Jesus' (yes that one) tomb found?

Doc Savage

New member
Pale Horse said:
Personally, I think it would take more faith to believe that the predictable events of the universe we can see with the naked eye are only random anarchy (if the bones are 'real') then to understand the cause and effect of a Creator's order. Once that concept is understood, the rest of the miracles of Christianity can be better realized and accepted.
Amen and amen!!
ClintonHammond said:
As faith is the surrender of reason and logic, no amount of evidence is capable of showing anyone the flaws in their religions, no matter how apparent they are.
Thank you for proving my point, as atheism and evolutionism are both faiths. Besides, mein fruend, I thought you were out of this conversation (though I am glad for your return).
ClintonHammond said:
Anymore than you could 'talk' someone out of any other viral infection.
*snicker*:rolleyes:
 
Atheism requires no faith... it only requires observation of evidence.

Same with evolution. Evolution is even easier to observe because it's going on around us all the time. Atheism is simple the natural response to a complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

"I am glad for your return"
I haven't.... except to pat Gustav on the back, cause he deserved it
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Atheism requires no faith...
Sure it does...you have to believe there is no God.
ClintonHammond said:
Evolution is even easier to observe because it's going on around us all the time.
Right...I saw a banana become a monkey (that then started spouting poetry) just the other day. He's now a preaching folk singer in leather pants.
ClintonHammond said:
I haven't.... except to pat Gustav on the back, cause he deserved it
So you're skulking...admit it, you like ol' Doc, dontcha?
 
"I saw a banana become a monkey"
Given all your other delusions, I'm not surprised! ,-)

Have a good day... Me, I'm going to a hat sale!

"So you're skulking..."
I'll ghost by just to see what's up, but so as not to rain on the faith-fest, I have little interest in posting...

See ya round the bend!
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
ClintonHammond said:
Evolution is even easier to observe because it's going on around us all the time.
That's called natural selection, or microevolution, and creationists are fine with it. From wider airline seats to teacup poodles, it's observable. Just as macroevolution can be observed not happening: on the Galapagos, Darwin's finches are still finches.

This tomb-of-Jesus thing was probably old before the hippie novel Another Roadside Attraction. I'll admit, Vatican conspiracies still make me drool. Dan Brown knows I'm not alone.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Moedred said:
That's called natural selection, or microevolution, and creationists are fine with it. From wider airline seats to teacup poodles, it's observable. Just as macroevolution can be observed not happening: on the Galapagos, Darwin's finches are still finches.
Well said, Moe. And let's not forget that the reptile-to-bird absurdity...namely that an evolving wing would make a bad leg long before it made a good flight mechanism. Natural selection would have provided a veritable buffet of the crippled little critters.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
This "docudrama" is exactly why Hollywood should leave the science to trained scientists. The only interesting part of the whole thing was the post-show critical analysis where a few actual scientists pulled it apart thread by thread. Horrible excuse for a "documentary."
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Doc Savage said:
Well said, Moe. And let's not forget that the reptile-to-bird absurdity...namely that an evolving wing would make a bad leg long before it made a good flight mechanism.
You just leave one little thing out of the equation... evolution is a result, not a cause. Parts you need don't evolve to worse, only better. However parts you find lacking use may start getting into something odder.

So this critter in question finds profits from better evolution as its back legs get stronger, up to a point where it becomes one standing on just two legs, not four. At that point, the front ones are useless, and logically free to evolve into something else.

I know, it's not the best explanation, but still plausible. Nevertheless, helps if you do your homework before you start disregarding.

And to bite Clinton's hide, atheism does require faith. There is no solid proof for God's non-existence, just strong belief that there is no one. Vice-versa too, of course.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Let's not ruin this thread by debating the merits of evolution with folks who neither understand nor wish to understand it. It's a scientific theory proven time and again by the evidence which has withstood 150 years of scrutiny. If you're in doubt, read "Intelligent Thought" edited by John Brockman. The fossil chain is beyond question, unless you're still hiding behind religious mysticism (unfortunately we didn't leave them all in the Dark Ages). Arguing that homo sapiens are not the result of evolution is about as ignorant as one can show himself to be.
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
So this critter in question finds profits from better evolution as its back legs get stronger, up to a point where it becomes one standing on just two legs, not four. At that point, the front ones are useless, and logically free to evolve into something else.
So what cause would result in a wing? Too many dashed attempts at jumping from cliffs? What spurs an arm (operating under the presupposed leap to bipedalism) to sprout aerodynamic properties? I'm not being derisive...
Finn said:
Nevertheless, helps if you do your homework before you start disregarding.
You forget, Finn, I'm a converted evolutionist. I've done my homework on both sides of the equation.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Absolutely correct, HovitosKing. The biggest problem for them in this theory is that we're quite sure there's been enough time. They just don't believe it.

