There is an ePub template for Pages but it's not very pretty
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowney
Actually, it is quite good if you take the time to explore it beyond the admittedly terse tech notes.
Pages can export to ePub but the results are not pretty, at least not for the book I designed. It was basically shredded beyond recognition. I'm looking for a tighter integration with Pages that cues you into how a document can be set up to work with the ePub format.
But once again we find that AI is really a political forum for Apple owners.
Likewise there are too many moving parts that mesh together in creation for it to have been an accident or random occurance and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
A rocket scientist would not just jump to a conclusion based on a hypothesis. I do not disagree that there are many wonders of the universe that 'could' be explained by the existence of a creator. The bible just doesn't happen to be one of them. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
If a creator wanted people to believe in the existace of a deity, inspiring humans to write the bible would have been at the very bottom of the list. It doesn't even take high school dropout to see that it is completely unbelievable except for the occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization.
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
Huh? Worshiping the creation rather than the creator? You lost me there and I don't even know how you reach that conclusion unless I don't fit your stereotype of what a Creationist should be. Although I do believe in the Bible, I'm not bringing it into the discussion at this point because I don't need a Bible to tell me that there was an intelligence that brought us and the world we live in into existence. As a matter of fact even the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God and that his creation testifies to all people that he is, so again we should be able to get that much by simple observation. I can understand how people would question various religious systems in this world but I fail to see how anyone can take a look at all that is around us and say that there was nobody that was behind it all. It seems to me that we should all be able to at least agree on that point even if we may disagree on who the creator is or what he is like.
Blasphemy? No Blasphemy here. I don't think the folks on the "Religious Right" are wound nearly as tight as you make them out to be.
Not really. Evolutionary zealots are just as easily brainwashed as biblical zealots. All he proves is that he can't think for himself but rather needs someone to do his thinking for him, be it a scientist with an agenda or a preacher with one.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Evolution is real, as we can easily see it in action, for example as pathogens mutate and become drug resistant.
I'm guessing this is not the place to discuss the scientific proof or otherwise of a currently popular mythology.
However if you seriously believe that the whole question of biological evolution can be solved by appealing to the rise of drug resistance in pathogens, then you have no idea of the complexities involved and the issues that many scientists (creation believing or otherwise) have with macroevolution. Antibiotic resistance was noted in bacteria just a few years after the discovery of penicillin and I know of no biological scientist (creation believing or otherwise) who is unaware of this. You need to find out what people believe if you are going to argue against them. Otherwise this amounts to little more than a straw man argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Creation may be real as well but there is no proof. In any case it is pretty obvious that it did not happen as stated in the bible. There are just too many inconsistencies with the natural world.
Funny, because your statement "pretty obvious" suggests that you think this is self-evident and needs no more support? There are many people that would disagree with you, myself included. I see much in the world about me that is consistent with a biblical view, and less that isn't. For myself more research is needed in particular areas but I'd never dismiss it out of hand as pretty obviously inconsistent with what's there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
A rocket scientist would not just jump to a conclusion based on a hypothesis. I do not disagree that there are many wonders of the universe that 'could' be explained by the existence of a creator. The bible just doesn't happen to be one of them. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I'm presuming that you would characterize yourself as knowing enough about creation and evolution to state that they are not mutually exclusive? This is a point of view held by some yes, but hardly one to be stated as a fact without some qualification that there are both many christians and non-christians who find that creation as outlined in the bible and biological macroevolution to be mutually exclusive in their estimation. In fact this is often a key point where many on both sides can agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If a creator wanted people to believe in the existace of a deity, inspiring humans to write the bible would have been at the very bottom of the list. It doesn't even take high school dropout to see that it is completely unbelievable except for the occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization.
Why would inspiring humans to write the bible have been at the very bottom of the list? Maybe just for you perhaps? For the many millions of bible-believing christians out there it was clearly enough....
