While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Oh I don’t know…..Josephus, “Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
Cornelius Tacitus: “But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
We’ve found the cross…and the empty tomb.
We’ve perhaps found the Shroud of Jesus.
We’ve found inscriptions with his name on them.
And to top it all off, we have a guy by the name of Luke, who wrote these things in all intents and purposes to provide a “most excellent account” for Theophilus, a Roman governor (who would have been most happy to kill him, if he messed up in the very least). Yet, Luke, a doctor, accepts the virginal birth, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
“many evolutionists agree there are only twoâ€.
.
Maybe evidence against evolution is not evidence for Creationism but FSMism? Or scientology. or maybe we just spontaneously appeared one day. who knows but evidence against one is not evidence for the other. Creationism should have to stand on it’s own, not be bolstered by failures of others.
And this violates the law of excluded middle. You have a reductio ad absurdum on your hands, a false conclusion.
Dr. Michael Martin
.
There is only two reasons you would not know evolution as fact,
1) You are uneducated in the biology
2) You are stupid and have ignored all the evidence
.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it covers several scientific feilds, all of which agree that it explains almost everything. Next you’ll be telling me that you think the earth is only 6000 years old.
.
If you need convincing about evolution over ID then it is the “fuckups” in evolution that help convince most people. The blind spot in the our eyes, note an octupus has a similar eye to us but no blind spot because of the we they evolved. Hip bones in whales, snakes with tiny useless claws.
.
Almost forgot, the human tail and appendix are two other examples. Now as a 10 year old that evidence was enough to convince me of evolution, if you can’t see it then it just shows atheists truely are more intelligent than the average theist.
“Thus, I have no idea what you’re talking about. â€
.
I couldn’t agree with you more. You have no idea.
Nice circumstantial Ad Hominem attack :). Thats not going to impress me very much.
Oh for FSM sake, why do you bother arguing with this deranged idiot?
.
.
.
.
Nothing you say, no matter how his crap arguments fail on all levels or how clearly you demonstrate his follies will he ever except whats true over what he believes (belief being the key word)
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The law of excluded middle: ‘Everything must either be or not be.’
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
The following dialogue is an example of reductio ad absurdum:
A — All beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B — If that’s the case, then C is correct in his belief, even though C believes something that is considered to be wrong by most people, such as that the Earth is flat.
A — True.
B — Then some beliefs can be denied.
.
Please explain again how a ran afoul of either of these, by saying creationism should stand on it’s own, and not be bolstered by failures of others? Show me how there can be only 2 possibilities, our minds have a hard time imagining all possibilities.
Dr. Michael Martin
.
There is only two reasons you would not know evolution as fact,
1) You are uneducated in the biology
2) You are stupid and have ignored all the evidence
That would be a bifurcation fallacy. You have left out other options. For instance, I know a ton of Evolutionists who have converted over to Young Earth Creation Science after reviewing evidence for both here.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it covers several scientific feilds, all of which agree that it explains almost everything. Next you’ll be telling me that you think the earth is only 6000 years old.
.
No No, the evidence for Microbiology, Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation is overwhelming. Evolution is a farce. And if I do think the earth is only 6000 years old, what of it? I have plenty of evidence to back that up too.
If you need convincing about evolution over ID then it is the “fuckups†in evolution that help convince most people. The blind spot in the our eyes, note an octupus has a similar eye to us but no blind spot because of the we they evolved. Hip bones in whales, snakes with tiny useless claws.
.
No..actually I think both Evolution and ID are wrong. Thats why I’m a YECS. Thanks though :).
Almost forgot, the human tail and appendix are two other examples. Now as a 10 year old that evidence was enough to convince me of evolution, if you can’t see it then it just shows atheists truely are more intelligent than the average theist.
Well, I think you’re jumping to a conclusion, because it doesn’t tell us whether or not the Atheistic belief is true or not. Concerning your evidence old hat.
Octopus Eyes: First, Lerner claims that the eye evolved:
‘… an eye need not be as sophisticated as a human eye to be useful to its owner. The skins of most animals are sensitive to infrared (heat) radiation. Now consider an animal whose skin has one or more light-sensitive spots — a very modest shift in wavelength response. The animal cannot see images, but can distinguish light from dark and might well detect the shadow of a predator and escape. One of its descendants might possess a similar light-sensitive spot located in a pit, which would serve to concentrate the light and increase sensitivity. If the pit happened to contain water functioning as a lens, it might do even better. Subcutaneous nerves might evolve to serve the spot better, and more sensitive pigments as well. And so on.’
