What is evolution, not what some think

No true scholar denies the existence of Jesus
Many anti- christian, and uninformed people have a false understanding that Christ was just a story.
I can accept people who do not accept who Jesus claimed to be, but to deny Jesus was a historical reality???
Its sad that this is perpetuated.
This is a youtube link of an uninformed atheist trying to gain support of another, teaching that Christ was a myth. Its interesting the reply

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch
No true scholar denies the existence of Jesus

Every genuine scholar denies the biblical christ. Real historians don't accept magic, or that the laws of the universe can be suspended on a whim, based on hearsay. Only witchdoctors and charlatans/biblical scholars promote such things.

I can accept people who do not accept who Jesus claimed to be, but to deny Jesus was a historical reality??

You overlook the fact that to accept even a historical jesus requires belief in the absence of any genuine evidence. If you apply the normal criteria of historical enquiry to jesus, you are left with nothing with which to enquire about. Even the more honest religious scholars admit this. Yet by the very same standards you could entertain a jesus historicity (scripture), that would also allow no end of other figures of mythology (that were also believed to be real in the past) being just as real, historically.

Can I see the link to your poll? The one conducted throughout the world's universities and academia amongst historians, particularly secular ones? This claim is often parroted from US based religious (ahem) "scholars" and supporters, but I haven't seen it backed up.

There most definitely are historians who see the jesus myth...as just that.

double post

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
As to the rest of the religious brainwashing propaganda you provide, it's ridiculous.

Crow.

Nom nom...

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered spectator.org...

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Crow.

Nom nom...

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered spectator.org...

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

No problem at all if you claim to have personal reasons for your beliefs. I might disagree but, doesn't matter. It's when you claim things as facts based on religious belief and mythology, that it earns scrutiny (that it doesn't even begin to stand up to.

One of our evolutionary cousins doing some light reading. At least he isn't confusing the bible with science. I wonder if his friends believe in an old silverback in the sky?

originally posted by: borntowatch
No true scholar denies the existence of Jesus
Many anti- christian, and uninformed people have a false understanding that Christ was just a story.
I can accept people who do not accept who Jesus claimed to be, but to deny Jesus was a historical reality???
Its sad that this is perpetuated.
This is a youtube link of an uninformed atheist trying to gain support of another, teaching that Christ was a myth. Its interesting the reply

www.youtube.com...

There is no historical proof that Jesus existed. There isn't a single reference to him pre-93AD. The origins of christianity are shrouded in what I can only describe as extreme uncertainty. Here's a cite for you.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There is no historical proof that Jesus existed. Here's a cite for you.

Might as well cite the National Enquirer while you're at it.

It has JUST as much credibility...

"We all know that RationalWiki is a liberal propaganda site..." Link

"a horrible piece of establishment propaganda... littered with false statements and ad hominem. I imagine that the whole of the wiki is a collection of gatekeepers for consensus science and PTB doctrine...." www.fmotl.com...

"...anyone can anonymously write whatever they want (but correction of the tripe written will be considered “vandalism”!) RationalWiki is one of those sites. RationalWiki is a project of Trent Toulouse, who has the stated objective of “exposing conspiracy theories”. He once implied that he considers a conspiracy theory everything that disagrees with mainstream dogma, making RationalWiki a platform for anyone with an agenda to attack researchers struggling to bring important facts to public attention." owndoc.com...

"RationalWiki is now just another outlet for #FTBullies ideology... they are totally baboon property. Monkeys dancing for the organ grinder... the "talk" pages for their hatchet job/character assassination wiki entries show how utterly corrupt it is..." twitter.com...

"Their alternative weapon is called "rational wiki" (an oxymoron) and it is allegedly ran by a student named Toulouse, from Hamilton, Canada. He is as real as that shady guy who runs wikipedia.org, with an added character feature of inferiority complex. Of course, it is possible that he too does not exist (a made-up character), or that he has been co-opted by intelligence services, as they do draft students.

RationalWiki is a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website that is run by Ontario resident Trent Toulouse. RationalWiki is a wiki founded by secular humanists in response to Conservapedia. They regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. It is based on MediaWiki, like Metapedia. The wiki has around 4200 English pages middle of May 2010. The information is inaccurate and sparse. The wiki begs for donations. The site is extremely anti-Christian and anti-Conservative and promotes sodomy and gun restriction.