And this is where if one wanted to, they could say you're becoming insulting and irrational using words like "high school dropout" (granted, many don't believe the bible), and sweeping generalizations such as "completely unbelievable". To say that the bible amounts to an "occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization" is not consistent with the reality where many university-educated archaeologists and scientists regard it as a very reliable historical tool, even some who would not call themselves christians. You're not arguing anymore - certainly not from a rational point of view anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
And what are you trying to say? It sounds like you're wanting to introduce the words "ridiculous claims of the religious right" for your own agenda, even though as you admit - his argument fails to mention them... Why do you mention them then? Since this is, as you say "speculation", it would have been better to have been left unsaid. Otherwise you could be accused of attempting to marginalize him through guilt by association and not sticking to the points at hand. It may well be that he believes those claims (maybe I do too but you haven't defined what they are so I wouldn't know). Either way it does nothing to advance your argument and is irrelevant if he hasn't mentioned them.
Although I do believe in the Bible, I'm not bringing it into the discussion at this point because I don't need a Bible to tell me that there was an intelligence that brought us and the world we live in into existence.
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
As incredible as the stories are that you referred to from the Bible, I've got one that tops those. There are supposedly enlightened and educated people who want me to believe that living organisms and a environment, thats workings go beyond our ability to comprehend, could have somehow come about on its own out of nothing. What is the likelihood that the computer that you are currently using could have happened on its own out of nothing? Creation is much more complex than a computer could possibly be. We understand computers but we don't understand all of creation. It's obvious to me that someone greater than we are put it here. Even the founders of this country used this argument, "We hold these truths to be "self-evident" that all men were created equal..." The truth is in front of you and is self-evident if you will let it speak to you.
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
You are a hieratic. The lowest common denominator has always been that you are a sinner and Jesus is your savior, offering everlasting life. If you try any other tact to evangelize the unbeliever you are outside of the approved doctrine. You need to visit your indoctrination representative for reprogramming.
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
As incredible as the stories are that you referred to from the Bible, I've got one that tops those. There are supposedly enlightened and educated people who want me to believe that living organisms and a environment, thats workings go beyond our ability to comprehend, could have somehow come about on its own out of nothing. What is the likelihood that the computer that you are currently using could have happened on its own out of nothing? Creation is much more complex than a computer could possibly be. We understand computers but we don't understand all of creation. It's obvious to me that someone greater than we are put it here. Even the founders of this country used this argument, "We hold these truths to be "self-evident" that all men were created equal..." The truth is in front of you and is self-evident if you will let it speak to you.
You're obfuscating the difference between science and religion. Science clearly shows that things happen for a reason. Cause and effect. This is the result of man's inability to accept change and/or lose a pinnacle position of power on an issue. There are rules that govern psychical actions. Science doesn't know everything, and many hypothesis are wrong, but the goal is to find answers, not simply saying this must be so without the ability to question it.
Organized religion takes the easy way by claiming there is an intelligent design to what we don't understand. There are unverifiable stories that are passed from generation to generation that explain basic right and wrong, and general rules about keeping societies functioning, but they also come with a lot of what seems like filler material of magical things that go against the known laws of the universe. That doesn't mean that anything within a religion is wrong but it's not scientific in nature. It's designed to ignore what you know and instead to base the core of your existence on faith.
Often science is vilified because things that were canon are now undeniably in opposition to religion. The thing is real scientists don't care about how it affects a religion they care about the truth, and most scientists throughout history do seem to have a core faith.
Now do you really think that organisms can't and don't change despite the very real efforts by man in agriculture, animal husbandry and mapping of genomes. We understand these things quite well which is why evolution as a theory — not a hypothesis — is as undeniable a truth as the sun will rise tomorrow morning from the same side of the sky.
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
I don't know that resurrection is believable - but I and many other educated and non-educated people believe it happened.
Mate, there are many times in the gospels where the very people who follow Jesus, the disciples themselves, find it hard to believe that he rose from the dead.
The disciples wont believe Mary Magdalene when she tells them (Mark 16:11).
