Evidence: Evolution versus the Resurrection of Jesus

[columbusdude82]

In another thread, one poster had this to say:

can you prove [evolution is] a fact?   no, you can't.  all you can do is post a bunch of links, or quote what some scientists said.
but you, columbusdude82, cannot prove evolution is a fact.  you decide to put your faith in a man that says we evolved from goo, a tadpole, a monkey or whatever it is you believe, 500 zillion years ago.
 
i choose not to put my faith in man.   

What if he had said:

can you prove the Resurrection is a fact?   no, you can't.  all you can do is post a bunch of Bible verses, or quote what some preachers said.
but you, mightymouse72, cannot prove the resurrection is a fact.  you decide to put your faith in an old myth that says that a man was born with a mother but no father, could perform magic, brought a couple people back to life before pulling off that trick himself and flying into the sky 2000 years ago.
 
i choose not to put my faith in magic.   

I "believe in" evolution the same way I "believe in" gravity: it is a proposition supported by mountains of evidence.

Here's my challenge to any taker: post evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, and I will post evidence in favor of evolution drawn from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Let us see which is fact, and which is faith.

[mightymouse72]

In another thread, one poster had this to say:

What if he had said:

I "believe in" evolution the same way I "believe in" gravity: it is a proposition supported by mountains of evidence.

Here's my challenge to any taker: post evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, and I will post evidence in favor of evolution drawn from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Let us see which is fact, and which is faith.

stupid.
if that's the best you can come up then you're pretty lame.
the previous thread subject was on evolution, not creationism.  i asked you to prove evolution and this is your arguement.   

[columbusdude82]

Oh dear...

You said I was believing something without evidence, and placing my faith in it.

I am saying I can back it up and post enough evidence in to make this thread longer than the "Hulkster Truce" thread.

In return, I am asking you to consider that something you believe very strongly is a belief you hold without evidence: either that, or share your evidence with us

[mightymouse72]

Oh dear...

You said I was believing something without evidence, and placing my faith in it.

I am saying I can back it up and post enough evidence in to make this thread longer than the "Hulkster Truce" thread.

In return, I am asking you to consider that something you believe very strongly is a belief you hold without evidence: either that, or share your evidence with us

man, come on.
you're trying to bait me to start posting my religious beliefs so you in turn can start telling me how dumb i am and calling my God names and just having a good chuckle.  sorry, no dice. 

however, i am willing to have a rational discussion with you but we will never convince each other to believe our side.

i am working and don't have a lot of time to post long replies but i will check back and reply to you as long as you keep it sain.

 

[Hedgehog]

man, come on.
you're trying to bait me to start posting my religious beliefs so you in turn can start telling me how dumb i am and calling my God names and just having a good chuckle.  sorry, no dice. 

however, i am willing to have a rational discussion with you but we will never convince each other to believe our side.

i am working and don't have a lot of time to post long replies but i will check back and reply to you as long as you keep it sain.

 

Actually,
he's just asking you to take a look at the basis for your own beliefs.

IMO, through critically and honestly questioning ones beliefs, the faith will either fail, or grow stronger.

[columbusdude82]

Mightymouse, I have to go to school too in a little bit. And no, believe me, my intention is not to bait you. And I certainly wouldn't tell you that you are "dumb"! I only think critically about ideas, yours and mine.

Once again, you said I "believe in" something without "proof" because I "put my faith in man." I am willing to give you all the evidence you can handle.

I only ask that you show me the same courtesy. Is that too much to ask?

[loco]

There is as much "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus as there is "proof" of Macro-evolution.

Those who already have faith in the resurrection of Jesus do not need evidence or proof, though there is evidence which is sufficient and acceptable to believers, yet insufficient and unacceptable to those who do not believe.  But there is no "proof".

For those who do not have faith in the resurrection of Jesus , they will not believe no matter how much evidence or even proof, if there was any, was presented to them.  They will not believe even if an angel appeared to them or a dead relative returned from the dead to tell them that the resurrection of Jesus is fact.

As for evolution, educated individuals who believe that God created humans in their present form do accept evolution, micro-evolution that is.  We just don't accept Macro-evolution.  That millions of tiny micro-evolutions result in Macro-evolution is a leap of faith and there are modern, well respected scientists who agree.  There is no proof for Macro-evolution.  It is not like gravity because we personally test and observe gravity everyday.  Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

[mightymouse72]

Mightymouse, I have to go to school too in a little bit. And no, believe me, my intention is not to bait you. And I certainly wouldn't tell you that you are "dumb"! I only think critically about ideas, yours and mine.

Once again, you said I "believe in" something without "proof" because I "put my faith in man." I am willing to give you all the evidence you can handle.

