Anti-evolutionists and climate change deniers often go hand in hand. Now there’s a bill in Kentucky that wants to “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories” about “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools. [...]
The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects. [...]
The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.
I’m all for teaching competing scientific theories and comparing them. I don’t think creationism qualifies as a scientific theory — but maybe teachers should talk about creationism and why it’s not science, just like all the other creation myths.
Debunking religious nonsense shouldn’t really be part of a science class, but it seems at least with creationism, there are enough adherents to make it worth debunking in the classroom, just like if there were a minority of students who held to a flat earth.
The culture wars never really take a break, do they?
They just kind of simmer, with the occasional boil over.
At least our side has continually marched forward, while they cede position after position.
Why not teach “critical thinking” about the Bible?
The definition of “critical thinking” according to fundies, climate change deniers and other conspiracy nuts is as following.
Information generated by years of scientific research and subjected to criticism and reexamination should always be questioned ant doubted. However any information obtained from [insert holy book of choice], the interwebs or some dude at the pub can be trusted without question.
… Provided it supports your own opinion, of course.
Site issue: I keep seeing a mobile version of UF occasionally instead of the regular version. My best guess is that my ISP is running a caching proxy, and so I’m seeing a temporarily cached version of the page that was previously requested by someone else through an iphone or something.
Does this happen to anyone else?
That happened one to me, I thought it was a fluke. I’ve disabled the mobile plugin for now.
NOOO! Dont disable the mobile version! I read on my Palm Pre!
Oh wait, I can just turn the screen sideways and it looks just fine :)
We really live in a bizarre world.
If I’m right about it being caused by a caching proxy, then I think you should be able to fix the issue by making the mobile version have a slightly different url in some way.
I mean, it’s not your fault that I have a crappy proxy upstream (if indeed I do, I don’t actually know), but is it usual on the internets these days to provide radically different content based only on html headers sent by the client (with no difference in the url)?
“Dissenting views on… scientific subjects” generally isn’t science at all as “dissenting” does not equal “opposing.” The Big Bang model is dissented by fundamentalism, whereas theories such as Steady State are in opposition. Yet, we still teach these theories as they no longer provide opposition, but in fact evidence (Big Bang resolved problems in all the other models). But dissenting views aren’t even on the same plane of existence. Teaching should be unbiased, and these alternate planes can very well be taught unbiasedly by other disciplines (ie the Humanities) without such controversy as they would be presented with neither validation or rejection as one among many viewpoints that humans hold. We are certainly capable of teaching the pantheons of ancient religions with out such backlash.
The part in the article about Texas’ textbook woes is something that worries me… Since when is the textbook the end all and be all of a class? Every teacher I have had uses textbooks, but picks and chooses which parts are best for the curriculum. One book might be really good at explaining X but not Y, so they get another source for Y. I’m really tired that we have yet to undo the horrid teaching practices within American that seem to be only increasing.
That is quite devious; Christianity hiding under the guise of “critical thinking”.
People must really be pushing hard for this. I suppose that with the unrelenting spread of easily accessible knowledge it must be getting harder and harder to keep people in the church, so they have to place their doctrine beside fact.
Oh my fucking God, it’s happening all the time!
On this site with cluster fundies protesting, attempts at new laws, and if that’s out of reach, conservative newsrants….
Science is all good until it challenges one’s fundamental conceptions of the world and one’s place in it. At that point it becomes suspect. For Christians of a certain stripe, allowing even the possibility of evolution would pull the rug out from under their feet. Others see a threat in climate change. The threat isn’t so much to their religion, but to their opinions of how our economic system should work. (There’s a great deal of overlap between that set of persons and Creationists because of their inherently conservative stance, although I don’t see any real organic connection. Maybe one is beginning to form.) They’re afraid climate scientists have a secret agenda that involves knocking out the capitalist underpinnings of western society. In either case, though, it’s easier to simply dismiss the science as being bogus than to grant the possibility that they’re fundamentally mistaken.
Tying global warming denial to their very obviously religious position is good as far as I’m concerned. It means that teaching it is illegal.
There is zero relationship between religion and global warming.
