1 2
#538413
MK
It's not a start if you never leave square one.
6/11/2008 11:46:08 PM
#538417
nfp
There is no corroborating evidence outside the Bab, so you're wrong. The judge would hit you in the head with his gavel.
Case dismissed.
6/11/2008 11:48:55 PM
#538420
aaa
A few billion years is quite a long time. Also, the vast space...
6/11/2008 11:49:22 PM
#538421
Nibien
While reading this all that went on in my head was "Wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong...wrong..."
/sigh Fucking fundies.
6/11/2008 11:49:48 PM
#538430
DW
Only problem is when in court where are these 500 witnesses gonna come from cosmost are now dead so wouldn't be admissable in court....
6/11/2008 11:55:34 PM
#538446
C_V
"Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ."
Seriously? because, y'know, "Christ" is not anyone's last name, much less your (likely) fictional Jesus. saying "Jesus of Nazareth" was akin to "you know, that guy Bob, from that town over". Jesus was such a common name it's ridiculous.
6/12/2008 12:07:29 AM
#538451
deathbird
FAIL
The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts - they were written much later and only attributed to the disciples.
6/12/2008 12:19:34 AM
#538453
Bowen
"Bible prophecy and its accurate fulfillment is strong evidence that the Bible is from that Creator."
So, prophecies appearing in a book of mythology are later confirmed to have occured by the same book of mythology . Therefore, god wrote the bible.
Fundie logic at it's finest. Or worst.
6/12/2008 12:20:35 AM
#538456
Shadow Boxer
"The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law"
Maybe in "Bible Court" - which sounds about as effective as "Bible College".
6/12/2008 12:23:42 AM
#538458
Charon
Dude, I'm a forensic scientist and I say you're full of shit.
Using scientific techniques to address a legal issue, as in forensics, isn't going to help you prove that your sky fairy exists, especially when the gradual modification of genetic code has been addressed again and again...
Oh, and as for your last part, about having four eyewitness accounts to the "life, death and resurrection of (JC)"; guess what one of the first things I was taught was: Trust the evidence, don't trust the witness. Witnesses invariably lie, get things wrong, or are just plain inaccurate. Your eyewitnesses affirm nothing.
6/12/2008 12:24:46 AM
#538464
The Watcher
You fail at law! Repeatedly!
6/12/2008 12:28:13 AM
#538469
Old Viking
This is how much they know about their holy book. They actually believe that the gospels constitute "eyewitness accounts."
6/12/2008 12:30:22 AM
#538487
Grigadil
Golly gee, I like all those fancy words. Spelling is good, grammar good. Suspicion sets in.
The writings of the early church fathers [specify...?] preserve virtually every verse in the [Bible] which affirms our current [Bible].
The bible affirms the bible affirms the bible. That gets us nowhere but dizzy.
500 eyewitnesses? You have their names and sworn statements from all 500 of them?
Didn't think so.
6/12/2008 12:49:51 AM
#538517
tmr
Legal evidence?
What is your definition of legal?
6/12/2008 1:05:39 AM
#538544
captain hooker
I'm pretty sure this is a repeat. I'm not going to dig through April's posts to find it, but I'm sure you can find it there.
6/12/2008 1:20:55 AM
#538557
Allegory for Jesus
One: I respectfully disagree.
Two: The Bible prophecy consists of obvious predictions, predictions that were inevitable, predictions that were fulfilled only according to other Biblical documents, and predictions that have not been fulfilled, but are deemed to be "pending" or to have been fulfilled due their having interpretting it symbolically.
Three: The court of law has no bearing on whether there is or is not a God, and whether Jesus was proof of Him, especially not when your "evidence" consists of foundational religious documents from biased sources and the only verification of the claims, outside of the four inconsistent accounts of the gospels, are only mentioned to exist within one of the gospel accounts. Highly specious, especially considering the subject matter you are trying to confirm.
Four: The dead sea scrolls confirm the accuracy of the Torah only.
Nice try, but fail.
6/12/2008 1:27:47 AM
#538573
Eden
Eyewitnesses are worthless if you cannot question them, or at least they left any written statements about everything.
And as it was already mentioned in the thread, the 4 gospels are written by people who never met the historical Jesus (if he existed).
Apart from the widely accepted theory that Matthew and Luke borrowed large parts of their accounts from Mark, meaning that their stories should rather be seen as a single story instead of 3 entirely different stories (with some exceptions, for example the genealogy of Jesus which appears in Matthew and Luke [with both of them embarrassingly giving slightly different genealogies of Jesus]).