However, this is just hand-waving, with no experimental evidence — notice the words ‘might well detect’, ‘might possess’, ‘happened to contain’, ‘might evolve’. There are several flaws:
It is inexcusable for a condensed matter physicist to claim that a very modest shift in wavelength response will transform an infrared-sensitive spot to a light sensitive spot, because the responses are completely different. Infrared rays cause transitions in molecular vibrational quantum states, which is why it is ‘heat radiation’. Visible light causes transitions in electronic quantum states.
His descriptions of ‘light sensitive spots’, ‘pit’, subcutaneous nerves, etc. sound simple, but they are really biochemically very complex. See At the bottom of Mount Improbable? Eye evolution, a case study for a detailed refutation of Dawkins’ far more sophisticated argument for eye evolution.
After this, Lerner claims:
‘Could the vertebrate eye have been designed by an Intelligent Designer? If so, the designer might have been a flunk-out from engineering school. Why, for instance, would a designer locate the efferent nerves that serve the retina in front of the light-sensitive cells, where they obscure some of the incoming light? Well, perhaps the mammal was a first try; the designer got it right in the octopus eye, where the nerves lie logically behind the light-sensitive cells.’
This is merely parroted from the likes of the atheist Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller, a modernist Roman Catholic who has a long history of teaming up with leading humanists against biblical creation (and who fails to explain adequately why ‘bad design’ doesn’t argue equally against ‘God used evolution’ and ‘God designed directly’). And this is not really an argument for evolution per se at all — because they present no step-by-step way for the structure to have evolved — but it is purely an attack on a designer. So much for Lerner’s claim that he is not trying to ‘attack religion’. Darwin also used this tactic frequently. It’s also ironic that such argumentation tacitly concedes the creationist claim that creation and evolution are the only two possibilities — most evolutionists airily dismiss this claim when it suits them.
However, it would be nice if anti-creationists actually learnt something about the eye before making such claims, or even showed that the eye didn’t function properly as a result. In fact, any engineer who designed something remotely as good as the eye would probably win a Nobel Prize! If Lerner or his mentors disagree, then I challenge them to design a better eye with all the versatility of the vertebrate eye (colour perception, resolution, coping with range of light intensity, night vision as well as day vision, etc.)! And this must be done under the constraints of embryonic development.
The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity! More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has an dynamic range of only 1000 to one. Even specialist equipment hasn’t anywhere near the dynamic range of the eye, and I have considerable experience in state-of-the-art supersensitive photomultipliers. My Ph.D. thesis and published papers in secular journals largely involve a technique called Raman spectroscopy, which analyses extremely weak scattering at a slightly different frequency from that of the incident laser radiation. The major equipment hazard for Raman spectroscopists is scanning at the incident frequency — the still weak Rayleigh scattering at the same frequency would blow the photomultiplier (the newer ones have an automatic shut-off). I managed to safely scan the Rayleigh line (for calibration) only by using filters to attenuate the intensity of light entering the photomultiplier by a factor of 10–7–10–8. But having to take such an extreme safety precaution made me envious and admiring of the way the eye is so brilliantly designed to cope with a far wider range of intensities.
Another amazing design feature of the retina is the signal processing that occurs even before the information is transmitted to the brain. For example, a process called edge extraction enhances the recognition of edges of objects. Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray [supercomputer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’ [Byte, April 1985]. And the retina’s analog computing needs far less power than the digital supercomputers and is elegant in its simplicity. Once again, the eye outstrips any human technology, this time in another area.
Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:
‘The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.’
Whale hip bones: Hip bones in whales
Some evolutionists claim that these bones show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help with reproduction (copulation).
Human appendix: The human appendix
It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal, which are known to fight throat infections. Tonsils also were once thought to be useless organs.
