Wow, I thought Shermer was supposed to be a true skeptic. how can you be a skeptic of the bible if you haven't really read it all the way through. It looks like mr.skeptic is basing his skepticism on presuppositions.
Shemer said in this video that Jesus was born in Nazareth, is just listen the video.
And the Bible have not a contradiction about city where lived Joseph and Mary. Matthew in anywhere said where they lived, only said that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just Luke said they (Joseph and Mary) lived in Nazareth before birth of Jesus.
Let's go stop whit lies and read the Bible before tell bullshit.
What bothers me is when people consider the Bible a true account of the times back then. Yes, it is good to study and understand how people behaved in that part of the World two thousand years ago, but it is wrong to think the accounts were true. There were no miracles, no virgin birth, no walking on water, no burning bush and no tablets from God. The Bible is full of bad lies and we must take that into consideration when studying it.
@kaduisaui What bothers me is when untaught people don't realize that professional secular historians use much of what is contained in the Biblical writings as part of their construction of ancient history. What is more bothersome is when internet skeptics presuppose naturalistic materialism without proving it or defending it against the many cases against it, and then proceed to make absolute arguments based on their faulty naturalistic presuppositions.
@KeithTruth The bible contains some history and where that can be verified it has some merit. Historians can also tell us how the bible was cobbled together and science can tell us that much of the book is nonsense, which strongly suggests that it is not the work of an omniscient god.
@KeithTruth What is really bothersome is deluded people having access today of fresh data about miracles around the world from all sorts of religious lunatics and dismiss them all for lack of proof of the claims. After his healthy exercise of skepticism, they analyze data from 2k years ago and conclude that the miracles of resurrection and virgin birth must be true because the Bible says so. I call this self-inflicted idiocy. Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty can define it too.
@lfzadra If naturalism is true you have no laws of logic or transcendent measure with which to judge absurdity, only your opinions. You're borrowing from the Christian world view which says there are *transcendent* logical laws which a universe of mere matter and energy could not produce. But then you attack the Christian world view with the laws God gives this world. Now that is insane and foolish. As for miracles of false religions they don't meet the historical criterion the Resurrection does
Interesting how they just cut right after Witherington makes his point. I'm not saying Shermer wasn't wrong, but it would have been interesting to see if he had a reply, whether he would admit his mistake or if he had a retort to Witherington's point.
@vespine Witherington is a specialist in exegesis, the original languages etc. It wouldn't matter if Shermer tried to respond, he would have got refuted again. He is not a scholar in that area. But that was the end of that portion yes. Nothing was cut off. That section ended on that point.
@KeithTruth I know the section ended on that point and I'm happy to admit Shermer was wrong, but it was obviously cut, it's too abrupt, their conversation obviously didn't just end there, they didn't just stand up and go home immediately after Witherington finished that sentence. All i said is it would have been interesting to see if shermer admitted his mistake and what was said afterwards.
@vespine Do you know why the video was cut? Because that topic and section ended. There was no more said about that specific issue. If you want to go watch the whole debate go for it, its like 10 min. But don't complain over something so absurd.
Shermer is prone to these arguments which rely on the ignorance of his cheerleaders. In an email exchange with me he also claimed the following about David Berlinski "evolution, a subject of which he has no training and knows next to nothing about." Shermer fails to consider Berlinki's degrees in molecular biology & mathematics to be relevant but considers his own limited background in only psychology to make him an expert. Typical.
@KeithTruth //However you just said that you believe something (shermer doing fine) without even seing the whole debate, You have faith that he did fine.//
It's more of a testable hypothesis.
Atheist: Hey, i believe shermer did fine.
*watches video*
oops, guess i was wrong.
Can the same be done for a belief in a supernatural deity? No
Thats not the point, the person admitted that they believed shermer won without checking which is blind faith while at the same time attacking believers for supposedly having false faith. Now, yes as a red herring can you check the full debate and see shermer humiliated more? Yes, thats testable. Regarding God's truth, if you hear the Gospel, read the NT and you get saved you will know it, be saved and renewed - it will prove you're predestined to salvation, and that God is real.
@ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz Hey brotha I'm not one of those Christians who get frustrateed at your disbelief and mockery. I understand the natural depraved human condition and inability seek, fear, believe, and submit to the true God. The only way that can happen is by grace - if God first makes you born again with new eyes to see your sin and ur need for Christ (john 1:13; 3:5-8). Will pray for you friend and I hope one day you experience the true joy in salvation and assurance in Christ. Lord bless.
@KeithTruth Inconsistency and hypocricy wow. OK then if Mr. Shcerner doesn't know something about the Bible then... we are all liers and GOD exists. In a logycall discussion the charge of the prove is for the afirmative side. If this are all the proves you have av¡bout the existance of your god is just funny. We just shouldn't loose time ith you truthkeepers. And you that are deffending an irrational argument with no proves you insult us. You are just fanathics. THERE'S NO GOD STOP HATING.
I have seen many famous atheists argue with Christians based on their distorted views of christianity and consoider themselves intellectually superior. Shermer is like one of them.
You make a good point regarding Virgeo’s assumption. I have seen Shermer fall flat on occassion. But it is not hypocrisy to assume Shermer argued rationally and honestly. That is his character.
In this case, had Shermer rebutted, he could have pointed out that the issue is where Jesus was conceived and grew up as indicated in 1 John. That is the reason Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth and that’s why Matthew and Luke had to get Mary to Bethlehem for the delivery.
@Blackmark52 Also Nazareth is a small town in Bethlehem. It was prophecy that he would be born in Bethlehem and prophecy that he would be called a Nazarene (meaning sprout in Hebrew). There is no contradiction. He was born in Bethlehem, then his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod. Then they returned to Nazareth after Herod died, when Jesus was a young child. That's in Matthew chapter 2 I believe.
@luvlatinmamis Bethlehem is a town in the central West Bank in Palestine just a few miles south of Jerusalem. Nazareth is a city in northern Israel. So what you say makes no sense. And for that matter the rule of Herod ended in 4 BC, and the prophesy was that the messiah would be born in the city of David, not that he would be a Nazarene. It seems you are just believing things without knowing the facts.
@Blackmark52 So i'll start with saying when Herods rule ended doesn't matter. Jesus was born around 2 B.C. Also I can look it up to verify but even if I was wrong to say "Nazareth is a town in Bethlehem" (which i will admit as a possibility) That doesn't change the locality of Jesus birth as prophesied. Jesus was called a Nazarene because he grew up there as a prophecy in Isaiah says "he will be called a sprout(or Nazarene)." And as proven in the video he was born in Bethlehem.
@Blackmark52 The circumstances of his birth in Bethlehem are interesting also. Herod ordered a everyone return to their hometown to be registered. Bethlehem is the hometown of Joseph, Jesus adoptive father ( no i don't believe that the holy spirit had sex with Mary, I believe God created a fetus inside of Mary.) Shortly after Jesus was born in Bethlehem as prophesied. As far as being born in the city of David I would ask you to site that scripture and consider context.
@luvlatinmamis I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. First, there is no record of this census. And second, think about it. What kind of census has people moving all around the country to get counted? That would cause utter confusion!! The whole thing with Herod and the census is contrived.
And let me guess, your definition of "context" is whatever it takes to make the bible right with your beliefs.
@Blackmark52 Well you could read it from Matthew and Luke yourself, I'm sure you could Google "Bible" and find a full one to read online. All you have to do is read the 2nd Chapter in Matthew and perhaps a few verses in the 3rd Chapter and Virtually the same in Luke. It's a short read. You still haven't proven any inconsistencies in the locality of Jesus birth and the fact that he was born where said to be born and raised where said to be raised.
@luvlatinmamis Nobody says there are inconsistencies in the locality of Jesus's birth. You talk of reading the bible, but do you read anything else on the topic -- including what you are responding to here?! I said "the issue is where Jesus was conceived and grew up as indicated in 1 John." Do you understand what conceived means? I wonder if you even understand the controversy.
@Blackmark52 No me stupid cause read bible. Me also read other things beside me bible like sciencie cause me want to make sure what me believe right. But me brainwashed and no really care about learn. Me just want to make silly skeptics feel dumb like me feel.
@Blackmark52 The point of this video is claiming the bible is inconsistent, if you aren't arguing inconsistencies such as the one mentioned in this video what are you arguing?
@Blackmark52 I mention context also for this reason; There can be many ways to interpret a Hebrew word. The word "Brother" can be applied to a literal brother or to a cousin. That one word makes the difference between the Muslim and The Christian (This corresponds to why Muslims believe in the Prophet Muhammad). So when I say context I say it because it can be very easy to apply a word however you want depending on what translation or version you read.
@luvlatinmamis I am very familiar with the christian concept of context and how christians use translation. You admit that "it can be very easy to apply a word however you want" but you are blind to the fact that believing the bible MUST substantiate what you've been brought up to believe greatly effects how you put things into context. Saying things like "Nazareth is a small town in Bethlehem" doesn't give me a lot of faith in the impartiality of your "context."
@Blackmark52 The fact that I am willing to find out if I am wrong and look for the right answer should give you some faith in it. Have I not willingly stated that I could be wrong on some things that I say and that I would research them for a correct answer? I'm not a christian of rituals. I think that if a person finds out that something he or she believes is wrong they should find the right answer. 1 Century Christians did this and I try to do the same.
@luvlatinmamis But does your willingness to admit you are wrong extend to admitting errors in the bible? You say "when Herods rule ended doesn't matter" but if Herod was dead, why do the gospels have Jesus fleeing him? You don't understand the controversy. The authors knew the messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, but the man they were writing about was known as Jesus of Nazareth. That they concocted the story of Herod is shown by their mistake in the time line.
