Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[Kevin Smith]

So, as a Christian, I guess I consider myself in the middle since the theory of evolution seems plausible and I'm a huge dinosaur fanatic, and it seems fairly obvious theat they lived millions of years ago. I know how the Bible reads, but I've always wondered about the 6000 years thing. But then there's disagreements I have in other areas too.

I'm really interested to watch this.

Old earth, young humanity. Earth is bajillions of years old, humanity is 1000s.

 

[JewishHobbit]

We're not bashing Christianity, we're bashing creationism.

I've read the entire thread. There is a lot of Christian bashing in here between talks of creationism. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's not. But to pretend it isn't happening is silly and slightly bullying.

 

[Defacto]

Then again, how can you not ridicule christianity when ridiculing creationism. They are very much connected.

 

[jmc]

Well,for such a "learned" individual,your belief would in fact be laughed at by any reputable historian who would tell you that Jesus did in fact exist.Whether you choose to believe He was divine is up to you,naturally.

Yeah this is one area where non-believers best heed their own advice. Most scholars and historians do agree that Jesus or Yeshua as he probably would have been called did exist. There's too much documented evidence to support his existence, or at least someone who was the basis for him.

 

[Siby]

Yeah this is one area where non-believers best heed their own advice. Most scholars and historians do agree that Jesus or Yeshua as he probably would have been called did exist. There's too much documented evidence to support his existence, or at least someone who was the basis for him.

First of all there was no documentation during the time of Jesus. The society had an oral tradition, meaning they passed their knowledge down through stories. That's why the people that wrote the Bible had to go back and research Jesus to put the Bible together. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in the Gospels regarding Jesus.

Your second point negates your argument that Jesus actually existed. If there is just a "basis" of a person then it's not really actual evidence for the person.

There is a lot of documentation and basis for King Arthur but that doesn't make him a real person.

Everybody always says that scholars and historians agree that Jesus existed. But what is the evidence? Can his existence be proven without using the Bible or Quran? So for example are there any regional documentation in Roman or other societies?

It's really important to separate the historical fact from the perception of reality regarding Jesus. Most people know about Jesus through the Bible, entertainment media such as movies, plays, and most importantly the paintings of the old masters. There was a show on television once about how the old paintings formed the image of Jesus.

 

[The End]

Well,for such a "learned" individual,your belief would in fact be laughed at by any reputable historian who would tell you that Jesus did in fact exist.Whether you choose to believe He was divine is up to you,naturally.

This is known as an ad hominem. Rather than deal with my arguments or just present me with good evidence, you attack me personally and insist that I'd be laughed at by historians. Some historians insist Jesus existed, I think that their evidence is weak as they can't show anything independent from when Jesus was supposed to have lived - writings a century after his lifetime is weak.

Christianity...You know,based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Prove it.

 

[The End]

I've read the entire thread. There is a lot of Christian bashing in here between talks of creationism. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's not. But to pretend it isn't happening is silly and slightly bullying.

Points were brought up about christianity and I've responded to them. I didn't control the direction of the thread.

But, quite frankly, this is a conversation that should happen.

I never understand WHY it makes christians so uncomfortable; the fact that it makes them so uncomfortable is more evidence to me at least that they need to hear it.

We don't shy away from challenging ANY other ideas but when it comes to religion people get sensitive; people see challenges to religion as a personal attack. It's not a personal attack. That people attach their own personal ego to their religion is not my fault, I have no control over that, but I won't let that 'shut me up', so to speak. If people are stating things as fact that are not established as fact in reality, I'll question that.

 

[The End]

When is the first example of christian bashing in the thread? I am curious as to what is and what isn't christian bashing.

 

[jmc]

First of all there was no documentation during the time of Jesus. The society had an oral tradition, meaning they passed their knowledge down through stories. That's why the people that wrote the Bible had to go back and research Jesus to put the Bible together. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in the Gospels regarding Jesus.

Your second point negates your argument that Jesus actually existed. If there is just a "basis" of a person then it's not really actual evidence for the person.

There is a lot of documentation and basis for King Arthur but that doesn't make him a real person.

Everybody always says that scholars and historians agree that Jesus existed. But what is the evidence? Can his existence be proven without using the Bible or Quran? So for example are there any regional documentation in Roman or other societies?

It's really important to separate the historical fact from the perception of reality regarding Jesus. Most people know about Jesus through the Bible, entertainment media such as movies, plays, and most importantly the paintings of the old masters. There was a show on television once about how the old paintings formed the image of Jesus.