Doc Savage said:
So what cause would result in a wing? Too many dashed attempts at jumping from cliffs?
Very small hops at first, growing into longer leaps over time. Very, very long time.

Note that I'm not here to point you the probability of this theory... simply the plausibility of it.
 
Last edited:

Doc Savage

New member
HovitosKing said:
Arguing that homo sapiens are not the result of evolution is about as ignorant as one can show himself to be.
I see another unbiased opinion has joined the fray. I'm starting to feel like the outnumbered Ninja Turtle.

And in regards to your 'proven' remark, show me one proven instance of a proven leap from one species to another.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Doc Savage said:
I see another unbiased opinion has joined the fray. I'm starting to feel like the outnumbered Ninja Turtle.

And in regards to your 'proven' remark, show me one proven instance of a proven leap from one species to another.

Doc, paleontologists have established for years that different layers of sediment contain different (vastly different) fossilized remains. As the layers grow deeper and older, the fossilized remains grow more and more distant from those species we all know and love today. There are no cases of modern homo sapiens in the deeper layers, and no cases of our ancestors' remains in the shallow and younger layers. There are some very interesting quasi-human species in between, however. Please, just read some books (other than the Bible or anything written by IDers or creationists). If you're unwilling to accept science at face value, I can't help you.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Doc Savage said:
I see another unbiased opinion has joined the fray. I'm starting to feel like the outnumbered Ninja Turtle.

I never said I was unbiased. I started out that way years ago, and then accepted the facts and made my decision about what I believe. I do not accept theology in light of hard evidence, and I do not allow "faith" in the consistently disproved to cloud my perception of truth.

Also, the Ninja Turtles were ALWAYS outnumbered.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
HovitosKing said:
Doc, paleontologists have established for years that different layers of sediment contain different (vastly different) fossilized remains.
You know, we've been down this road before... I think the explanation was that God placed those things there to make Earth look older.

My interpretation: It's easy to think you've won the debate when the other side has no ways to create a counter-argument with their own means.
 

Doc Savage

New member
HovitosKing said:
Doc, paleontologists have established for years that different layers of sediment contain different (vastly different) fossilized remains. As the layers grow deeper and older, the fossilized remains grow more and more distant from those species we all know and love today. There are no cases of modern homo sapiens in the deeper layers, and no cases of our ancestors' remains in the shallow and younger layers. Please, just read some books (other than the Bible or anything written by IDers or creationists). If you're unwilling to accept science at face value, I can't help you.
Explain how fossils from supposedly different eras are found in the same strata. Explain polystrata fossils, like trees found upside down extending through 'millennia' of geological layers. A massive geological upheaval causing a sudden sorting of layers of sediment is just as plausible, scientifically, as Charles Lyell's theory. Do you know what the constitutional difference between pre-Cambrian limestone and the modern variety is? Absolutely nothing.

And leave the ad hominem at home, HK. At the risk of sounding arrogant, ignorance is not something I can be accused of.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
You know, we've been down this road before... I think the explanation was that God placed those things there to make Earth look older.
Sorry for the double post, but that wasn't my argument.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
As a side note, I find it ironic that what brings us all here is Indiana Jones, an archaeologist (scientist), yet many of us are about as anti-science as they come. And yes, I'm saying that if you do not believe in evolution or in the implications thereof that you are anti-science:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

-Theodosius Dobzhansky, renowned geneticist
 

Doc Savage

New member
HovitosKing said:
And yes, I'm saying that if you do not believe in evolution or in the implications thereof that you are anti-science...
Then you're as ignorant as you accuse me of being.
 
Top