@Blackmark52 Oh I get what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. Herod was a title just like Caesar was a title. There were many Caesars and there were many Herods. Herod was a name of a family of political rulers over the Jews. You can read about this from the 1st Century historian known as Josephus. Archelaus is Herods son that ruled next in Judea. So he is also a "Herod" or ruler in that same family.
@luvlatinmamis You really don't know what you're talking about. By your logic, Henry is just a name for English monarchs. Herod was not a title, the bible is referring to Herod I. For that matter Caesar wasn't a a title until after the man Caesar, and Caesar still can't be used to simply refer to any Roman ruler you want. Is this what putting things in context means to you? Either you are making things up as you go or you are just parroting nonsense you've been told.
@Blackmark52 "Herod the Great" was the first Herod. Herod was the next Herod. Archelaus went by "Archelaus" but he was from the family of Herods. The term "Herod" simply became known as "Ruler" of the Jewish people during that time period. Where is the confusion? I just cited my reference when I told you the name of the Historian that wrote about it.
@Blackmark52 I would say that I'm "parroting" things that I've read but I don't know that parrots actually read. You're incorrect. You are making the assumption that just because what I said applies to one family of rulers that I think it must apply to all. The statement about the Herods only applies to the Herods. My source was the Historian Josephus. I only used Caesar as a simple example to show generalization. Why would I assume that all cultures use the exact same naming conventions?
I'm confused. I was a classmate of Ben's years ago. He's sharper than a polished tack and has integrity out the wazoo. Why is this other guy, who has never formally studied Christianity in depth, never written even ONE scholarly paper on Jesus, ON THE SAME STAGE WITH WITHERINGTON???.... That's like a high school player playing one-on-one against Kevin Garnett. WTF???
When you come across something that is of a complex design you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ASSUME A DESIGNER. That assumption begs the question. (petitio principii). The whole ID argument is based on a logical fallacy.
@equsnarnd Not exactly a fallacy. It's like this. You come across a very sophisticated machine with great A.I. You assume someone made it. Well what a person that believes in creation is saying is this. "If you see a computer station with no one there you naturally assume and know someone created it. Yet when you see things in nature far more complex than anything science can duplicate, such as the two narratives known as chromosomes you assume no designer."
@luvlatinmamis The only designer you can assume is nature herself. To do otherwise, with zero evidence is to violate Occam's razor and put yourself in a ridiculous position of infinite regress.
@equsnarnd Micheal Shermer violates Occams razor himself when he suggests the multiverse theory. No matter how many the multiverse there is a supposed parent universe. This begs the question, "where did the parent universe come from? Did it have it's own parent universe?" Both sides can be cut with that razor friend.
I'm not sure you aren't understanding Shermer's point out of context, but even if you aren't, that point is a trivial matter for the atheist; though I will concede that the New Test' contradicts itself much less than the Old (doesn't prove a thing though). But I appreciate you allowing comments (assuming you don't disapprove them); many X'ian apologists don't allow a dialogue.
What about all the other gospels that weren't allowed into the bible by the higher echelons of the church, where do they say Jesus came from? Actually, who cares? It's all a load of crap.
@Narwal88 Start at the :10 mark: "...this kind of conflicting tension where Jesus was born..." So he's certainly claiming that there is confusion from the source text, to which Witherington rightly clarifies, corrects, Shermer's incorrect representation
You can be an expert on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pull someone up for misquoting it or misreading it but that wouldn't make The Protocols of the elders of Zion true. This refutation of Dr Shermer is meaningless to the question of is the bible true. In fact being an exponent of reason and truth Dr Shermer would probably welcome being corrected on matters of fact. He might be also be wrong about the size of Thor's fingernails......................Big Deal
There's a huge difference between having justified faith and unjusified. For example, I have faith there will be a great scientific discovery in the next 100 years. However, this is a form of inductive reasoning. I have faith BECAUSE science has come up with great discoveries in almost every century so far! It's therefore reasonable to assume it might again. That's a hell of a long way from having faith in a holy book.
"Your statement about you being sure shermer does fine is interesting to me though"
"You atheists always mock people with faith. However you just said that you believe something (shermer doing fine) without even seing the whole debate, You have faith that he did fine. I find the inconsistancy and hypocricy of atheism fascinating"
Of course at least one of the gospels mentions a census (of which there are no records) wherein all people had to return to where they were born. Where did Jesus go? NAZARETH.
@KeithTruth You say he has to have faith,... no. those are your words/ He simply assumes he does fine and rightly so, I've never seen Shermer stomped in a debate.
Shermer sure does not have a grip on the subject matter and he is suppose to be the other side of the discussion. I'm not a Bibical Historian by no means,but I do know Jesus was born in Bethleham and raised in Nazartha told by the big 4 Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Anything more than this Shermer & Witherington should be able to take over to go more ! The problem with others her have said he still is Knownledgeable is not true. Shermer should have knew this right off the bat, no question ask !
The contradiction is not where he was born the contradiction is how he ended up in Nazareth. Matthew said he went to Nazareth to flee Herod's son. Luke says Joseph lived in Galilee and went to Bethlehem for the census. Another contradiction is that these two events did not even occur at the same time.Romans weren't collecting taxes (and taking census) til AFTER Herod's son was dethroned
Who cares? Jesus was either a charlatan or a mythical figure or just some dude who liked peace and piety. Trying to legitimize a whole belief system based around one person is kind of weak.
@KeithTruth I did watch the whole discussion, and Shermer did indeed do fine, but you're right: Virgeo1228 rushed to a conclusion prematurely. Where you err is condemning atheism as a whole being inconsistent and hypocritical because of this presupposition. You can't make a blanket statement like that based on this one mistake.
You're a Christian? You believe in everything that Jesus said in the Holy Bible? If you answered yes to these questions then let me borrow $100. You better not deny me that $100 or you'll be denying the world of your Savior Jesus Christ. Don't believe me? Read Matthew 5:42. Now send me my money...I'll give you my Pay Pal account. That also goes for the rest of you Christians out there...any of you Bible thumpers who read this message, you have to send me $100.
I can't stand Shermer, he isn't qualified to be debating anyone and atheists need to shut him up. He thinks everything he says is profound but most of what he says he takes from conspiracy websites and is emphatically wrong. Like claiming Apollonius of Tyana was crucified and resurrected. Not even zeitgeist made such a moronic claim.
I find it hilarious that people who are so SURE of God's non existence seem to spend a great deal of time trying to disprove it. Seriously, who are you trying to prove your unbelief to?
@MrRingmaster Many nonbelievers are trying enlighten people why they should be skeptical of a god or gods. The real burden of proof is on the people who claim that such creatures exist. Especially since the most common variations of yaweh are based on a pos book that portrays him as something more diabolical than voldermort. Delusions wouldn't be so bad if they didn't ruin lives and fuck up politics. That's why such effort is spent on "disproving" the gods bullshit.
It doesn't matter what else he says he's already got his facts wrong! The only honourable thing for him to have done would be to back down but I seriously doubt he's that honest.
@Virgeo1228 Watch the whole video...I;ve seen...Shermer smoked some real good weed indeed before he went on the show, he was totally making stuff up out of his head. Just watch the whole video. Shermer should just be embarrased.
@Virgeo1228 Hey Shermer may have done good in other parts of the discussion but the part of knowing where Jesus was born and raised is a common place for 6th Graders in V.B.S. ! Shermer said it was not clear where Jesus was Born at. Read Mathew, Mark, Luke, & John they will tell you all about it. If you don't know this, what else do you not know about the matter. Shermer got eat up on this one about being unclear where Jesus was born at. He need to read up be coming to the meeting !
@cloud4509 Really? Creating a strawman and filabusting now means one person "destroyed" another? Why not try using your brain for something other than making yourself look like an idiotic asshat!
I can understand that when your favourite arguments get shot down in flames you get upset. That's only human. Try to get in touch with your female side and learn to cry instead of insulting other people [which then only reflects badly on yourself]. Did your mama not teach you such things?
You don't know what I would conclude first of all. Second, I do know some history, so your second statement is also wrong. Besides discrepancies, the new testament has been revised over time. No one writing decades after the fact could possibly know some of the details. The concept of the trinity was made up later and not original to John. How do we know this, because it is no where to be found in our oldest manuscripts. Study your own holy book and quit swimming in that river in Egypt.
@juarez2010 You say the trinity was made up later. Hey Jesus spoke of the Confonter / Holy Spirit / Third part of trinity during his time when he told his 12 Disciples he would send a new Conforter to them on the day of Pentecost & be apart of Jesus 24/7. That moment that started the Father / Son / Holy Spirit for Jesus was giving the Holy Spirit out during his time & on the day of Pentecost ! Now where was the Holy Spirit dreamed up later ? Jesus brought you Father/Son/Holy Ghost in his time !
Though a fascinating subject, am i the only one getting pretty tired of arguments between those who can think, question, investigate and substantiate their position against those who, as Dawkins said, just stick their fingers in their ears and go LaLaLA? Let's leave those who need every aspect of their lives dictated to them, alone. As long as their bronze age myths are kept out of Schools and Politics and do not impinge on rational peoples lives, then why not just leave them to their delusions.
Dr. Witherington is correct, btw. The gospels both say born in Bethlehem. Problem is, they got the lucky couple there by different means. Gospel writers knew when writing their account of the Jesus myth they had to have him born there to fulfill prophecy. So they obviously made up different ways of getting them there This only one of the many many discrepancies in the bible.
