Origins Thread

[Tiger]

Jared Taylor is an honest individual who just thinks its better if people stick to their own ethnic group.

Naturally he attracts a lot of ire for this.

I think you’ve stumbled into the wrong conversation. We’re not discussing Jared Taylor.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Myles, just to say it… you often wear your cognitive decline as a badge of honour. For your own sake, I’d suggest you try to end this bad habit.

Au contraire my good man. Saul Goodman has consulted Artificial Intelligence about me and here are its findings:

1. Myles O’Reilly: Known for 4,142 messages, Myles brings wit and wisdom to the virtual pub.

 

[Tiger]

Au contraire my good man. Saul Goodman has consulted Artificial Intelligence about me and here are its findings:

Haha, all good.

Presumably you saw the name Taylor and got mixed up. It was actually Dr. James Tour that was being discussed here. He’s asking difficult questions to the field of evolutionary science around the origin of life and the feasibility of naturalistic explanations for certain biochemical processes.

Certain YouTube hucksters have their noses out of joint and have become obsessed with trying to deflect his challenges without actually answering any of them.

One of these YouTube hucksters is an obnoxious chancer that Jambo adores called Farina. He’s a troll who only engages in ad hominem attacks.


They ended up having a public face to face debate, where Taylor rinsed his clock (video posted above).

Even a biased google agrees. See here:

View attachment 4363

A War of Words? How to Tell Who Won the Tour-Farina Debate​

Casey Luskin
May 23, 2023, 2:19 PM

• 
  Photo source: YouTube (screenshot).

A few years ago, just as I was finishing writing my PhD thesis, I received an email from an Internet questioner with the subject “War of Words.” This person expressed concerns that there is so much back and forth between experts in the debate over the origin and evolution of life and intelligent design, that it can sometimes be difficult for a non-expert to determine who is right. I can sympathize with this: Even though I have multiple science degrees, took many undergraduate and graduate courses in evolution, and have closely followed the science for years, it’s still a challenge to keep up with everything. What’s a non-expert to do?
Last Friday we witnessed a debate on the origin of life (OOL) between two widely followed voices on the topic: Rice University chemistry Professor James Tour, and YouTube science educator Dave Farina, aka “Professor Dave.” This debate, which took place on the Rice University campus, was at times turbulent, but it provides an apt example of how to answer my “War of Words” Internet questioner.

“No Viable Model”​

The topic of the debate was: “Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?” Discovery Institute did not organize this debate and I was not a big fan of this framing because it would be much harder to prove a high standard, that OOL researchers are “clueless,” than it would be to prove some lesser — but still entirely reasonable — claim like “There is no viable model for the origin of life.” Nonetheless, Tour faithfully stuck to the debate topic, and he made a strong scientific case against the natural chemical origin of life.

Dave Farina represented the standard view that unguided natural chemical processes could have produced the first life on earth. Unfortunately, however, Farina decided to focus on a very different debate topic. His topic was essentially — no exaggeration — Is James Tour a liar and a fraud? — and that is precisely what he asserted over and over again throughout the night. Farina’s venom and personal attacks and insults against Tour knew almost no boundaries. It was a spectacle, and I was shocked that the moderator allowed it to proceed. But Farina’s focus on personal attacks and his repeated refusals to answer Tour’s reasonable scientific challenges made it clear to many viewers that Tour had the better argument.
If you don’t believe me, consider some comments on the YouTube chat posted by viewers who are apparently self-described as atheists, agnostics, and/or former supporters of Farina:

