What is true about Jesus?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Andy1033: From your Post #12.
Darwin’s basic concepts provide an explanation for those fossil records.
Instead of claiming that human evolution has not been proven, provide an alternate explanation of the facts of evolution which is more cogent than the Darwin explanation of the fossil records.
BTW: Only mathematics provides proofs & even mathematics only proves that some conclusion is logically consistent with a set of unproven axioms which use some undefined primitive terms.
The facts of evolution cannot be questioned. Two of the best examples are Eohippus to modern horse & primitive primates to modern Homo Sapiens as indicated by fossil records.
Darwin’s basic concepts provide an explanation for those fossil records.
Instead of claiming that human evolution has not been proven, provide an alternate explanation of the facts of evolution which is more cogent than the Darwin explanation of the fossil records.
BTW: Only mathematics provides proofs & even mathematics only proves that some conclusion is logically consistent with a set of unproven axioms which use some undefined primitive terms.
meanwhile your molars rot.
:shrug:
What does the decay (or not) of his teeth have to do with his view of whether Jesus has ever returned or not, and whether Jesus is excrement from a bull?
Is the state of his teeth linked to Jesus' return?
Is it meant to be taken as evidence that Jesus has indeed returned?
Needless to say I find your comment baffling as to relevancy.
Please explain.
Thanks.
what bearing does his statement have to do with the falsity/truth of precepts related to jesus?
If your comment regarding his molars was to signify you find his comment to have been irrelevant, why not just say so?
Or perhaps use a more common expression (e.g. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?).
Is "meanwhile your molars rot" a similar expression in your country to signify you find it irrelevant?
But since this thread is "what is true about Jesus?", how is it not relevant for him to claim that it is not true that Jesus never comes back?
His latter comment is perhaps a suggestion that nothing is true about Jesus.
So what is not relevant in what Saint said?
The thing about the rotting molars highlights an element of insignificance, cutting to the core of the ultimate state of a conditioned living entity and also the ultimate futility of opinions that are simply extrapolations from the same said (and sad) conditioned state.
There is even a thread about it from way back when :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?83382-While-your-molars-rot/page2
Ok, I've read the thread, and I'm still none the wiser.
How does it highlight an element of insignificance?
How does any of this have to do with Saint claiming that it is untrue that Jesus has ever returned?
Are you claiming his view is irrelevant?
Why not be clear with the issue you have with someone's comment rather than use some obscure metaphor that requires more explanation than it would have taken you in the first instance?
Full of straw-man and other fallacious arguments.
by Jonathan Wells.
Let's nail his colours to the mast.
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
My view on Jesus is that he attempted to reform Judaism,
and rid it of fear, priestly exploitation, and hypocrisy.
He was killed because the people getting fat off of religion saw him succeeding.
and rid it of fear, priestly exploitation, and hypocrisy.
He was killed because the people getting fat off of religion saw him succeeding.
If anything is true about Jesus, if he truly said and taught certain things he was said to have said and taught, it would be in certain things he said and taught. Otherwise, just like everything else we consider to be of the past, it is an illusion, heresay, and completely without substance.
He's a molecular biologist, meaning he knows what he's talking about regarding darwinian evolution.
What's your point?
jan.
He's quoting problems and misunderstandings of the past as proof somehow that the theory of evolution is false.
No major theory is born fully formed, and theories themselves evolve.
He is acting as a missionary, not a scientist.
No major theory is born fully formed, and theories themselves evolve.
He is acting as a missionary, not a scientist.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Mithras is an old Persian god (some say Zoroastrian) who was co-opted by a group of Romans to form a new "mystery religion." Their Mithras differed from the original Mesopotamian Mithras in several important ways, so there's no point in trying to determine what's "true" or "false." If you're really referring to the original god, well we all know that the only thing that's "true" about gods is that they are imaginary.
You're crazy! Every scientific theory starts off as a hypothesis that is then proven true beyond a reasonable doubt by application of the scientific method. This is the way science works! (Of course scientists, who are famous for being poor communicators, often misuse the word "theory" for things like "string theory" which is nothing but a bunch of cool math supported by a lot of arm-waving.)
