Who claimed to have personally met a historical Jesus ?

[Dywyddyr]

No eyewitness evidence and no written evidence.

False and inane.

How would you have "written evidence" for a physical process?
(And wouldn't you dismiss written evidence as "words on a page"?)

I am not saying it did not occur.

Still having trouble reading English?
I haven't, anywhere, claimed that you have said that.
Please try to stay with reality.

 

[Ellie]

False and inane.

Yeah, i know..."la la la la la"

How would you have "written evidence" for a physical process?

If no one wrote about it or we cannot find anything written does not mean it did not happen.

(And wouldn't you dismiss written evidence as "words on a page"?)

Depends on what it is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If no one wrote about it or we cannot find anything written does not mean it did not happen.

So now you're arguing against yourself?
One more time:

How would you have "written evidence" for a physical process?

Depends on what it is.

So why have you dismissed the links given as "words on a page"?

You're not very consistent are you? (Or smart).

 

[Ellie]

So now you're arguing against yourself?
One more time:

Evidence for a physical process comes in may forms.

So why have you dismissed the links given as "words on a page"?

Did I "dismiss" them? You are adding that.

You're not very consistent are you? (Or smart).

More ad hominem.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Evidence for a physical process comes in may forms.

How does the physical process write about itself?

Did I "dismiss" them? You are adding that.

False.
"Words on page"?[sup](1)[/sup] coupled with "LOL...you call that evidence?" IS a dismissal.

More ad hominem.

Nope, more observation based on your responses.

(1) And I note that you've also been somewhat dishonest and edited that comment out of your post, which, coupled with your strawman claims, makes you appear to be trolling.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

I met Jesus. He mowed my grass and trimmed the hedges.

 

[Ellie]

How does the physical process write about itself?

It is unfortunate that we are discussing EVIDENCE here, but what can i say?

False.
"Words on page"?[sup](1)[/sup] coupled with "LOL...you call that evidence?" IS a dismissal.

I am not saying that you cannot accept that as evidence.

I also said those examples were written thousands, millions or maybe trillions of years after the "fact". I already stated what everyone accepts as evidence so no need to go into that again. Of course here we could not have human witnesses.

(1) And I note that you've also been somewhat dishonest and edited that comment out of your post, which, coupled with your strawman claims, makes you appear to be trolling.

How is it dishonest to use the edit function? Was that deletion profound?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is unfortunate that we are discussing EVIDENCE here, but what can i say?

Nothing sensible, apparently. YOU are the one that asked for written "evidence".

I am not saying that you cannot accept that as evidence.

Really? Then why use the words "you call that evidence?" which implies that you consider it not to be?

I also said those examples were written thousands, millions or maybe trillions of years after the "fact". I already stated what everyone accepts as evidence so no need to go into that again. Of course here we could not have human witnesses.

Again, what do you mean "after the fact"? Evolution is in ongoing process. It's still happening.

How is it dishonest to use the edit function? Was that deletion profound?

Why delete it at all?

 

[Arioch]

@Ellie --

Using the edit function to fix a typo or add updates to an OP is fine. Using the edit function to remove a part of your post that was criticized is dishonest as it is attempting to both hide your mistakes(very bad form in science) and use the opportunity to call your opponent a liar(which is, in and of itself, an ad hominem), as you already did.

How can you categorize that behavior as honest?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Not ignorant at all, it is a theory.

Sadly, you are ignorant of the meaning of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. It's clear you have fallen for the typical error of thinking it means 'speculation', when it really means an EXPLANATION for the facts.

A scientific theory = a detailed EXPLANATION of the facts.
It does NOT mean 'speculation'.

Anyway -
Every post about the historicity of Jesus ALWAYS attracts comments about evolution - why is that ?


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Somewhat, but you can continue. So evolution if its not a theory then it must be fact.

Evolution is a fact of nature.
The Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for those facts.

Like the Theory of Gravity is the EXPLANATION for the facts of gravity.
Funny how you don't insist gravity is just a THEORY - why is that ?


Your are stuck on a silly mis-understanding of a word.
It's always WORD-GAMES with you people.



K.

 

[Arioch]

Because evolution single handedly invalidates a lot of their favorite bible passages. The bits about Adam and Eve, one family being able to repopulate the world, one man being able to fit at least two of every species(seven of the "clean" ones) on one boat, they all fall thanks to evolution.

 

[Ellie]

Nothing sensible, apparently. YOU are the one that asked for written "evidence".

I did not ask for written evidence explicitly and never said that was the only kind of evidence.

Really? Then why use the words "you call that evidence?" which implies that you consider it not to be?

I already answered that.

Again, what do you mean "after the fact"? Evolution is in ongoing process. It's still happening.

It may be.

Why delete it at all?

Because sometimes it is evidence.

 

[Ellie]

@Ellie --

Using the edit function to fix a typo or add updates to an OP is fine. Using the edit function to remove a part of your post that was criticized is dishonest as it is attempting to both hide your mistakes(very bad form in science) and use the opportunity to call your opponent a liar(which is, in and of itself, an ad hominem), as you already did.

How can you categorize that behavior as honest?

It wasnt criticized when i deleted it. I deleted it a few seconds after i posted. Dont be a cry baby.

 

[Arioch]

Who's being a crybaby? I merely answered your question.

 

[Ellie]

Like the Theory of Gravity is the EXPLANATION for the facts of gravity.
Funny how you don't insist gravity is just a THEORY - why is that ?

K.

Intellectual dishonesty. We can prove gravity.

Then you are using a written theory as proof.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did not ask for written evidence explicitly

No?

No eyewitness evidence and no written evidence.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833865&postcount=40

and never said that was the only kind of evidence.

Strawman. I never said you had.

I already answered that.

Wrong. You skirted it.

It may be.

Also wrong. It is.

Because sometimes it is evidence.

Yet you were given the links that lead to written evidence (which you then dismissed). Make your mind up.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Intellectual dishonesty.

On your part.

We can prove gravity.

Just as we have proven evolution.

Then you are using a written theory as proof.

Arrant nonsense.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It wasnt criticized when i deleted it.

False.
It was criticised in my post immediately following yours - and quoted there:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833838&postcount=28

 

[Ellie]

That last post(s) is not worth commenting on. Sorry.