So there is no real eyewitness account of Jesus (well, naybe there were written eyewitness accounts, but they were burnt because they differed from te 4 gospels ;)).
As for Jesus in historic accounts:
The Passage in Josephus is seen by many as a forgery, something that was added to Josephus at a later time, because it sounds too christian (with Jesus been described as Messiah, which would be strange if it came from Josephus, as Josephus was Jew).
The other account, of Tacitus, says that Jesus was executed during the reign of Tacitus, but the question arises wether he personally checked it or just asked a christian about Jesus.
As for the bible being from god:
If I remember correctly, there also are some prophecies which weren´t fulfilled and can never ever be fulfilled, as the tribes which are mentioned in the prophecis don´t exist anymore ;)
I wonder btw. who would win, if one compared the number of allegedly fulfilled prophecies of the bible, with the number of allegedly fulfilled prophecis of Michel de Notredame (Nostradamus) ;)
6/12/2008 1:36:28 AM
#538579
Yog-Sothoth
So because something is unlikely, it can't happen?
6/12/2008 1:44:10 AM
#538592
pete
Wrong. wrong, wrong and wrong. And the "eyewitness testimony" you refer to is no such thing. Because the witnesses can not produce the events or people they refer to? the testimony would be disqualified as hearsay. Calling the Buy-Bull an "eyewitness account" doesn't allow making shit up.
6/12/2008 1:55:17 AM
#538605
Wet Walnuts
Yeah, I suppose that's fine if you only look at what little "evidence" is favorable to your case.
Do us all a favor, pal: don't go to law school.
6/12/2008 2:06:31 AM
#538610
Dark_Lord_Prime
"The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has strong legal evidence that it truly happened."
Um.. no. Four stories in the bible does not constitute "strong legal evidence."
"The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law."
No, again. Nearly-2000-year-old stories, written 70 - 100 years after the fact by men who were most likely NOT "eyewitnesses" to anything would be considered hearsay, and not admissable.
"There were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ available also."
And yet, only four of them wrote anything about it, 70 - 100 years after the fact, and three of them copied from the first, and none of the four agree on most of the details.
"Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ."
I doubt that. His name wasn't actually "Christ." That is a title, meaning "[the] annointed one." Further, the ONLY reference to ANY of the supposed miracles associated with him is (surprise!) your bible.
You'd think there would be some actual historical account SOMEWHERE, referencing at least the major stuff, like walking on water, TURNING OFF THE SUN, and a man who rose from the dead after three days and then floated up into the sky.
"The dead sea scrolls attest to the accuracy of the manuscipts we now have."
So there were more than one copy of some of the books the Council of Nicea voted to include in the bible. J. K. Rowling's vast collection of notes and scribbles and full geneologies of her characters affirm the accuracy of the Harry Potter books. According to your argument, there really is a hidden Wizarding society living among us in secret, and there really is a Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardy!
"The writings of the early church fathers preserve virtually every verse in the Bible which affirms our current Bible. "
They keep copies of the original texts, therefore your bible is true?
And by "current Bible," I assume you mean the one that King James had translated into English because he couldn't be bothered to learn Hebrew, Aramaic (Arabic?) and Latin? The same one he ordered various bits altered during the translation, right?
6/12/2008 2:10:31 AM
#538613
Mattural Selection
"The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law"
You forgot to mention that those 4 accounts can't even agree on the most basic things, such as the time of day that it occurred, not to mention the important things, like the number of angels present (was it 0, 1 or 2? Make up your mind before writing a holy book people!).
6/12/2008 2:11:20 AM
#538620
Cosmic Muffin
@ Captain Hooker
I think it's a repeat too. I remember thinking that the "legal forensic evidence" was overkill.
6/12/2008 2:19:01 AM
#538630
BCD
It's kind of funny that the historians of the time managed to miss that a man rose from the dead.
6/12/2008 2:25:21 AM
#538657
John
Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ.
A single secular historian, Josephus mentions Jesus, but he appears to be repeating what he heard from Christians, not claiming to have actually seen him.
There is no way you could add information to the genetic machinery for increased complexity unless there was an intelligence designing and directing the adding of information.
There are plenty of ways. In fact, part of the genome involved in the production and function of the human placenta appears to have been inserted there by a retrovirus. It appears to have been inserted into the genome of Old World monkeys around 45 million years ago, shortly after they split off from the New World monkeys and inherited by us as well as various other apes and Old World monkeys.
Now that we're starting to be able to trace the exact source of genetic changes, it's getting harder for creationists to make statements like this without looking foolish.
6/12/2008 2:43:09 AM
1 2