I only ask that you show me the same courtesy. Is that too much to ask?

Below is a Q & A asked to  Lee Strobel a former atheist.  I encourage you to visit his site and read his testimony, with a open mind of course.  There is a lot of good videos that explains the case for intelligent design, God and the resurrection.



http://www.leestrobel.com/



Q. Very interesting that your newsletter tries to explain the concepts of religion. The only problem with the explanations are they are conjecture, not fact. No one in the world knows whether any religion is fact/real. And if you dig down deep, neither do you. You believe, but do you know for a fact? By the way, I’m an agnostic, because I do not know. Have a good day! - Bob

A. Thanks for your note, Bob! I’m really glad you’ve been reading my newsletter. Like you, I was once a skeptic who doubted there were any facts to back up the Christian faith. But I’ve changed my mind. Here’s why.

Christianity is a historical religion. In other words, it makes claims that certain things happened in the past - specifically, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and thereby authenticated his claim to being the unique Son of God.

How do we know anything happened in the past? We can’t use experimental science; we can’t put history in a test tube. But we can examine historical documents and determine whether they’re reliable. When we do that, we find clear and compelling evidence that Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, yet his tomb was empty that first Easter morning and hundreds of people - including skeptics whose lives were changed 180 degrees - encountered the risen Jesus. My book The Case for Christ sets forth the specific evidence I found convincing.

Do we know 100 percent that the resurrecion occurred? Well, we don’t know 100 percent that anything happened in history. We don’t know 100 percent that the world wasn’t created five minutes ago with a false appearance of age, filled with people who have phony memories in their heads. (Just try to disprove that!)

But we make major decisions about our lives all the time with less than 100 percent certainty. We assess the evidence and make a reasoned judgment. For instance, we go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. Are we 100 percent sure it’s not poisoned? No, it could be poisoned. But we quickly look at all the evidence: Starbucks has an excellent reputation for safe and quality products; nobody has ever been poisoned at a Starbucks before; nobody in Starbucks has a motive to poison us; people all around us are drinking coffee with no ill effects; and the coffee looks and smells normal. So based on the evidence, we take a reasonable step of faith by taking a sip - and we find that the coffee is good.

In a similar way, I assessed the historical data and found that it pointed compellingly toward the resurrection as being true. Therefore - like with the Starbucks coffee - it was a logical for me to take a reasonable step of faith in the same direction the evidence of history was pointing and receive Jesus as my forgiver and leader. As the Psalmist says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good."
Bob, LeeStrobel.com is packed with scores of free video clips that discuss the evidence that supports the claims of Christianity. I invite you to check them out. Do it with an open mind. Borrow The Case for Christ from your local library. Make the investigation of the historical evidence for Jesus a high priority in your life. Please, wait until the facts are in - and then make an informed decision for yourself.

[loco]

mightymouse72, good post!

[Butterbean]

mightymouse72, good post!

Agree!  Yours too loco.  And thanks both of you, for the links.

[Necrosis]

There is as much "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus as there is "proof" of Macro-evolution.

loco what are you talking about? you obviously do not have an education in biology, did you know that many drugs have been founded, that much of medicine rests on evolution, as well as our understanding of the brain and our behviours, cognitions etc...?


absolutely ridiculous is all i can say.

[Necrosis]

Below is a Q & A asked to  Lee Strobel a former atheist.  I encourage you to visit his site and read his testimony, with a open mind of course.  There is a lot of good videos that explains the case for intelligent design, God and the resurrection.



http://www.leestrobel.com/



Q. Very interesting that your newsletter tries to explain the concepts of religion. The only problem with the explanations are they are conjecture, not fact. No one in the world knows whether any religion is fact/real. And if you dig down deep, neither do you. You believe, but do you know for a fact? By the way, I’m an agnostic, because I do not know. Have a good day! - Bob

A. Thanks for your note, Bob! I’m really glad you’ve been reading my newsletter. Like you, I was once a skeptic who doubted there were any facts to back up the Christian faith. But I’ve changed my mind. Here’s why.

Christianity is a historical religion. In other words, it makes claims that certain things happened in the past - specifically, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and thereby authenticated his claim to being the unique Son of God.

How do we know anything happened in the past? We can’t use experimental science; we can’t put history in a test tube. But we can examine historical documents and determine whether they’re reliable. When we do that, we find clear and compelling evidence that Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, yet his tomb was empty that first Easter morning and hundreds of people - including skeptics whose lives were changed 180 degrees - encountered the risen Jesus. My book The Case for Christ sets forth the specific evidence I found convincing.