Please romansten9, you are obviously another christian who has not studied the bible. The birth narratives in luke/math are clearly different. They are different because they were made up. All you have to do is read them in parallel to know this. One or both of these are not true. I think neither are. By the way, how would one know which house a certain star is above? Think about.
Actually, what you are mentioning is a strong support of the authenticity of the Bible. Different eye witnesses stress different points according to what they saw as most important. It would be really suspicious if all of the stories matched exactly. (it would then be plagiarism) The main points match, but insignificant details vary. (at first glance) These accounts have all been reconciled anyway, many years ago. Look in "the case for Christ" Lee Strobel, page 45-46 for just one explanation.
Strobel is a twat. I actually have that book (given to me by a fundie ex-girlfriend). It's pseudoscientific hogwash, and I'm ashamed that people ever gave him money for it.
Watch the star of bethlehem to see how this miraculous star can now be calculated with computerized astronomy software. It really occurred, and it changed positions in the sky, just like the Bible said it did. If they reached the general area, anyone could have told them where to find the baby. There had been quite a commotion surrounding the baby, angels lighting up the sky, etc.
Yeah, this comment is simply ignorant. Planetary conjunctions? Nope. Comet? Nope. Nova? Nope.
"If they reached the general area... " What?!? As though such a sight wouldn't have been visible from half the earth, and appear overhead to *at least* several hundreds of thousands of square miles.
@juarez2010 Yes they are different. The cover different people in his geneology (or lineage). They split after Kind David. One of them shows that Jesus Mother Mary is Jewish and from the line of David. The other shows his adoptive father Joseph is from the line of David. Also Mathew was written with the jews in mind as it covers a lot of prophecy. That's why it starts from Abraham. Luke was written with the nations in mind which is why it essentially starts with Adam.
its so funny how when just a little detail is missed by the atheist debaters their opponents rip and roar with glee and start teabagging and popping champagne. they are so famished for a landing blow that when they finally get a little one they're beside themselves.
PROOFS AND SIGNS ARE NOT GUARANTEES THAT YOU WILL BELIEVE GOD
If in the time of Jesus Himself, when they witnessed His works of miracles: healing all the sickness, raising the dead, feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fish, and many more, and they did not believe; you will also not believe now even if you see signs.
John 12:37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, {yet} they were not believing in Him.
IN THE TIME OF MOSES, ALL OF THEM (THE ISRAELITES) HAD WITNESSED THE GREAT MIRACLES OF GOD INCLUDING THE DEPARTING OF THE RED SEA BUT MANY STILL DID NOT BELIEVED
Jude 1:5 ¶ Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
THERE IS A GUARANTEE THAT IF YOU WILL BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, GOD WILL REVEAL THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE TO YOU IN A MIGHTY WAY
1 Thess 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; ...
Heb 4:7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."
Note to Atheists never bring up bible "errors" when you are talking to a top notch Bible scholar, only bring up errors to layman it makes you look much much smarter.
Reminds me of the God delusion pg.120 (paperback) where Dawkins talks about "The Magi worshping Jesus in Luke" LOL ? Umm sorry dawk the Magi story is in Matthew 2 not Luke , have atheists actually opened a bible ? or do they just google all their bible " scholarship" ?
Note to christians. Prove 6 day creation, garden of eden, 900 year old men, every species on a boat, the exodus, virgin conception, walking on water, instantaneous healings on command, zombies walking through town and dudes coming out of the ground in brand new bodies. When you have that. Let us know.
While you're at it. Any contemporaneous mention of "jesus" would be a groove. Any CONTEMPORANEOUS mention at all.
Why not invent the birth in Bethlehem simply to fulfil a prophecy. And inivent different stories about why they went there, and while they're at it invent different lineages to Joseph who isn't even the father. But who cares.
Dr. Michael: What a simplistic argument to make! DUH! A person can be born in one place, and be raised in another and be "of" each! Jesus was "of" Bethlehem and "of" Nazareth. (the anti-Christians are such amateurs its not even funny)
Okay Ms. "Professional", provide evidence for the following: paranormal being impregnating a young woman, walking on water, zombies walking through town, instantaneous healing on command, and a person coming out of a grave after several days in a new body.
Isn't it strange that when we became able to fully study outrageous claims in a rational manner and have the ability to communicate those findings- they disappeared. BURN!
@dimic ; you fucking moron. he said SEVERAL, not SEVEN. whilst trying to be an apologist of superstition, try to understand basic reading skills properly!
@billbunions2; Read "The case for faith" Lee Strobel. the evidence you are looking for is too numerous to post here. Strobel interviews several Phd scientists and other experts in their fields. There are countless other books like this one also.
@romansten9 duh!! he misspoke dipstick. there is a clear contradiction between the whole bethlahem/nazereth connection. that's why the writers of the gospels added that phony census story.
@salynredoran Not the one mentioned in the bible fable. Plus, there was no law requiring people to return to the home of their ancestors. Don't believe me? Ask a Jew! If you want to know about the bible and the law and the way people lived in Palestine during the first century, ALWAYS ask a practicing Jew. NEVER ask a practicing christian. They are only agenda driven.
the census was documented in historical documents besides the Bible. It happened. Many facts (including Jesus birthplace) were foretold hundreds of years before His birth. The star of bethlehem has been proven, and anyone can research this. The star appeared at the time of Jesus birth. At the time of Jesus death, there was an eclipse, this can be proven as well.
Bad logic. I can write an entire accurate account of Abraham Lincoln's life, but add the detail that on weekends Lincoln healed the sick with his magic top hat. Just because the rest of the story is accurate doesn't mean the magic top hat part is.
Provide evidence for paranormal beings impregnating a young woman, walking on water, instantaneous healings on command, and a person coming out of a grave after several days in a new body.
Isn't it strange that when we became able to fully study claims in a rational manner and have the ability to communicate those findings- outrageous claims, like the bible's, are debunked.
The census in the bible is false. Plus, there was no law to go back to one's family city. Try thinking for a change.
The history of the bible the thousand of archeological findings that support the bible. One of those findings is that they found a census just as it says in the bible so no you are wrong when you say there was no census. Let's not forget many historians who mention jesus and what they say agrees with the bible. The Bible mentions real locations, kings, and rulers to. Such as King Herold who was indeed real just to give you an example. God can do anything he has no limit.
The gospels do, as the Rev. Dr. states, say that Jesus grew up in Nazareth. This is very interesting given the fact that Nazareth did not exist until at least very late in the first century.
Nazareth did in fact exist in the early first century. See chapter 24. of JP Holdings work 'Shattering the Christ Myth' for a detailed assessment on the issue. Here:
Ah...Jp Holding?! lol!! - Well if a pastral writer with a Christian bias said it, I guess it MUST be true!!
The earliest extant mention of Nazareth wasn't until 200ce, and only then by a Christian apologist as concept.
The earliest unbiased mention is a century later.
Archeologists date it around that time as a Byzantine establihment. They also eliminate it's possibility as a !st century Jewish settlement, as it was built on a grave site.
Read the documentation I gave you and then address it. Don't condemn prior to investigation. Secondly, you do not get to decide what counts as unbias evidence. That is not how history works.
I can't find it but I am still suspicious why the video abruptly cut out before Michael Shermer could say anything. Could it be if you showed the whole video UNEDITED that it wouldn't support your claim?
The fact that we still argue about the EXISTENCE of god proves he does not exist. Existence is the most basic property and individual has. You know I exist because I am posting this comment or you can see and talk to me. I can not do that with god and the only "evidence" we have for his existence are some pseudo philosophical claims. If our immortal soul supposedly rests on whether god exists or not, and we have no conclusive evidence for his existence, then I must dismiss him as ficticious.
No offense, but that is the dumbest statement that I have ever heard. There are those who argue over Christopher Columbus' discovery of America. Does this mean that he never sailed because of this? Come on.
We have reliable historical evidence for Christopher Columbus' discovery (the vikings actually beat him to it). And even if we did not have evidence, it wouldn't matter because our immortal soul does not rest upon whether Columbus discovered America or not. There is a good chance that Homer didn't exist, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy his work. Now if he would have claimed to be a deity and that we must worship him then it would matter if he actually existed. I think you missed the point
@observer75 Where is he? I am looking up at the beautiful blue expanse and I see our wonderful world, not God (judeo-Chrstian), but maybe god (pantheism).
I like how the video stops before he makes his rebuttal. It's the equivalent of telling someone "You are wrong" and promptly covering your ears and running away.
Exactly what rebuttal? The video was edited to not show his rebuttal. Very dishonest on the video posters part. Fact check the gospels? Some of them can't even be fact checks because there is no physical evidence. Also you should look up the Nazereth Village. It's a recreation of a village that has zero archeological evidence for it's existence during Jesus' life. There was nothing there yet somehow they still recreated a imaginary village.
Skeptics also used the "no archeological evidence" argument about Pilot, as well....that is, until 1961. There has been so much in the way of archeology that supports the bible's historicity -- much of it discovered in the last century -- and no find that refutes it.
I wonder if missing archeological pieces are as important an issue in your mind in regards to Darwinism?
WOAH! I am talking about a whole damn town not one roman govorner. You say no archaeological evidence refutes the bible? There is no evidence that the jews wondered the desert for forty years. They would leave allot of stuff behind not to mention any anecdotal evidence from reports of a helluva lot of jews wondering around the desert by eye witnesses. That's just one.
What is Darwinism? Are you speaking of biological evolution?
