|
Zeitgeist : Part one. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Undoubtedly yes but I agree with other posters that it is an unfair and pretty pointless comparison. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So very true...although I would have been more general and compared it to the existance of a god. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What's important is not the amount of documented evidence, but how the evidence is documented. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't believe the bible can count as a source of evidence for a being called Jesus ever having
existed. Grenaches raises some good points but there are other possible reasons for a religious
movement being spawned, all we have in that regard is speculation. As for evolution, it is an
ongoing process, through the fossil records if we take horses as the prime example we can see over
the millions of years small changes and adaptations in bone structure. The work of Darwin in the
1800s and the scientist of today such as Dawkins have shown us that evolution is without doubt a
fact. Human beings are evolving, over the next several thousands years I would be amazed if we
didn't change in some small way. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I really don't get how people can vote against this. Even if the Bible does count as evidence, it is
one source. Evidence for evolution comes from hundreds and thousands of sources. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let's see, evolution is the best evidentially supported idea in all of science and there isn't a
single scrap of objective evidence that the Jesus-character that appears in the Bible ever truly
lived. Not much of a question, really, the answer is obvious. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
It is somewhat illogical to compare the two categories. On the one hand, you have a historic
figure, who should be evaluated like any other historical figure would be to determine whether or
not he or she actually walked the earth. There is criteria that is used to determine such things.
On the other hand, you have a scientific theory which is supported by scientific evidence which is a
different category of evidence, altogether. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Obviously you have never experienced anything like being filled with the Holy Spirit. Life as a
Christian is a much better life, and you learn to live you life for the reason your on this Earth,
to help others. Millions and Millions of people believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and
stories have been passed down from generation to generation. I'm pretty sure millions of people
would not have caught on to this story if only one person just made this story up. There were
witnesses of Jesus being crucified, and there is more evidence saying Jesus does exist rather than
saying he does not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don’t particularly like the comparison. Evolution is a scientific theory while Christ was
allegedly a living person. It’s not appropriate, in my opinion, to match up the two in a battle of
evidences. Granted, if we’re speaking of scientifically experimental evidence when making the
judgment, then evolution wins by a mile. But evaluating the existence of a person isn’t like
evaluating the existence of a biological process. Hence my distaste for the assessment. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's like this: I can grant there's more evidence of evolution than of most matters of religion, but
you chose a poor comparison to say there is more of evolution than Jesus Christ. All those eye
witnesses, and the large religious movement he spawned, and even ancient census data, make it pretty
easy to believe there was a man who walked the earth named Jesus. Of course that's not the same as
proving all the stories about him are verbatem true, but to say he didn't exist is not persuasive at
all.
And yes I believe in evolution, I defend it all the time on this site. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is relative. Too many people disagree and agree on varying things on either topic. I don't
trust the 'official' documents of science and religion too easily. But that's a different topic.
I would say that man cannot know truths because man disagrees with each other all the time over
petty things. But men are capable of knowing truth. As for me, I am sustained in the knowledge that
Jesus Christ is a bigger reality than evolution.
I am also sustaining that many sciences are very political ever since sciences could reveal man's
nature, therefore showing how to manipulate mankind. Is it any wonder that I don't trust science?
And you saw my debate on organized religion. Science is used in politics in many ways... It's so
versatile. Almost as versatile as religion because it has say on many different topics.
But even the greatest men like aristotle should account for something as some sort of science... So
should documents of people writing what they saw of Jesus. But morons discredit such views because
'we cannot know that they actually saw Jesus' which is total BS, when I could throw that back in
their face about not witnessing our origins or some evolution from one being into another.
Evolution is not best science supported. Science is best supported by science. Just like we are due
for a cold cycle in our climate and we have government planes dispensing poisonous gases in the
atmosphere to heat the earth and other modes of 'weather modification'. Science is being
manipulated. And evolution is a good way to get people to accept the supremacy of genes. And from
there... Eugenics. And from there... Killing the infidels in a non muslim sense. If you don't
believe me, then you are a holocaust denier. =)
Back to my main point. It truly is relative, at least in this sense... It is self evident to me that
Jesus can suffice for evolution and more. Even if I don't believe in evolution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Umm for believers the Bible IS the evidence for Jesus Christ and there are things such as miracles
and religious experiences like that which points to his existence. Also, its the universality
principle. So many people believe in him, they can't all be wrong can they? I mean i'm not a theist
guys don't get me wrong but i'm an agnostic and i strongly believe in eschatological verification.
In other words this argument is pretty pointless because until you die anyone can say that Jesus
existed or is a load of rubbish but you won't be proved or disproved until death. So i say live and
let live, why worry about that? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
01 Nov 2009 18:50
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