The only common thing is that 2012, the end of the world, anti-global warming, moon landing deniers 911 conspiracies, and many more is that these people are disillusioned. And it is an early warning of mental issues to in development later on.
Just look at the conspiracies people, their life get wrecked they lose their loved ones friends; it is a pure addiction like drugs. They are so addicted to these conspiracies sites that they create probably some kind off brain damage. (OK the brain damage from conspiracies is not a proven fact but yet LOL)
He never claimed there was a relationship between religion and GW, though. He did claim that religion and GW-denialism was related, and I think that is quite right. Or perhaps it’s just that they are both symptoms of delusion and illogical reasoning :)
Actually I didn’t even do that – I just said that I’d be happy for people to tie MMGW denial to their list of religious beliefs so that it can’t be taught in schools :-)
I wonder why they never push for bills which show the disadvantages of religion.
Once again confusing creationism and ID theory…on purpose.
Also, you might not want to attach the credibility of evolution to climate change. Most people now know the latter is a hoax and are becoming increasingly skeptical of the scientific “consensus.”
(sarcasm?)
I present to you…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.”
It’s science dinalism. They don’t like science because it tells them things they don’t like and they don’t understand how science even works.
The educational system teaches science as a set of facts not a tool used to gain greater understanding of the universe so most people don’t even understand what science is and how it works. The news media is no better; they seem to think all sides are equal when their not.
It is easy for denialists to spread their bullshit when so many people are so ignorant.
I notice they chose not to include the scientific theory of gravity vs intelligent falling. If you’re going to try to sway one theory on principle, why not more?
Why not relativity as well? E=mc^2 vs God did it?
If they genuinely want kids to develop critical thinking skills why not include other theories.
Pssst…. Kentucky your agenda is showing.
I heard that if you stop believing in gravity, it ceases to exist and cannot be proven. Oh man, scientists need to stop drinking so much and coming up with these “theories”. The lack of evidence for their silly beliefs are starting to show.
3 Reasons why Evolution is a Religion: The RELIGION of EVOLUTION
3 reasons why you’re stupid:
Because you are, because you are and because you are … any questions?
I’ll allow your articulated and well thought out comments to speak for themselves. Anyone who believes in evolution has more faith than any Christian. You’d think that the greatest events in the history of the world would have some real evidence! If after 150 years your theory is still just a theory, it’s probably time for a new one.
LOL … you’re just another idiot who doesn’t even know what the ToE actually is but are sure that it’s wrong because your big book of myths says so.
Oh and if after 2000 years your can’t even come up with a shred of evidence maybe it’s time that you found a new brand of mumbo-jumbo to believe in … what do you think?
Yo Jabster, I forgive you and still love you for the “idiot” comment. There is historical proof of the existence of Jesus, the Bible is accurate as a history book, and all of the creatures in the world have similarities because they have a common designer.
The Bible is accurate as a history book, you say? Then you can probably answer a historical question which has puzzled me for quite some time.
In 1 Sam. 15:7 we learn that Saul “utterly destroyed” all Amalekites in a genocide, except for their king, Agag. Then a few years later we learn, in 1 Sam. 27:8, that David killed all Amalekites once again, leaving “neither man nor woman alive”. But apparently the Amalekites are so bad-ass they’re able to defy death twice, and so, in 1 Sam. 30:1, a few years later the Amalekites are up to no good again, invading the Philistine areas, among other things taking two of David’s wives as captives.
So I guess I’d just like to know how this can be considered as accurate history.
“… the Bible is accurate as a history book.”
… and which history book would that be. The history of wizards in England, also know as the Harry Potter series?
I’m fairly sure you won’t get any “street cred” for that pitiful attempt at ghetto camaraderie. I’m also fairly sure your empty forgiveness is just as unwanted as your empty blessings, prayers and arguments.
You’ve got quite a bit of research to do if you want to prove either of those. Or you could save yourself some time and admit that you’re %100 wrong and apologize.
Weak argument from a weak mind. Seriously, second hand know-it-alls are so full of shit. Unashamedly spout nonsensical ideas and arguments from others whether they make any sense or not.
Learn something for once, creep. Open a real history book. Actually read through the books based on fact that you spit on with your willful ignorance and shameful fundamentalism.