Madzyome, there is scholarship that points to Nazareth existing as early as the 7th century, B.C. That it's disputed does not make the disputation true.
Consider this; if Judaism saw Christianity as a threat (which they most certainly did), why don't we have Jewish writings saying the gospel of Mark (which even Shermer admits dates to 65 A.D.) fabricated entire towns like Nazareth?
I suspect if someone presented you with irrefutable proof, you'd simply find a new objection.
But there is no physical evidence of an actual town. Towns produce waste and loads of archaeological evidence. People are messy and archaeologists love it. they never found anything in Nazereth dating to the period of Jesus's life. That is a fact. Show me a trash heap or a foundation, a goddamn coin! Everything found there conclusively dates to 100's of years after Christ at a minimum. After presenting this irrefutable proof I expect you to refute it with something about carbon dating accuracy.
You think a coin would say, "Nazareth"? Would that be like the coins that say, "Boston" on them?
Just do a search - there is plenty of scholarship that demonstrates archeological evidence for Nazareth. One ex. I found...
Prof Mahlon H. Smith, Rutgers:
Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE].
(part II) Calling not enough evidence for your tastes "irrefutable evidence" against is simply displaying an incredible lack of understanding of the nature of evidence. A TOTAL lack of evidence could never be considered "irrefutable" evidence against. And this is not even the case here.
Wherer I am from, we had towns so small -- some with just a hundred or fewer people in them. Nazareth was a tiny, lowly place.
Jn 1:46 "...Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him"
What you explained is biological evolution except that tree bark and tomatoes are parts of plants. So we share a common ancestor with tomato plants and trees. It's arguably the most complete theory ever and has been proven fact. Now I don't know what code you speak of, I assume DNA/RNA? Either way it is not intricate in the least. It's mostly junk. The complexity does form on it's own this is known as emergence. It's very well documented. BTW we have much more complex/intricate code than DNA.
That's funny -- not complex? -- which is why it took a world of scientists a half century just to figure out what the character order is - while still working on the actual message.
And before we sing the praises of completeness, I think it would behoove the proponents to be able to give examples of novel systems and/or structures arising from this process. Where we can demonstrate the schematic.
The theory is also not likely to demonstrate anytime soon the origin of information.
I never said it wasn't complex just not intricate. You should read what I write from now on.
Biological evolution is not about origins at all so you are right it will never demonstrate the origin of anything because that is not what it is about. It is simply about the diversity of life. If you knew this you wouldn't make such a silly comment.
So you used two synonyms? That's a grammatical faux pas. It is complex but overly so. DNA is overly complicated and lacks elegance. Was the creator an idiot? First year engineering students can do better. You must have low expectations or Jesus..... uhm I mean the Intelligent designer.
The origin of species is not the origin of life or information as you keep insisting. Evolution is only about the changes in life and not the fundamental origins i.e. life, earth, solar system, universe etc.
No W's after the slashes - just assemble the following...
tiny u r l dot c o m slash 35hllf
Here's a quote: The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all.
Madz, you keep topic-jumping when you're shown wrong. What is your REAL problem with Jesus?
God did not create the DNA that we have now, that is inherited from our fathers and their fathers fathers and so on and so forth. God is a genius that have made something that would last as long as it has without breaking down more than what it has. You should read the book called "Evolution Cruncher" maybe you will change your paradigm, who knows.
I've got your back my freind, let's see how he responds to this, I hope he will see things our way, I'm a scientist and a young earth creationist. Take care!
@gavinmajors Whoa, wait a minute. So the earth isn't 4.6 billion years old? Which must mean the universe isn't 13.72 billion years old? Shit! I really really trusted those astrophysicists to give my unbiased information! Damn you science!
Nope! The universe and everything in it are much closer to 6000 years old. Science doesn't lie. Scientists are people. People lie. No need to be mad at science. Just learn from your mistake and move on. It's people who lie that you should be mad at.
By the way, I agree with keeping superstition out of schools. I'm doing all I can to get Cosmic/Stellar/Chemical/Organic/Macro-evolution removed from the textbooks.
@gavinmajors I hope you realize I was being scarcastic dude. So let me surmise: you believe in a conspiracy theory that the entire scientific community is in on?
Entire scientific community? Ummmm, they stand divided. Science is not decided by a concensus. SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE DERIVED THROUGH OBSERVATION.
I admit I have faith in a creator. You need to admit you have FAITH in evolution. The forms I listed have never been observed. You just chose a different faith than I.
@cvd316316 I'm glad you said probably. It's always better than acting like you know. I on the other hand do know the stats. These are not current, but last revised in 2005. 65% of the scientific community favored evolution. Not a landslide. Wouldn't matter anyway. Concensus doesn't decide in science.
I do like your definition of faith. I'll use it if you don't mind!
cosmic/macro/stellar/chemical/organic -evolution fit your definiton perfectly. What is your BEST evidence for ANY of these.
@gavinmajors According to what evidence are you stating the universe is 6000 yrs old? What are the problems you see with the modern evolutionary synthesis?
supernova remnance of less than 10000 years, C14 rise of 30-40% per year, ocean salt content increasing, erosion progress of major water falls, historical documentation coming to an instant halt all over the world in the last 6000 years, over 100 communities detailing a flood in areas that never communicated, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, DNA enigma, lack of evidence for evolution.
What's your BEST evidence that life can come from non-life, and Kinds change over time.
Wow, I thought Shermer was supposed to be a true skeptic. how can you be a skeptic of the bible if you haven't really read it all the way through. It looks like mr.skeptic is basing his skepticism on presuppositions.
lilrat489 1 month ago
Why does this retard keep saying"BethleHAM?" LOL
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
Shemer said in this video that Jesus was born in Nazareth, is just listen the video.
And the Bible have not a contradiction about city where lived Joseph and Mary. Matthew in anywhere said where they lived, only said that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just Luke said they (Joseph and Mary) lived in Nazareth before birth of Jesus.
Let's go stop whit lies and read the Bible before tell bullshit.
luizborgesjunior 2 months ago
What bothers me is when people consider the Bible a true account of the times back then. Yes, it is good to study and understand how people behaved in that part of the World two thousand years ago, but it is wrong to think the accounts were true. There were no miracles, no virgin birth, no walking on water, no burning bush and no tablets from God. The Bible is full of bad lies and we must take that into consideration when studying it.
kaduisaui 4 months ago
@kaduisaui What bothers me is when untaught people don't realize that professional secular historians use much of what is contained in the Biblical writings as part of their construction of ancient history. What is more bothersome is when internet skeptics presuppose naturalistic materialism without proving it or defending it against the many cases against it, and then proceed to make absolute arguments based on their faulty naturalistic presuppositions.
KeithTruth 4 months ago 6
@KeithTruth The bible contains some history and where that can be verified it has some merit. Historians can also tell us how the bible was cobbled together and science can tell us that much of the book is nonsense, which strongly suggests that it is not the work of an omniscient god.
1empathy 3 months ago
@KeithTruth What is really bothersome is deluded people having access today of fresh data about miracles around the world from all sorts of religious lunatics and dismiss them all for lack of proof of the claims. After his healthy exercise of skepticism, they analyze data from 2k years ago and conclude that the miracles of resurrection and virgin birth must be true because the Bible says so. I call this self-inflicted idiocy. Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty can define it too.
lfzadra 2 months ago
@lfzadra If naturalism is true you have no laws of logic or transcendent measure with which to judge absurdity, only your opinions. You're borrowing from the Christian world view which says there are *transcendent* logical laws which a universe of mere matter and energy could not produce. But then you attack the Christian world view with the laws God gives this world. Now that is insane and foolish. As for miracles of false religions they don't meet the historical criterion the Resurrection does
KeithTruth 2 months ago 2
Interesting how they just cut right after Witherington makes his point. I'm not saying Shermer wasn't wrong, but it would have been interesting to see if he had a reply, whether he would admit his mistake or if he had a retort to Witherington's point.
vespine 7 months ago
@vespine Witherington is a specialist in exegesis, the original languages etc. It wouldn't matter if Shermer tried to respond, he would have got refuted again. He is not a scholar in that area. But that was the end of that portion yes. Nothing was cut off. That section ended on that point.
KeithTruth 7 months ago
@KeithTruth I know the section ended on that point and I'm happy to admit Shermer was wrong, but it was obviously cut, it's too abrupt, their conversation obviously didn't just end there, they didn't just stand up and go home immediately after Witherington finished that sentence. All i said is it would have been interesting to see if shermer admitted his mistake and what was said afterwards.
vespine 7 months ago
@vespine Do you know why the video was cut? Because that topic and section ended. There was no more said about that specific issue. If you want to go watch the whole debate go for it, its like 10 min. But don't complain over something so absurd.
KeithTruth 1 month ago
Hell will be filed with these idiots.... Theres plenty of space for these willing and ignorant slaves like shermertard
Seigu007 8 months ago
Shermer is prone to these arguments which rely on the ignorance of his cheerleaders. In an email exchange with me he also claimed the following about David Berlinski "evolution, a subject of which he has no training and knows next to nothing about." Shermer fails to consider Berlinki's degrees in molecular biology & mathematics to be relevant but considers his own limited background in only psychology to make him an expert. Typical.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
and I thoughts that athiests are the ones that check facts ;)
oleh2007 9 months ago
@KeithTruth //However you just said that you believe something (shermer doing fine) without even seing the whole debate, You have faith that he did fine.//
It's more of a testable hypothesis.
Atheist: Hey, i believe shermer did fine.
