The evolutionists don't have extraordinary evidence.
The gospel claims are extraordinary claims, not extrapolations, and are backed up by reliable eyewitness evidence.
45 comments
A theory completely consistent with every last piece of DNA evidence, fossil evidence, and radiometric evidence isn't extraordinary,
while an error-riddled, bronze age book written anonymously a generation after its supposed event occured (but unconfirmed by any secular history) is extraordinary?
(Well, it certainly isn't ordinary!)
Well, eyewitness testimony is known to be inherently flawed in the first place. That issue is compounded if your "eyewitness" is dead or, you know, imaginary.
Heh, he's obviously never been to law school. We're all taught that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable kind.
Scientific evidence on the other hand, that's pretty hard to beat.
first of, the "eyewitness" evidence isn't reliable. Second of all, it's in a book, so it isn't eyewitness evidence. And just to prove my point, I'm going to say there isn't any evidence at all.
So, it seems the gospel claims aren't backed up at all.
Evolution is backed up by all kinds of evidence. Literally tons of it.
The gospel makes extraordinary claims? Yes.
-"There is a clan of ninja ferrets living in my attic. A thousand people have seen them firsthand. Because I say this, it must be true."-
Same thing.
Why would evolutionists need EXTRAordinary evidence? Plain old every-day evidence is sufficient to prove evolution.
And who are those reliable eyewitnesses you refer to? Do you mean the men who wrote the gospels (whoever they were) years after jesus's death. Were seances involved?
People who accept the validity of the theory of evolution have a truly extraordinary amount of evidence to back up the theory. You, on the other hand, have accounts that are neither eyewitness, having been written decades after the events supposedly happened, nor reliable, as they contradict both one another and the rest of the evidence.
There is a clan of ninja ferrets living in my attic. A thousand people have seen them firsthand. Because I say this, it must be true. Actually, the Bible would be more like 'three hundred years ago, there was a clan of ninja ferrets in this attic...'
Reliable eyewitnesses? Most of these supposed eyewitnesses never wrote anything about their supposed experiences. And, while somebody(ies) authored the gospels, whomever they may have been, they left no other writings by which we can judge their veracity and offered no verifiable evidence to support their claims. Hardly what I would call "reliable eyewitness evidence."
Extraordinary evidence?, ok, go and find me a mere fossile or a simple DNA sample, and tell me what you find. Try to make water dialisys or explain the Photosynthesys. And by the way, do you know who Matthew was?, seems to me that it's the only EYEWITNESS. Luke for sure and Mark were NOT.
I just read this one yesterday, but coming across it now I'm again like, "What?".
The evolutionists don't have extraordinary evidence.
The gospel claims are extraordinary claims, not extrapolations, and are backed up by reliable eyewitness evidence.
...and are backed up by reliable eyewitness evidence.
Reliable as the eyewitnesses who reported that the Archangel Gabriel gave Muhammad the Quran, that Muhammad made an ascension to Heaven, or that Muhammad once split the Moon in two halves?
Or reliable as the eyewitnesses who reported that when Kim Jong Il of North Korea visited a factory in winter, that all the flowers around the factory started to blossom miraculously? (I'm not joking, this are real North Korean news)
"scarlets79", this should teach you a lesson what religious texts mostly are: In the best case: Fairy Tales. In the worst case: Propaganda.
Reliable eyewitness evidence is an oxymoron even when the eyewitnesses are still alive. When they've been dead for millennia, their so-called evidence becomes marginally less valuable than a steaming mountain of elephant shit.
Face it, you have nothing whatsoever that can back up the "extraordinary" (i.e. ridiculous) claims which make up much of the gospel.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Any court acknowledges that purely eyewitness accounts are notoriously un reliable, and therefore aren't admissable as evidence.
Therefore a 'Reverse -Scopes Monkey Trial' today, in which fundamental ist religion was on trial for it's very existence wouldn't last very long, as far as the prosecutiion, judge & jury are concerned.
I refer you to the Billy Connolly film "The Man Who Sued God". Also Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Frankly, if you're going along that argumental path, purely to justify your 'belief's existence, then you're on extremely shaky logical ground before you've even started.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
