Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (the Kitzmiller vs Dover Trial)

SkepticThinker · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
Are you kidding? You missed the parts where Jesus spoke with them? Hmm...

John 21:20-24

20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. This was the one who had leaned against Jesus at the meal and asked him, “Lord, who is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw this disciple, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you? You must follow me.” 23 Therefore, the word spread among the brothers and sisters that this disciple wouldn’t die. However, Jesus didn’t say he wouldn’t die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

I don't understand how anyone could say that Matthew, John and Peter were not with Jesus when the NT text indicates that they clearly were with Him.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
Are you kidding? You missed the parts where Jesus spoke with them? Hmm...

You're not listening.

You're ... not ... listening.

Quote me the part where the author of Matthew says "I was there and I saw ,,,"

Quote me the part where the author of John says "I was there, and I saw ..."

What do you think an eye-witness is? The guy in the pub who once knew a guy whose aunt said she was at the Superbowl when the Packers won it for the third time? No, we need the aunt herself, to tell us in her own words what she saw.

Without that, all we have is hearsay. Hearsay 25 years after the purported event.

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
You're not listening.

You're ... not ... listening.

Quote me the part where the author of Matthew says "I was there and I saw ,,,"

Quote me the part where the author of John says "I was there, and I saw ..."

What do you think an eye-witness is? The guy in the pub who once knew a guy whose aunt said she was at the Superbowl when the Packers won it for the third time? No, we need the aunt herself, to tell us in her own words what she saw.

Without that, all we have is hearsay. Hearsay 25 years after the purported event.

Oh, my gosh, you're weird. Show me where any of your wonderful scientists say, "I was there in the beginning and I saw the big bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution." Stop being such a hypocrite.

SkepticThinker · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
They only differ on small things, like any testimony involving more than one witness does. They all say the same thing about Jesus as Son of God, His death on the cross and His resurrection.

The rest of your points are moot. Many Bible scholars agree with me, some don't. No biggie-da.

Hmm, so I guess eyewitness accounts are unreliable after all. Never mind secondhand and hearsay accounts, which is what we have here.

Nice attempt to brush me off. How about address the 500 "witnesses" and the zombies?

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

SkepticThinker said:
Hmm, so I guess eyewitness accounts are unreliable after all. Never mind secondhand and hearsay accounts, which is what we have here.

Nice attempt to brush me off. How about address the 500 "witnesses" and the zombies?

There are not and never were any zombies in the Bible. You will either apologize for that remark or our little discussion is over.

I didn't brush you off. It is mentioned that 500 witnesses saw Jesus after He resurrected. No one has ever to this day provided a valid challenge to that claim.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
Show me where any of your wonderful scientists say, "I was there in the beginning and I saw the big bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution."

Right, we've established that there's not a single eye-witness account of the resurrection in the NT or anywhere else.

This is progress.

Stevicus said:
Stop being such a hypocrite.

I never claimed to have an eyewitness to the Big Bang. But you claimed to have plural eyewitnesses to the resurrection ─ and as we see, you don't.

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
Right, we've established that there's not a single eye-witness account of the resurrection in the NT or anywhere else.

This is progress.
I never claimed to have an eyewitness to the Big Bang. But you claimed to have plural eyewitnesses to the resurrection ─ and as we see, you don't.

We haven't established anything. You've established a bunch of poppycock is all. Yes, we have the testimony and if you don't like it that's on you, not the testimony itself.

My point is that you must have someone say, "I was with Jesus" before you'll believe he was yet you believe your flimsy scientific theories based on far less than eyewitness testimony.

You've been exposed as the hypocrite you are. If you're scientists weren't there and didn't see it, why should I believe it? That's using your own logic against you, you hypocrite.

SkepticThinker · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
How about I tell you to go stick your head in a toilet and flush? There are not and never were any zombies in the Bible. You will either apologize for that remark or our little discussion is over.

Or I could just accept your apology:

Matthew 27:51-53
51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Again, nobody else thought it was noteworthy to mention that a bunch of dead people rose from their graves and started walking around?

DavidFirth said:
I didn't brush you off. It is mentioned that 500 witnesses saw Jesus after He resurrected. No one has ever to this day provided a valid challenge to that claim.

Sure you did, in that you didn't even bother addressing it. I'm challenging it right now. I'm not the first, either, that's for sure. How do we actually know that there were 500 witnesses? Anyone can declare any number of witnesses to anything. But without those 500 testimonies, there's no actual way to determine that. We certainly don't have photographs or anything.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
We haven't established anything.

We've established that you don't have a single eye-witness account of the resurrection. Not even a purported one.