The website fraudulently portrays itself as being “rational”, and opposed to “pseudoscience”, yet promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational spiritual pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism. On top of such deceptiveness, Trent Toulouse solicits donations (on the website’s main page) under these false pretenses. That fits within the definition of criminal fraud." A note on "Rational Wiki"

"Some of the most untrue bunch of lies that could ever be written in the entire world were written by RationalWiki. They claim that they are the truth and the holy appointed protectors of science and their subjects. They do not tell the truth. RationalWiki is the biggest con job on the internet. It is the National Enquirer of skeptical thought.

They are like Stormfront for intellectual people that pimp a platform of hate and scorn for those that they hate, no matter how wrong and biased that they are and kudos for those that they DO like. RationalWiki is the most biased thing out there on the internet today. They are NOT rational or intelligent. RationalWiki is a fraud factory. It is a quack’s encyclopedia. They are pseudo-intellectual quackery at its finest. RationalWiki is a joke!" Source

Take, for example, the RationalWiki article on pseudoscience. One merely has to lightly read through it to see some of the most arrogant statements that can be made. ...there is no excuse for passing this kind of blithely arrogant and shallow material off as anything other than trash, and that’s not even dealing with the factual inaccuracies.

The entire site is plagued by trash (the only suitable term) of this nature. I have no doubts that RationalWiki is just a front for Left-Wing Progressivism (a type of Socialism, basically), based on the style of the writing and the methods of argumentation used.

RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination

a reply to: Murgatroid

My my, that was quite a list. Been burned by RW before have you?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No.

I make it a habit to always check out a source simply because reliable ones are so rare.

Once a person KNOWS the truth, sharing it becomes a priority.

It's not about debunking or winning arguments.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch
No true scholar denies the existence of Jesus

Every genuine scholar denies the biblical christ. Real historians don't accept magic, or that the laws of the universe can be suspended on a whim, based on hearsay. Only witchdoctors and charlatans/biblical scholars promote such things.


Can I see the link to your poll? The one conducted throughout the world's universities and academia amongst historians, particularly secular ones? This claim is often parroted from US based religious (ahem) "scholars" and supporters, but I haven't seen it backed up.

There most definitely are historians who see the jesus myth...as just that.

Well its safe to assume you didnt listen to the youtube clip.

As silly as this sounds can you prove to me that Darwin ever existed, I think he was just a made up, so the atheists could forward their agenda, scientists could get their-hands on more of the public purse.
Now to prove Darwins existence, I wont accept any written words, nor photos unless you can prove they are him.

Its pointless.

a reply to: borntowatch

How about his grave and remains? What about his great, great granddaughter? BTW her name is Laura Keynes and she is a Catholic apologist.

originally posted by: borntowatch


Well its safe to assume you didnt listen to the youtube clip.

No need to listen to Ehrman, heard it all before and it does nothing for your "appeal to authority" fallacy. This isn't like science where we can verify by experiment etc.

It is the opinion of an ex "evangelical christian" who was educated in a theological seminary, bible college etc..that couldn't be biased at all lol. Never wondered what made him want to be a "new testament scholar" in the first place...? It's common for ex religious cult members to struggle to let go, kool aid can have lasting effects.

What your assertion really means is that none of the brainwashed religious "academics" who specialise in this area believe it was a myth (go figure) and a lot of other historians take their word for it. Yet many of them believe the whole thing (miracles and all), which discounts them as either academics or unbiased to begin with.

"New testament" and "scholar" are contradictory terms, about as bona fide academically as "harry potter scholar". This whole area of quasi/pseudo academia is an utter sham.

The historians that don't believe, say they used to just accept it, until they looked further...as more of them do begin to study this area of history, the idea that the whole thing is myth will gain even more popularity for obvious reasons.

Once again, do you have a genuine link to the poll conducted around the world to back up your previous assertion?

As silly as this sounds can you prove to me that Darwin ever existed, I think he was just a made up.

