If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VE7v8md0y70

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140327-functional-designer-chromosome-synthetic-biology/

http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/423691/synthetic-cells/

If you are well versed in the subject, then why haven't you been keeping up with developments? Science is progressing and new insights and breakthroughs are happening on a regular basis. No doubt to actually achieve the creation of life from its building blocks as we understand them will require a synthesis of many different individual advances.


Not

I listed three plausible sources for initial life on earth that had nothing to do at all with a creator. Yet your ignored that and insisted that abiogenesis is a pre-requisite for Evolution to be true. this is clearly not true.

the only dodge is yours.

I don't know and neither does anyone else INCLUDING THEISTS, although they do have the luxury of not having to provide any evidence nor conduct a single scientific experiment.

single celled life.

No it doesn't. EVOLUTION only examines the processes of life, it does not examine the origins. that is another field of science entirely.

Only a theist would say such a thing. As if having all the answers is the answer.

phew.

Whenever you get around to demonstrating you actually know much about science, I will be more than willing to learn.

So far you weren't educated enough to comprehend the scope the subject theory of evolution to know it says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. Unless you are just trying to jerk me around, in which case, continue to do so since it your pronouncements of superior knowledge like the above seem petty, foolish and delusional.

Now are you going to answer the original question posed to you? Of course not.

What I find rather childishly amusing is your sense of superiority where given both your posting strategy and the content of those post, clearly none exists.

I noticed when called out on your nonsensical objection to the Big bang theory, you chose to ignore the fact that it was a wholly irrelevant objection predicated on a lack of understanding of the basic concepts of the theory. Much like your lack of understanding of evolution.

Yep you sure are "scientific-y"

 

Paul had a "vision" of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus... and Paul had everything to do with the development of Christianity and the Catholic church.

 

WOW. I guess those 14 of 27 books of the new testament attributed to Paul were NO INFLUENCE on the religion at all. (yes I am aware of the disputes as to who wrote a number of his epistles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Today, his epistles continue to be vital roots of the theology, worship, and pastoral life in the Roman and Protestant traditions of the West, as well as the Orthodox traditions of the East.[15] Among the many other apostles and missionaries involved in the spread of the Christian faith,[7] his influence on Christian thought and practice has been characterized as being as "profound as it is pervasive". Augustine of Hippo developed Paul's idea that salvation is based on faith and not "works of the law". Martin Luther's interpretation of Paul's writings influenced Luther's doctrine of sola fide.

{cue the attack the source response to cover his absurdly foolish denunciation}

Were any of those eyewitness accounts delivered first hand to the authors of the gospels? And why weren't they noted in the scriptures to begin with?
I don't accept them as eyewitness accounts. You must be aware of the actual accuracy of eyewitness testimony, since you are so science aware.

And there is absolutely no doubt that homer wrote the Iliad. No eyewitnesses required. But then again, only contemporary classical pagans believed in the myriad monsters and miracles that were performed in the stories.

Not one of the gospel writers met Jesus [personally. I am amazed that you don't know this.

Paul and Jesus never met face to face. PERIOD. Might want to revisit Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus.

See, all you can do is deny what is readily apparent in human nature and human communications. Broken telephone is a proven fact. the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is a proven fact. Human nature in wanting to believe in something and having that belief manifest in testimony is a proven fact.

for a science guy you demonstrate an enormous gap in your knowledge. That or you simply reject everything that doesn't fit into your narrow world view, which doesn't make you much of a science aficionado.

I answered it at least twice. I DO NOT KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. the best answer(s) we have today is found in two main hypothesis (along with the various variations on those themes) - abiogenesis and biogenesis

Yes, Evolution cannot occur in the absence of existing life. good for you, you finally got something right.


And yet again you failed to answer the original question which I might add was asked before your BB and Evolution deflections - neither of which were remotely close to scientifically accurate.

 

asking PP again.

 

I think folks are looking for a satisfying narrative about where they come from. I think we would have a richer world if we had more origin narratives. One way or another I think myth of some sort is written into our dna.

Scientific rational people built the atom bomb. There is more to the matter of good and bad than just reducing it to reason versus myth.

I'm not aware that Jesus ever gave himself exclusive Son status-others did. Supposedly he wrote the Lord's Prayer that refers to God as "Our Father" not 'My Father'. And of course it was others who gave their testimony as to his return. The resurrection was the miracle they required to base their faith on. I think it was Paul who said, "If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain." Faith often hangs on such perilous beliefs. And Paul, interestingly enough, was trying to make his own version of a rational point. He claimed to know many folks who were there and gave testimony to Christ's return. For the time I think that gave a kind of eye witness validity to the question of Jesus's post death existence.

The Jesus that steps up for me is the guy who preached the reciprocity principle as in "Do unto others ...., He who is without fault ...., The story of the good Samaritan, etc" in so many different ways. It is the most consistent theme in the New Testament. Much of the rest of the NT is simply copied from earlier narrative templates of other generally mythical figures, for instance the virgin birth and the resurrection.