*watches video*
oops, guess i was wrong.
Can the same be done for a belief in a supernatural deity? No
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 11 months ago
Thats not the point, the person admitted that they believed shermer won without checking which is blind faith while at the same time attacking believers for supposedly having false faith. Now, yes as a red herring can you check the full debate and see shermer humiliated more? Yes, thats testable. Regarding God's truth, if you hear the Gospel, read the NT and you get saved you will know it, be saved and renewed - it will prove you're predestined to salvation, and that God is real.
KeithTruth 11 months ago
@KeithTruth it proves god is real like superman comics prove superman is real. :p
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 11 months ago
@ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz Hey brotha I'm not one of those Christians who get frustrateed at your disbelief and mockery. I understand the natural depraved human condition and inability seek, fear, believe, and submit to the true God. The only way that can happen is by grace - if God first makes you born again with new eyes to see your sin and ur need for Christ (john 1:13; 3:5-8). Will pray for you friend and I hope one day you experience the true joy in salvation and assurance in Christ. Lord bless.
KeithTruth 11 months ago
@KeithTruth Inconsistency and hypocricy wow. OK then if Mr. Shcerner doesn't know something about the Bible then... we are all liers and GOD exists. In a logycall discussion the charge of the prove is for the afirmative side. If this are all the proves you have av¡bout the existance of your god is just funny. We just shouldn't loose time ith you truthkeepers. And you that are deffending an irrational argument with no proves you insult us. You are just fanathics. THERE'S NO GOD STOP HATING.
Mugik17 1 year ago
I have seen many famous atheists argue with Christians based on their distorted views of christianity and consoider themselves intellectually superior. Shermer is like one of them.
Gavoora123 1 year ago
@KeithTruth ; @Virgeo1228
You make a good point regarding Virgeo’s assumption. I have seen Shermer fall flat on occassion. But it is not hypocrisy to assume Shermer argued rationally and honestly. That is his character.
In this case, had Shermer rebutted, he could have pointed out that the issue is where Jesus was conceived and grew up as indicated in 1 John. That is the reason Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth and that’s why Matthew and Luke had to get Mary to Bethlehem for the delivery.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Also Nazareth is a small town in Bethlehem. It was prophecy that he would be born in Bethlehem and prophecy that he would be called a Nazarene (meaning sprout in Hebrew). There is no contradiction. He was born in Bethlehem, then his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod. Then they returned to Nazareth after Herod died, when Jesus was a young child. That's in Matthew chapter 2 I believe.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis Bethlehem is a town in the central West Bank in Palestine just a few miles south of Jerusalem. Nazareth is a city in northern Israel. So what you say makes no sense. And for that matter the rule of Herod ended in 4 BC, and the prophesy was that the messiah would be born in the city of David, not that he would be a Nazarene. It seems you are just believing things without knowing the facts.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 So i'll start with saying when Herods rule ended doesn't matter. Jesus was born around 2 B.C. Also I can look it up to verify but even if I was wrong to say "Nazareth is a town in Bethlehem" (which i will admit as a possibility) That doesn't change the locality of Jesus birth as prophesied. Jesus was called a Nazarene because he grew up there as a prophecy in Isaiah says "he will be called a sprout(or Nazarene)." And as proven in the video he was born in Bethlehem.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 The circumstances of his birth in Bethlehem are interesting also. Herod ordered a everyone return to their hometown to be registered. Bethlehem is the hometown of Joseph, Jesus adoptive father ( no i don't believe that the holy spirit had sex with Mary, I believe God created a fetus inside of Mary.) Shortly after Jesus was born in Bethlehem as prophesied. As far as being born in the city of David I would ask you to site that scripture and consider context.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. First, there is no record of this census. And second, think about it. What kind of census has people moving all around the country to get counted? That would cause utter confusion!! The whole thing with Herod and the census is contrived.
And let me guess, your definition of "context" is whatever it takes to make the bible right with your beliefs.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Well you could read it from Matthew and Luke yourself, I'm sure you could Google "Bible" and find a full one to read online. All you have to do is read the 2nd Chapter in Matthew and perhaps a few verses in the 3rd Chapter and Virtually the same in Luke. It's a short read. You still haven't proven any inconsistencies in the locality of Jesus birth and the fact that he was born where said to be born and raised where said to be raised.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis Nobody says there are inconsistencies in the locality of Jesus's birth. You talk of reading the bible, but do you read anything else on the topic -- including what you are responding to here?! I said "the issue is where Jesus was conceived and grew up as indicated in 1 John." Do you understand what conceived means? I wonder if you even understand the controversy.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 No me stupid cause read bible. Me also read other things beside me bible like sciencie cause me want to make sure what me believe right. But me brainwashed and no really care about learn. Me just want to make silly skeptics feel dumb like me feel.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 The point of this video is claiming the bible is inconsistent, if you aren't arguing inconsistencies such as the one mentioned in this video what are you arguing?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I mention context also for this reason; There can be many ways to interpret a Hebrew word. The word "Brother" can be applied to a literal brother or to a cousin. That one word makes the difference between the Muslim and The Christian (This corresponds to why Muslims believe in the Prophet Muhammad). So when I say context I say it because it can be very easy to apply a word however you want depending on what translation or version you read.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis I am very familiar with the christian concept of context and how christians use translation. You admit that "it can be very easy to apply a word however you want" but you are blind to the fact that believing the bible MUST substantiate what you've been brought up to believe greatly effects how you put things into context. Saying things like "Nazareth is a small town in Bethlehem" doesn't give me a lot of faith in the impartiality of your "context."
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 The fact that I am willing to find out if I am wrong and look for the right answer should give you some faith in it. Have I not willingly stated that I could be wrong on some things that I say and that I would research them for a correct answer? I'm not a christian of rituals. I think that if a person finds out that something he or she believes is wrong they should find the right answer. 1 Century Christians did this and I try to do the same.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis But does your willingness to admit you are wrong extend to admitting errors in the bible? You say "when Herods rule ended doesn't matter" but if Herod was dead, why do the gospels have Jesus fleeing him? You don't understand the controversy. The authors knew the messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, but the man they were writing about was known as Jesus of Nazareth. That they concocted the story of Herod is shown by their mistake in the time line.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 Oh I get what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. Herod was a title just like Caesar was a title. There were many Caesars and there were many Herods. Herod was a name of a family of political rulers over the Jews. You can read about this from the 1st Century historian known as Josephus. Archelaus is Herods son that ruled next in Judea. So he is also a "Herod" or ruler in that same family.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis You really don't know what you're talking about. By your logic, Henry is just a name for English monarchs. Herod was not a title, the bible is referring to Herod I. For that matter Caesar wasn't a a title until after the man Caesar, and Caesar still can't be used to simply refer to any Roman ruler you want. Is this what putting things in context means to you? Either you are making things up as you go or you are just parroting nonsense you've been told.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 "Herod the Great" was the first Herod. Herod was the next Herod. Archelaus went by "Archelaus" but he was from the family of Herods. The term "Herod" simply became known as "Ruler" of the Jewish people during that time period. Where is the confusion? I just cited my reference when I told you the name of the Historian that wrote about it.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 I would say that I'm "parroting" things that I've read but I don't know that parrots actually read. You're incorrect. You are making the assumption that just because what I said applies to one family of rulers that I think it must apply to all. The statement about the Herods only applies to the Herods. My source was the Historian Josephus. I only used Caesar as a simple example to show generalization. Why would I assume that all cultures use the exact same naming conventions?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis when I say 1 Century Christians I mean 1st Century Christians, the ones who's lives overlapped with Jesus.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
I'm confused. I was a classmate of Ben's years ago. He's sharper than a polished tack and has integrity out the wazoo. Why is this other guy, who has never formally studied Christianity in depth, never written even ONE scholarly paper on Jesus, ON THE SAME STAGE WITH WITHERINGTON???.... That's like a high school player playing one-on-one against Kevin Garnett. WTF???
No wonder he tore him a new biblical asshole.
EastofForever 1 year ago
When you come across something that is of a complex design you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ASSUME A DESIGNER. That assumption begs the question. (petitio principii). The whole ID argument is based on a logical fallacy.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd Not exactly a fallacy. It's like this. You come across a very sophisticated machine with great A.I. You assume someone made it. Well what a person that believes in creation is saying is this. "If you see a computer station with no one there you naturally assume and know someone created it. Yet when you see things in nature far more complex than anything science can duplicate, such as the two narratives known as chromosomes you assume no designer."
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis The only designer you can assume is nature herself. To do otherwise, with zero evidence is to violate Occam's razor and put yourself in a ridiculous position of infinite regress.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd Micheal Shermer violates Occams razor himself when he suggests the multiverse theory. No matter how many the multiverse there is a supposed parent universe. This begs the question, "where did the parent universe come from? Did it have it's own parent universe?" Both sides can be cut with that razor friend.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@KeithTruth Can you please provide the "watch?v=" for the full debate. thanks
WickedJargon 1 year ago
I'm not sure you aren't understanding Shermer's point out of context, but even if you aren't, that point is a trivial matter for the atheist; though I will concede that the New Test' contradicts itself much less than the Old (doesn't prove a thing though). But I appreciate you allowing comments (assuming you don't disapprove them); many X'ian apologists don't allow a dialogue.
quaternio 1 year ago
What about all the other gospels that weren't allowed into the bible by the higher echelons of the church, where do they say Jesus came from? Actually, who cares? It's all a load of crap.
InitiumNovum 1 year ago
Pay attention... Shermer doesn't say that the gospels say Jesus was born in Nazareth. They simply call him "Jesus of Nazareth."
