Originally Posted by
Blackie6789
I like how you give examples of "other religions that have exactly the same kind of evidence."
You are merely displaying your ignorance by claiming that the eye-witnesses were 'not scientific minded'. A little research shows that it was Romans [the most powerful and technologically advanced empire of that time] who witnessed Jesus after he rose from the dead as well as common people such as Jews. There were many people who had other reasons to discredit the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. For instance, the some 50 guards that stood watch over Jesus' tomb would have had to pay the penalty of death if they let him get away. So it's not just ‘science’ that plays a part of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses, it goes much deeper.
Instead of discrediting Jesus' resurrection, we find that Rome adopts Christianity as it's main religion.
Now isn't that a coincidence?
You cannot experimentally verify that tomorrow morning you will wake up alive; it is something you have to take on faith. There are varying definitions of faith; you cannot define it one sweeping definition from google. Faith should not be confined merely to a religious belief:
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. (Hebrews 11:1)
There is no way to be completely sure that tomorrow the world won’t end. It is something you must take on faith.
Considering that no one has ever observed evolution in action, I think it’s pretty good, actually. Perhaps you should insert the term ‘reliable’ witnesses? 9 out of 10 sightings or aliens or ghosts are false or at best very vague. The other 1/10 can often be explained quite easily using common sense. Or quoting from Poozy: For example magic shows, and they have been proven to be tricks. However, the eye witnesses of Jesus after death were not vague by any means at all, Jesus clearly appeared to hundreds of people after his death. There is no ‘vagueness’ of someone like Jesus being briefly seen during the night. Hundreds of people met Jesus face to face after his death; they saw his wounds, there is no possible way that these people could mistake him for anyone else besides Jesus.
Why are we dragging Kent Hovind into this? As stated in previous posts, Kent Hovinds beliefs are not supported in any way by AiG, ICR, CMI, or any of the young earth creationists who actually propose intelligent ideas. Baraminology is by no means an idea from Kent Hovind. What baraminology does is study the similarities between certain animals—using the example of lions, house cats, and leopards, was an oversimplified example since in the past no one has understood what I was talking about.
What creationists do is study the genetic makeup of certain animals; such as horses, zebras, camels, etc. While this is a rather new field of research, and rather complicated, the main implications are that created kinds as mentioned in the Bible are on a similar level as ‘family’ in our classification system.
Creationists propose that instead of having merely one common ancestor that life evolved from, different ‘kinds’ of animals had their specific ancestors which they diversified from. So the dog kind would have had a single ancestor which it came from, and a cat would have a separate ancestor that produced it. However, different kinds will not cross; that is to say that a dog kind could not turn into the whale kind.
It’s not like the fossil record is a movie or anything; you cannot actually observe evolution occur. That is why I don’t consider evolution an exact science. To me, you can infer certain things from the data, but as you said, we won’t see real-time changes that are extreme [ie evolution] that occur in a short amount of time. In short, you cannot observe evolution first hand; you must make inferences from the different pieces of evidence we have.
As for the claim that the fossil record shows evolution, that is laughable. It’s actually one of the most convincing evidences that evolution is NOT true. Whether it’s the Cambrian Explosion, or “living fossils”, it clearly goes against what evolution predicts. In the case of the Cambrian explosion, nearly all existing forms of Phyla appeared magically out of nowhere within a time span of 5-10m years—which is simply unbelievable. Simple sponges and single celled organisms apparently ‘evolved’ into multi-cellulared organisms in an incredibly short period of time.
The theory of evolution relies heavily upon the fossil record—unfortunately for evolution, the fossil record isn’t supporting it at all.
SUMMARY:
Claims that the witnesses of Jesus were either not reliable or not scientific minded don’t hold up. For example, Thomas was a disciple of Jesus; when he heard that Jesus was alive again, he stated that unless he felt of Jesus body, and saw his wounds, he would not believe it really was Jesus. That sounds pretty scientific to me. As for reliability, the witnesses met Jesus face to face; he was not an imposter since the Romans did nothing to discredit him. Baraminology is the study of created kinds; so far, the main basis of the research is that families of animals came from their own ancestors. Instead of just one common ancestor for the whole animal kingdom, certain animals such as dogs would have had their specific ancestor. The fossil record when studied thoroughly doesn’t support the theory of evolution at all. While there are hundreds of examples of living fossils [fossils that show no change in millions of years] and the Cambrian Explosion, all evolutionists have come up with are a handful of debatable ‘transitional fossils’. Evolution falls apart upon close examination. In Darwins time, they didn’t have access to all the technology we do now; I highly doubt Darwin would still support his theory if he could see the gaping holes in evolution that have been found since his time.
Reply With Quote
Pr3: Rank 37 Hats:11
