracy of dating methods" used to support the notion of evolution and "millions of years."

I CAN, for example, show scientific data that DISPROVES the dating of known magma flows wherein the "dating methods used" returned dating of thousands and millions of years, but the actual deposition of the magma is KNOWN. Throwing out anomalous data that contradicts or calls into question the "desired" evolutionary answer is routine, as is things like NOT publishing data unless it SUPPORTS the notion of evolution.

I CAN show legitimate "alternative" explanations for the very same data that an evolutionist uses to "support" evolution.

The WHY is that the "interpretation of the data" is predicated most often upon the presuppositions and biases of the "scientist." "SCIENCE" is basically neutral. The "Data" is basically neutral. It is in the "interpretation" of the data that the differences lie.

This is my field, FH. You're incorrect.


Which is not evolution.

Knock yourself out. I'm done here.

-ol' 2long

Not at all. Now you are gas-lighting. I only challenge that there is "proof" that would stand up in a courtroom. I believe the Bible to be accurate based on faith...as YOU KNOW I have said many times. I am challenging YOU...not the Bible.


Yes, but only if their words corroborate other "concrete" information(or leads to the discovery thereof based on the new information). And their silence for years certainly diminishes their credibility in the eyes of the court.


That is not what I said and you know it. When they reference the experience of others, that constitutes hearsay.


No, I don't. My basic argument is not founded in Hebrews. My basic argument is that there has been and will continue to be that there is no proof and that a foundation for a belief in Christ rests in faith. You have said or shown nothing that disproves that.

That's cool. Challenge me all you want, I mean that sincerely.

As for "gaslighting," if there was, it was unintentional. Forgive my offense.

One question, if you are not challenging the Bible as the definitive proof source for God and Jesus Christ, what ARE you challenging, that a "court of law" is the measure of "truth"?

The argument has been that "eyewitness testimony" IS valid testimony for establishing the FACTS. Whether or not anyone will accept the facts and surrender their life to Christ is an entirely different matter. The argument has been made that Jesus did NOT exist a real person in history. That is the equivalent of arguments that try to reduce "Jesus" to "just some myth" and not a real person.

He existed, proven by both biblical and extrabiblical sources. That WOULD, I would think, "stand up in court."

Is THAT Jesus the the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world? That is a "faith" question based upon the testimony of what that man, Jesus, actually DID while he was on the earth.

hmmm...I would respectfully disagree, 2long. Your "field" as I understand it from what you have previously said is Geology, not Biology.

My "field," if you will is Biology, at least that's what my degree says.

If you want to claim that a particular rock that I might be holding is an igneous or sedimentary rock, knock yourself out. I would "bow" to your expertise in that area.

But the study of rocks is NOT the same thing as the study of living organisms.




That's fine, 2long. As I said previously, no one must participate in any discussion that they don't want to participate in.

However, "ORIGINS" of LIFE is most definitely "evolution" not matter how much evolutionists don't want to admit it, presumably because it presents and insurmountable obstacle TO the entire concept of "natural processes being the CAUSE of everything, living and non-living."

To be precise, it is the "evolution of life from NON-life," the "evolving of a mass of chemicals into a living, self-replicating organism as the FIRST "evolved" thing, evolving past DEAD to ALIVE.

If THAT isn't the "first" "hopeful monster" of "Punctuated Equilibrium," then what IS it? And how did this hopeful monster "evolve" into every other living thing with NO mechanism for the creation and transfer of VITAL and NECESSARY information into the genetic structure of that first "hopeful monster," especially with NO "living, thinking, purposeful design, Creator" to "see to it that the required information was both available AND successfully incorportated into thath "hopeful monster" and all subsequent "hopeful monsters" preceding more complex organisms?

Quote:I'm with medc on this one. Outside the Bible, there is no proof of his existence. Again, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, just that his existence hasn't been independently proven.

Again, this is a false statement. I guess I will have to list some "extrabiblical" citations of his existence as a real person in history.

FH, when I said there was not proof of his existence, I meant God's not Jesus. Without a doubt there is proof that Jesus lived. There is also proof of Mohammet, Rama, who was if I recall correctly, the god Krisha in human form, the Sidhartha, and others. Therefore, although Jesus walked the earth, there is no more evidence that Jesus was Son of God, then that Mohammet was the true prophet, that Rama was Krisha, etc.

It comes down to faith and belief,.

Not at all. I disagree with much that the courts say and do. O.J. Simpson! Abortion, etc.

I Do believe that based on historical records that Jesus existed. I KNOW based on faith that He is the Son of God. As for what He did while here on earth, I truly wish that the record keeping had been better (not more accurate...just better) and more timely. That would allow for the proof this world so badly seems to need.

Me, I rely on faith thanks to His call to my heart.

Do you think the world really needs proof, medoc?

I don't think so in the end. There is something about taking the leap of faith that opens our hearts. If proof would help the situation, I bet God would have sent Christ down here robed in all the glory of Heaven to proof to us.

Well, Iraq, Georgia, Dar fur, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, murder, rape, warfare...
yes, I suggest that the world would do well to have proof.