Human tail: From whales to human tails
Even if these poorly documented accounts are true, a fist-sized bump on the side of a whale, with bony tissue inside, bears little resemblance to the report by the popular evolutionist Bakker, quoted earlier. Sadly, many people are being given the idea that there is good scientific evidence of modern whales being born with complete legs dangling from their sides! It seems as if this particular ‘evidence’ for evolution is about the same as that of the occasional human babies which are born with an abnormal lump of fat close to the base of the spine. In spite of the fact that these lumps have no tail-like structures in them, and are often not even on the mid-line, they are still frequently claimed to be ‘throw-backs’ to an alleged evolutionary ancestor with a tail!
The changes required in the evolutionary belief system for a land animal to become a whale are incredibly complex and far reaching. Evolutionist Anthony Martin explains:
‘Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface.
‘This adaptation was achieved by changing every part of the body, particularly the head … As well as changes to the head, adaptation to an aquatic way of life brought about fundamental alterations to the rest of the body.’3
By contrast, there is nothing about the anatomy of modern whales, including the occasional minor abnormalities, which is difficult to incorporate into a creationist understanding of their origins. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator-made-flesh, indicated in Mark 10:6 that people were made ‘from the beginning of the creation’ (not billions of years after the beginning). Whales, along with other creatures of the sea, were made just one day earlier.4 The same God Who is able to raise a person from the dead was easily able to accomplish this.
Lets just knock all this other junk out too: Ligers and wholphins? What next?
Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems — but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?
by Don Batten
If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a (false) killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?
The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.
But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below .)
Finding the created kinds
From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this, but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.3,4
Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!
In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind — whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological ‘species’. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new ‘species’ was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.
Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.
Mules, zeedonks and zorses
Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.
Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.
Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
Ligers
The Created Cat Kind
Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just don’t mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12 feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).
Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram at right).
The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).
Kekaimalu the wholphin
In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) — see photo below.7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.
Rama the cama
Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The ‘cama’, named ‘Rama’, has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal — the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.
‘Genae’ the snake — the live, healthy offspring of snakes from two different genera (see main text).
Genae the hybrid snake
‘Genae’ (pictured right) resulted from a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in California.9 Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4½ ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family, Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have all originally come from the same created kind.
Other hybrids
With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original created cattle kind which was on the Ark.10
Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and rye(Secale), another fertile hybrid between genera.
During my years as a research scientist for the government in Australia, I helped create a hybrid of the delicious fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), which both belong to the same family.11 I also studied the hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists today, probably represents the original created kinds.
The delicious fruit species, lychee (left) and longan (right) hybridize, despite being different genera.
God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galápagos Islands).
The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and ‘fill the earth’, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.
Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about.
Oh for FSM sake, why do you bother arguing with this deranged idiot?
.
.
.
.
Nothing you say, no matter how his crap arguments fail on all levels or how clearly you demonstrate his follies will he ever except whats true over what he believes (belief being the key word)
No, if you can prove your position true…I’ll consider it.
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yeah, lets just ignore all of that Historical testimony (which would pass in a court of law) and all of Archeaology, right?
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yeah, lets just ignore all of that Historical testimony (which would pass in a court of law) and all of Archeaology, right? For that matter, lets just ignore all of Modern Day Science while we’re at it too, since it requires WORDS to demonstrate what the facts are, (do fossils speak?)
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true cross”. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Why stop there…Lets just ignore the purpose and value of life in itself. Why do we do the things we do, and can’t seem to think of otherwise why we’d do them. Morality? Where does that come from?
Let me give you a hint, its not the individual or sociocultural factors!
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true crossâ€. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA through a test tube, how is that evidence?
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true crossâ€. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence?
I give, it’s wearing me out. He seems to be a member of the camp of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with TONS of bulls**t”.
.
Besides the pages takes forever to load now..
An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead? Please keep on writing (or rather copying and pasting), you ARE entertaining.
An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead? Please keep on writing (or rather copying and pasting), you ARE entertaining.
No, but 11 people dying for a known lie would not occur. And they had opportunities to not do it as well.
Not to mention, Luke would have been crucified by the Romans for telling a lie, and he died in Ancient Greece.
Furthermore, the final problem with this is that if this had been a lie, no one would have had any reason to become a part of it. Just parade the body throughout Rome for everyone to see. No body, but many people changed their lives, (Including Saul, who once tortured and killed Christians for fun, became a Christian himself).
I give, it’s wearing me out. He seems to be a member of the camp of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with TONS of bulls**tâ€. (speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Besides the pages takes forever to load now..