Evidence: Evolution versus the Resurrection of Jesus

[Necrosis]

&feature=related

[MMC78]

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.

There's a shit-ton of evidence for macro evolution and very very little evidence for the resurrection of JC.  No eye witness accounts, no material evidence (don't even post about the fucking joke that is the shroud of turin).  Evolution is a fact.  We have observed natural speciation in the wild:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

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. 

It is intellectually dishonest of you to compare accepting the valid theory of evolution with the leap of faith that is the belief in the supernatural notion of your god as a creator.  The evidence of the former is supported by over a century of careful observation, experimentation and analysis.  The evidence of the latter is in no way demonstrable.

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.

And there's the crux of the matter.  You equate blind faith with an informed, rational decision.  You do this not because you are irrational, rather to avoid the cognitive dissonance you will experience when you start questioning your delusional faith.

[mightymouse72]

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.

you know, i thought you were sincere in wanting to debate/discuss this issue.  i was wrong.
you have posted NOTHING in favor of your arguement.  just a bunch of dope heads telling each other how dumb the other guy is. 

the only thing this board seems to be good for is the atheist spilling their christian/bible-hatred views.  continue on kids, don't let me get in your way.

usmoke- you hadn't read anything.

[columbusdude82]

NOTHING yet, mightymouse

Because there are still no takers for my challenge!!!

I am sincere. Now and always

[mightymouse72]

NOTHING yet, mightymouse

Because there are still no takers for my challenge!!!

I am sincere. Now and always

well post something then!!!  i have asked you at least twice to "prove" your therory..........nothing, silence.

the more i think about it, you're not willing to really listen to any other points, especially God and creationism.  i know this because of your reply to my post about Lee Strobel.  you really didn't take in the things he stated.
simply put, no one can prove anything about any point in history.  you just accept what someone has wrote in a history book.  like Lee stated, history books are eyewitness accounts, just like the Bible.  And nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven.  (i'm sure you'll dispute that)

your heart is so hard and full of christian hate you're not willing to accept the Bible as being true.   

just for a few minutes, soften your heart, forget about your "cool points" and really listen to what Lee has to say.
go to his site and watch the interview with the former atheist.

[columbusdude82]

mightymouse, concerning Lee Strobel, his are old and tired arguments that our own dear loco has brought up time and time again and have been discussed. Were you reading the board at those times or were you taking a sabbatical? If you would like to discuss Strobel, we can make another thread so that this one doesn't get too cluttered.

As for my heart being hard and full of hate, please... you may or may not know my story. But I was born, baptized, educated, raised a devout Christian (specifically Catholic). In my early 20's in college I experimented with evangelical Christianity (Bible-thumping style ), but I didn't find my answers in it, and was too conflicted and tortured that I felt I needed a break from the whole religion thing altogether, and decided I would return to it when I was better disposed to handle those issues. It was only this last summer that I became increasingly skeptical, and eventually atheist.

But what really pisses me off, is when people attack and try to subvert science (the greatest accomplishment of our species) under the guise of superstition of any sort (astrology, creationism, homeopathy, etc).

[mightymouse72]

mightymouse, concerning Lee Strobel, his are old and tired arguments that our own dear loco has brought up time and time again and have been discussed. Were you reading the board at those times or were you taking a sabbatical? If you would like to discuss Strobel, we can make another thread so that this one doesn't get too cluttered.

As for my heart being hard and full of hate, please... you may or may not know my story. But I was born, baptized, educated, raised a devout Christian (specifically Catholic). In my early 20's in college I experimented with evangelical Christianity (Bible-thumping style ), but I didn't find my answers in it, and was too conflicted and tortured that I felt I needed a break from the whole religion thing altogether, and decided I would return to it when I was better disposed to handle those issues. It was only this last summer that I became increasingly skeptical, and eventually atheist.

But what really pisses me off, is when people attack and try to subvert science (the greatest accomplishment of our species) under the guise of superstition of any sort (astrology, creationism, homeopathy, etc).

still waiting................. .... 

[Butterbean]

There's a shit-ton of evidence for macro evolution and very very little evidence for the resurrection of JC.  No eye witness accounts, no material evidence (don't even post about the fucking joke that is the shroud of turin).  Evolution is a fact.  We have observed natural speciation in the wild:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Wait.....you're saying this is macro-evolution?  From goatsbeard to goatsbeard?  In very simple terms wouldn't macro-evolution be something like goatsbeard to a duck?

[columbusdude82]

Wait.....you're saying this is macro-evolution?  From goatsbeard to goatsbeard?  In very simple terms wouldn't macro-evolution be something like goatsbeard to a duck?

Mightymouse, your answers are coming, I had to answer another thread first

Stella, do you honestly, seriously, think that the central idea of modern evolution is about a goatsbeard turning into a duck?

[columbusdude82]

Mightymouse, do you have access to a university library network? Or some other way to access science journals?

If so, you can start by looking up these two journal articles:

Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.

Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.

[columbusdude82]

Or, if you don't have journal access, you can start with this site that was introduced to me by none other than our own loco:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs

And you can also check out some of my threads on here that I about to bump up just for you.