I agree man like how can them scientists think we evolved from MONKEYS? If we did, there WOULDN’T BE MONKEYS NOW!
hahaha stupid evilutionists!
Dear god, those are some retarded arguments. Is that really your best attempt?
I’m scared to click on the link. Just how many flavors of stupid is it?
Somewhat more than you might expect but really just the standard stupid stuff …
They never get old though.
You would think that after all this time someone would have’ve twigged that the “arguments” used are just plain stupid …
I did a very quick scan. (Hoping it was satire.) It’s rotten stupid. As in, “I won’t grace that with a response.”
I have 2 minutes to waste so I will answer the 3 questions you pose on your link:
1) How did we get here? Answer – Our parents had sex
2) What is the point of life? Answer – To be happy, to share, to love etc.
3) What happens when we die? Answer – We go to where we were before we were born…we cease to exist. We didn’t exist before we were born and we will not exist after we die.
As for 2), I would say that there is no meaning of life, other than that which you choose it to be.
@coreyrose
First of all, the comments thing on your church blog is broken or stupid or something. This has forced me to copy and paste my response here.
So here goes.
I think you missed the grade-school explanation of what a “theory” is.
Also, your oversimplified explanation of “evolution” is an embarrassment to mother nature, physics, science, and living creatures in general.
If you haven’t noticed at award ceremonies, rappers seem to be pretty intent on thanking god for their good fortune. Your racism and cultural elitism is showing.
Ohh riight, because naming two bad atheists = all atheists/evolutionists being horrible people who look up to these awful people. Also, Hitler’s religiousness or lack thereof is debated. Read up.
I can come up with a few bad things to be said of your side.
Doesn’t your book teach you how to keep slaves? And tell you that women must be subordinate? [I'm employing your oversimplification method.] So really, god must be counted in the group of bad people/things/whatever it is you claim god is. Oh, and what does the god in the Bible do when he doesn’t like someone? Wasn’t it something along the lines of murder? There was also that part where he flooded the Earth because he screwed up the first time he made people, (nevermind that he got a 600 year-old guy and his family to restart humanity… Oh, and two of every animal is surely enough for species propagation. That’s obviously very mathematically sound.) It is surely really humane to flood everything and kill everyone.
At least my “evolution religion” makes more sense than yours ever will.
[I'm quoting this from your comment on your blog]: “Modern science teaches us that you have a theory that hasn’t been proven a fact after 150+ years, it’s probably time for a new theory.” Hmm I smell hypocrisy. How long has your book been around? How much of it has been proven as fact? Even the existence of the protagonist of the second half has not been proven. Oh, and neither has his father’s existence. And someone needs to clear up that complication ASAP about him being his own father and impregnating his teenage unwed mother…
Good luck! You need it more than I do :)
@author Daniel Florien: The burden of truth lies on the evolutionist to prove evolution. As of today, there is no evidence. I will give you $10,000 CASH for ANY SCIENTIFIC evidence of evolution. Talk about a myth, evolution has to be the best myth ever thought up.
I’ll double that wager if you can provide and evidence that you’re not flat out stupid …
Genetic homology, vestigial organs, transitional fossils (regardless of what you read on creotard websites). Let me know where I can pick the money.
Vestigials? Like your tail bone? If that’s a vestigial I’ll pay to have yours removed.
So how do you explain the presence of internal telomeres in human Chromosome 2?
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that evolution is wrong, but it’s on you to prove it’s right. I could tell you that we were placed here by aliens, and by your logic, you’d have to believe me because you haven’t proven me wrong. How do you explain the Bombardier Beetle? Or the human eye?
The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence doesn’t mean evolution have not been extensively proved. Read some real science books you may learn something.
In the words of the man himself:
LoL and we’ve all seen the college videos using the computer-generated visual manipulation to show us how this happened.
*facepalm*
We’ve also seen the species with actual vestigial eyes. Some evolving them, some devolving them.
