Hapsburg said:It is also theoretically possible for an elephant to balance itself on a basketball hoop.
If it has not been observed and recorded, it has no viability as a theory or hypothesis.
but partheneogenesis has both.
Hapsburg said:It is also theoretically possible for an elephant to balance itself on a basketball hoop.
If it has not been observed and recorded, it has no viability as a theory or hypothesis.
superluminal said:I saw David Copperfield fly once. I was very impressed. I tried starting a religion around him, but folks just couldn't get past the hair. I mean, just look at it!
Not on a human, it hasn't. Until there is a report of parthenogenesis occuring with a human on one of the major news networks, I will remain skeptical.Woody said:but partheneogenesis has both.
Hapsburg said:It is also theoretically possible for an elephant to balance itself on a basketball hoop.
If it has not been observed and recorded, it has no viability as a theory or hypothesis.
superluminal said:So, god induced parthenogenesis in mary?
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The serpent whose head would be bruised is satan.
SnakeLord said:Aww.. god gave satan a bruise on his head.
Way to go god.. you sure do kick evils ass.. lol
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Woody said:It's theoretically possible for a woman to have a virgin birth. It's called parthenogenesis It has been induced in some mammals, but no observed evidence in humans.
encyclopedia
Obviously you have never heard of "sarcasm".wayne_92587 said:IT is a good thing that you are not a theoretical scientist you would be touting the fact, in your mind, that theoretically the moon could be made of cheese.
Is this motherfucking Hapsburg guy, some kind of buffoon or something.
posted by M.W. - But, just for the record, the young woman in Isaiah who is impregnated was impregnated by Isaiah, and she gave birth to Isaiah's child. It was not a foretelling of the birth of Jesus.
TheVisitor said:Just for the record.....thats wrong.
The virgin refered to by Isaiah was Jesus, his prophecy brought it to pass 800 years later by the spoken word power of God.
The same creative power that brought this world into existance.
Just for the record.....
quote from M.W. - Besides, creative power is not something reserved for a deity. Humans have creative power
Medicine Woman said:*************
M*W: "Theoretically" is the key word. Parthenogenesis is rare in multicell vertebrates but more common in invertebrates.
It might be said that a Man that is not macho, that would turn the other
cheek, has no backbone.
Ok, right, yes I see. You're suggesting we take a leaf out of the Creationists book. Let's denigrate the evidence, disregard the evidence, argue from total ignorance of the evidence, make fallacious arguments from purported "gaps" in the evidence. Because tearing down Christianity is far more important than the truth.Cris said:Silas,
But you miss the key issue. The actual existence of these other pagans is not pertinent. The basis of Christianity is a resurrection that leads to the saving of the human race. If he never existed then he could not have been resurrected and that leaves Christianity as a total mess. If Christian claims were true then JC would be by far the most important person in the history of the universe, yet no one can point to a single irrefutable piece of evidence to show he actually existed. The comparison with pagans is a devious misdirection; the issue here is essentially one of critical credibility.
No, you appear to be confusing the ends with the means. I haven't the faintest interest in finding out that Jesus didn't exist because that would mean the end of Christianity. Also, you are confusing the inductive nature of scientific theory with what is regarded as perfectly rational deduction as the basis of historical study. Occam's razor still applies, and makes a nonsense of the Jesus story having been made up.You are confusing the inductive nature of scientific theory with the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
I'm not interested in Christian claims. I'm interested in why people who have rejected God through rationality have now rejected Rationality in order to prove something about God. Much more accepted Roman history has no independent backup at all. But what we think we know is considered history because at this distance of time there is no other way. Also, the parts of Roman history with only a single source are consistent with other parts of Roman history. The Jesus story is certainly backed up to that extent. In point of fact it has a pretty major "independent source" - that is the undenied existence of a Christian movement no later than AD 100. Now, just as it would be stupid to reject a piece of Roman history such as a minor battle, because it was only specifically cited in one source, when other things that don't mention the battle are still consistent with it, it is stupid in my view to believe that the early Christian movement was based upon a fiction, a ready-made myth. That is far harder to believe than the concept that it began at least by one man who attracted followers.Misdirection through exaggeration isn’t helpful. Much of Roman history has multiple independent sources that provide adequate verification, not so with JC claims. And again I remind you of the critical nature of JC existence to support Christian claims.
Bollocks.Astrology??? Did I miss something? She isn’t an astrologer. Her attempts to explain the origins of Christianity in terms of astrotheocracy is interesting but her primary skill is historical research specifically the mythical nature of the JC period.Oh my God. The world is actually going mad. Cris, as a long standing skeptic and rationalist, it's utterly beyond belief that you would recommend Acharya S - astrologers ought not to be getting any kind of kudos from the rationalist community. All I had to do was look at her website, that was enough for me.
Crap. Her primary skill is bamboozling. Seriously, I've never read her work, but if she's the one who has convinced Medicine Woman that Paul of Tarsus never existed because Tarsus sounds like Taurus, then she's quite definitely talking out of her arse. I'm not about to give that woman, or any other purveyor of utter nonsense, any more profit from a book what they wrote. I make my decisions on whether to give someone my hard earned dollar on whether they are trying to convince a skeptical thinker, or trying to get the gullible. Her book covers and her web site, are specifically designed to attract only those people who don't have a clue, and are not designed to interest anyone who has a remotely skeptical bone in their body. This is evidently New Age nonsense of the highest order.You should perhaps read “The Christ Conspiracy” which is probably the most extensive book written on the subject of the JC myth proposal and examine her extensive research and extensive references. My specific point in this thread was to indicate that the tired claims made by Woody for proofs of JC historical references are very well refuted in her book, regardless of her other leanings.
Why are the opinions of Earl Doherty and Acharya S (I pointed out the ludicrousness of believing what is said by someone with an evidently pretentious pseudonym) so much more important and worthy of consideration than the far larger number of creditable people whose life work is the study of the history of the period, and who have commented specifically on the Jesus Myth issue and found it wanting?You should perhaps examine the logic of the reasoning and actual research rather than form opinions based on reputations only.
Like what? What is your basis for dismissing the letters of Paul and the synoptic Gospels as valid historical sources as inferior to Herodotus, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius et al? If it comes to "solid proof", people have actually made "Jesus myth" arguments on the basis that the oldest substantial NT manuscripts are 3rd and 4th century - well, actually the Christian manuscripts are far far older than anything we have of the other writings of the period!And again there are key issue of significance here that makes your dismissive argument fallacious.As Michael Grant says, there's no more reason to doubt Jesus on the basis of historical sources than there is for a host of other non-Christian personalities of the period.
Now you're the one making fallacious arguments. We must not make arguments from silence or from the absence of completely hard evidence, like, I don't know, a grave, with analysable DNA in bones, or something. Jesus's existence is not something that can be decided by evidence on that basis, but that does not mean the default position should be that he did not exist, when that position involves a far less likely story. If Jesus never existed, then the story of his life would have to have been a very specific fiction created at a specific time, capable of convincing people perfectly well aware that they had no memory of the events or even of the rumour of the events.And again this is largely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. No one can point to anything that can confirm he ever existed. We should no more conclude that he existed any more than we should conclude the earth was once flat because virtually everyone at one time believed it.
Godless said:Hey! MedcineWoman; some of these links didn't work!. K
Medicine Woman said:*************
M*W: Let's get right down to it. Jesus didn't exist, and there is no proof that confirms he existed. Why is it that people continue to believe he is their dying demigod savior? When will they ever learn that there is no Jesus. No savior. No heaven. No hell. No religion? When will you people realize you are living a big fat lie?