I agree, that is quite silly.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: borntowatch

How about his grave and remains? What about his great, great granddaughter? BTW her name is Laura Keynes and she is a Catholic apologist.

Yeah she is making it all up because she is brainwashed by the powers that are
The grave, someone else's body, its that simple.

Look clearly Darwin existed, but we only have his writings, testimonys and assumed children, the reality its all just written word that can be dismissed
Hardevidence for Alexander the Great, written word.
Hard evidence for Genghis Khan, any of historys great leaders who died a couple of hundred years ago, nothing but text as proof

As I stated oh so clearly, many scholars dont believe Jesus was a Messiah, performed any miracles, they say he was just a man. They dont deny Jesus lived and walked on earth

I have no intention chasing any literature for you to read, you will not accept any of it anyway.

Thats cool

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No.

I make it a habit to always check out a source simply because reliable ones are so rare.

Once a person KNOWS the truth, sharing it becomes a priority.

It's not about debunking or winning arguments.

You KNOW the truth eh? So basically a person named Jesus was baptized, caused a disturbance at a church one day, and was executed. Those are pretty much the only thing historians agree on and many still debate them. It doesn't exactly verify Jesus to be son of god, or any of the miraculous stories about him.

I do think Jesus, as a person, existed, however the stories were greatly exaggerated and blown out of proportion to draw in followers. It is apparent by the 4 differing gospels as well as the countless others that didn't make the bible including the gnostic texts. It seemed more like everybody was competing to sell their brand of Jesus. He was ahead of his time and taught values that apply more today than they did back then. The concepts of empathy, loving your enemies, and the golden rule. These were revolutionary concepts at the time, and essentially he ended up being executed for blasphemy. His martyrdom was noted and used as a means to justify religious reform. That's my take on it at least. Who knows, maybe he was the world's first professional illusionist. If only we REALLY knew what actually happened.

originally posted by: Barcs
You KNOW the truth eh?

Interesting post that...

I doubt there is anything I could say to possibly convince you but I have learned from experience that one CAN actually know the truth.

There comes a point where one has seen so much irrefutable and undeniable evidence that it becomes pure knowledge VS a belief.

Once one has become 100% convinced that what they know is a FACT, it changes everything.

Hardly a day goes by when someone here on ATS says "knowing the truth" is an impossibility.

Don't EVER fall for that lie.

All of us are GOING to know the truth one way or another.

Many people stop being logical just because they are afraid to face the truth. Preparing yourself to handle the truth is the first step towards becoming a more logical person. Beware that truth can be quite painful at times; but there is no reason in living in a false world. Do not ignore facts, data, clues or cause that holds light to truth because you are afraid what it may reveal. Prepare yourself to handle the bitter truth.

Be prepared to handle the truth

The truth will always be the truth, despite our opinions.
The truth is still the truth even if it is not understood.
The truth is still the truth even if we are not able to accept it.
The truth is still the truth even if we choose to ignore or reject it.
The truth doesn't need the approval of the human ego in order to be truth.
The truth needs nothing to back it up.
The truth is self-sustaining.
The truth stands on its own.

The truth is only for those who WANT it.
The truth is only for those who are open to it.
The truth is accessible to ALL that have an open mind to receive it.
The truth is for all who take the time and effort to seek it out.
The truth is 100% free for all who want it.
The truth reveals ITSELF when we stop thinking we already know it.
When we think we already know the truth, we close ourselves off to what it truly is.
When we think we already know the truth, we close ourselves off to the next higher level of truth.
We're blind to the truth because we're too involved with our individual "truth".
If we let go of the opinions and beliefs, truth will reveal ITSELF without any kind of searching for it.
Paradoxically, the words "I don't know" are the way to knowing the truth.

