• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Fallacy Of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark

So, you want archeological evidence and DNA, etc. in order to believe in Jesus.

Well, here's 1st century evidence of Jesus carved in stone:


Excerpt: "The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.

Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written."
So basically all you have to show is a tomb? Tombs are not uncommon. It doesn't prove it was specifically Jesus' tomb, mch less demonstrate Jesus was resurrected. Basically, it boils down to "oh, here is a tomb. It must have belonged to Jesus. Mystery solved."

Now, DNA? How about you show me DNA evidence for ANY of the following individuals:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

If you can’t, then your standard is ill-conceived and unreasonable. And especially so since you can’t meet the standard yourself.
So you have no such evidence, only logical fallacies? Ok then, your BS Jesus claims are summarily dismissed.
 
So basically all you have to show is a tomb? Tombs are not uncommon. It doesn't prove it was specifically Jesus' tomb, mch less demonstrate Jesus was resurrected. Basically, it boils down to "oh, here is a tomb. It must have belonged to Jesus. Mystery solved."

You didn't even read the inscriptions on the ossuaries. No wonder you live in the dark.
So you have no such evidence, only logical fallacies? Ok then, your BS Jesus claims are summarily dismissed.
Where's your DNA from individuals from antiquity? You ran from that like a scalded baboon. All you could do is belch you that nonsense above. Pathetic.
 
You didn't even read the inscriptions on the ossuaries. No wonder you live in the dark.
I did. It doesn't change what I said.
Where's your DNA from individuals from antiquity? You ran from that like a scalded baboon. All you could do is belch you that nonsense above. Pathetic.
Where did I make any claims about anyone from antiquity? Oh right, I did not. Your attempt to deflect with a logical fallacy only shows how weak your position really is!
 
Where did I make any claims about anyone from antiquity? Oh right, I did not. Your attempt to deflect with a logical fallacy only shows how weak your position really is!

You wrote that DNA evidence from individuals from antiquity would be a good idea.

Where's your DNA for

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal ??
 
You wrote that DNA evidence from individuals from antiquity would be a good idea.
You're the one making the claim of a specific individual. You've been challenged to prove it. Not surprising you failed!
Where's your DNA for

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal ??
So you still have no DNA evidence to present and have to dishonestly try and turn things around? Still not surprising.
 
You wrote that DNA evidence from individuals from antiquity would be a good idea.

Where's your DNA for

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal ??

You realize we have Confucius’s tomb with his body inside right? Getting DNA evidence of him would be trivially easy.
 
You're the one making the claim of a specific individual. You've been challenged to prove it. Not surprising you failed!

So you still have no DNA evidence to present and have to dishonestly try and turn things around? Still not surprising.

YOU'RE THE ONE who wanted DNA evidence. You wrote: "Let's start with physical archeological evidence. DNA would be nice too."

Where's your DNA evidence for those I mentioned, Gordy???
 
YOU'RE THE ONE who wanted DNA evidence. You wrote: "Let's start with physical archeological evidence. DNA would be nice too."
You asked what objective evidence needed. I told you. Obviously you cannot deliver!
Where's your DNA evidence for those I mentioned, Gordy???
Where's yours? Where did I make any claims regarding anyone from antiquity to require evidence?
 
DNA evidence can only supply evidence that the remains from which the DNA was taken belonged to someone of a certain ethnic ancestry who lived in a certain span of time.

It does not demonstrate that anyone, Jesus or Confucius, performed any of the actions ascribed to the individual by historical accounts.

So DNA is irrelevant to BOTH sides of this argument.
 
You wrote that DNA evidence from individuals from antiquity would be a good idea.

Where's your DNA for

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal ??
If any of those people mentioned wound up to not really have existed, just being made up tales or amalgamations of different people, would that truly affect anything in the world? Since there are not religious imperatives or speciality put on any of these figures, then there is no need to prove their existence. Maybe they didn't exist and their cited works, quoted words, reported deeds either didn't happen at all or were someone else. How much would that change the world?
 