• “Am I the only non-religious person that finds Tour much more convincing than Dave? This debate made me further convinced. The problem with Dave is that strangely, as an educator, he in no way tried to educate James Tour, but only attack him and slander him, he has zero class, and from a psychology standpoint, seems like he did nothing but dodge and deflect, which would suggest he doesn’t have a deep understanding of the subject, but merely a surface level one, a true scientist wants people to understand the truth, and would carefully address Tours questions concisely and on a deeper level.”
• “I’m an atheist, however, Farina’s smug and snide attacks on Tour throughout this debate, disgusted me. I may disagree with Tour’s mission, however, no one can ignore his considerable contribution to science.”
• “I’m agnostic, but hearing Dr. Farina’s statements, grounded on insulting and sarcasm sincerely show more how clueless he or his community are…usually when you use sarcasm it is because you have [little] to say. I say this as an academic myself (other field though) when I see colleagues use sarcasm is because they don’t know how to ground their statements.”
• “I’m [an] atheist and this was embarrassing to watch. Dave claiming that James doesn’t know how to read papers, while…citing barely anything beyond the titles of a bunch of papers. I think that disrespecting the audience and claiming to know what they do and don’t know was the worst move of the entire debate. It shows that he’s arguing emotionally.”
• “I’ve been floating around this conflict, viewing from the outside. Dave’s videos helped me in middle-high school. Dave poisoned the well, then used insults and rhetoric as the substance of his ‘argument’. This was disappointing, I was hoping he would bring something of value. Dr. Tour won this one.”

​

 

[Tiger]

Jambo is embarrassed by me schooling him again, so he’s deleting my posts to hide his shame.

Here’s one he’s deleting

David has been banned said:
Just to clear, you're a 70 IQ Catholic zealot dipshit who attaches yourself to science, or scientists, when it suits. For example, the noisy fraud and liar, whose name you don't even know how to spell and who doesn't know anything about origin of life research or this chap, Alexander Vilenkin, who you also know nothing about.

Did you watch your video by the way (till the end)? In what way did he hedge his bets?
Click to expand...

James, all of the elements of this conversation were brought to the table by me.

You don’t get to say what I do or don’t know about them.

You bring nothing to the table. Ever.

You couldn’t even muster an opinion of your own to counter what I said. You always reply with inane questions.

You clearly have an inferiority complex when in my company. This motivates you to speak and behave like a doltish 12 year old boy.

 

[Tiger]

Ladies and gentlemen, yours truly has defeated James ‘the spoofer’ Dawson in this Origins debate.

He is now deleting the awkward challenging questions I was posing to him (over on his demented zoo thread), as they were highlighting how out of his depth he is.

I simplified an earlier question to him (because he couldn’t understand the question, to even begin attempt an answer) and he deleted it out of frustration within a minute or two of it being posted.

This is the telling question that he deleted…

Why do living things get old and weak even though it’s better for them to stay strong and have babies? How do some ideas like antagonistic pleiotropy and disposable soma help us understand why aging happens in the first place?

This question highlighted just how out of his depth he is on this topic.

I imagine this news will trigger him to have a conniption and go on a rant this evening, posting nonsense to himself. James suffers from an inferiority complex and I pushed too many of his inferiority buttons for him to be able to cope.

He knew I had him in my sights and was about to pull the trigger.

 

[Tiger]

Ladies and gentlemen, once again I have beat up Jambo so much that he can’t respond to me and is simply deleting posts again (although it should be mentioned that he’s pissed out of his head).


This is the question he won’t/can’t answer

How could bacterial flagellum, with its intricate structure consisting of numerous interdependent parts like the rotor, stator, propeller, and various proteins, have evolved through gradual, step-by-step processes, considering that removing or altering any of its components would render in non-functional and thus not provide any selective advantage until all parts were fully assembled?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Ladies and gentlemen, once again I have beat up Jambo so much that he can’t respond to me.


He won’t/can’t answer.

He's been banned Sir.

 

[Tiger]

He's been banned Sir.

Nope. He threatened to flounce when he was inebriated. Then sobered up and is still here.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Nope. He threatened to flounce when he was inebriated. Then sobered up and is still here.

He and Wolf have been banned.

That is why there is a line through their names.

 

[Wolf]

Why is Jimbo '50/50' Dawson allowed shitpost every thread on this board?

 

[Wolf]

@Tiger
It's your blog, get rid of this gimp FFS.

 

[Tiger]

Baha! I Knew it!

Doctor James Torino is a fucken ki.. eh, is a Jew! Watch -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjvVhiympPs

lol He sure saw you guys coming

Grow up James, you’re going to have to do better than ‘ha he’s a Jew’ as an argument to avoid being banned again on this thread.

Debate properly or jog on.

 

[Tiger]

What would you know about "debating properly".. You're an obnoxious, lying, fucking fool

Grow up James.