The truth is not to be learned.
The truth is extremely simple.
The truth is REALIZED when everything has been un-learned and let go of.
Truth can only be verified FIRSTHAND by BEING the truth.
Understanding what the truth is intellectually means nothing if the individual is not going to BE it.
The truth is not to be known intellectually by only knowing ABOUT the truth. (reading or having something "proven" to you)

What is the Absolute Truth, Opinion, Belief

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
I do think that Evolutionary Theory is valid, but there are gaps in it describing observed Biodiversity. Stuff where the numbers come out wrong (mutation rates for genome size/type in an environment that includes no undue mutagenic sources - e.g: the Drosphila-Citronella case, or the European Peppered Moth case, or the "Nylon eating" bacteria case, among many others) or where effects on population and biodiversity are not systematic but result from turbulent or complex chaotic processes that any systematic theories will never explain (e.g: what version of Evolutionary Theory incorporates Chaos Theory, despite the fact that we know Biodiversity is absolutely the result of multiple dynamical systems?).

99.99% today biologist stay behind evolution and given timeline of ~3.5 billion of years for life to occur, evolve, get destroyed in multiple ELE and you got some creationist who you believe got it right, while everyone else is pointing to fossils and findings that support accepted theory of evolution?!

I would not personally care what you believe, your own choice, but repeating lies and unsupported thesis just produce more lies - not a hole in theory... but huge holes in your belief system.

Reminds me of Oliver John's clip with 97 scientist sporting global warming... just imagine the same, just with crowd that is much bigger then 1000...

Just to represent mathematically how off you are...

In regard to your "99% of Biologists" figure. In that video clip you posted of Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about 7% of top American scientists believing in a Creator God, with the majority of them being Biologists and Physicists and the percentage goes up as the academic credentials normalize. If I were your professor, I'd give you a fail in either observation or simple mathematics. Can't possibly be 99%.

If you pulled that 99% figure out of the air, it also calls into doubt other data you have supplied.

In regard to me quoting from the work of Creationists, I wish to inform you that I was NOT quoting from someone else's research. I was reading up about the European Peppered Moth in a Biology text and realizing that they had an annual life cycle, I saw the two observed genetic changes occurring within 200 years/generations as looking a bit odd. So I then researched the mutation rates for Lepidoptera genus and found that we could reasonably expect a minor genetic change in 600-900 generations. So to have two changes within a period that is only a fraction of the expected time frame would indicate that the current theory does not explain what was observed. I then extended this to every other supposed proof of Evolutionary Theory and found similar discrepancies.

Perhaps if you did some of your own actual research and stopped browsing internet blogs and YouTube (opinion pieces), you would find out some of these actual facts for yourself.

As for the usual irrelevant and off-topic YouTube video you seem to post each time, since the title gives away that it is irrelevant to the topic, I won't waste my time watching it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
In regard to your "99% of Biologists" figure. In that video clip you posted of Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about 7% of top American scientists believing in a Creator God, with the majority of them being Biologists and Physicists and the percentage goes up as the academic credentials normalize. If I were your professor, I'd give you a fail in either observation or simple mathematics. Can't possibly be 99%.

7% of these scientists are religious and pray to a personal god. What does that have to do with creationism and the rejection of evolution? You're not trying to imply that this 7% reject evolution, are you?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch
No true scholar denies the existence of Jesus
Many anti- christian, and uninformed people have a false understanding that Christ was just a story.
I can accept people who do not accept who Jesus claimed to be, but to deny Jesus was a historical reality???
Its sad that this is perpetuated.
This is a youtube link of an uninformed atheist trying to gain support of another, teaching that Christ was a myth. Its interesting the reply

www.youtube.com...

There is no historical proof that Jesus existed. There isn't a single reference to him pre-93AD. The origins of christianity are shrouded in what I can only describe as extreme uncertainty. Here's a cite for you.

All the accepted biblical texts were written before the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD). They are the documentary evidence that Jesus existed. If you don't accept any evidence, then there is none.

There is significant, documentary and circumstantial, religious and secular evidence that Christ lived and that He was killed. Yet despite His death, a religion was founded where nearly all His contemporaries gave their lives and refused to recant. The martyrdoms started quite early (St Stephen was martyred in the year following the death of Jesus) and are heavily documented.

That same religion exists today and is the largest grouping of strongly affiliated humans on the planet (If political power was their aim, then most likely you'd be subject to them now). Perhaps that is a proof that it had a specific origin and that its goals are other than what you seem to ascribe to it?

a reply to: chr0naut

what do you think of jews or muslims? hindus or other? numbers don't make something true.

i think you forget that there was a time when we lived under the thumb of religion. a very long time.