You do not understand the term "scientific theory"

NOTHING put out by Answers in Genesis qualifies as a "scientific theory"
You disregard as "unscientific" any "theory" that speculates regarding GOD's involvement. "NOTHING" put out by Answers in Genesis qualifies? Isn't that a broad brush? Who makes the rules, believers or non-believers? Shouldn't this be a consideration of BOTH?
 
Those are rules for Small Claims Court....are you saying that the existence of Jesus is a "Small Claim"?
The rules don't change, they are enhanced. The belief in CHRIST originated in a small insignificant land in an obscure part of this planet. Yet today, it is preached everywhere. That in and of itself is miraculous and should be regarded as proof of acceptance and truth. If not factual, do you suppose that it wouldn't have been disregarded by how, instead of growing and spreading everywhere?
 
You disregard as "unscientific" any "theory" that speculates regarding GOD's involvement. "NOTHING" put out by Answers in Genesis qualifies?
That is correct.
Isn't that a broad brush?
No.
Who makes the rules, believers or non-believers?
Science, reason, logic.
Shouldn't this be a consideration of BOTH?
No. When religion provides evidence for a god and biblical based claims, then it can be taken seriously.
The rules don't change, they are enhanced. The belief in CHRIST originated in a small insignificant land in an obscure part of this planet. Yet today, it is preached everywhere. That in and of itself is miraculous and should be regarded as proof of acceptance and truth. If not factual, do you suppose that it wouldn't have been disregarded by how, instead of growing and spreading everywhere?
It's nonsense like that is why religion is not taken seriously where science is concerned. That is little more than an argumentum ad populum.
 
You disregard as "unscientific" any "theory" that speculates regarding GOD's involvement. "NOTHING" put out by Answers in Genesis qualifies? Isn't that a broad brush? Who makes the rules, believers or non-believers? Shouldn't this be a consideration of BOTH?
Would you consider a non dentist qualified to pull your teeth?
 
Would you consider a non dentist qualified to pull your teeth?
What would make him a "non dentist" --- one who never studied the mouth & teeth or one who considers all aspects of the mouth & teeth? Clearly the individual who regards more than just what he sees and what he is told, is far more intuitive and would make him a better candidate...
 
What would make him a "non dentist" --- one who never studied the mouth & teeth or one who considers all aspects of the mouth & teeth? Clearly the individual who regards more than just what he sees and what he is told, is far more intuitive and would make him a better candidate...

So the answer is yes. No surprise
 
You disregard as "unscientific" any "theory" that speculates regarding GOD's involvement.
The words speculation and God are, by their and very definition, unscientific. It makes no sense that a religious believer would be offended by this.
The belief in CHRIST originated in a small insignificant land in an obscure part of this planet. Yet today, it is preached everywhere. That in and of itself is miraculous and should be regarded as proof of acceptance and truth. If not factual, do you suppose that it wouldn't have been disregarded by how, instead of growing and spreading everywhere?
Religious belief systems self-perpetuate and spread by preying on people's grief and fears, typically regarding death of self and loved ones, to convince them (including their young children) to join the religion, swearing up and down they believe the same. It's a simple cult initiation ritual. People are told that 1) they'll never again see their precious loved ones after death, unless they do as the cult says, in which case they'll be reunited, and 2) if the person still has the audacity to shun the religion, their living loved ones who are believers will alienate and/or pity them. Threats of detachment, contempt, disgust, alienation and estrangement from member loved ones during life, and threats of eternal separation from all loved ones at death, if one refuses the religion, is how religion has endured. That's not a miracle. Nor is it any "proof" of "truth." It's simple psychological extortion. Young children are indoctrinated with this method from the earliest possible ages. What you're saying is a "miracle" is actually intergenerational familial psychological abuse and extortion, in my view.
 
You disregard as "unscientific" any "theory" that speculates regarding GOD's involvement. "NOTHING" put out by Answers in Genesis qualifies? Isn't that a broad brush? Who makes the rules, believers or non-believers? Shouldn't this be a consideration of BOTH?

Any “theory” that includes imaginary beings is unscientific.
 
Any “theory” that includes imaginary beings is unscientific.
Indeed. Unscientific is one reason why ludicrous concepts like Creationism/ID is not taught in public schools.
 
Back
Top Bottom