Thomas wont believe the other disciples when they tell him (John 20:24-25)
Thomas even says that, unless he sees the nail wounds in Jesus' hands and where the spear pierced his side he will never believe....
And when Jesus finally leaves them again after spending more than a month after rising from the dead with them (after the above incidents), some of the 11 disciples (so not just Thomas now, but more of them) still doubt (Matthew 28:17).
Say what you like about the writers of the gospels but at least they're honest in this respect.
You'll find little disagreement about whether miraculous events are "unbelievable" or otherwise from Christians. But whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
I don't know that resurrection is believable - but I and many other educated and non-educated people believe it happened.
Mate, there are many times in the gospels where the very people who follow Jesus, the disciples themselves, find it hard to believe that he rose from the dead.
The disciples wont believe Mary Magdalene when she tells them (Mark 16:11).
Thomas wont believe the other disciples when they tell him (John 20:24-25)
Thomas even says that, unless he sees the nail wounds in Jesus' hands and where the spear pierced his side he will never believe....
And when Jesus finally leaves them again after spending more than a month after rising from the dead with them (after the above incidents), some of the 11 disciples (so not just Thomas now, but more of them) still doubt (Matthew 28:17).
Say what you like about the writers of the gospels but at least they're honest in this respect.
You'll find little disagreement about whether miraculous events are "unbelievable" or otherwise from Christians. But whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
How is any of that honest? I'm not saying it's dishonest but you have presented nothing that proves the writers were honest.
Ok my excuse is I am typing on an iPad but as a rebuttal is well ... You need to come up with something more substantive.
Your characterization of evangelism is ridiculous and I was answering one ridiculous point with another.
But I really don't need to say anything more, because I've already told you what I believe to be true. If you don't agree with what I'm saying then that is your choice. I have no desire to argue with anybody to get them to go against their own will. God doesn't work that way so I certainly shouldn't.
whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
Curious how no one ever photographs any miracles now that we have cameras. Closest thing we have is a vague representation of jesus on a piece of toast. Is god on vacation because as much as he was involved with the biblical saints, he seems to have bailed on us in last few hundred years or so.
How is any of that honest? I'm not saying it's dishonest but you have presented nothing that proves the writers were honest.
I mean honest as in being honest that these sort of events are hard to believe for people - even if they saw them with their own eyes. They don't try to portray the disciples as people who just accepted everything at face value and never doubted. No, they struggled with their doubts. Maybe there was a better word than "honest" to use but I wasn't saying more than that.
I mean honest as in being honest that these sort of events are hard to believe for people - even if they saw them with their own eyes. They don't try to portray the disciples as people who just accepted everything at face value and never doubted. No, they struggled with their doubts. Maybe there was a better word than "honest" to use but I wasn't saying more than that.
Does that make sense?
Oh, I know damned well what you were getting it. That's not being honest, that's writing. Fiction authors always have characters that have doubts and change their viewpoints. Change is part of a story. It adds drama. It's adds suspense. It endears the character to us because it makes them seem more human. That's not to say that what is written is not truthful but it is in no way proof of any honesty.
Curious how no one ever photographs any miracles now that we have cameras. Closest thing we have is a vague representation of jesus on a piece of toast. Is god on vacation because as much as he was involved with the biblical saints, he seems to have bailed on us in last few hundred years or so.
Yes that's an interesting thought. But you only have to look at all the explanations by people who disbelieve that the world trade centre bombings ever happened to realize that photographing or filming a miracle would not necessarily verify them for people who don't believe that they can occur in the first place....
Now I'm definitely not calling you one of those people. I just using it as an analogy that if you don't believe in something, sometimes no amount of evidence to the contrary can change that.
I'm guessing that both you and I know that the planes hit the world trade centre. I certainly saw the film and it seems pretty clear to my way of thinking but there are still those who wont believe and go into very technical details to explain how they could be faked. But seriously those guys are crackpots aren't they? I mean there are eyewitnesses who saw it.... There are people who lost family....