DavidFirth said:
My point is that you must have someone say, "I was with Jesus" before you'll believe he was

My point is that your evidence for the resurrection isn't even a teensy bit credible. And that's before we get to the part where extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration.

DavidFirth said:
You've been exposed as the hypocrite you are

You claimed you had eyewitnesses.

You have no eyewitnesses.

And now you're trying to change the topic because you don't want to say "You're right, I have no eyewitnesses."

SkepticThinker · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
We haven't established anything. You've established a bunch of poppycock is all. Yes, we have the testimony and ifThis is you don't like it that's on you, not the testimony itself.

My point is that you must have someone say, "I was with Jesus" before you'll believe he was yet you believe your flimsy scientific theories based on far less than eyewitness testimony.

John 21:20-24

20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. This was the one who had leaned against Jesus at the meal and asked him, “Lord, who is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw this disciple, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you? You must follow me.” 23 Therefore, the word spread among the brothers and sisters that this disciple wouldn’t die. However, Jesus didn’t say he wouldn’t die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

DavidFirth said:
You've been exposed as the hypocrite you are. If you're scientists weren't there and didn't see it, why should I believe it? That's using your own logic against you, you hypocrite.

"Were you there" is your argument and your line of logic. You are the one asserting that there were eyewitness accounts to the death of Jesus.

P.S. Scientific theories are based on a helluva lot more evidence than just some eyewitness account that isn't actually an eyewitness account. Did you miss the part about eyewitness accounts being notoriously unreliable, by the way?

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

SkepticThinker said:
Or I could just accept your apology:

Matthew 27:51-53
51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Again, nobody else thought it was noteworthy to mention that a bunch of dead people rose from their graves and started walking around?

Sure you did, in that you didn't even bother addressing it. I'm challenging it right now. I'm not the first, either, that's for sure. How do we actually know that there were 500 witnesses? Anyone can declare any number of witnesses to anything. But without those 500 testimonies, there's no actual way to determine that. We certainly don't have photographs or anything.

Zombies are not mentioned because they weren't zombies. You just threw that in to be insensitive and you got called out on it. And you can't defend it.

How do you actually know anything you believe? You haven't seen your own brain, do you doubt it exists?

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
We've established that you don't have a single eye-witness account of the resurrection. Not even a purported one.
My point is that your evidence for the resurrection isn't even a teensy bit credible. And that's before we get to the part where extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration.
You claimed you had eyewitnesses.

You have no eyewitnesses.

And now you're trying to change the topic because you don't want to say "You're right, I have no eyewitnesses."

You are like a broken record. Yes, we do have eyewitness accounts, whether you accept them as such or not, doesn't matter. Keep on arguing, though, if it makes you feel better.

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

SkepticThinker said:
John 21:20-24

20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. This was the one who had leaned against Jesus at the meal and asked him, “Lord, who is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw this disciple, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you? You must follow me.” 23 Therefore, the word spread among the brothers and sisters that this disciple wouldn’t die. However, Jesus didn’t say he wouldn’t die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

"Were you there" is your argument and your line of logic. You are the one asserting that there were eyewitness accounts to the death of Jesus.

P.S. Scientific theories are based on a helluva lot more evidence than just some eyewitness account that isn't actually an eyewitness account. Did you miss the part about eyewitness accounts being notoriously unreliable, by the way?

Wrong. He said that because Matthew didn't say "I was there and I was with Jesus" means he wasn't there with Jesus. That's where my argument came from.

The eyewitness accounts are totally 100% reliable. Your theories may or may not be. That's the difference. If you don't accept the eyewitness accounts, then that's fine, but they still are there and still are valid, no matter what you say about them.

SkepticThinker · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
Wrong. He said that because Matthew didn't say "I was there and I was with Jesus" means he wasn't there with Jesus. That's where my argument came from.

John said that he was not an eyewitness. John said he got his story from someone else. Therefore, John's story is not an eyewitness account.

DavidFirth said:
The eyewitness accounts are totally 100% reliable. Your theories may or may not be. That's the difference. If you don't accept the eyewitness accounts, then that's fine, but they still are there and still are valid, no matter what you say about them.

Please demonstrate that the accounts in the Bible (they're not eyewitness accounts) are 100% reliable. I have no idea how you actually plan on doing that. But I'll wait.

