Witness: 'Design' Replaced 'Creation'

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-05 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[PatrickHenry]

What historians look for in deciding how much confidence to place in old stories is contemporaneous, independent accounts of the event. There are tons of such evidence about Lincoln. Virtually every day of his presidency is corroborated by contemporaneous official documents, newspaper accounts, personal diaries of witnesses, photographs, letters signed by Lincoln himself, etc. There are also thousands of books and articles written afterward, which rely on the contemporaneous evidence, but they are second-hand, and are thus not actual evidence.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There are also thousands of books and articles written afterward, which rely on the contemporaneous evidence, but they are second-hand, and are thus not actual evidence."

It's evidence, but it is not direct evidence. Primary sources are usually but not always better then secondary sources.

[connectthedots]

Unless it is physical evidence, direct or indirect, it will not pass scientific muster. I don't think you really want the tenets of your faith put on the scrutiny of scientific methodology.

It has been. read 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and see for yourself. The truth is not afraid of scrutiny, or scientific methodology. There is far for evidence regarding the truth about the life. Death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for evolution. Your silly claims that such evidence doesn't exist is only because you haven't been willing to look at it.

[narby]

As foretold ...

Ah, the Grand Master demonstrates his precognition again.

But... it was all for the lurkers....

[narby]

There are tons of such evidence about Lincoln.

Wasn't Lincoln dug up for some forensic test? Or was that John Wilkes Booth?

(hit private reply by mistake)

[connectthedots]

Actually, a court would undoubtedly simply take 'judicial notice' that Lincoln was a living person and that he was the 16th president of the United States.

The point I was making with CarolinaGuitarman is that one need not have personal knowledge in order for something to be true. To imply that there is not similar evidence regarding at least the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus is absurd, because there is similar evidence in even secular accounts.

Any bias against such evidence is because one is unwilling to consider the possibility that there is a God.

For those who consider the Bible to be a myth, they ought to consider that evolution is really no different than what they claim about the bible. Evolution could be equally alleged to be a myth, unsupported by sufficient evidence that it is true.

sure, belief that the Bible is true requires a degree of faith, but so does the belief in evolution. If this were not the case, why are there gaps in the ToE. the existence of gaps obviously implies that the evidence is inconclusive, at best. As you must admit, the gaps in the ToE are significant; especially the absence in the fossil record of transitional forms.

[narby]

There is far for evidence regarding the truth about the life. Death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for evolution.

Claims of deity in old books are not believable as "evidence". Lots of old books claim such things. We've got modern claims of deity too, and people believe them, but that's not evidence in and of itself that they're genuine.

At least we have contemporary statues of Zeus and Apollo. There is virtually nothing contemporaneous with Jesus but stories.

By the way, this discussion is one reason why it's stupid for faithful people to bring up the subject of evolution in public schools. It quickly leads to direct challenges to their faith. You may be able to withstand the onslaught of reality with impunity, but some young people in schools certainly will not, and will abandon their faith as I did.

[narby]

If this were not the case, why are there gaps in the ToE.

Why are their gaps in what we "know" about Jesus? What did he do between the ages of 12 and 33?

Gaps in a history or evolution are irrelevant to whether either are true.

[js1138]

I'm going to second Narby on this one. You do not want articles of faith put to the test by science. You would have to be insane to want science judging the quality of evidence for your faith.

[jennyp]

I have a ton of indirect evidence.

So, you don't have any personal knowledge about anything associated with Lincoln. The same type of evidence you have about Lincoln is available concerning Jesus Christ.

You DO know that atoms have not been directly observed don't you? Do you doubt there existence too?

I think there is near unanimity that atoms exist. One can hardly say the same about the truth of macro-evolution.

You haven't supplied any proof for the existence of atoms, Lincoln, or Jesus. In each case, all you've supplied is wild speculation.

Congratulations, you've forcefully demonstrated that your "it's all speculation" argument against macroevolution is absurd. Brilliant!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There is far for evidence regarding the truth about the life. Death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for evolution. Your silly claims that such evidence doesn't exist is only because you haven't been willing to look at it."

I've asked repeatedly for this physical evidence and you refuse to provide it. What are you afraid of? Lay your cards on the table. Or fold.

[connectthedots]

Read the book. You do know how to read, don't you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Read the book. You do know how to read, don't you?"

Yes, I know how to read, but you apparently don't know of any physical evidence that the Resurrection happened. I'm not going to read the book (You have some financial stake in it?) so it will be up to you to summarize his brilliant examples of physical evidence.

[RunningWolf]

One of your esteemed partners played the same nonsense against me. He asserts the Civil War never happened and I cant prove that it did. You reject that from him correct?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"One of your esteemed partners played the same nonsense against me. He asserts the Civil War never happened and I cant prove that it did. You reject that from him correct?"

There is physical evidence for the Civil War from thousands and thousands of different sources. There is no physical evidence of a Resurrection, only the stories in a book.

I assume you can provide us with the missing physical evidence for the Resurrection?

[RunningWolf]

CarolinaGuitarman meet js1138. When you guys get it settled in your camp whether there was a Civil War or not and what constitutes proof of that to you, get back to all of us.
js1138; The Civil war never happened, and you have no way to prove it did.

[js1138]

I think I have proof in taxesareforever that the Civil War never happened. By the way I didn't get my arguments for the Biblical justification of slavery from nasty old skeptic websites. I grew up hearing them from people who went to Christian churches at least twice a week.

Some people think the war never happend and some just think it never ended.

[Ichneumon]

CarolinaGuitarman meet js1138. When you guys get it settled in your camp whether there was a Civil War or not and what constitutes proof of that to you, get back to all of us. js1138; The Civil war never happened, and you have no way to prove it did.

There's nothing, to "settle", we all agree -- by creationist standards of "proof", it's impossible to prove anything at all, including the reality of the Civil War, much less the Resurrection. Case closed, game over. You lose. Thanks for playing. Don Pardo has some lovely parting gifts for you.

[js1138]

All that evidence was planted. I have a "Civil War" grapeshot ball I found along Interstate 75 north of Atlanta. Interstate 75 was built in my lifetime. I saw it being built. It wasn't even there during the so-called Civil War.

[RunningWolf]

Its okay. To me there is a certain amount of absurdity to the whole thing, the debates that is.

Well have a safe Sunday, remember we are all infidels to american abdul the new lily white face of terror.

Wolf