It's still instructional on just how far people are willing to go in their minds to disregard evidence.
I might be guilty of the same thing in being a Christian ha but I hope I'm not.
Oh, I know damned well what you were getting it. That's not being honest, that's writing. Fiction authors always have characters that have doubts and change their viewpoints. Change is part of a story. It adds drama. It's adds suspense. It endears the character to us because it makes them seem more human. That's not to say that what is written is not truthful but it is in no way proof of any honesty.
Ok, so you've brought up the wonderfully current idea that maybe the gospel writers were actually being devious in their writing. And given the amount of historical fiction around today it would appear plausible to a cursory glance.
But modern historical fiction is almost unheard of if you go back more than a few hundred years. It's essentially a modern invention. The idea of writing everyday incidents and meaningless details into an account just so you will be deceived into thinking its real and then accepting that someone turned water into wine or rose from the dead as a result is an idea that only we today can use to explain the gospels away.
There was a lot of spiritual writing and myth written down in the ancient world and the gospels don't fit that determination. Even luke says at the beginning of his gospel that he is essentially just collating various accounts so his mate can know the truth.... While you may disagree that the accounts are real, there is precious little evidence that these guys were attempting to appeal to people credulity on the basis that you are suggesting.
Comments
Oh heck, there goes half the US population refusing to even look at this as it can't be true if Al's name is mentioned.
And no politics on AI OK!
Yeah I was equally surprised. Who'd av thunk it.
There is an ePub template for Pages but it's not very pretty
Actually, it is quite good if you take the time to explore it beyond the admittedly terse tech notes.
Pages can export to ePub but the results are not pretty, at least not for the book I designed. It was basically shredded beyond recognition. I'm looking for a tighter integration with Pages that cues you into how a document can be set up to work with the ePub format.
But once again we find that AI is really a political forum for Apple owners.
Likewise there are too many moving parts that mesh together in creation for it to have been an accident or random occurance and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
A rocket scientist would not just jump to a conclusion based on a hypothesis. I do not disagree that there are many wonders of the universe that 'could' be explained by the existence of a creator. The bible just doesn't happen to be one of them. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
If a creator wanted people to believe in the existace of a deity, inspiring humans to write the bible would have been at the very bottom of the list. It doesn't even take high school dropout to see that it is completely unbelievable except for the occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization.
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
I think what AI is thinking is that the tech specs of Gore's book perhaps influenced the project designers.
It will be a shame if the media runs with this. Apple's role in fixing education tomorrow is part of Steve's legacy.
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
Huh? Worshiping the creation rather than the creator? You lost me there and I don't even know how you reach that conclusion unless I don't fit your stereotype of what a Creationist should be. Although I do believe in the Bible, I'm not bringing it into the discussion at this point because I don't need a Bible to tell me that there was an intelligence that brought us and the world we live in into existence. As a matter of fact even the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God and that his creation testifies to all people that he is, so again we should be able to get that much by simple observation. I can understand how people would question various religious systems in this world but I fail to see how anyone can take a look at all that is around us and say that there was nobody that was behind it all. It seems to me that we should all be able to at least agree on that point even if we may disagree on who the creator is or what he is like.
Blasphemy? No Blasphemy here. I don't think the folks on the "Religious Right" are wound nearly as tight as you make them out to be.
Not really. Evolutionary zealots are just as easily brainwashed as biblical zealots. All he proves is that he can't think for himself but rather needs someone to do his thinking for him, be it a scientist with an agenda or a preacher with one.
Correct.
Evolution is real, as we can easily see it in action, for example as pathogens mutate and become drug resistant.
I'm guessing this is not the place to discuss the scientific proof or otherwise of a currently popular mythology.
