Ed

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Radiation or chemical interference have never created DNA. You have to demonstrate that before you can claim it. And after DNA has been created, so far research on penecillin resistant bacteria has shown that all mutations either maintain the status quo or result in a loss of information.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, are you doing this deliberately? He didn't claim that radiation or chemical interference created DNA, he claimed (correctly) that it creates INFORMATION within DNA. This has been demonstrated, it HAS been proved. And no amount of lying about this will make it go away.

Datheron

Ed, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that complexities can arise from simplistic rules. Do we need intelligent beings to transcribe these rules? Not particularly; that's why they're called "simple" (as supposed to say, complex).

And speaking of which, when has DNA been shown to only come from intelligence? The process of transferring DNA is evident in every single lifeform; they are, by your admission, "intelligent". Do you see the fallicious argument?

Ed

Artificial life proves my point not yours, ie they are designed!

Ed

There were some christian mythologies that came into existence and you mention two of them the Gospel of Peter and the apocryphon of John, which are both forgeries. But if you actually read them and compare them to the canonical gospels you will see major differences like the talking cross. What purpose does a talking cross serve? None. That is one of the major differences between myth and the gospels, everything fits. Another example of myth that shows what the gospels would like if they were myth is the story of Apollonius of Tyana. Read it and you will see the major differences. The jews probably tell him that because Jesus was claiming to be king of the Jews and therefore may have represented a threat to Caesar, so by killing Jesus he was helping Caesar eliminate a threat.

lpetrich

The only "design" involved was the creation of the "laws of nature" and perhaps some selection of the initial conditions of a run. And the "laws of nature" can generally be stated in very simple terms. Much less than some artificial-life creations can.

Ed, why don't you visit some artificial-life Internet sites and experiment with some a-life software?

If one uses enough imagination on them, I suppose. I wonder what the great theological significance could possibly be of turning water into wine or walking on water or cursing a fig tree or driving some demons into some pigs.

Ed

Read a good book about Josephus. All scholars agree that he was trying to please both his own people and his captors the Romans in his writings. Since Jesus was a controversial figure that reflected negatively on both, it makes sense that he would not dwell on him.

Quote:

lp: Also, why not appear to the Roman Emperor himself? That's what I would do if I was a ruler of a Universe as gigantic as the one that we live in.

If God did everything that we thought he would, he would not be God.

Quote:

Ed: Since the gospels were already circulating to the churches in oral form and possibly parts were in written form, there was no need for Paul to spend much time in his letters on Christ's earthly ministry. Paul's calling was to provide Christ's follow up teachings to his earthly ministry. lp: Which is absolute horse manure. Since the Gospels were written, there has not been a single Christian church, as far as I am aware, that views the Gospels as essentially irrelevant, which is what you are claiming that Paul had done.

No, what I am saying is that why should he be redundant and rehash things that have already been covered. In his writings he talks about moving beyond the baby milk of the gospel and onto the meatier parts of God's truth.

Quote:

lp: Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle has a really funny imaginary conversation in which Paul acts as if many of the details of Jesus Christ's life are unimportant.

See above.

Quote:

Ed on Josephus: Actually his reference to Jesus and his brother James is not controversial at all. lp: Says who? Josephus's alleged comments are tiny compared to the amount of space he had given other self-styled prophets.

Josephus scholars. See above why he probably didnt spend much time on Jesus.

Quote:

Ed: Also given that the was an innocent man unjustly killed by leaders of the jews and the Romans, and Josephus trying to balance his reputation to both groups it is unlikely he would spend a great deal of time on such a controversial figure. lp: Pure idiocy. He'd have been very willing to discuss JC if that had been the case, though I doubt that he would have felt very sorry for JC.

See above about why he was between a rock and a hard place and read a good book on him.

Quote:

Ed: Copying errors usually occur in names or numbers because there are usually similar spellings of other words in hebrew and greek in personal names and numbers more so than in other words. lp: Some of these "copying errors" are much more serious. And what kind of god would sit back and let His Word get corrupted???

Name one.

Quote:

Ed: Yes but if you compare the gospels to mythological stories there are major differences in style. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. ... lp: This reminds me of how some Muslim apologists brag about how the canonical accounts of Mohammed's life do not depict him as a miracle-worker. Furthermore, Ed makes no effort to demonstrate this claim.

Read one of the apocryphal gospels like the gospel of Peter and compare it to the canonical ones and you will see MAJOR differences.

Quote:

lp: And as to literary style, there is also the important question of why the JC of the Gospels fits the Mythic-Hero profile so well (see a thread in Biblical Criticism & Archaeology on this subject).

All human heroes have some basic similarities,ie good deeds, good family usually and etc. So it is very easy to find some superficial similarities but look deeper and the differences are substantial.

Quote:

lp: So what makes the accounts of Jesus Christ's life so much different from those of: Romulus and Remus

Raised by wolves as compared to raised by a normal happy jewish family. No similarity. Twins as a compared to one man. Founders of a city as compared to a rabbi. Not very many similiarities to me!