Haven’t seen the Great Designer, though. It’d be nice if he answered; I want a refund. My bones are crap and so badly designed it isn’t even funny. Actually, so are my eyes…
The presence of internal telomeres is taken as very strong evidence of macroevolution (and in the case of human chromosome 2, being strong evidence of the human species having been a result of evolution). My question to you presupposed your familiarity with this argument, in viewing your very brash claims regarding the status of evolution as a scientific theory substantiated by evidence. If I assumed you were more informed than you are, I apologize.
It is evidence. I asked the question to see if you had a plausible alternative explanation for that evidence. Do you?
“(and in the case of human chromosome 2, being strong evidence of the human species having been a result of evolution)”
The idea that we came from a beast is simply unacceptable. All evidence to the contrary is complete hog wash. Oh and regarding the age of the earth/universe – that whole speed of light thing…bogus.
The bigger burden of proof is on you Corey to prove that your magical sky-daddy actually exists. After you accomplish that (to the same degree you are asking of us to prove evolution) then you can go about proving that said magical sky-daddy actually wrote your bible.
Our Dear Corey probably doesn’t know what a telomere is.
I don’t really think you are this stupid, especially after the great grandfather rock remark. But in case you wanted the actual definitions for the words you are misuing, here they are.
vestigial:
refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function. Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species.
So yes a tail bone has some function, just not its whole original function.
As for the lovely “it’s JUST a theory” canard.
Theory:
The common use of the term theory implies speculation or assumption that has not been verified or has limited proofs. However, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation or a set of statements that have been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. In comparison, theories are more certain than hypotheses but less certain than laws. And in science, an unproved idea or a mere theoretical speculation is regarded as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory.
Being that you don’t understand what these words mean, I can see how the evidence for evolution would be difficult for you to grasp.
Let me use the proper terms with no semantic ambiguity: Regardless of what you call it, evolution lacks proof. If you can’t make it “walk on all fours,” then get another theory.
The father of your faith said: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” -through “natural selection.” He was racist and misguided. I still love you but your church fathers, Hitler and Stalin to name a few have slaughtered millions after reading Darwin’s bible.
Hitler was Catholic and burned Darwin’s books. Stalin opposed evolution; he believed in Lamarck.
You fail.
And even if they did, what humans think have no bearing on reality. Even if they were racist bigots, that doesn’t change one iota of the reality of evolution, any more than saying Newton was a crazy loon (he was) makes the theory of gravity false.
You fail again.
Also, Crusades and Inquisition.
Then again, we are talking to someone who thinks a deity sacrificed himself to himself to save his own creation, which he made flawed and disobedient in the first place, from the punishment he himself created, then resurrected himself and abducted himself… because that makes total sense.
Yep, in fact here are a number of lists containing books which were forbidden in Nazi Germany.
One of the lists from 1935 reads (translated): “6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).”
Add to this Hitler’s many proclamations about a divine cause and manifest destiny and the necessity of purity of the races (which is the complete opposite of what the theory of evolution demonstrates), and you have another debunked creationist cliché.
Ah, the greatest hits. Being unable to address actual arguments about the theory, you resort to personal attacks on Darwin. Regardless of any personal flaws of Darwin’s or any of the acts of people who happened to read his books, none of these things have any actual bearing on whether or not evolution is a valid theory. The only thing that bears on that question is scientific evidence.
Note: “Corey” never addressed his/her obviously wrong understanding of theory. He/she/it just went on to shift the goal posts and engage in condescending puffery.
So because Darwin used a subtitle containing the words “Favoured Races” it must mean he was a racist. Apart from the fact that it wouldn’t change a thing about whether Darwin as a scientist was right or wrong, it’s just another stupid creationist lie.
You have never read a single line from “On the Origin of Species” – except probably that other classic creationist distorted quote about the evolution of the eye, so you have no idea what Darwin meant with those words. You don’t know shit about Darwin, the theory of evolution, atheism, the principles of science, or even what constitutes a religion – nor do you intend to learn any of those things. It’s clear you’re quite content to live in the pathetic house of straw you’ve built yourself.
Oh, I see Corey already dragged out the one about the human eye.
Man, this is like a creationist top ten. It’s just one cliché after another. What next? Something about entropy? Or perhaps the one about lunar dust proving that the Earth can only be a few thousand years old?