However if you seriously believe that the whole question of biological evolution can be solved by appealing to the rise of drug resistance in pathogens, then you have no idea of the complexities involved and the issues that many scientists (creation believing or otherwise) have with macroevolution. Antibiotic resistance was noted in bacteria just a few years after the discovery of penicillin and I know of no biological scientist (creation believing or otherwise) who is unaware of this. You need to find out what people believe if you are going to argue against them. Otherwise this amounts to little more than a straw man argument.
Creation may be real as well but there is no proof. In any case it is pretty obvious that it did not happen as stated in the bible. There are just too many inconsistencies with the natural world.
Funny, because your statement "pretty obvious" suggests that you think this is self-evident and needs no more support? There are many people that would disagree with you, myself included. I see much in the world about me that is consistent with a biblical view, and less that isn't. For myself more research is needed in particular areas but I'd never dismiss it out of hand as pretty obviously inconsistent with what's there.
A rocket scientist would not just jump to a conclusion based on a hypothesis. I do not disagree that there are many wonders of the universe that 'could' be explained by the existence of a creator. The bible just doesn't happen to be one of them. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I'm presuming that you would characterize yourself as knowing enough about creation and evolution to state that they are not mutually exclusive? This is a point of view held by some yes, but hardly one to be stated as a fact without some qualification that there are both many christians and non-christians who find that creation as outlined in the bible and biological macroevolution to be mutually exclusive in their estimation. In fact this is often a key point where many on both sides can agree.
If a creator wanted people to believe in the existace of a deity, inspiring humans to write the bible would have been at the very bottom of the list. It doesn't even take high school dropout to see that it is completely unbelievable except for the occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization.
Why would inspiring humans to write the bible have been at the very bottom of the list? Maybe just for you perhaps? For the many millions of bible-believing christians out there it was clearly enough....
And this is where if one wanted to, they could say you're becoming insulting and irrational using words like "high school dropout" (granted, many don't believe the bible), and sweeping generalizations such as "completely unbelievable". To say that the bible amounts to an "occasional verifiable anthropology record of early civilization" is not consistent with the reality where many university-educated archaeologists and scientists regard it as a very reliable historical tool, even some who would not call themselves christians. You're not arguing anymore - certainly not from a rational point of view anyway.
Although completely boiler plate, the fact that your argument fails to mention any of the more ridiculous claims of the religious right, leads me to speculate that you are not all that convinced either. Otherwise you might be considered leaning towards blasphemy as you appear to be worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
And what are you trying to say? It sounds like you're wanting to introduce the words "ridiculous claims of the religious right" for your own agenda, even though as you admit - his argument fails to mention them... Why do you mention them then? Since this is, as you say "speculation", it would have been better to have been left unsaid. Otherwise you could be accused of attempting to marginalize him through guilt by association and not sticking to the points at hand. It may well be that he believes those claims (maybe I do too but you haven't defined what they are so I wouldn't know). Either way it does nothing to advance your argument and is irrelevant if he hasn't mentioned them.
Although I do believe in the Bible, I'm not bringing it into the discussion at this point because I don't need a Bible to tell me that there was an intelligence that brought us and the world we live in into existence.
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
As incredible as the stories are that you referred to from the Bible, I've got one that tops those. There are supposedly enlightened and educated people who want me to believe that living organisms and a environment, thats workings go beyond our ability to comprehend, could have somehow come about on its own out of nothing. What is the likelihood that the computer that you are currently using could have happened on its own out of nothing? Creation is much more complex than a computer could possibly be. We understand computers but we don't understand all of creation. It's obvious to me that someone greater than we are put it here. Even the founders of this country used this argument, "We hold these truths to be "self-evident" that all men were created equal..." The truth is in front of you and is self-evident if you will let it speak to you.
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
You are a hieratic. The lowest common denominator has always been that you are a sinner and Jesus is your savior, offering everlasting life. If you try any other tact to evangelize the unbeliever you are outside of the approved doctrine. You need to visit your indoctrination representative for reprogramming.
You are a hieratic. .
And you are a bad speller.