Sapiens · Sep 8, 2017

stevevw said:
Lynches paper was not meant to prove ID but as I said show that natural selection has been overstated for the creation of complex life and that there were other processes that were more responsible and some of those Lynch does not go into. Nor was his paper meant to be seen in isolation from the other papers which go into other processes that minimize natural selections an have more influence over how life can change or change their enviroments. The Nature paper " does evolution need a rethink" mentions that these other processes have been viewed as just noise and put to the the sidelines and selection has been attributed instead ie,

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

The point is Natural selection is only one part of the whole process of how complex life changes and according to Lynch played litttle if any part in how complex life came about and that these other processes show that complexity in life arose early and needed to be there early well before evolution by natural selection could have gradually created such complexity in life. The other processes show that there are preset and inbuilt mechanisms within living things, between living things and their enviroments and abilities by living things in being able to help adapt themselves to their enviroments that dont rely on materialistic natural processes that are a blind but rather are designed to purposely help life live with each other and in their enviroments.

There is nothing there that suggests that any other than the most overly simplistic view of Natural Selection is placed into question. There is, most assuredly no argument made for any form on unnatural selection.

DavidFirth said:
Jesus proved it when He rose from the dead.

Never happened, to make a case for either the existence of Jesus or the Resurrection an entirely new and questionable method of historical inquiry had to be invented, one that is not where near as robust as the standard methodologies of looking for, and at, contemporaneous eyewitness reports.

DavidFirth said:
They only differ on small things, like any testimony involving more than one witness does. They all say the same thing about Jesus as Son of God, His death on the cross and His resurrection.

The rest of your points are moot. Many Bible scholars agree with me, some don't. No biggie-da.

Most bible scholars are too afraid of having to actually work for a living, so they try to protect their cushy, but crumbing rice-bowl.

DavidFirth said:
Oh, my gosh, you're weird. Show me where any of your wonderful scientists say, "I was there in the beginning and I saw the big bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution." Stop being such a hypocrite.

There is data to support science, data from multiple and supporting sources. There is only the bible fairy tale to support your claims, no outside independent support.

DavidFirth said:
We haven't established anything. You've established a bunch of poppycock is all. Yes, we have the testimony and if you don't like it that's on you, not the testimony itself.

The testimony is not supported by anything at all.

DavidFirth said:
My point is that you must have someone say, "I was with Jesus" before you'll believe he was yet you believe your flimsy scientific theories based on far less than eyewitness testimony.

You have it backwards, the science is supported by multiple robust sources, the bible is not.

DavidFirth said:
You've been exposed as the hypocrite you are. If you're scientists weren't there and didn't see it, why should I believe it? That's using your own logic against you, you hypocrite.

You are the hypocrite and that your arguments are baseless.

DavidFirth said:
Zombies are not mentioned because they weren't zombies. You just threw that in to be insensitive and you got called out on it. And you can't defend it.

How do you actually know anything you believe? You haven't seen your own brain, do you doubt it exists?

Dead people walking about, in modern parlance, zombies.

DavidFirth said:
You are like a broken record. Yes, we do have eyewitness accounts, whether you accept them as such or not, doesn't matter. Keep on arguing, though, if it makes you feel better.

Then please either identify your eyewitness accounts or stop making such a claim.

DavidFirth said:
Wrong. He said that because Matthew didn't say "I was there and I was with Jesus" means he wasn't there with Jesus. That's where my argument came from.

The eyewitness accounts are totally 100% reliable. Your theories may or may not be. That's the difference. If you don't accept the eyewitness accounts, then that's fine, but they still are there and still are valid, no matter what you say about them.

You claim they are "reliable." On what basis? What supporting evidence can you produce, all you have is the circular argument that it says so in the bible.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
we do have eyewitness accounts

No you don't. I know this because I've looked for them and there's none; and because if you really had any, you'd have quoted them instead of trailing red herrings and pretending.

By all means believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith.

But it remains the fact that the evidence for it is of a very low grade ─ I've set out reasons for you before but if you want me to take you through them again, just ask ─ and no impartial but informed onlooker will believe it.

DavidFirth · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
No you don't. I know this because I've looked for them and there's none; and because if you really had any, you'd have quoted them instead of trailing red herrings and pretending.

By all means believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith.

But it remains the fact that the evidence for it is of a very low grade ─ I've set out reasons for you before but if you want me to take you through them again, just ask ─ and no impartial but informed onlooker will believe it.

Translation: I don't believe the Gospel.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

DavidFirth said:
Translation: I don't believe the Gospel.

The NT is a set of documents two millennia old of uncertain provenance and to be read as any ancient documents are to be read. For all aspects of them, the question, as ever, is, What's true in reality?

DavidFirth · Sep 9, 2017

blü 2 said:
The NT is a set of documents two millennia old of uncertain provenance and to be read as any ancient documents are to be read. For all aspects of them, the question, as ever, is, What's true in reality?

You mean to tell me your scientists can't tell you so that you have to ask me?

John 14:6

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (the Kitzmiller vs Dover Trial)

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Polymathematician

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member