Your inability to read a book that isn’t in your preacher’s “approved book” list doesn’t constitute a lack of proof on our part.
Strangely enough, most of us atheists have, in fact, read the bible. Why? We prefer to know what we’re arguing against to prevent the nonsense-spouting that christians are so fond of.
Nzo, I too was indoctrinated with the atheistic evolution gospel for 12 years in the public school system and college. Certainly I know what I’m arguing against.
You know, Corey, the majority of Christians are able to reconcile evolution with their faith. That you are personally unable to view certain parts of the Bible as being metaphorical doesn’t falsify evolution in any way.
Do you?
No… no you do not.
In fact, you’re terrible at pretending to know what you’re talking about. This is not a communication forum for the intellectually vacuous.
Calling the theory of evolution names doesn’t make it any less valid, or any less based on fact. It also does absolutely nothing to make ID valid in any way, or in any way based on fact.
At least be honest with your intellectual inferiority, this “know-it-all” facade is really tiresome.
1) You’re a flat-out liar. You don’t have $10k to give.
2) You scream out that you want scientific evidence for evolution. Don’t you realize that the theory of evolution IS scientific? And can’t you google and find some reputable sites that provide tons of evidence?
3) You’re one to talk about myths, you who believe that an imaginary sky friend made the world in six calendar days and plopped two stupid humans in the middle of a garden alongside a duplicitous serpent.
“And can’t you google and find some reputable sites that provide tons of evidence?”
I’m sure he gets all he needs from Answers in Genesis.
There is no scientific proof of evolution, hello?? Myths? You believe that your great great grandfather is a rock…
My, you’re quite the dunderhead, aren’t you? What, are you twelve years old?
Actually my great great grandfather was from Poland and he was a human.
Mine was from Portugal :D probably. Hell if I know.
Or a slave. Y’know, those people who were abducted from their homelands and forced into labor by the pious godfolk of Europe, who believed it their god-given right to educate (and exterminate, and enslave, and abuse, and rape…) the ‘savages’.
No. But I believe your head is fill of rocks.
Here’s a really great site that can answer many of your questions about evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.
I don’t think Corey has any questions about evolution, he only has opinions handed down to him by other fundies.
When someone proudly proclaims “evolution is just a theory” it’s a good indication they have no idea what the hell it is they’re criticizing.
I always love the dichotomy between the misinformed and those who specialize in science. It’s just so ironic that both will say “it is a theory.” I think this is part of the problem with the general public and science; the public will take “theory” in the general terminology (theory = hypothesis), not the scientific (theory is defined as a well tested and widely accepted hypothesis), and thus are mislead…..
Ahhh, well done boys! Another Troll defeated.
Damn I love this site.
agreed
it was glorious to behold!
@jasowah, it shows that you’re beliefs are threatened when you resort to personal attacks and dehumanization. Let’s remember, we’re not challenging people, only beliefs.
“we’re not challenging people, only beliefs”
And you are not doing a very good job at it
I’m not criticizing the theory of evolution, only the lies they use to support the theory. Then the nerve to call it science. Big difference.
” Then the nerve to call it science.”
Because you care so much about science and it getting a bad rap.
And is it not just a theory? Last I checked every respectable believer, teacher, and textbook calls it a theory. I still love you.
We also talk about the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity should we also teach the alternatives for these such as disease caused by demonic posesion and intelligent falling . I know I waste my time but you should learn what is a scietific theory before you spew the “its just a theory” line.
Hey, I take theory over myth any day!
You don’t understand the scientific use of the term “theory,” do you? Oh, and did you check out the link to talkorigins? Or are you comfortable sounding like an idiot and trotting out canards that have been beaten back a thousand times by science?
There are several sure ways of knowing that an anti-evolutionist hasn’t the first clue what he/she is talking about.
- claiming evolution is a faith
- claiming it tries to account for the origin of the cosmos
- claiming it tries to account for the origin of life
- claiming there are no transitional fossils
- claiming evolution cannot be true because it’s never been observed
- confusing the idea that man and chimps have a common ancestor with the idea that man evolved from chimps
and so on almost ad infinitum. Certainly ad nauseam. But the ONE thing that above all else identifies an IDiot as having not the first clue; of showing their complete and utter ignorance not just of evolution but of the whole scientific method; of being a deluded moron of the first strip – is to dismiss evolution as ‘just a theory’. Even the cretins at AnswersinGenesis say to avoid THAT one.