Do we know 100 percent that the resurrecion occurred? Well, we don’t know 100 percent that anything happened in history. We don’t know 100 percent that the world wasn’t created five minutes ago with a false appearance of age, filled with people who have phony memories in their heads. (Just try to disprove that!)

But we make major decisions about our lives all the time with less than 100 percent certainty. We assess the evidence and make a reasoned judgment. For instance, we go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. Are we 100 percent sure it’s not poisoned? No, it could be poisoned. But we quickly look at all the evidence: Starbucks has an excellent reputation for safe and quality products; nobody has ever been poisoned at a Starbucks before; nobody in Starbucks has a motive to poison us; people all around us are drinking coffee with no ill effects; and the coffee looks and smells normal. So based on the evidence, we take a reasonable step of faith by taking a sip - and we find that the coffee is good.

In a similar way, I assessed the historical data and found that it pointed compellingly toward the resurrection as being true. Therefore - like with the Starbucks coffee - it was a logical for me to take a reasonable step of faith in the same direction the evidence of history was pointing and receive Jesus as my forgiver and leader. As the Psalmist says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good."
Bob, LeeStrobel.com is packed with scores of free video clips that discuss the evidence that supports the claims of Christianity. I invite you to check them out. Do it with an open mind. Borrow The Case for Christ from your local library. Make the investigation of the historical evidence for Jesus a high priority in your life. Please, wait until the facts are in - and then make an informed decision for yourself.

ive read his books and they suck, he relies on half wit evidence and arguments like irreducibly complex which even if true do not support god in any way, just another conclusion which should be supported by evidence.

[loco]

loco what are you talking about? you obviously do not have an education in biology, did you know that many drugs have been founded, that much of medicine rests on evolution, as well as our understanding of the brain and our behviours, cognitions etc...?


absolutely ridiculous is all i can say.

Hey usmoke!  Maybe you misunderstood my post or I did not make myself clear.  I am saying the same thing that they are saying:

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

You yourself once said:

so loco, i would agree that macroevolution is a point worth arguing

[Decker]

There is as much "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus as there is "proof" of Macro-evolution.

....

I disagree.  You compare a story from religious literature with a viable scientific hypothesis on the grounds that both have the same degree of proof.  That's just not true.

Here's a website that lists 29 pieces of proof for macroevolution.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.  These rational inferences play an important role in developing viable hypotheses for rational analysis.

The resurrection of Jesus is a story that is inherently irrational and not subject to inclusion into a rational system of analysis.

[Necrosis]

Hey usmoke!  Maybe you misunderstood my post or I did not make myself clear.  I am saying the same thing that they are saying:

You yourself once said:

macro evolution doesnt really exist per se, its just a small series of micro evolutions. however, because of the timeline i beleive many details about the model are perhaps incorrect and its a very difficult theory in terms of complexity, i think complexity theory is more of a burning issue right now then evolution, and auto catalytic theory which i havent read for over a year. the sentience from non sentience is more of a mystery but its obvious that layers of increasing complexity are the culprit.

evolution can occur rapidly and there are some differing opinions i beleive expressed by the likes of gould which challenge traditional neo darwinism. so its worth arguing, but its the best theory we have and has lots of evidence enough to convince me.

my point is that creationism is not science as it meets non of the criteria and it already has a conclusion in mind and disregards opposing evidence. also non scientific.

i think columbus dude made a great point about having to include them all if you include one.

[columbusdude82]

loco, I don't need to keep correcting the lies and half-truths on evolution that you point, since you are obviously not interested in truth, only in propagating apologetics and misinformation.

If you're feeling nostalgic, dig up my old posts and be pwnd again

Mightymouse, still no evidence for the resurrection? Lee Strobel, in your post above, says he believes because it is written in the Bible. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Just because something is written in someone's "holy book" doesn't count as evidence in its favor. If we allow one, we have to allow them all. Then you will have to accept that Mohammad riding his horse Al-Buraq from Mecca to Jerusalem and from there to heaven is just as true as the resurrection of Jesus.

[loco]

loco, I don't need to keep correcting the lies and half-truths on evolution that you point, since you are obviously not interested in truth, only in propagating apologetics and misinformation.

Way to ignore my posts, columbusdude82!

[columbusdude82]

I answered them the first 50 or so times you posted.

