Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
True. Didn't Paul even say it in one of the epistles that he never met Jesus in person, only in a vision?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
So you admit the disciples were?
Shad
Veteran Member
If you mean the names given as the author's of the Gospels then no. That is a theological position.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Bad logic
MacDonald's isn't good food at all, doesn't mean that all other food is good. He just said that Paul wasn't an eyewitness at all.
Besides, if I remember right, Paul admitted to that he never met Jesus in person, that he only saw him in visions.
Shad
Veteran Member
His conversion was due to a vision. How much he was involved in Christianity as Saul, pre-conversion, is debatable. Some denominations make no claims of certainty between Paul and Saul while some follow tradition to a varying degree of certainty.
Mutation are copy errors; there is no such things as slippage mutations and nothing can be added or removed from to the gene.
In the beginning......and they live happily ever after.
Or you don't understand what specific means.
Give me the verses and I will respond. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Theological or not, the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
I asked a question, I didn't state a premise or a conclusion. No logic involved there.
gnostic
The Lost One
You really don't know what you are talking about.
None of the gospels had the authors' names attached to the texts. They were all anonymously written, the authors unknown.
The "Gospel according to....", those name (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) are "attributed" to these supposed figures, added at some point in the early 2nd century.
Tell me, in the episode of Jesus' do you seriously believe the author was actually eye-witness in the palace of Herod the Great's palace?
According this "attribute", the author is supposedly "Matthew".
This would have been in 6 BCE. The gospel according to Matthew has been dated to as early 70 CE, but as late as 100 BCE. I highly doubt even if we were to use the earliest date of composition, I highlighted doubt the author would have "witnessed" as eyewitness.
Second, how would any of Jesus' have access to the palace. According to all the gospels, his apostles were supposedly men of simple backgrounds (before meeting Jesus), like fishermen, at least one zealot, Matthew (or Levi) who may have been a tax collector or publican, and others with unknown occupations. So I hardly doubt that any one of them would have access to Herod's palace at the time during Mary's pregnancy and Jesus' birth, and none of them were of noble birth or aristocrats.
The gospel supposedly written by "Mark", was composed earlier than Matthew's, and some part of do seemed to rely on Mark's gospel as source.
If Matthew did write that gospel, and if author was indeed one of Jesus' 12 apostles, then why would the author rely on Mark's gospel?
It doesn't make sense for a supposedly apostle and eyewitness would use someone else's writing, instead of his own.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Actually, it does. Search for it and read for yourself.
Some links for you:
Deletions and Insertions
Genetics: A Conceptual Approach
You say it doesn't exist in genetics, yet the textbooks in school talks about slippage, duplication, insertion, deletion, and much more.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Then your question was based on extremely poor ability to reason then.
Just because he said that Paul wasn't an eyewitness doesn't make Luke an eyewitness. Your question was irrational and illogical.
Duplication followed by other mutations on the copied gene can provide new information, allowing for a new function to emerge. This has been directly observed in bacteria. [1]
Mutation can affect a homeotic gene to alter phenotype, and if accumulate the phenothyptic change, you can end up with a new feature. For instance, the pair of wings in flies can be turned into halteres by modifying Ultrabithorax gene [2].
I didn't claim they would. Please read my comment carefully before answering.
The research paper features a phylogenetic tree made from comparing human, chimp and gorilla genomes, thus backing up the picture from The Scientific American and my claim that we can group humans with apes genetically.
Yes, you will place each of these four species in a different box, but to reflect the pattern of genetic similarity, you also need to bring the house cat and lion boxes together in a larger box and do llikewise with the bee and wasp boxes and another large box.
Demonstrably false! Ungulates (cows, horses, giraffes, hippos, whales, rhinoceros,...), tethytheres (elephants, sirenians,...) and rodents, for example, have sideways facing eyes. AFAIK, forward-facing eyes occur only in humans, primates and carnivorians, as far as placental mammals are concerned.
No, new world monkeys, for instance, have side-facing nostrils.
Semantic. The nails humans share only with primates are called "flat nail" as opposed to claws.
True if it were a criterion made in isolation, but in this case it's combined with other traits.
Irrelevant, ischial callosities is a feature of skin and occurs among Old World monkeys only.
If you had looked at [3], you'd have seen it elaborates on social and cognitive abilities of great apes and [4] mentions traits used in interactions like vocalizations and facial expressions.
I already cited those sources in a previous comment. So, you might need to address them by refering to other scientific sources; your layman's opinion here has no weight in comparison.
Not if you refer to the mirror test, (as pointed out in [5]). Whether this proves they have a concept of self comparable to us is disputable but the fact is that it shows recognize the reflection as themselves rather than another individual, unlike many other animals.
[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392837/
[2] journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014686
[3] anthropology.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Begun/evol%20origins%20g%20ape%20intell.pdf
[4] animaldiversity.org/accounts/Hominidae/
[5] journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001024
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Then all your demands for us to substantiate our claims were not in good faith....you never were going to look at them anyway. Such is the dishonest nature of creationism.
That you say that immediately after saying the above is testament to just how dishonest your approach to this subject is.
SInce you agree that resistance to antibiotics is a trait, then the evolution of new traits that were not present in the parents' genomes is an observed fact, as evidenced by a common BIO 101 experiment, and the experiments described in the papers I posted.
You being too scared to look at them does not make them go away.
I have quit checking evo links. If you want to go to your link and cut and past the evidence they provided, I will respond.