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 Start at the :10 mark: "...this kind of conflicting tension where Jesus was born..." So he's certainly claiming that there is confusion from the source text, to which Witherington rightly clarifies, corrects, Shermer's incorrect representation
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
You can be an expert on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pull someone up for misquoting it or misreading it but that wouldn't make The Protocols of the elders of Zion true. This refutation of Dr Shermer is meaningless to the question of is the bible true. In fact being an exponent of reason and truth Dr Shermer would probably welcome being corrected on matters of fact. He might be also be wrong about the size of Thor's fingernails......................Big Deal
Truthsearcher101 1 year ago
Witherington: Fail.
glasshammer52 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
There's a huge difference between having justified faith and unjusified. For example, I have faith there will be a great scientific discovery in the next 100 years. However, this is a form of inductive reasoning. I have faith BECAUSE science has come up with great discoveries in almost every century so far! It's therefore reasonable to assume it might again. That's a hell of a long way from having faith in a holy book.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
"Your statement about you being sure shermer does fine is interesting to me though"
"You atheists always mock people with faith. However you just said that you believe something (shermer doing fine) without even seing the whole debate, You have faith that he did fine. I find the inconsistancy and hypocricy of atheism fascinating"
your my hero lol.. God bless you brother
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
Of course at least one of the gospels mentions a census (of which there are no records) wherein all people had to return to where they were born. Where did Jesus go? NAZARETH.
spideylover 1 year ago
@KeithTruth You say he has to have faith,... no. those are your words/ He simply assumes he does fine and rightly so, I've never seen Shermer stomped in a debate.
mbluemyst 1 year ago
Shermer is claiming that the messiah is prophesied in the Old testament, not Gospels. Witherington did nor refute his original claim
mbluemyst 1 year ago
Shermer sure does not have a grip on the subject matter and he is suppose to be the other side of the discussion. I'm not a Bibical Historian by no means,but I do know Jesus was born in Bethleham and raised in Nazartha told by the big 4 Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Anything more than this Shermer & Witherington should be able to take over to go more ! The problem with others her have said he still is Knownledgeable is not true. Shermer should have knew this right off the bat, no question ask !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
More proof Shermer gets his arguments from one-trick atheist websites.
52blades 1 year ago
Ha! Ouch. At 0:37 Shermer gives his "I just got freaking owned" face. He won't bring up that silly argument again.
jdaniel220 1 year ago
The contradiction is not where he was born the contradiction is how he ended up in Nazareth. Matthew said he went to Nazareth to flee Herod's son. Luke says Joseph lived in Galilee and went to Bethlehem for the census. Another contradiction is that these two events did not even occur at the same time.Romans weren't collecting taxes (and taking census) til AFTER Herod's son was dethroned
snakeguy76 1 year ago
Who cares? Jesus was either a charlatan or a mythical figure or just some dude who liked peace and piety. Trying to legitimize a whole belief system based around one person is kind of weak.
Prometheus666333 1 year ago
@KeithTruth I did watch the whole discussion, and Shermer did indeed do fine, but you're right: Virgeo1228 rushed to a conclusion prematurely. Where you err is condemning atheism as a whole being inconsistent and hypocritical because of this presupposition. You can't make a blanket statement like that based on this one mistake.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
@KeithTruth Making an assumption isn't the same thing as faith, sorry.
pguitar13 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
You're a Christian? You believe in everything that Jesus said in the Holy Bible? If you answered yes to these questions then let me borrow $100. You better not deny me that $100 or you'll be denying the world of your Savior Jesus Christ. Don't believe me? Read Matthew 5:42. Now send me my money...I'll give you my Pay Pal account. That also goes for the rest of you Christians out there...any of you Bible thumpers who read this message, you have to send me $100.
andyrooney11 1 year ago
I can't stand Shermer, he isn't qualified to be debating anyone and atheists need to shut him up. He thinks everything he says is profound but most of what he says he takes from conspiracy websites and is emphatically wrong. Like claiming Apollonius of Tyana was crucified and resurrected. Not even zeitgeist made such a moronic claim.
52blades 1 year ago
I find it hilarious that people who are so SURE of God's non existence seem to spend a great deal of time trying to disprove it. Seriously, who are you trying to prove your unbelief to?
MrRingmaster 1 year ago 2
@MrRingmaster Many nonbelievers are trying enlighten people why they should be skeptical of a god or gods. The real burden of proof is on the people who claim that such creatures exist. Especially since the most common variations of yaweh are based on a pos book that portrays him as something more diabolical than voldermort. Delusions wouldn't be so bad if they didn't ruin lives and fuck up politics. That's why such effort is spent on "disproving" the gods bullshit.
mistereveready 11 months ago
Comment removed
gneisenau321 2 years ago
These new cults are weird and boring. Who cares what some brat's zip code was?
Why don't these two debate something relevant to the insignificant lives of you wretched mortals, like where I was born?
Sincerely,
Julius Ceasar the Divine
(That's right, I was posthumously deified. Ask the oracle you call Wikipedia if you don't believe me.)
DIVASIVLIVS 2 years ago
I fail to see how Witherington Humiliated Shermer...
Why isn't the whole discussion posted? I'm sure upon reviewing the entire thing, Shermer does just fine.
Virgeo1228 2 years ago
If you think it's fine to misquote the text your criticising then he does "fine"!!! :)
cloud4509 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what else he says he's already got his facts wrong! The only honourable thing for him to have done would be to back down but I seriously doubt he's that honest.
cloud4509 2 years ago
@Virgeo1228 Watch the whole video...I;ve seen...Shermer smoked some real good weed indeed before he went on the show, he was totally making stuff up out of his head. Just watch the whole video. Shermer should just be embarrased.
SideBurnFilmz 1 year ago
@Virgeo1228
Because Christians are insecure and have to be shady and give half truth to try and make themselves look good
jdnmlm 1 year ago
@Virgeo1228 Hey Shermer may have done good in other parts of the discussion but the part of knowing where Jesus was born and raised is a common place for 6th Graders in V.B.S. ! Shermer said it was not clear where Jesus was Born at. Read Mathew, Mark, Luke, & John they will tell you all about it. If you don't know this, what else do you not know about the matter. Shermer got eat up on this one about being unclear where Jesus was born at. He need to read up be coming to the meeting !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
@Virgeo1228 Ahhh... the old Shermer-does-fine-of-the-gaps argument.,
TooManyTights 1 year ago
Comment removed
billbunions2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Witherington destroyed Shermer!!
cloud4509 2 years ago
@cloud4509 Really? Creating a strawman and filabusting now means one person "destroyed" another? Why not try using your brain for something other than making yourself look like an idiotic asshat!
aliashumanist6 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
ali,
I can understand that when your favourite arguments get shot down in flames you get upset. That's only human. Try to get in touch with your female side and learn to cry instead of insulting other people [which then only reflects badly on yourself]. Did your mama not teach you such things?
cloud4509 2 years ago
You don't know what I would conclude first of all. Second, I do know some history, so your second statement is also wrong. Besides discrepancies, the new testament has been revised over time. No one writing decades after the fact could possibly know some of the details. The concept of the trinity was made up later and not original to John. How do we know this, because it is no where to be found in our oldest manuscripts. Study your own holy book and quit swimming in that river in Egypt.
juarez2010 2 years ago 2
@juarez2010 You say the trinity was made up later. Hey Jesus spoke of the Confonter / Holy Spirit / Third part of trinity during his time when he told his 12 Disciples he would send a new Conforter to them on the day of Pentecost & be apart of Jesus 24/7. That moment that started the Father / Son / Holy Spirit for Jesus was giving the Holy Spirit out during his time & on the day of Pentecost ! Now where was the Holy Spirit dreamed up later ? Jesus brought you Father/Son/Holy Ghost in his time !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
i love how that charlatan of Shermer got PWNED
juresaiyan 2 years ago
Though a fascinating subject, am i the only one getting pretty tired of arguments between those who can think, question, investigate and substantiate their position against those who, as Dawkins said, just stick their fingers in their ears and go LaLaLA? Let's leave those who need every aspect of their lives dictated to them, alone. As long as their bronze age myths are kept out of Schools and Politics and do not impinge on rational peoples lives, then why not just leave them to their delusions.
bbrr9 2 years ago 3
@bbrr9 Excellent point. The problem is: where is the balance point of keeping superstition out of schools and politics?
cvd316316 1 year ago
Dr. Witherington is correct, btw. The gospels both say born in Bethlehem. Problem is, they got the lucky couple there by different means. Gospel writers knew when writing their account of the Jesus myth they had to have him born there to fulfill prophecy. So they obviously made up different ways of getting them there This only one of the many many discrepancies in the bible.
juarez2010 2 years ago 2
Please romansten9, you are obviously another christian who has not studied the bible. The birth narratives in luke/math are clearly different. They are different because they were made up. All you have to do is read them in parallel to know this. One or both of these are not true. I think neither are. By the way, how would one know which house a certain star is above? Think about.
juarez2010 2 years ago 4
Actually, what you are mentioning is a strong support of the authenticity of the Bible. Different eye witnesses stress different points according to what they saw as most important. It would be really suspicious if all of the stories matched exactly. (it would then be plagiarism) The main points match, but insignificant details vary. (at first glance) These accounts have all been reconciled anyway, many years ago. Look in "the case for Christ" Lee Strobel, page 45-46 for just one explanation.
romansten9 2 years ago
Lee Strobel? That guy is the worst apologist you could have picked, other than Ray Comfort. You made me laugh. Are you kidding. If so, you got me.
juarez2010 2 years ago
Strobel is a twat. I actually have that book (given to me by a fundie ex-girlfriend). It's pseudoscientific hogwash, and I'm ashamed that people ever gave him money for it.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
Watch the star of bethlehem to see how this miraculous star can now be calculated with computerized astronomy software. It really occurred, and it changed positions in the sky, just like the Bible said it did. If they reached the general area, anyone could have told them where to find the baby. There had been quite a commotion surrounding the baby, angels lighting up the sky, etc.
romansten9 2 years ago
Oh, come on. Where are you getting your BS?
juarez2010 2 years ago
Yeah, this comment is simply ignorant. Planetary conjunctions? Nope. Comet? Nope. Nova? Nope.