In order to become a theory, evidence is gathered by observing the operation of the universe, experiments are performed, logic is used to distill the evidence into a hypothesis, the hypothesis is tested, and finally the entire operation is peer-reviewed.
A "belief that has never been proven" cannot ever become a scientific theory, at least not if the word is used properly. It's just a hypothesis. Or in many cases just bullshit.
Where do you buy your bullshit pills? You must take six with every meal to be able to make a preposterous statement like that and post it on a science website.
Human evolution, like all evolution, is supported by a wealth of evidence gathered from two different, unrelated sciences: paleontology and genetics. This is one of the most solid scientific theories every developed! The first species that branched off from the chimpanzee genetic line to initiate the human genetic line was Ardipithecus, a fully bipedal primate who lived in Ethiopia 7MYA. We have a splendid line of intermediate species taking us down to our own most recent ancestors, Homo erectus and/or H. habilis.
Our genetic makeup dovetails perfectly with the other primates; it's about 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA. It's so close to the DNA of H. neanderthalensis that the two species clearly interbred in Europe, where their populations mingled. Most of the people in Europe who are descended from people who migrated into the continent as the current Ice Age began to end and the Neanderthals were still there (i.e., not the Finns, Huns, Turks, Magyars, Jews, Saami, etc., who came much later) have a bit of Neanderthal DNA.
Evolution, including human evolution, is as solid a theory as you will ever find. No rational, educated person can doubt it, except when deluded by a lingering artifact of the Stone Age that continues to plague us, known as "religion."
If in fact Jesus was real, the tales in the Bible make it clear that he was born in April: springtime rather than winter. The Roman tax collectors were not traipsing through the snow!
But the Christians already had a holiday to co-opt the various pagan Spring Festivals: Easter, a time of rebirth that mirrored it very nicely. They needed one to co-opt the Winter Festivals--the Norse version was called Jul, which today we spell "Yule." So they moved Jesus's birthday into early winter.
That's your opinion. He is a scientist, period, and as a scientist he sees flaws in the theory, period.
If he believes he has a calling (or whateverrrrr!) to oust the the theory as fraudulent, it is up to you to prove that calling overrides his proffessional position. Not just cry fowl because it goes against another belief system.
jan.
But isn't the point not that he's highlighting flaws in a theory, but that he's highlighting flaws in a theory that has been superseded, and thus one that is not the current theory?
Like trying to pick holes in Newtonian physics because it doesn't hold true at relativistic velocities, without acknowledging that it has already been replaced by relativistic physics.
If this is the case, the question is what his motive would be.
If he suggests that the textbooks need updating for the more up-to-date theories, that's one thing.
If he suggests that these flaws discredit the whole concept of evolution, that is a logical fallacy.
I'm not saying he's doing one thing or another, just that this is what the view of others seem to be of him.
Your post says nothing to explain how or why inaccurate information became entrenched in biology text books.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I have always been wary of people who have science degrees and work in the field, yet nonetheless maintain serious devotion to a conservative religion. This is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
Yes I know that there are great (or at least competent) scientists who follow the scientific method to the letter during office hours, then take off their lab coats, go home and start praying to a god for whose existence there is not one shred of evidence. Most of the time they manage to keep the two parts of their life separated. But sometimes they can't stop them from clashing.
This particular molecular biologist has joined a church (Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) that even other religious people describe as "crazy." When he starts claiming that canonical scientific theories are false, Occam's Razor suggests that the first explanation to test is that he's lost his dedication to science, and only once we disprove that one should we begin to test the explanation that he has actually found the flaw in a theory that's withstood testing--often hostile testing--for decades, and has now been even more firmly proven true by a science that didn't exist when it was first formulated: genetics.
Let's wait for the peer review of these astounding assertions before we give a man whom I wouldn't even hire to work in a dog hospital the benefit of the doubt.
He may have credentials, but he now firmly identifies himself as a crackpot.
It happens. Religion is a disease and not all of us are immune to it.
Once again, how has saint offered any foundation to establish the truth of his opinion , which crumbles like the inevitable state of his teeth?
:shrug: