Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blasphemy! 'Microevolution' cannot account for the modern range of species you are proposing in a mere 6,000 years since the flood. 6,000 years is only a few thousand generations for most animals, not enough time to account for all of the cumulative differences in the variety of species we have today. Noah would have logically had to tote nearly every species in pairs and that number would have been a staggering amount.
If Christians could come up with a better story, like Noah could clone species or engineer new species in a stone age laboratory, you could cut that number in half(or more).
Also troubling for you mythologists is the distribution of species across the globe. Why did lemurs only go to Madagascar after the flood? Why didn't horses go to Vietnam? Why didn't Wooly Mammoths migrate to South America? Why is T-Rex fossils found mostly in the Western U.S.?
Also of importance, you have to account for all of that water required for a worldwide flood. Where did this water come from? Where did it go?
Either a)All of the laws of nature were suspended to make your flood story true or b)someone is lying.
You made yourself look foolish. Very foolish in fact. Attempting to appear anything else now is desperate.
I won't even bother asking you for evidence, as you'll ignore the point like most other religious nuts.
Okay, if you say so.
Evidence that the majority of scholars think Jesus was a real person whether divine or not? Google. It won't take long and you don't even have to go to religious websites. I won't do the work for you when it should be common knowledge for someone who esposes to be as enlightened as you think you are. We'll just let the readers decide who made who look more foolish. I'm already known here at this forum as a bit of a joker and anything but a fundamentalist. I haven't seen you around here much at all until recently and your comments have been largely disrespectful, demeaning, and even troll like. Yes. We will let the readers and the other Matts decide.
Evidence that the majority of scholars think Jesus was a real person whether divine or not? Google. It won't take long and you don't even have to go to religious websites. I won't do the work for you when it should be common knowledge for someone who esposes to be as enlightened as you think you are. We'll just let the readers decide who made who look more foolish. I'm already known here at this forum as a bit of a joker and anything but a fundamentalist. I haven't seen you around here much at all until recently and your comments have been largely disrespectful, demeaning, and even troll like. Yes. We will let the readers and the other Matts decide.
I'll do this in order bold point.
1. Think, not know being the key word you used.
2. You can't go into a debate in parliament asking the other party to do your research for you. Present your arguments, or don't make those arguments.
3. You seem a bit full of yourself. Who describes them self as a 'forum joker'? That tends to mean you aren't very funny.
4. I have only really been on here recently, which would explain it. Plus, I've been very tolerable of you all. Whats disrespectful and demeaning is Christianity. I may come across as a troll, but the derision I present towards some of the points are all sincere.
5. Another attempt at humour, from a joke that wasn't funny the first time. I see why you think you're a 'forum joker', yet nobody else does.
2. You can't go into a debate in parliament asking the other party to do your research for you. Present your arguments, or don't make those arguments.
3. You seem a bit full of yourself. Who describes them self as a 'forum joker'? That tends to mean you aren't very funny.
4. I have only really been on here recently, which would explain it. Plus, I've been very tolerable of you all. Whats disrespectful and demeaning is Christianity. I may come across as a troll, but the derision I present towards some of the points are all sincere.
5. Another attempt at humour, from a joke that wasn't funny the first time. I see why you think you're a 'forum joker', yet nobody else does.
"Whats disrespectful and demeaning is Christianity." Are you even listening to yourself? And of course you won't think I'm funny at this point...you're a new guy Somehow the fact that I call myself a forum joker because I use goofy and even sometimes funny comments here some how makes me full of myself? I'm simply one of the few people here who often makes goofy comments to change it up a bit and people seem to like it so far. Why didn't I provide a bunch of links for proof and ask you to look it up? Answer: This thread was about Noahs Ark in the first place and providing a thousand links to prove what I thought would be common knowledge for anyone other than a very small number of scholars would derail the thread topic and the moderators here don't take very kindly to that (nor should they)..
Don't get me wrong, you're free to disagree with what the vast majority of scholars believe. Just don't expect to do so without people raising eyebrows at you or receiving smartarse comments from people like me....Oh very well, since I did assume to much on your knowledge or respect of scholars heres some comments made by mostly atheist or agnostic scholars:
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
Anyways. I'm mostly out of time today so have fun this Noahs ark thing (which I agree this probably isn't it) and I'll check back when I can if I think its worth the effort.
Uh-huh. But True Believers aren't going to let a little thing like that get in the way.
This geologic feature is not the NAMI site. The NAMI site is much more recent and was in a glacial crevasse that has since been reworked and destroyed by the glacier's progression after it was exposed as a fraud. However, the site referenced in the OP is merely bogus and is a miss-identified geologic formation underlying a mudflow. This story of the "find" dates back to 1960. It's pretty silly to consider it an ark candidate after it was easily determined to be a geological formation so soon after it was initially promoted as such. Somebody didn't get the memo.
"Whats disrespectful and demeaning is Christianity." Are you even listening to yourself?
Have you read the Bible?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrhockney
And of course you won't think I'm funny at this point...you're a new guy Somehow the fact that I call myself a forum joker because I use goofy and even sometimes funny comments here some how makes me full of myself? I'm simply one of the few people here who often makes goofy comments to change it up a bit and people seem to like it so far. Why didn't I provide a bunch of links for proof and ask you to look it up? Answer: This thread was about Noahs Ark in the first place and providing a thousand links to prove what I thought would be common knowledge for anyone other than a very small number of scholars would derail the thread topic and the moderators here don't take very kindly to that (nor should they)..
Don't get me wrong, you're free to disagree with what the vast majority of scholars believe. Just don't expect to do so without people raising eyebrows at you or receiving smartarse comments from people like me....Oh very well, since I did assume to much on your knowledge or respect of scholars heres some comments made by mostly atheist or agnostic scholars:
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
Anyways. I'm mostly out of time today so have fun this Noahs ark thing (which I agree this probably isn't it) and I'll check back when I can if I think its worth the effort.
Ohh.. now you've made it fun. People always bring up Ehrman, but they clearly don't know enough, apart from google search what they want to find. A real Ehrman quote:
Bart Ehrman (Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina) - "In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence". Zero, zip, nada.
I am disputing the claim he is historical fact, and I am yet to see convincing evidence. There are literally no credible convincing historical sources for Jesus's existence.
Yet, if he was real, wouldn't there be accounts of him? All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
"In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game. They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.
In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) responded with:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards".
Do return, you humour me, but not in the way you think you do. Oh and I noticed you still didn't read my Ark post, but I won't post it again, that would be spam, as it's in this thread plenty. Take a read, you might learn something.
I think we are talking to someone who just doesn't get it, and who doesn't want to "get it."
Sure, eventually God will bring him into a realization of the truth (1 Tim.2:4-6) but I think it's time to let him go in peace.
I mean, anyone who says Jesus never existed, well . . . .
Eusebius, you repeatedly deviate from points I've made to you, you repeatedly dodge questions I pose you. All you appear to attempt is to claim that anyone who doesn't believe the claim Jesus existed is a fool. However, I would like to know how you would finish that sentence. It's funny, you seem to be under the impression your God is the right one. So do Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Romans, Buddhists, Sikhs.. I could go on. You are no wiser and no smarter than anyone because you have a blind faith in YOUR God. Yet I don't have any faith, I read, I'm educated, and I listen to reason, to evidence and then take it on board. Obtain some sense, read outside of the only book you possess and educate yourself properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
who doesn't want to "get it."
You have failed to make a valid point this entire time. I don't even think you know what you're getting at. Even Christians have agreed with me on points I've made against you. How about you make one of your own. Stop being a sheep. Though, that's all religious folk like yourself are. Sheep who can't think for themselves.
Shame, I thought you would have given me a good debate.
I am disputing the claim he is historical fact, and I am yet to see convincing evidence. There are literally no credible convincing historical sources for Jesus's existence.
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards".
I take it you do not believe in the existence of black holes either--although virtually every scientist out there does---but for which there is not one shred of observable evidence. Instead they reached their conclusion from events around the process. Just as a historical Jesus, accepted by many agnostics on the agnostic thread (try looking at Grandstander and Arequipa posts--educated, well-read agnostics), may not be mentioned in the Roman chronicles but yet there is so much written evidence around the event, a reasonable, thoughtful person would agree---a real man named Jesus made some sort of impact on the world.
I guess you don't believe in the holocaust either--there are sure a lot of loonies out there denying it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm simply one of the few people here who often makes goofy comments to change it up a bit and people seem to like it so far. Why didn't I provide a bunch of links for proof and ask you to look it up? Answer: This thread was about Noahs Ark in the first place and providing a thousand links to prove what I thought would be common knowledge for anyone other than a very small number of scholars would derail the thread topic and the moderators here don't take very kindly to that (nor should they)..