"If they reached the general area... " What?!? As though such a sight wouldn't have been visible from half the earth, and appear overhead to *at least* several hundreds of thousands of square miles.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@juarez2010 Yes they are different. The cover different people in his geneology (or lineage). They split after Kind David. One of them shows that Jesus Mother Mary is Jewish and from the line of David. The other shows his adoptive father Joseph is from the line of David. Also Mathew was written with the jews in mind as it covers a lot of prophecy. That's why it starts from Abraham. Luke was written with the nations in mind which is why it essentially starts with Adam.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
its so funny how when just a little detail is missed by the atheist debaters their opponents rip and roar with glee and start teabagging and popping champagne. they are so famished for a landing blow that when they finally get a little one they're beside themselves.
fromthesestones 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
PROOFS AND SIGNS ARE NOT GUARANTEES THAT YOU WILL BELIEVE GOD
If in the time of Jesus Himself, when they witnessed His works of miracles: healing all the sickness, raising the dead, feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fish, and many more, and they did not believe; you will also not believe now even if you see signs.
John 12:37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, {yet} they were not believing in Him.
fbarrios56 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IN THE TIME OF MOSES, ALL OF THEM (THE ISRAELITES) HAD WITNESSED THE GREAT MIRACLES OF GOD INCLUDING THE DEPARTING OF THE RED SEA BUT MANY STILL DID NOT BELIEVED
Jude 1:5 ¶ Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
fbarrios56 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE IS A GUARANTEE THAT IF YOU WILL BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, GOD WILL REVEAL THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE TO YOU IN A MIGHTY WAY
1 Thess 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; ...
Heb 4:7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."
fbarrios56 2 years ago
Note to Atheists never bring up bible "errors" when you are talking to a top notch Bible scholar, only bring up errors to layman it makes you look much much smarter.
Reminds me of the God delusion pg.120 (paperback) where Dawkins talks about "The Magi worshping Jesus in Luke" LOL ? Umm sorry dawk the Magi story is in Matthew 2 not Luke , have atheists actually opened a bible ? or do they just google all their bible " scholarship" ?
grandconjunct 2 years ago
Note to christians. Prove 6 day creation, garden of eden, 900 year old men, every species on a boat, the exodus, virgin conception, walking on water, instantaneous healings on command, zombies walking through town and dudes coming out of the ground in brand new bodies. When you have that. Let us know.
While you're at it. Any contemporaneous mention of "jesus" would be a groove. Any CONTEMPORANEOUS mention at all.
greatgrandpasfolly 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your a naturalist, but God can do anything.
tgamerlegend 2 years ago
Seems like this video is cut short... Where is Shermer's resonse??? There has to be more to this segment... where is it???
arrakkis666 2 years ago
Why not invent the birth in Bethlehem simply to fulfil a prophecy. And inivent different stories about why they went there, and while they're at it invent different lineages to Joseph who isn't even the father. But who cares.
dbes02 2 years ago
nice strawman there benj. what are you a doctor of? spin doctoring?
aliashumanist6 2 years ago 3
Dr Ben looks straight murdah in this clip while crushing the competition.
KryptoniteTearDrop 2 years ago
Dr. Michael: What a simplistic argument to make! DUH! A person can be born in one place, and be raised in another and be "of" each! Jesus was "of" Bethlehem and "of" Nazareth. (the anti-Christians are such amateurs its not even funny)
romansten9 2 years ago
Realllllllly!!!!!!!
Okay Ms. "Professional", provide evidence for the following: paranormal being impregnating a young woman, walking on water, zombies walking through town, instantaneous healing on command, and a person coming out of a grave after several days in a new body.
Isn't it strange that when we became able to fully study outrageous claims in a rational manner and have the ability to communicate those findings- they disappeared. BURN!
billbunions2 2 years ago
@billbunions2; It was 3 days you fucking moron, not 7. Whilst trying to be a skeptic of Theology try and understand it properly.
dimic 2 years ago
@dimic ; you fucking moron. he said SEVERAL, not SEVEN. whilst trying to be an apologist of superstition, try to understand basic reading skills properly!
motormansglove 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
romansten9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billbunions2; Read "The case for faith" Lee Strobel. the evidence you are looking for is too numerous to post here. Strobel interviews several Phd scientists and other experts in their fields. There are countless other books like this one also.
romansten9 2 years ago
@romansten9 duh!! he misspoke dipstick. there is a clear contradiction between the whole bethlahem/nazereth connection. that's why the writers of the gospels added that phony census story.
aliashumanist6 2 years ago 4
except for the fact that the census was a historical event.
salynredoran 2 years ago
@salynredoran Not the one mentioned in the bible fable. Plus, there was no law requiring people to return to the home of their ancestors. Don't believe me? Ask a Jew! If you want to know about the bible and the law and the way people lived in Palestine during the first century, ALWAYS ask a practicing Jew. NEVER ask a practicing christian. They are only agenda driven.
billbunions2 2 years ago 3
the census was documented in historical documents besides the Bible. It happened. Many facts (including Jesus birthplace) were foretold hundreds of years before His birth. The star of bethlehem has been proven, and anyone can research this. The star appeared at the time of Jesus birth. At the time of Jesus death, there was an eclipse, this can be proven as well.
romansten9 2 years ago
Bad logic. I can write an entire accurate account of Abraham Lincoln's life, but add the detail that on weekends Lincoln healed the sick with his magic top hat. Just because the rest of the story is accurate doesn't mean the magic top hat part is.
Same with the gospels.
seiferganon 2 years ago
Provide evidence for paranormal beings impregnating a young woman, walking on water, instantaneous healings on command, and a person coming out of a grave after several days in a new body.
Isn't it strange that when we became able to fully study claims in a rational manner and have the ability to communicate those findings- outrageous claims, like the bible's, are debunked.
The census in the bible is false. Plus, there was no law to go back to one's family city. Try thinking for a change.
billbunions2 2 years ago 3
Provide evidence?
The history of the bible the thousand of archeological findings that support the bible. One of those findings is that they found a census just as it says in the bible so no you are wrong when you say there was no census. Let's not forget many historians who mention jesus and what they say agrees with the bible. The Bible mentions real locations, kings, and rulers to. Such as King Herold who was indeed real just to give you an example. God can do anything he has no limit.
tgamerlegend 2 years ago 3
The gospels do, as the Rev. Dr. states, say that Jesus grew up in Nazareth. This is very interesting given the fact that Nazareth did not exist until at least very late in the first century.
Kailoa36 2 years ago
Nazareth did in fact exist in the early first century. See chapter 24. of JP Holdings work 'Shattering the Christ Myth' for a detailed assessment on the issue. Here:
tektonics . org / jesusexist / nazex . html
KeithTruth 2 years ago
Ah...Jp Holding?! lol!! - Well if a pastral writer with a Christian bias said it, I guess it MUST be true!!
The earliest extant mention of Nazareth wasn't until 200ce, and only then by a Christian apologist as concept.
The earliest unbiased mention is a century later.
Archeologists date it around that time as a Byzantine establihment. They also eliminate it's possibility as a !st century Jewish settlement, as it was built on a grave site.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
Read the documentation I gave you and then address it. Don't condemn prior to investigation. Secondly, you do not get to decide what counts as unbias evidence. That is not how history works.
KeithTruth 2 years ago
"Read the documentation I gave you and then address it"
I waded through as much of it as I could stand.
It seems to be a personal critique of Rene Salm. I don't see any relevence.
It doesn't point out any feasible archeological evidence for a 1st century town called Nazareth.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
Just one question though - Is JP Holding a Christian Apologist or is he not?
Tobytrim 2 years ago
dissmisive argumentation and genetic fallacies will not get you far. You have yet to refute his arguments and data.
KeithTruth 2 years ago
Yea, absolutely destroyed...
jaybird632 2 years ago
shermer got caught quote mining. shame.
tls1697 2 years ago
the gospels arrived nearly 100 years after Christ's appearance, why so long??
pompeyblues 2 years ago
So where's Shermer's rebuttal? Why do you only show a slice of the debate?
AlexAltorfer 2 years ago
shermer had no rebuttal he was refuted. You can see the whole dialogue in the related videos >>
KeithTruth 2 years ago
I can't find it but I am still suspicious why the video abruptly cut out before Michael Shermer could say anything. Could it be if you showed the whole video UNEDITED that it wouldn't support your claim?
madzyzome 2 years ago
Go Ben....Sherman got pwnnnnnned!!!!!!!
morpheusxvr 2 years ago
I'd love to see the rest of this interview.