Dude, I'm an atheist, you don't have to lecture me on evidence. The truth is the vast majority academics in the field accept he did exist as his Crucifixion has been the most widely documented event of his life. The sources come from outside the bible, outside Christianity, hell one of the main sources I believe was a non-believer yet made reference to the event in the early first century. The reason for his death is certainly up for debate however as is the rest of his life, which you are correct, is full of inconsistencies and plot holes. Can it be proven 100% of his existence? Of course not entirely, but there's strong enough evidence to support the assumption, even the staunchest of atheists have to concede this, otherwise it's hypocritical to be telling religious folks to look at the evidence whilst ignoring what the academics who have been studying the subject for decades think to be correct.

 

[The End]

I've heard this so many times. That many scholars and historians accept Jesus existed. Yet, every. single. time I've looked into it for myself I've found the evidence less than compelling. People can't just appeal to authority. All I ask, is that people post the best evidence.

 

[Siby]

JMC, it was not my intention to lecture you. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was just trying to figure out what the evidence and proof is regarding Jesus' existence. I don't just accept that scholars and historians say that Jesus existed and I should blindly believe it. Blind Faith is a Christian value not mine. I would like to see the basis of their (scholars and historians) conclusions.

 

[jmc]

The non-christian reference I was referring too was Tacitus who was a Roman senator, perhaps that would be a place to start for you. There's probably substantial material on his writings.

 

[jmc]

Also I'll point out many historical figures have evidence which is questionable at times yet we accept the academics word in their study. I'm just saying lets not be hypocritical here simply because we don't agree with religion and its teachings.

 

[The End]

His writings were in AD 117 - this alone, gives me huge amount of skepticism, why is there nothing from within the life of Jesus, why is it always decades or even a century after? This is a great source on this sort of thing -

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Tacitus

Most of the criticism of the passage in Annals surrounds what the passage proves. There is no scholarly consensus on the issue. The passage is accepted by some scholars as evidence for Jesus' existence, whereas others dismiss it as Tacitus simply repeating the story as Christians told it.
Independent investigation. In The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder of Christianity R. T. France writes "[there is no] reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information - it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century." In this and his book Evidence for Jesus, France concludes that Tacitus' reference to Jesus was likely echoing the story being spread by Christians at the time, not something he investigated and sourced independently.

I don't think I'm being too skeptical at all.

Here's other criticisms listed.

Lacking information. In his book Jesus, Charles Guignebert states that "so long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus was simply repeating the story as it was being told], the passage remains quite worthless." Without more information, which we don't currently have, the passage proves nothing (it can't be used as evidence for or against).
Sourced from Roman archives. In Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Thiessen and Merz argue that if the source had been an official Roman archive, one would expect him to have referred to Pilate as a prefect instead of as a procurator (he was not a procurator). They thus conclude that the information Tacitus gives about Jesus was not copied from an official source.
Opposing viewpoints:
Thiessen and Merz (above), while stating that Tacitus provides few details the source of which is unclear, conclude that there was a Jew named Christus who Pilate had executed, and he began a religious movement which was widespread during Nero's reign.
Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)
The writings of Tacitus can be considered as either non-Canonical confirmation or as useless, depending on whether the scholar thinks Tacitus exercised due diligence in investigating the story before writing the passage.
Given that we are lacking key information, and that the passage itself provides very little detail, a determination about Tacitus' diligence in investigating it cannot be made. Any statement which assumes he did exercise due diligence (i.e. that what he said was based on fact) is speculative.

In my opinion, I think there is an innate cultural bias from scholars and historians that insist Jesus existed. I remember doing a fair amount of reading on this and even a secular scholar that insisted Jesus lived, studied at theological colleges which are likely to reinforce the historicity of Jesus without question.

Every. time. I've looked at the evidence for myself, its been weak.

 

[JewishHobbit]

When is the first example of christian bashing in the thread? I am curious as to what is and what isn't christian bashing.

I don't know off hand, but personally I consider subtle jokes about the beliefs Christian bashing. Things like Hal Jordan comparing Jesus to Superman as a silly piece of fiction embraced as God. In a cordial, responsible discussing, there's no need for comments like that. It isn't just criticizing the Bible but also those who put their faith in it. It's a subtle way of calling people and their beliefs stupid.

Just my opinion anyhow.

 

[jmc]

His writings were in AD 117 - this alone, gives me huge amount of skepticism, why is there nothing from within the life of Jesus, why is it always decades or even a century after? This is a great source on this sort of thing -

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Tacitus



I don't think I'm being too skeptical at all.

Here's other criticisms listed.




In my opinion, I think there is an innate cultural bias from scholars and historians that insist Jesus existed. I remember doing a fair amount of reading on this and even a secular scholar that insisted Jesus lived, studied at theological colleges which are likely to reinforce the historicity of Jesus without question.

