Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists - Page 16 - Political Fever

Robert Ingersoll · #**151** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Some of the evidence is eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. Scientific evidence is in the Anthropic Principles.

You mean the highly contradictory eye-witness testimony found in the Gospels? I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up in traffic court, let alone the Supreme Court.

Robert Ingersoll · #**152** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Better silly than closed-minded.

You don't even see that you're both silly AND close-minded. Unreal.

Robert Ingersoll · #**153** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

[m-w.com]

The Gospels meet definition 1, and the Anthropic Principles definitions 1, 2, and 3.

The Gospels are not provable by anything else outside of themselves. And beyond that, each Gospel is so radically different in terms of what happened in Jesus' supposed life as to cancel one another out. There's nothing in the historical or archaeological record to suggest that Jesus even lived (outside of the aforementioned contradictory Gospels & a few mentions in Josephus' history that are likely add-ons well after the life of Josephus).

You have faith in Jesus based on nothing demonstrable. I know evolution is real based on millions of demonstrations that are observable as everyday fact. Who's being silly & close-minded?

Robert Ingersoll · #**154** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

Again ,has anyone disproved ID? 14 pages of back and forth most a lot of informatiive readings. But ID is a theory which hasn't been shown to be wrong has it? And Scribbler is correct it is faith based but I have heard some in th efield of science say they believe.

As was already stated, ID is an hypothesis, not a theory. Show me the evidence for ID & then we can begin to dismiss it based on its "evidence." But because no one has ever presented any evidence of ID but has only presented a poorly formed hypothesis, it doesn't even merit the level of serious attention. And is thus dismissed as ridiculous and its adherents are equally dismissed as ridiculous.

Robert Ingersoll · #**155** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

No, no one has, but to be fair, it's not the responsibility of the person against the theory to dis-prove it. All I ask is that the evolutionists accept the same level of proof of the ID-ers that they insist for their own theory.

Fine. Post up the proof for ID. Once it begins to approach the level of proof we have for evolution, perhaps a discussion can begin. Until then, IDers shall remain ridiculous.

Robert Ingersoll · #**156** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

And what have you to back this up besides your opinion? I don't want to argue about a thing. Start just before the big bang. You can't but we don't know yet if there was a before or not! I think there was. And if in say in fifty years or less they find there was time before the Big Bang. What would each of you put forth as the answer?
Face the facts we don't know everything except evolution was the way we arrived here. And now they say comet dust had something to do with that to.
So back to square one. And IMHO evolution could have been the way a higher power used to make modern mankind. Sure it took more than 6 days to make the planet and all we gather from it. But! We don't know.

Wow are you confused. Origins & evolution are two completely different things. No wonder you can't get your head around something as simple as evolution. Might I suggest a crash-course in Bio 101 at the local community college?

Southern Man · #**157** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicallyYours

......

"but to be fair, it's not the responsibility of the person against the theory to dis-prove it."

Wrong again, it is. .....

And this is your logic?

Southern Man · #**158** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Ingersoll

The Gospels are not provable by anything else outside of themselves. And beyond that, each Gospel is so radically different in terms of what happened in Jesus' supposed life as to cancel one another out. There's nothing in the historical or archaeological record to suggest that Jesus even lived (outside of the aforementioned contradictory Gospels & a few mentions in Josephus' history that are likely add-ons well after the life of Josephus).

....

Actually there is much more evidence, but lets focus on just the four Gospels for a moment. They are four different affidavits from four different witnesses, each who had a differing perspective. They don’t contradict the basic facts of Jesus’ life. If they were identical that would be evidence of a conspiracy.

Zephyr · #**159** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 10:08 PM

And how do you know the Gospels aren't just made-up ****?

diuretic · #**160** (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Actually there is much more evidence, but lets focus on just the four Gospels for a moment. They are four different affidavits from four different witnesses, each who had a differing perspective. They don’t contradict the basic facts of Jesus’ life. If they were identical that would be evidence of a conspiracy.

Unless I get to cross-examine the authors I regard them as hearsay.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password