Poll: Evolution and the other side
- Thread starter AlexNora
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yours is not just ignorance, but WILLFUL ignorance.kidd25 said:
The sad thing? You're just as likely to breed as I am. Moreso, in fact, because you're probably unable to grasp even as unreliable a method as pull-out.
Incidentally, Jew is not a race - it's a verb.
your WILLFUL ignorance aren't getting us anywhere,[also i hope you raise a good child and he finds a good life on this earth.] <- this I truly mean.BlueMage said:
my bad Jews are a race. Btw i hope you know that if you keep this up i am only going to repeat what you said, so please do not keep this going for it won't get us anywhere.
And if anyone's wondering why it is so rare for actual scientists to give a creationist so much as the time of day outside a blog [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula] or a few youtube videos, it's because of that right there.
Or, to put it a little more succinctly:
Or, to put it a little more succinctly:
By who?sharks9 said:
What was it proven reliable for?
What were the standards of historical method used to prove the reliability?
What documents were used to prove the reliability?
What was the method of determination for the validity of the documents?
What was the method of verification for the authorship of the documents?
Unless something has changed very radically in the last five years (i.e. They finally found the 'Q' document and verified it), the type of reliability you're trying to portray is not the same level of reliability a historian would give it. The gist of the New Testament works fine in a narrative, but I wouldn't use it to portray anything about Roman civilization at the time. I certainly wouldn't use it to portray the story it presents in a "this is absolutely how it actually happened." It would be more of "Based upon the limitations of these and other documents, this is what I'm going to tell you."
If I was teaching a freshmen or high school class on world history, I'd give a cursory overview with the basics and include the more obscure religious beliefs as an aside. If I was teaching a class specifically on the subject of Christianity, I'd go into what the narrative says effected the growth of the religion and how other confirmed events might have effected it. If I was teaching a class of upper level undergrad students, I would set them on the evidence (the non-contemporary religious documents and the non-contemporary secular documents, as well as questionable authorship) with a strict method to find all the problems and completely destroy their identity.
Using a strict method, the historicity of Jesus is very very bad.
Using a less strict method, the historicity let's us say basic things about him in reference to the overall movement of Christianity (which is more important than one person).
Using a even less strict method, we can explain partially the changes in the movement based upon the religious texts and also add in the other explanations for the changes in the movement.
The historical reliability of the New Testament completely depends on what you're going to use it for.
Truth and history are not always the same thing. That's something that non-historians need to learn, badly. History is also not strictly a science. If you are just learning to become a historian by chance, pay very close attention to the "Historians are not merely couriers to the past," speech your historical method professor should give to you.
Various historians.mesoforte said:
The existence of Jesus and several events in the Gospels. (Such as his trial and crucifixion)mesoforte said:
They hold up quite well to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Oral_traditionmesoforte said:
External sources.mesoforte said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_canonical_Gospels#External_sources
Pretty sure this is a repeat question.mesoforte said:
There's debate over the authors of the gospels.mesoforte said:
Actually, the vast majority of scholars agree Jesus existed.mesoforte said:
Way to show you have no understanding of historicity and have done zero research on the subject.sharks9 said:
Let's begin with oral historicity standards as you listed then:
1. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.
Oh, you don't have that. There isn't a person alive at the estimated time of any of the Gospels or on any secular documents.
2. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.
You don't have all of them in agreement.
Particular conditions formulated.
1. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons.
Can't think of a specific event of importance reported correctly.
2. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.
During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it.
Oh, you don't have that. There were several different versions put up, and most were not in agreement.
3. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.]
You might have that, some consolation I guess?
4. The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.
You don't have that.
5 Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition ? had they considered it false ? must have made no such challenge
There were plenty of critical challenges, so that's a lean towards falsehood.
So, one out of the total? Granted, I wouldn't have used that particular test; but it was your choice.
Oh, and that wasn't a repeat question. If you can't tell the difference, you need to study the philosophy of history.