 

[Coal Gas and peat]

Why did you delete my post, sweetcheeks?

Truth hurts, huh

Because origins uncensored it leading by 10views to origins (censored) paltry 9kviews

 

[Tiger]

Because origins uncensored it leading by 10views to origins (censored) paltry 9kviews

Yup, that’s it.

Nothing to do with random drunken abuse from the site alcoholic.

 

[Tiger]

Well worth a watch

 

[Coal Gas and peat]

Yup, that’s it.

Nothing to do with random drunken abuse from the site alcoholic.

You should have left the post if you are to have any chance of catching origins uncensored

 

[Tiger]

You should have left the post if you are to have any chance of catching origins uncensored

I’m good, thanks Saul.

 

[Hermit]

Doctor James Torino is a fucken ki.. eh, is a Jew! Watch -

From the Big Bang to Carl Sagan

Jewish scientists were monumental in understanding the universe.

jewishjournal.com

Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

From the Big Bang to Carl Sagan

Jewish scientists were monumental in understanding the universe.

jewishjournal.com

Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The "Big Bang" seems to me to be pure Kabbalahistic metaphysics as opposed to physics as such.

 

[Tiger]

Interesting analysis

 

[Tiger]

The title of this video speaks for itself

Lennox has a great mind

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

Check this out…

Is the golden ratio a universal constant for self-replication? - PMC

The golden ratio, ϕ = 1.61803…, has often been found in connection with biological phenomena, ranging from spirals in sunflowers to gene frequency. One example where the golden ratio often arises is in self-replication, having its mathematical ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

DNA spiral as a Golden Section

The DNA molecule is based on the golden section. It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral.

www.goldennumber.net

The height of one unit of the DNA helix shows the Golden ratio. The DNA molecule measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. These numbers, 34 and 21, are numbers in the Fibonacci series, and their ratio 1.6190.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

The "Big Bang" seems to me to be pure Kabbalahistic metaphysics as opposed to physics as such.

Indeed. The Universe goes bang! and the Lightning bolt tickles a primordial goo puddle, are two zinger fairy tales that atheists tell their offspring.

As fanciful as any Nordic pagan myth, and about as credible.

 

[Tiger]

Programmers: Why materialism can’t explain human creativity

Eric Holloway and Robert Marks explain why it’s unlikely that the mind that enables human creativity is merely the product of animal evolution

Programmers: Why Materialism Can’t Explain Human Creativity

The total space-time information capacity of the universe falls significantly short of the ability to generate meaningful text of only a few hundred letters.

mindmatters.ai

The total space-time information capacity of the universe falls significantly short of the ability to generate meaningful text of only a few hundred letters.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

As fanciful as any Nordic pagan myth, and about as credible.

What makes a Nordic pagan myth any less credible than your Nazarene myth Sir?

 

[scolairebocht]

The "story" of Jesus is written down in four contemporary or near contemporary accounts and is corroborated, not in every respect admittedly, by about two seperate Jewish and two Roman historians. These accounts are similar to any modern day eye witness accounts and are not remotely similar to Nordic myths.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

What makes a Nordic pagan myth any less credible than your Nazarene myth Sir?

Do you believe that Jesus is a mythological figure?

Actually that was a near official academic take in the Soviet Union for a lot of it's history.

I believe that Muhammad is a mythological figure- (Muhammad is strictly speaking a title and not a name).

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The "story" of Jesus is written down in four contemporary or near contemporary accounts and is corroborated, not in every respect admittedly, by about two seperate Jewish and two Roman historians. These accounts are similar to any modern day eye witness accounts and are not remotely similar to Nordic myths.

I'm not talking about that and well you know it Sir.

I'm talking about the fact that he was born to a Virgin, was killed and rose from the dead as the Son of God!

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Do you believe that Jesus is a mythological figure? Actually that was a near official academic take in the Soviet Union for a lot of it's history. I believe that Muhammad is a mythological figure- (Muhammad is strictly speaking a title and not a name).

Jesus' existence is far less certain than Bocht makes out but its more certain the warlord Mohammed existed.

 

[Tiger]

Jesus' existence is far less certain than Bocht makes out but its more certain the warlord Mohammed existed.