What would you consider proof of evolution? Could do with $10K…
Same as any other Creatard: Ten more things than you have so far provided, regardless fo how many things you have so far provided.
Haaaaaahahahahahha! I see you haven’t won a nickel for proving christianity.
Christianity is proven all around the world, “a changed life.” I hear your arguments and what they boil down to is a moral issue: “If there is no God, then I don’t have to be accountable to him.” I leave you with this:
“How did evolution become the prevailing theory of origins in our most influential institutions? It gained respectability when it caught the imagination of influential thinkers who found in it an intellectual prop for atheism. Evolution became the thing to believe for those who wanted to be known as daring and independent thinkers. Since new and daring ideas are newsworthy, the evolutionists with their new theory became the darlings of the media. When evolution became the politically correct thing to believe among the fashionable and educated, much of the general public began to fall in step without examining the basic rationality of the theory. It was enough for them that the right people already believed.” (-Josh McDowell)
Please keep an open mind. From one post-evolutionist to future post-evolutionists, I know where you’re at, how, and why you got there. And there is real hope in a real relationship with the real God. Bless—
Unsubstantiated claim by an unmitigated, prideful ass.
Yours boils down to “I wouldn’t be good without my mythical being or the threat of hell”.
Your philosopher isn’t grounded well in reality. The answer is “evidence”. There’s not even a smattering of intelligent discourse through the rest of the quote.
Please keep your empty blessings to yourself. It’s disgusting to hear such infantile utterance from one who pridefully pretends to take the “high road”.
That being said, your god is no more real than Unicorns. Your arguments are as pathetic as your inability to appear morally, and intellectually superior.
“Please keep an open mind. From one post-evolutionist to future post-evolutionists, I know where you’re at, how, and why you got there. And there is real hope in a real relationship with the real God”
Which translates as please keep a complete closed mind when it comes to belief in my version of mumbo-jumbo and interrupt all evidence so as to support it whereas when it comes to other version of mumbo-jumbo then normal rules prevail and they obviously aren’t true.
You don’t even know what open minded means … are you opened minded about the existence of Allah, a simple no well suffice yet you ask others to be open minded about the Christian god?
“Allah” is “God” in Arabic. But of course you knew that. So yes.
Or Zeus or Odin or the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns.
Allah is God, yes, but a certain kind of God which you disagree with, Corey. But of course you knew that.
ok, can I post just one website from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson?
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/watch/beyondbelief/2006-11-05-on-intelligent-design
the bottom line is that people like Corey aren’t here to find evidence or truth or …………….etc
they are here to fuck with us
period
Don’t think so – check out the website – s/he really is this ignorant.
holy crap!
Well it pretends to be holy and it’s certainly crap….
@ Corey: I think we should start calling your religion the Christianity Hypothesis. After all, there’s no evidence for it and it’s totally unproven, so why not?
There’s evidence and proof. Evidence that He’s real and alive in the changed lives of untold millions throughout history -myself included, and something called “historical proofing.” It’s not a scientific question of whether Jesus lived, it’s historical. 25 independent sources in history is considered proof of the existence of a person, place or thing in history. There are over 500 independent sources (Roman historical records, Jewish annals etc…) confirming the existence Jesus Christ.
Care to enlighten us about these sources. I’m not aware of any contemporary source mentioning Jesus let alone magical bible Jesus. If such sources were available why do Xtians make such a big deal of a couple of obviously edited lines in Josephus antiquities?
Of course he won’t. You see, some other Christian has told Corey that these sources and proofs exist, and so it doesn’t matter to Corey that he doesn’t know what they are and that he can’t find them. A Christian told him, so it must be true. The fact that it’s nowhere to be found? Why, that must be a huge atheist conspiracy to bury the Truth(tm)!
Typical Jesus Sheep, basically. Lacks the ability to investigate it for himself, or worse just lacks the will because he knows, deep down, that the facts all say he’s wrong. Of course, he’ll blame that part of himself on Satan just like his Pastor tells him to.