Every. time. I've looked at the evidence for myself, its been weak.

Because the life of Jesus wouldn't have been documented. It is estimated that only 10% of the population during that time had the ability to read and write, and most of those were of the noble classes, which is a class that Jesus or Yeshua wouldn't have been part of. In other words it would have been verbal handing down of information. Of course when it's done in that way it's like Chinese Whipsers with information constantly changing. But, and this is the important factor, even if he didn't exist someone was inspiration for him because if history has told us anything is that most myths have some basis of truth behind them. The difference here is there's a bit more evidence to support him than someone like Robin Hood.

 

[NickNitro]

I don't think dinosaurs existed because they didn't document it

Just a little something from a quick Google search

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

 

[The End]

I don't buy that reasoning. Just because a 'chinese whisper' gets popular doesn't mean there's any truth to it at all. I point to Mormonism and Joseph Smith as an example; (sorry to any mormons here) Joseph Smith was an obvious liar, famous for telling tall tales.

The only difference is the time frame.

If anything, "well, it was so long ago and people were so illiterate that it had to be passed around orally and that's why there's no documentation" just makes it ALL the harder to determine what actually happened so that does nothing to convince me that Jesus actually existed; I have no way to determine the historical Jesus from the tall tales of an equivalent Joseph Smith of that time.

When it comes to this issue, there's some theists that will get... a little dishonest, (like comparing the historicity of Jesus to that of Caeser, but we actually have examples of things Caeser wrote himself).

There's also good reason to think that parts of the Jesus story are based on even older myths. So it isn't necessary for the story to be based on an actual person, when it could also be the case that they're influenced by older stories.

http://dalje.com/en-lifestyle/is-myth-of-jesus-christ-copy-of-early-legends/212288

Horus had a virgin mother. Other similarities between Horus and Jesus in the link.

 

[NickNitro]

It's like the famous game, you whisper something to the person to your left, and they to their left, and by the time it gets to the 30th person in the line its a completely different story.

Maybe there was truth to Jesus, and because it wasn't written down in the beginning it was exaggerated in the end.

 

[Dr.]

Yeah this is one area where non-believers best heed their own advice. Most scholars and historians do agree that Jesus or Yeshua as he probably would have been called did exist. There's too much documented evidence to support his existence, or at least someone who was the basis for him.

Yes; most scholars think that Jesus existed. But there is a minority - equally reputable - who do not.

Though… establishing historicity doesn’t mean establishing divinity. And with that acknowledgment, a precise definition of terms is confounded. To wit: once you stipulate historical existence but subtract the supernatural elements from Jesus’s biography (was not god, wasn’t born of a virgin, did not perform miracles, did not survive his execution), in what sense is this person meaningfully called “Jesus”?

 

[The End]

I don't think dinosaurs existed because they didn't document it

Just a little something from a quick Google search

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

I already dealt with that exact same Tacitus quote in a post above. Done and dusted.

Moving onto Pliny (another source that wrote a century after the life of Jesus).


Let's play a game. The game is called, critical thinking, and during this game I will quote directly from the article you provided, and we can all see if we can't figure out together whether or not its good evidence that Jesus existed.

Everyone ready? Let's go! First, the Pliny quote.

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

That's being quoted as evidence that Jesus actually existed.

What do you think? Convinced?

Michael, the author of the article, offers further examination.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians.

Okay??

Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity.

Okay???

Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."

That's a very generous interpretation.

Let's play an even-if game and grant that interpretation as valid. Even-if that's true, what's the most we can gather from all of this?

1. Christians really existed!
2. Christians really, really believed in Jesus and really believed his divinity!
3. Christians really, really believed Jesus was real!

Therefore, Jesus was real?!

Come on.

 

[NickNitro]

I already dealt with that exact same Tacitus quote in a post above. Done and dusted.

Moving onto Pliny (another source that wrote a century after the life of Jesus).


Let's play a game. The game is called, critical thinking, and during this game I will quote directly from the article you provided, and we can all see if we can't figure out together whether or not its good evidence that Jesus existed.

Everyone ready? Let's go!

Stay classy Hypster

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

In fairness, his attitude doesn't make his point any less valid.

 

[NickNitro]

It may not, but his attitude does make himself as a SHH poster undesirable. I'd rather listen to someone on the other side of the argument who respects myself as well as the rest of the community.

This ridiculous comment, as well as others are backhanded at best, and show little to no class as an individual.

I'd really like a place to debate where I don't have to run into crap like that.

 

[The End]

I'm trying to encourage an active engagement with the material.