 

As far as we know neither Mark or Luke walked with Jesus. Mark would have been too young and Luke would not have been accepted, being a Greek. So should we question your knowledge of the Bible?

 

Paul met Jesus, not a vision. Jesus IS Christianity. If you want to believe that
Paul had something to do with the development of Christianity, which he didn't,
then good for you.

The catholic church? Are you thinking of Peter, who had nothing to do with
the creation of the catholic church?

 

Didn't Paul say that people had to follow his (Paul's) doctrine?

 

Jesus IS Christianity. Paul simply reiterated what Jesus said. He didn't develop
Christianity because it didn't need to be developed. Jesus was sufficient.

Yes. Read the Bible.

As for the rest of your post, read the Bible. You are very unprepared.

 

You are correct, to a point. They were alive during the time of Jesus, not after.

No.

 

Jesus is every bit as mythical a figure as were Herakles and Mithras. His historicity is supported entirely by brow-beating and the prevalence of Christianity and other reinforcing faiths such as Islam, which chooses to recognise Jesus as real and a prophet, but not a son of Allah, than it is by any factual evidence. He's attested to by religious claims alone (a brief mention or two by Roman historians obviously based on & referring to said religious claims doesn't really count), and those claims contradict one another in even the most basic facts, while simultaneously following patterns familiar from other such mythical, religious stories.

Jesus was the Sun personified. He underwent trials that were inspired by and representative of the 12 houses of the Zodiac, kind of like how Herakles did in his 12 Labors, and was representative of the astrological age that was beginning right around that time, namely the Age of Pisces. That is why he came to be represented by the ichthys, the FISH. The Gospels are full of astrological motifs, e.g. Aquarius the water bearer (John the Baptist), Scorpio (Judas Iscariot, who gave him the skorpion's kiss when he betrayed him), the serpent/dragon (the same word in Greek (drakon), the language of the gospels), which is likely Serpens Caput, which is located in the sky near to Jesus's parents, Virgo and Boötes, i.e. Mary and Joseph. These constellations are high in the night sky in December, the month of Winter Solstice, when Jesus is both born and crucified, and His star appears in the East also to portend his rising. It is the very star that the *ahem* ASTROLOGERS ("magi" in Greek means astrologers!) followed in the various renditions of the Nativity. It is the star Sirius.

Speaking of the Nativity, one of the most astrological of all the New Testament texts is the Apocalypse (aka Revelation), where a great deal of astronomical and astrological imagery is used with many references to signs in the sky. That is pretty much astrology by definition. Returning to the Nativity, chapter 12 of that book starts out retelling the Nativity story, but without all of the same allegorical imagery as that used in the gospel versions. I quote:

The Woman, the Child, and the Dragon

12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

The dragon was portrayed as King Herod in the gospel stories. Here he is more true to his original heavenly image as a serpent/dragon since he is described as such.

It's like the parables Jesus allegedly used. The wise men of ancient times told stories based on this astrological "wisdom." To them, this knowledge was divine, something handed down by God, and something which they revealed to everyone else only in disguise, in parables. The entire Gospel is a parable.

 

Luke is reputed to be a student of Paul and never met Jesus. The author of Mark is unknown.

The fact of the matter is that we do not know if either was alive during the time of Jesus.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

ROFL Paul had a vision. He never met Jesus while Jesus was still alive and certainly not after the death of Jesus.

Galatians 1

It was through revelation that Paul claims to have received the Gospel. Jesus did not sit down and teach Paul. Paul never met Jesus. It all happened in his mind.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<< There are no eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. The Gospels were all written long after Jesus had died and none of them were written by the disciples.

 

No. I simply used his links to refute his own post.

 

Actually genetic studies worldwide have traced mankind to one women and possibly two males in central africa, where their names Adam and Eve, who knows but we had to start somewhere, so you were saying?

 

You do know that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam (those are scientists' names for them BTW, we have no idea what they were actually named) are supposed have lived thousands of years apart, yes?

 

Mark

Luke was a physician. He traveled with Paul. Not sure where you came up
with him being a student of Paul.

Serious question, have you ever studied, not just read, the Bible? It appears
that you've only looked things up in the Internet

 

Matthew and John were disciples. Peter was a disciple, Jude was Jesus'
brother.

No eyewitnesses? Try again?

 

They do not know they lived at different times and the idea really does not make a whole lot of sense, now does it.

 

Don't you wonder where some get their knowledge of Christianity, it is obvious that it sure was not the Bible.

 

Yes, they do. They have more evidence that they lived thousands of years apart than they do that their names were "Adam" and "Eve".

You do understand that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam were not the first humans, yes?

 

Yes I understand that, but here is bit of Logic for you; somewhere along the line there had to be a first true man that breeds with a women, whether she is the first are not is not important, but that first couple were the founders of all mankind.

 

Except that individuals don't evolve. Populations do.

 

Not always at the same rate. Heck this site is proof of that, sorry could not resist.