Mass hysteria. There is zero proof that there’s a 2,000 year old zombie that changes millions of lives. Keep in mind that your statement, in the context it is used, suggests that a real “living” undead person changes millions of lives.
If jesus is such a huge historical figure, where are the remains of his dwellings? artifacts? works of carpentry? self-written manuscripts? He’s kinda an important guy to not have SOMETHING of his to show for his life!
You know what’s true though? There’s not a SINGLE contemporary writing that mentions jesus. Other than the bible, all claims about jesus are merely hearsay, but you wouldn’t know this because all you read is christian apologist text.
The quote from Cornelius Tacitus? Because of the high probability that Tacitus was taking hearsay as fact makes the entire passage completely worthless. Also “Christus” and “Chrestus” != “Christ”. There would be no reason for the “-us” suffix to be dropped in any translation to English.
Now, I invite you, moron, to come up with even 10 real independent sources that mention “Jesus”.
“There are over 500 independent sources (Roman historical records, Jewish annals etc…) confirming the existence Jesus Christ.”
So why do Christians have to lie all the time? Truth is, there is not ONE such record – yet the 200,000 peer reviewed studies supporting evolution, IDiots dismiss as ‘not evidence’. How deluded can you get?
@Corey
Why is it that Christians think it’s ok to lie for Jebus?
I believe some 4thC bishop decided it was so – and forged the Josephus document as an example to others.
@ Corey: And yet, having made that assertion, I guarantee that you are now going to fail to provide the evidence.
Typical ignorant theist who lacks education and the will to learn – Make unreasonable demands for more and more proof of evolution despite it being extremely well proven already (note: your “there is no scientific proof of evolution” line is a flat-out lie. I’m amazed that LRA hasn’t already torn you shreds over it) and yet you claim evidence for Christianity where there is NONE.
You’re either lying or bullshitting through your ignorance. Either way, it still makes you a dick.
Aaaaand… Still waiting for Corey to respond.
I’ll take “Pretending he hasn’t read these points that he can’t answer and coming back to troll a different thread please, Bob!”
Facebook-style “like”
Typing in bold does not make your argument stronger or irrefutable. Although, I must say I’m pleased you’re learning how to bold things with the b between . Congratulations! You’re making progress towards science :)
And I’m still waiting for these hundreds of documents and historians to come forward.
Or is it And I’m still waiting for these hundreds of documents and historians to come forward.?
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/facing-facts.html
I just have one question for all of you. Why do you waste your time talking to someone like Corey, when you know he isn’t here to extend his education? I read the comments here mainly because there are many well thought out and informative statement made by most of those commenting here. I have noticed that most are easily trapped into this wasting of time to provide information to someone who only wants to deny anything that goes against his comments. I enjoy a good debate with others but don’t enjoy a discussion where the other person never considers anything I say. I would say just ignore him like I ignore JohnC.
Fair point, well made.
It’s a form of entertainment on this end. I only wish his arguments deserved answers that took more time to formulate. Maybe even requiring a bit of research.
Taking a deeper look, it could merely be satisfying a superiority complex that manifests itself now and then. Nothing quite like taunting those who use secondhand knowledge and fictional texts to taunt and threaten people.
That being said, I think JohnC is either a delightfully effective troll, or so far out of his mind that he’s incapable of formulating a coherent argument. That, too, can be amusing.
For the lulz?
For the lulz.
Definitely for the lulz.
Extending someone’s education assumes an education to extend. Changing a mind likewise assumes a mind.
I often find myself thinking, as I respond to someone like Corey, this is such a waste of time. But in the end, I know their response will be humorous.
Pingback: Not Your Usual Problem with Evolution in Schools « Real Live Nerd
To trust evolution without a superior being to bring it about is ludicrous. Maybe a simple way to introduce you to sound science would start with viewing Ben Stein’s “Expelled”. If you can watch that, and I believe that the movie does not go far enough i9n exposing the impossibly complex nature of DNA, etc, and still hold to a godless evolution, then you cannot understand basic science.
Good work Edgar!
I particularly like the way you implied that movie was a good introduction to science.