[Butterbean]

Stella, do you honestly, seriously, think that the central idea of modern evolution is about a goatsbeard turning into a duck?

lol no.  I'm just trying to clarify if MMC78 was giving an example of macro-evolution or micro-evolution.

[columbusdude82]

lol no.  I'm just trying to clarify if MMC78 was giving an example of macro-evolution or micro-evolution.

Do you know that in biology, there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution? That is just a distinction made up by creationists, because it makes it easy for them to construct strawmen arguments.

I have read dozens of academic books and articles on the subjects, and never see those words.

Creationists like to say things like, "If frogs are the ancestors of monkies, where are the fronkies? Show us the fronkies!!!"

But no one is saying frogs turn into monkies, except the creationists in making up their strawmen arguments.

Stella, if you're interested, allow me in all humility to tell you what I've learned:

Organisms reproduce and transmit their genes to their offspring. Natural selection occurs when some genes make their way into the bodies of organisms who become ancestors of many, while other genes do not. Since some genes are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool, and others are subject to mixing and mutation, then small differences accumulate over long stretches of time.

All this occurs in a slow, gradual way. However, if you look at one organism and a descendant far removed in the future, you may notice some difference, due to these factors I mentioned above.

*Class dismissed*

[loco]

Do you know that in biology, there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution? That is just a distinction made up by creationists, because it makes it easy for them to construct strawmen arguments.

I have read dozens of academic books and articles on the subjects, and never see those words.

From TalkOrigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

*Class dismissed*   

[columbusdude82]

Thanks loco. I know the meaning of the prefix "macro" by the way

If the term "macroevolution" is used in science, it certainly isn't common. And it certainly isn't used in the books or articles or journals I've read.

[loco]

Thanks loco. I know the meaning of the prefix "macro" by the way

If the term "macroevolution" is used in science, it certainly isn't common. And it certainly isn't used in the books or articles or journals I've read.

The term "macroevolution", contrary to your post above, is used by scientists in evolutionary biology today.

Contrary to your post above, the term was not invented by creationists.

[columbusdude82]

That's why I thanked you for bringing that to my attention.

It still doesn't change the facts that it is only creationists who belabor the point!

[loco]

That's why I thanked you for bringing that to my attention.

It still doesn't change the facts that it is only creationists who belabor the point!

Sorry, columbusdude82!  I thought you were being sarcastic.  You are welcome! 

[columbusdude82]

Sorry, columbusdude82!  I thought you were being sarcastic.  You are welcome! 

What? Me? Sarcastic? Where do you get such preposterous ideas?

[loco]

What? Me? Sarcastic? Where do you get such preposterous ideas?

Just a wild guess!   

[beatmaster]

Creationists like to say things like, "If frogs are the ancestors of monkies, where are the fronkies? Show us the fronkies!!!"

Organisms reproduce and transmit their genes to their offspring. Natural selection occurs when some genes make their way into the bodies of organisms who become ancestors of many, while other genes do not. Since some genes are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool, and others are subject to mixing and mutation, then small differences accumulate over long stretches of time.

All this occurs in a slow, gradual way. However, if you look at one organism and a descendant far removed in the future, you may notice some difference, due to these factors I mentioned above.

*Class dismissed*

exactly thats why it takes millions of years... love it , keep them coming

[columbusdude82]

Mightymouse, do you have access to a university library network? Or some other way to access science journals?

If so, you can start by looking up these two journal articles:

Avarello, R., A. Pedicini, A. Caiulo, O. Zuffardi, M. Fraccaro, 1992. Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 89(2): 247-249.

Bermudez de Castro, J. M. et al., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276: 1392-1395.

Have you bothered reading any of these, mightymouse?

Or do you ask me to post stuff just so you make me post it, and not for you to actually read it or look it up?

[Deicide]

mightymouse, concerning Lee Strobel, his are old and tired arguments that our own dear loco has brought up time and time again and have been discussed. Were you reading the board at those times or were you taking a sabbatical? If you would like to discuss Strobel, we can make another thread so that this one doesn't get too cluttered.

As for my heart being hard and full of hate, please... you may or may not know my story. But I was born, baptized, educated, raised a devout Christian (specifically Catholic). In my early 20's in college I experimented with evangelical Christianity (Bible-thumping style ), but I didn't find my answers in it, and was too conflicted and tortured that I felt I needed a break from the whole religion thing altogether, and decided I would return to it when I was better disposed to handle those issues. It was only this last summer that I became increasingly skeptical, and eventually atheist.

But what really pisses me off, is when people attack and try to subvert science (the greatest accomplishment of our species) under the guise of superstition of any sort (astrology, creationism, homeopathy, etc).

Feel bad for you that you were brainwashed and you had to waste all those years. I was raised in a completely a-religious household, no religion or god whatsoever and thus was spared much of the nonsense you were subjected to. Thank Odin you were able to break free from it all though and good on you for having done it.

[Deicide]

Have you bothered reading any of these, mightymouse?

Or do you ask me to post stuff just so you make me post it, and not for you to actually read it or look it up?

Mightymouse is as bad as MCWAY, only less intelligent; hence the quintessential fundy!