Hercules - Performs deeds through physical strength, compared to teaching truths about life and occasionally performing deeds through the power of the creator and not to show off but to help people in need. Not many similarities that I know of.

Moses - Normal birth, versus virgin birth. Raised by gentile aristocracy as compared to raised by happy middle class jewish family. Died after living to incredibly old age compared to dying a sacrificial death to help others. Not very many similarities to my mind.

Krishna- dont know enough about him to compare.
The Buddha- raised in wealthy family and remained fairly wealthy thru life. No unusual circumstances with his birth or death as compared to Jesus.

Quote:

Ed: ... The hebrew term for "heavens and earth" means all that physically exists. ... lp: In Eddian Hebrew, perhaps, but not in the Hebrew that other Hebrew speakers use; neither Apikorus nor Devnet seem to support this interpretation.

What else could it mean?? What else is there besides the heavens (outer space, planets, stars, etc.) and the earth?

[b] All of the essential teachings of the scriptures are not ambiguous at all.

lpetrich

This is an absurd apologetic fairy tale. The same could be said of some of the other self-styled prophets that Josephus describes.

[qote]
lp: Also, why not appear to the Roman Emperor himself? That's what I would do if I was a ruler of a Universe as gigantic as the one that we live in.
Ed:
If God did everything that we thought he would, he would not be God.
[/quote]

Don't be stupid, Ed. Consider the way that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been handling the recent India-Pakistan confrontation -- by sending delegations to both countries's governments instead of by sending obscure revelations to peasants in out-of-the-way places in those countries.

Where does he do that? Quote chapter and verse. Ed, I marvel at the disrespect you have for your very own Bible.

And I'd love for Ed's pastor to do something like what Paul had supposedly done -- say "we all know the Gospels, therefore let's put them aside." I'm sure that Ed would join all the other parishioners in stomping out in disgust -- or even lynching that poor man of the cloth.

Consider Acts -- Paul did not describe much of the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, such as his miracle-working or many of his teachings or who sentenced him.

The Biblical God, it would seem. Not to mention other deities who seem to have consented to having their "revelations" rewritten.

Ed, can't you read? Why don't you check out the Jesus-Christ-as-mythic-hero thread in BC&A? He fits the Lord Raglan profile extremely well. He had an unusual birth, some wicked leader tried to kill him when he was a baby, he was raised in some other place, he triumphed over some enemy, he was rejected by his followers, he died an unusual death atop a hill, etc.

However, most "real" people fit the Lord Raglan profile only poorly.

Romulus and Remus were the sons of a god (Mars) and a virgin, and a wicked king tried to kill them in their infancy. Of these two, Romulus eventually killed Remus, leaving only one of them. And Romulus was the founder of a city that eventually ruled a big empire, comparable to founding a big religion. He even disappeared into a cloud and rose up to heaven to be worshipped as the god Quirinus.

Hercules was the son of a god (Zeus) and a woman, and his mother-in-law, Hera, tries to kill him in his infancy by sending some snakes after him. Unlike most other mythic heroes, the baby Hercules triumphs over that threat, killing those snakes. Also, when someone gave him a cloak that agonizingly poisoned him, Hercules decided to die a more dignified death, preparing a funeral pyre for himself on top of Mt. Oeta. But he was seen rising up into heaven soon after.

However, the Pharaoh tried to kill him when he was a baby, and he was raised in what was effectively a different country. He later returned to his people and liberated them, triumphing over the Pharaoh. Also, the Biblical God said that he would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land, and he died a mysterious death on top of Mt. Pisgah.

He was the son of some royalty, and a wicked king tried to keep him from surviving infancy. He was raised in a different land by foster parents, and he eventually triumphed over that king. And as to teachings -- can anyone say the Bhagavad Gita?

Read some Buddhist Scriptures some time -- there were lots of miracles surrounding his conception and infancy. And his father tried to keep him from his career from spoiling him, with little ultimate success. He then goes on a quest for enlightenment, and afterwards, shares his discoveries.

It could simply mean "heavens and earth". Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

All the doctrinal splits and controversies and holy wars suggest otherwise.

Waning Moon Conrad

It seems that Christians don't just have a monopoly on truth, they know more about Buddhism than Buddhists do.

Suddenly I find from a Christian that the Buddha Shakyamuni remained at least reasonably wealthy all his life.

I suppose it serves us Buddhists right for prancing about making smug and ignorant assertions about how Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a used camel salesman in Caesarea and was hanged by the neck for claiming to be a Babylonian rain god.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Ed

Why is it the places where speciation occurs at a faster rate and no fossils occur systematically at major genuses and families, so that there is no record of transitions for those groups?

Quote:

Ed: There is empirical evidence that contradicts atheistic evolution. Syn:What does evolution have to do with atheism other than filling up positions previously occupied by gods and demons?

Because that is why Darwinian evolution was developed, to have an explanation for life without referring to God. And mutation and natural selection replaced guidance and design. But God could very well have used guided evolution to create humans and other living things. This is called theistic evolution.


[b] No, we can calculate probabilities that some of the major characteristics of the universe would be what they are and thereby produce life, and they are astronomical.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>