Because I'm looking at the lowest common denominator of what people ought to be able to ascertain on their own. I know that not everybody believes the Bible and my point is that even if you take the Bible out of the picture that your own common sense ought to tell you that this world is no accident.
As incredible as the stories are that you referred to from the Bible, I've got one that tops those. There are supposedly enlightened and educated people who want me to believe that living organisms and a environment, thats workings go beyond our ability to comprehend, could have somehow come about on its own out of nothing. What is the likelihood that the computer that you are currently using could have happened on its own out of nothing? Creation is much more complex than a computer could possibly be. We understand computers but we don't understand all of creation. It's obvious to me that someone greater than we are put it here. Even the founders of this country used this argument, "We hold these truths to be "self-evident" that all men were created equal..." The truth is in front of you and is self-evident if you will let it speak to you.
You're obfuscating the difference between science and religion. Science clearly shows that things happen for a reason. Cause and effect. This is the result of man's inability to accept change and/or lose a pinnacle position of power on an issue. There are rules that govern psychical actions. Science doesn't know everything, and many hypothesis are wrong, but the goal is to find answers, not simply saying this must be so without the ability to question it.
Organized religion takes the easy way by claiming there is an intelligent design to what we don't understand. There are unverifiable stories that are passed from generation to generation that explain basic right and wrong, and general rules about keeping societies functioning, but they also come with a lot of what seems like filler material of magical things that go against the known laws of the universe. That doesn't mean that anything within a religion is wrong but it's not scientific in nature. It's designed to ignore what you know and instead to base the core of your existence on faith.
Often science is vilified because things that were canon are now undeniably in opposition to religion. The thing is real scientists don't care about how it affects a religion they care about the truth, and most scientists throughout history do seem to have a core faith.
Now do you really think that organisms can't and don't change despite the very real efforts by man in agriculture, animal husbandry and mapping of genomes. We understand these things quite well which is why evolution as a theory — not a hypothesis — is as undeniable a truth as the sun will rise tomorrow morning from the same side of the sky.
And you are a bad speller.
Ok my excuse is I am typing on an iPad but as a rebuttal is well ... You need to come up with something more substantive.
Why not bring it into the discussion? I want to hear you defend the talking snake and talking donkey, the parting of the Red Sea, the stoning to death of disobedient children and the raising of the dead, not to mention the resurrection of the messiah. That's all believable right?
I don't know that resurrection is believable - but I and many other educated and non-educated people believe it happened.
Mate, there are many times in the gospels where the very people who follow Jesus, the disciples themselves, find it hard to believe that he rose from the dead.
The disciples wont believe Mary Magdalene when she tells them (Mark 16:11).
Thomas wont believe the other disciples when they tell him (John 20:24-25)
Thomas even says that, unless he sees the nail wounds in Jesus' hands and where the spear pierced his side he will never believe....
And when Jesus finally leaves them again after spending more than a month after rising from the dead with them (after the above incidents), some of the 11 disciples (so not just Thomas now, but more of them) still doubt (Matthew 28:17).
Say what you like about the writers of the gospels but at least they're honest in this respect.
You'll find little disagreement about whether miraculous events are "unbelievable" or otherwise from Christians. But whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
I don't know that resurrection is believable - but I and many other educated and non-educated people believe it happened.
Mate, there are many times in the gospels where the very people who follow Jesus, the disciples themselves, find it hard to believe that he rose from the dead.
The disciples wont believe Mary Magdalene when she tells them (Mark 16:11).
Thomas wont believe the other disciples when they tell him (John 20:24-25)
Thomas even says that, unless he sees the nail wounds in Jesus' hands and where the spear pierced his side he will never believe....
And when Jesus finally leaves them again after spending more than a month after rising from the dead with them (after the above incidents), some of the 11 disciples (so not just Thomas now, but more of them) still doubt (Matthew 28:17).
Say what you like about the writers of the gospels but at least they're honest in this respect.
You'll find little disagreement about whether miraculous events are "unbelievable" or otherwise from Christians. But whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
How is any of that honest? I'm not saying it's dishonest but you have presented nothing that proves the writers were honest.