KincumberBoy 2 years ago 2
The fact that we still argue about the EXISTENCE of god proves he does not exist. Existence is the most basic property and individual has. You know I exist because I am posting this comment or you can see and talk to me. I can not do that with god and the only "evidence" we have for his existence are some pseudo philosophical claims. If our immortal soul supposedly rests on whether god exists or not, and we have no conclusive evidence for his existence, then I must dismiss him as ficticious.
tighttritenight 2 years ago
No offense, but that is the dumbest statement that I have ever heard. There are those who argue over Christopher Columbus' discovery of America. Does this mean that he never sailed because of this? Come on.
BCPowerman 2 years ago
We have reliable historical evidence for Christopher Columbus' discovery (the vikings actually beat him to it). And even if we did not have evidence, it wouldn't matter because our immortal soul does not rest upon whether Columbus discovered America or not. There is a good chance that Homer didn't exist, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy his work. Now if he would have claimed to be a deity and that we must worship him then it would matter if he actually existed. I think you missed the point
tighttritenight 2 years ago
Huh? God is everywhere. His work is all around and couldn't be more obvious. The question is, why can't you see it?
observer75 2 years ago
@observer75 Where is he? I am looking up at the beautiful blue expanse and I see our wonderful world, not God (judeo-Chrstian), but maybe god (pantheism).
cvd316316 1 year ago
Shermer was pawned!
xtrashed 2 years ago
I like how the video stops before he makes his rebuttal. It's the equivalent of telling someone "You are wrong" and promptly covering your ears and running away.
madzyzome 2 years ago
What rebuttal? There is none. Why don't go fact check the gospels? Don't you have internet access? Yeah, we both know he got owned.
observer75 2 years ago
Exactly what rebuttal? The video was edited to not show his rebuttal. Very dishonest on the video posters part. Fact check the gospels? Some of them can't even be fact checks because there is no physical evidence. Also you should look up the Nazereth Village. It's a recreation of a village that has zero archeological evidence for it's existence during Jesus' life. There was nothing there yet somehow they still recreated a imaginary village.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Skeptics also used the "no archeological evidence" argument about Pilot, as well....that is, until 1961. There has been so much in the way of archeology that supports the bible's historicity -- much of it discovered in the last century -- and no find that refutes it.
I wonder if missing archeological pieces are as important an issue in your mind in regards to Darwinism?
mtcanz 2 years ago
WOAH! I am talking about a whole damn town not one roman govorner. You say no archaeological evidence refutes the bible? There is no evidence that the jews wondered the desert for forty years. They would leave allot of stuff behind not to mention any anecdotal evidence from reports of a helluva lot of jews wondering around the desert by eye witnesses. That's just one.
What is Darwinism? Are you speaking of biological evolution?
madzyzome 2 years ago
Madzyome, there is scholarship that points to Nazareth existing as early as the 7th century, B.C. That it's disputed does not make the disputation true.
Consider this; if Judaism saw Christianity as a threat (which they most certainly did), why don't we have Jewish writings saying the gospel of Mark (which even Shermer admits dates to 65 A.D.) fabricated entire towns like Nazareth?
I suspect if someone presented you with irrefutable proof, you'd simply find a new objection.
mtcanz 2 years ago
But there is no physical evidence of an actual town. Towns produce waste and loads of archaeological evidence. People are messy and archaeologists love it. they never found anything in Nazereth dating to the period of Jesus's life. That is a fact. Show me a trash heap or a foundation, a goddamn coin! Everything found there conclusively dates to 100's of years after Christ at a minimum. After presenting this irrefutable proof I expect you to refute it with something about carbon dating accuracy.
madzyzome 2 years ago
You think a coin would say, "Nazareth"? Would that be like the coins that say, "Boston" on them?
Just do a search - there is plenty of scholarship that demonstrates archeological evidence for Nazareth. One ex. I found...
Prof Mahlon H. Smith, Rutgers:
Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE].
That a minority disputes is no surprise.
mtcanz 2 years ago
(part II) Calling not enough evidence for your tastes "irrefutable evidence" against is simply displaying an incredible lack of understanding of the nature of evidence. A TOTAL lack of evidence could never be considered "irrefutable" evidence against. And this is not even the case here.
Wherer I am from, we had towns so small -- some with just a hundred or fewer people in them. Nazareth was a tiny, lowly place.
Jn 1:46 "...Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him"
mtcanz 2 years ago
Darwinism -- the theory that says you and I share ancestry with tomatoes -- and tree bark.
the one that says the most complex and intricate code man has ever encountered wrote itself.
mtcanz 2 years ago
What you explained is biological evolution except that tree bark and tomatoes are parts of plants. So we share a common ancestor with tomato plants and trees. It's arguably the most complete theory ever and has been proven fact. Now I don't know what code you speak of, I assume DNA/RNA? Either way it is not intricate in the least. It's mostly junk. The complexity does form on it's own this is known as emergence. It's very well documented. BTW we have much more complex/intricate code than DNA.
madzyzome 2 years ago
That's funny -- not complex? -- which is why it took a world of scientists a half century just to figure out what the character order is - while still working on the actual message.
And before we sing the praises of completeness, I think it would behoove the proponents to be able to give examples of novel systems and/or structures arising from this process. Where we can demonstrate the schematic.
The theory is also not likely to demonstrate anytime soon the origin of information.
mtcanz 2 years ago 2
I never said it wasn't complex just not intricate. You should read what I write from now on.
Biological evolution is not about origins at all so you are right it will never demonstrate the origin of anything because that is not what it is about. It is simply about the diversity of life. If you knew this you wouldn't make such a silly comment.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Comment removed
mtcanz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From dictionary:
COMPLEX: 3) so complicated or INTRICATE as to be hard to understand or deal with: a COMPLEX problem
INTRICATE: 2) COMPLEX; complicated; hard to understand, work, or make: an INTRICATE machine.
You: Biological evolution is not about origins at all
Darwins book, On the ORIGIN of Species has nothing to do with ORIGINS?
Youre on a roll madz.
mtcanz 2 years ago
So you used two synonyms? That's a grammatical faux pas. It is complex but overly so. DNA is overly complicated and lacks elegance. Was the creator an idiot? First year engineering students can do better. You must have low expectations or Jesus..... uhm I mean the Intelligent designer.
The origin of species is not the origin of life or information as you keep insisting. Evolution is only about the changes in life and not the fundamental origins i.e. life, earth, solar system, universe etc.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Here's a link to a 2007 Washington Post article.
No W's after the slashes - just assemble the following...
tiny u r l dot c o m slash 35hllf
Here's a quote: The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all.
Madz, you keep topic-jumping when you're shown wrong. What is your REAL problem with Jesus?
mtcanz 2 years ago
God did not create the DNA that we have now, that is inherited from our fathers and their fathers fathers and so on and so forth. God is a genius that have made something that would last as long as it has without breaking down more than what it has. You should read the book called "Evolution Cruncher" maybe you will change your paradigm, who knows.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
I've got your back my freind, let's see how he responds to this, I hope he will see things our way, I'm a scientist and a young earth creationist. Take care!
gavinmajors 2 years ago
@gavinmajors Whoa, wait a minute. So the earth isn't 4.6 billion years old? Which must mean the universe isn't 13.72 billion years old? Shit! I really really trusted those astrophysicists to give my unbiased information! Damn you science!
cvd316316 1 year ago
@cvd316316
Nope! The universe and everything in it are much closer to 6000 years old. Science doesn't lie. Scientists are people. People lie. No need to be mad at science. Just learn from your mistake and move on. It's people who lie that you should be mad at.
By the way, I agree with keeping superstition out of schools. I'm doing all I can to get Cosmic/Stellar/Chemical/Organic/Macro-evolution removed from the textbooks.
Take care!
Gavin
gavinmajors 1 year ago
@gavinmajors I hope you realize I was being scarcastic dude. So let me surmise: you believe in a conspiracy theory that the entire scientific community is in on?
cvd316316 1 year ago
Entire scientific community? Ummmm, they stand divided. Science is not decided by a concensus. SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE DERIVED THROUGH OBSERVATION.
I admit I have faith in a creator. You need to admit you have FAITH in evolution. The forms I listed have never been observed. You just chose a different faith than I.
God Bless,
I mean no disrespect,
Gavin
gavinmajors 1 year ago
@gavinmajors You are right. It is probably a 80-85/20-15 split. However, I do not need faith in evolution.
'Faith is the confident belief or trust, without any evidence or proof, in a truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.'
There is nothing but evidence for evolution. There is nothing but speculation for an intervening and personal creator.
cvd316316 1 year ago
@cvd316316 I'm glad you said probably. It's always better than acting like you know. I on the other hand do know the stats. These are not current, but last revised in 2005. 65% of the scientific community favored evolution. Not a landslide. Wouldn't matter anyway. Concensus doesn't decide in science.
I do like your definition of faith. I'll use it if you don't mind!
cosmic/macro/stellar/chemical/organic -evolution fit your definiton perfectly. What is your BEST evidence for ANY of these.
gavinmajors 1 year ago
@gavinmajors According to what evidence are you stating the universe is 6000 yrs old? What are the problems you see with the modern evolutionary synthesis?
cvd316316 1 year ago
@cvd
supernova remnance of less than 10000 years, C14 rise of 30-40% per year, ocean salt content increasing, erosion progress of major water falls, historical documentation coming to an instant halt all over the world in the last 6000 years, over 100 communities detailing a flood in areas that never communicated, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, DNA enigma, lack of evidence for evolution.
What's your BEST evidence that life can come from non-life, and Kinds change over time.
gavinmajors 1 year ago
@gavinmajors I am being serious when I ask for sources. I am always interested in reading new stuff. Could you supply me?
cvd316316 1 year ago