Name somebody credible who denies the existence of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Name somebody credible who denies the existence of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

I think he is wrong- and worse not a Catholic (I think the Church Authorities were too soft on him)- however from an earthly academic point of view I do think he is someone credible so to speak.

Thomas L. Brodie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scolairebocht]

From the first chapter of http://www.orwellianireland.com/proofs.pdf :

"Firstly we have the Jewish writer Philo (c.20BC-40AD) of Alexandria, who in writing about his Embassy to Gaius in c.39/40 AD relates this anecdote about Pilate, which captures a little bit of the tense atmosphere between Pilate and the Jews around the time of the crucifixion:

“Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honor to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honor they were so placed there.

But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor.

But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: ‘Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.’

But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.

Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius.

And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.”

So while this non-Christian source does not mention Our Lord or the Apostles directly, nonetheless it clearly does corroborate for us the general atmosphere between the Jews and Pilate that the Bible claims existed in Jerusalem at that time. Meanwhile another ancient Jewish writer, Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), an advisor to successive Roman Emperors, some of whose writings come to us from Arabic and some from Greek, does indeed corroborate the basic facts of the New Testament:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
...
After the death of the procurator Festus, when Albinus was about to succeed him, the high-priest Ananius considered it a favorable opportunity to assemble the Sanhedrin. He therefore caused James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and several others, to appear before this hastily assembled council, and pronounced upon them the sentence of death by stoning. All the wise men and strict observers of the law who were at Jerusalem expressed their disapprobation of this act...Some even went to Albinus himself, who had departed to Alexandria, to bring this breach of the law under his observation, and to inform him that Ananius had acted illegally in assembling the Sanhedrin without the Roman authority.
...
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Turning now to Roman sources, Suetonius, an important Roman historian who lived from 69-75 to c.130 AD wrote this reference to the riot of Rome of c.49 AD during the reign of Emperor Claudius 41-54 AD: “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome,” and referring to the great fire in Rome in 64 AD he wrote: “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”
Here we have a reference by another major influential Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-120 AD), describing the year 64 AD:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

These two Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, are among the really great historians of Rome whose writings are usually held as a gold standard with respect to whether or not various events really happened. This it seems is partly because of their diligent and honest research and writing and partly because they seemed to have access to a good quantity of written government records existing at that time in Rome. With respect to Suetonius it is accepted by all that he was ‘director of Imperial archives’ and he explicitly mentions reading letters from the early Emperors. Also Tacitus mentions a few times archives like this, for example:

“There was in the Senate one Junius Rusticus, who having been appointed by the emperor to register its debates was therefore supposed to have an insight into his secret purposes,”

and

“I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consulelect, proposed a motion that a temple should as soon as possible be built at the public expense to the Divine Nero.”

That these archives must have been extensive we can see from the fact that the Romans normally did preserve copies of important documents, as Suetonius himself relates:

“Vespasian undertook to restore the 3,000 bronze tablets which were destroyed with the [Capitoline] temple, making a thorough search for copies: priceless and most ancient records of the empire, containing the decrees of the Senate and the acts of the commons almost from the foundation of the city, regarding alliances, treaties, and special privileges granted to individuals.”

Bearing in mind then the correct dates these two historians usually have for events many years before their time, and the high political position and prestige both of those held in Rome, Tacitus was a Senator and Consul and Suetonius was the Emperor Hadrian’s secretary and also (too!) close to the Empress, and their many years diligent research into historical matters, leads us to safely assume that they consulted the very many written records that existed in the Imperial archives in Rome at that time.

 

[scolairebocht]

Which brings us to the next point, did they consult written Roman records from or to Pilate which helped them in writing the historical references listed above? I would say that it is very likely they did, especially when you consider what Philo said about an incident when the Jews wrote to the Emperor in a way that got Pilate into trouble. The chances are then, of course, that Pilate would make sure to get in his version of events this time with an early letter to the Emperor. The interesting thing is that there exists three ancient references to a written document from Pilate on these biblical events – and this is exclusive of an old forged letter supposed to be from him – that existed in the Roman archives at the time that Tacitus and Suetonius were writing their histories. Naturally any idea that these two historians were relying on authentic contemporary written records increases not a little their credibility, and hence the credibility of their references to Our Lord.