Ok my excuse is I am typing on an iPad but as a rebuttal is well ... You need to come up with something more substantive.
Your characterization of evangelism is ridiculous and I was answering one ridiculous point with another.
But I really don't need to say anything more, because I've already told you what I believe to be true. If you don't agree with what I'm saying then that is your choice. I have no desire to argue with anybody to get them to go against their own will. God doesn't work that way so I certainly shouldn't.
whether something is believable or not has little to do with whether the event has actually occurred in the first place. So defending it is not going to make it any more believable for you....
Curious how no one ever photographs any miracles now that we have cameras. Closest thing we have is a vague representation of jesus on a piece of toast. Is god on vacation because as much as he was involved with the biblical saints, he seems to have bailed on us in last few hundred years or so.
How is any of that honest? I'm not saying it's dishonest but you have presented nothing that proves the writers were honest.
I mean honest as in being honest that these sort of events are hard to believe for people - even if they saw them with their own eyes. They don't try to portray the disciples as people who just accepted everything at face value and never doubted. No, they struggled with their doubts. Maybe there was a better word than "honest" to use but I wasn't saying more than that.
Does that make sense?
I mean honest as in being honest that these sort of events are hard to believe for people - even if they saw them with their own eyes. They don't try to portray the disciples as people who just accepted everything at face value and never doubted. No, they struggled with their doubts. Maybe there was a better word than "honest" to use but I wasn't saying more than that.
Does that make sense?
Oh, I know damned well what you were getting it. That's not being honest, that's writing. Fiction authors always have characters that have doubts and change their viewpoints. Change is part of a story. It adds drama. It's adds suspense. It endears the character to us because it makes them seem more human. That's not to say that what is written is not truthful but it is in no way proof of any honesty.
Curious how no one ever photographs any miracles now that we have cameras. Closest thing we have is a vague representation of jesus on a piece of toast. Is god on vacation because as much as he was involved with the biblical saints, he seems to have bailed on us in last few hundred years or so.
Yes that's an interesting thought. But you only have to look at all the explanations by people who disbelieve that the world trade centre bombings ever happened to realize that photographing or filming a miracle would not necessarily verify them for people who don't believe that they can occur in the first place....
Now I'm definitely not calling you one of those people. I just using it as an analogy that if you don't believe in something, sometimes no amount of evidence to the contrary can change that.
I'm guessing that both you and I know that the planes hit the world trade centre. I certainly saw the film and it seems pretty clear to my way of thinking but there are still those who wont believe and go into very technical details to explain how they could be faked. But seriously those guys are crackpots aren't they? I mean there are eyewitnesses who saw it.... There are people who lost family....
It's still instructional on just how far people are willing to go in their minds to disregard evidence.
I might be guilty of the same thing in being a Christian ha
Oh, I know damned well what you were getting it. That's not being honest, that's writing. Fiction authors always have characters that have doubts and change their viewpoints. Change is part of a story. It adds drama. It's adds suspense. It endears the character to us because it makes them seem more human. That's not to say that what is written is not truthful but it is in no way proof of any honesty.
Ok, so you've brought up the wonderfully current idea that maybe the gospel writers were actually being devious in their writing. And given the amount of historical fiction around today it would appear plausible to a cursory glance.
But modern historical fiction is almost unheard of if you go back more than a few hundred years. It's essentially a modern invention. The idea of writing everyday incidents and meaningless details into an account just so you will be deceived into thinking its real and then accepting that someone turned water into wine or rose from the dead as a result is an idea that only we today can use to explain the gospels away.
There was a lot of spiritual writing and myth written down in the ancient world and the gospels don't fit that determination. Even luke says at the beginning of his gospel that he is essentially just collating various accounts so his mate can know the truth.... While you may disagree that the accounts are real, there is precious little evidence that these guys were attempting to appeal to people credulity on the basis that you are suggesting.