[loco]

macro evolution doesnt really exist per se, its just a small series of micro evolutions. however, because of the timeline i beleive many details about the model are perhaps incorrect and its a very difficult theory in terms of complexity, i think complexity theory is more of a burning issue right now then evolution, and auto catalytic theory which i havent read for over a year. the sentience from non sentience is more of a mystery but its obvious that layers of increasing complexity are the culprit.

evolution can occur rapidly and there are some differing opinions i beleive expressed by the likes of gould which challenge traditional neo darwinism. so its worth arguing, but its the best theory we have and has lots of evidence enough to convince me.

my point is that creationism is not science as it meets non of the criteria and it already has a conclusion in mind and disregards opposing evidence. also non scientific.

i think columbus dude made a great point about having to include them all if you include one.

Thanks, usmoke!

[loco]

I disagree.  You compare a story from religious literature with a viable scientific hypothesis on the grounds that both have the same degree of proof.  That's just not true.

Here's a website that lists 29 pieces of proof for macroevolution.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.  These rational inferences play an important role in developing viable hypotheses for rational analysis.

The resurrection of Jesus is a story that is inherently irrational and not subject to inclusion into a rational system of analysis.

Hey Decker!
You misunderstood my post too.  Sorry that I did not make myself clear. 

There is NO "proof" for the resurrection of Jesus and there NO "proof" for Macro-evolution or whatever you'd like to call it.  The splitting of a species into two new species, or the change of a species over time into another, any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, have never been observed and there is no proof of such.

For both of these there is evidence, acceptable and sufficient evidence to some while insufficient and unacceptable to others.  At some point, both of these require a leap of faith, until proof is found for either one or for both. 

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, I believe through faith and by the grace of God, not because of the evidence, which still is acceptable and sufficient evidence to me.

Regarding macro-evolution,  it is worth arguing and the evidence is enough to convince many, but not me.

As for you saying that I compare these two, it was columbusdude82 who started this thread.  Read the title.  Who is comparing the two?

[columbusdude82]

So, are you saying you believe on no evidence? Either evidence is there or it isn't, and either it's convincing or it isn't. The real test for whether something counts as evidence is: would it hold up in a court of law? Would it pass the rigors of a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

[loco]

So, are you saying you believe on no evidence? Either evidence is there or it isn't, and either it's convincing or it isn't. The real test for whether something counts as evidence is: would it hold up in a court of law? Would it pass the rigors of a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I believe through faith, which comes from God by His grace.  Still the evidence is there, and it is acceptable and sufficient to me, but not to you.  As for it holding up in a court of law, many argue that it would, while others argue that it wouldn't.  To me it does not matter because I still have faith.

You accept macro-evolution without definitive proof.  If there was such, there would be no debate and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Nobody is debating gravity or micro-evolution.

[beatmaster]

lollll, there is absolutely no proof what so ever of resurrection, it's a myth written in a book, by man...

on the other hand evolution it's fact (we do have fossil, remains, bones... 100,000 of years old and more)
and...... the other guy.......(only 2000 years old)  what's his name.... huumm, jack, hmmm no, yeah ....., yeah , yeah that's it, Jesus....... ab-so-lu-te-ly............... nothing!!!

that doesn't mean because its in a book, it's true, fairytale!

[Decker]

Hey Decker!
You misunderstood my post too.  Sorry that I did not make myself clear. 

There is NO "proof" for the resurrection of Jesus and there NO "proof" for Macro-evolution or whatever you'd like to call it.  The splitting of a species into two new species, or the change of a species over time into another, any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, have never been observed and there is no proof of such.

For both of these there is evidence, acceptable and sufficient evidence to some while insufficient and unacceptable to others.  At some point, both of these require a leap of faith, until proof is found for either one or for both. 

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, I believe through faith and by the grace of God, not because of the evidence, which still is acceptable and sufficient evidence to me.

Regarding macro-evolution, it is worth arguing and the evidence is enough to convince many, but not me.

As for you saying that I compare these two, it was columbusdude82 who started this thread.  Read the title.  Who is comparing the two?

Hi loco, good to see you.  

The concept of macroevolution is subject to reason and scientific application and biblical stories are not.  As far as empirical evidence is concerned, you are right--we cannot go back in time to validate either.  So I see what you mean now.  But through more refinement of our understanding of evolution in its various applications, we can improve on our certitude re macroevolution.  I just don't see that happening for the story of Christ's resurrection.

[columbusdude82]

I believe through faith, which comes from God by His grace.  Still the evidence is there, and it is acceptable and sufficient to me, but not to you.  As for it holding up in a court of law, many argue that it would, while others argue that it wouldn't.  To me it does not matter because I still have faith.

You accept macro-evolution without definitive proof.  If there was such, there would be no debate and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Nobody is debating gravity or micro-evolution.

Rubbish!

Do you have access to a university library system?

If I start sending you references to peer-reviewed science journals, would you read them?

There is nothing at all that I accept on faith. I question everything. Any idea that I haven't questioned yet, its time will come!