In any case here is another example of the early Christians being mentioned by Roman writers, in this case not by an historian as such but by Pliny the Younger (c.62-c.113 AD) who was a lawyer and administrator with a flair for poetry and letter writing, including this one which he wrote in 112 or 113 AD to the Emperor Trajan:

“It is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them. Whether any difference is to be allowed between the youngest and the adult; whether repentance admits to a pardon, or if a man has been once a Christian it avails him nothing to recant; whether the mere profession of Christianity, albeit without crimes, or only the crimes associated therewith are punishable -- in all these points I am greatly doubtful.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel not doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.

These accusations spread (as is usually the case) from the mere fact of the matter being investigated and several forms of the mischief came to light. A placard was put up, without any signature, accusing a large number of persons by name. Those who denied they were, or had ever been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ – none of which acts, it is into performing – these I thought it proper to discharge. Others who were named by that informer at first confessed themselves Christians, and then denied it; true, they had been of that persuasion but they had quitted it, some three years, others many years, and a few as much as twenty-five years ago. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

I therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel. For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the numbers endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes are, and will be, involved in the prosecution. For this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it seems possible, however, to check and cure it.”

So the basic facts of the Bible can be quite well corroborated by a number of sources, as one writer who has examined this concluded:

“In addition to the nine New Testament authors who wrote about Jesus in separate accounts, I found at least twenty additional early Christian authors, four heretical writings, and seven non-Christian sources that make explicit mention of Jesus in their writings within 150 years of his life. This amounts to a minimum of 40 authors, all of whom explicitly mention Jesus and the expansion of a spiritual movement in his name. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime. Scholars are only aware of ten sources that mention Emperor Tiberius within 150 years of his life, including Luke, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Paterculus. Thus, within this short time frame, the number of ancient writers who mention Jesus outnumber those who mention the leader of the entire Roman Empire (effectively, the ancient world of the time) by a ratio of 4:1!”

It seems to this observer then that you have to take the Bible seriously, it isn’t really very scientific to dismiss it as just a ‘third hand fairytale’ as some try to describe it. Consider for example this passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians (15:3-8):

“For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: And that he was buried: and that he rose again according to the scriptures: And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven. Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James: then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me.”

We know who wrote this letter, St Paul, where it was written, in Ephesus on the western coast of Turkey, in what language, Greek, who it was written to, the Corinthians, the inhabitants of the well known city of Corinth obviously, and we know the date it was written at least to within a narrow 4 or 5 year period, between 53 and 57 AD. And as you can also see it is a clear explicit statement of facts about the Resurrection written by, as you have just read, an eye witness to it. Hence we have here in the Bible a first hand eye witness account of the Resurrection from a text dated approximately 20 years after the event described.

From which we can conclude that the Bible should be taken seriously as an authentic, important document outlining facts, which in not a few respects, have been verified as true from other sources. Hence if we are to take the Bible seriously like this then it should be considered as a proof of the existence of God, Who is obviously described at length in it."

 

[Tiger]

I think he is wrong- and worse not a Catholic (I think the Church Authorities were too soft on him)- however from an earthly academic point of view I do think he is someone credible so to speak.

Thomas L. Brodie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Joe Rogan (not a credible critic on this subject matter) tried to put the same claim to Adam Curry last year.

Taylor Marshall dissects the interview and his claims here

 

[Tiger]

Worth a listen. An interesting perspective

 

[scolairebocht]

Excellent video Tiger, surely atheists cannot really argue back against that logic...

 

[Tiger]

Excellent video Tiger, surely atheists cannot really argue back against that logic...

Yeah, she’s a student of Sam Harris.

The quote about Dawkins and the British Book of Birds in relation to Theology was apt. You even see it on this forum. Normally when atheists start to talk about God and theological arguments it’s like watching a dog walk on its hind legs.

 

[scolairebocht]

The crazy level of bias against religion in academia is the thing that struck me, its very true. You know if anybody out there has been educated in Ireland in the last few decades there is no question but that they have been exposed to a vast amount of lies and misinformation about the Catholic Church and, no disrespect intended, but they need to recognise that.