Debate: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

[I Think]

This whole deal is right up there with angels on the head of a pin.
Glacier,
how do you know that electrons tend to travel on the surface of conductors when energized?
How do you know how L/A batteries work?
How do you know OHM's law is valid?

The answer of course is not because you personally tested the theories, but because they were discovered by EXPERTS,
and you chose to believe them.
When it comes to religiosity, there are no experts, only people who claim to know what god(s) want(s).
PS you can say uncle in the methodology thread any time.

[OREZ]

...I actually found some of what he had to say quite interesting. He has two doctorates, how many do you have?

This actually is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that he has two doctorates doesn't count for squat if he chooses to purposefully misrepresent the evidence and ignore facts that don't agree with his point of view. The one thing that he's very honest about is the reason why he pursued his degrees...to wage war on "darwinism." He was never objective; he made his mind up before he ever stepped foot on a university campus. He was only looking for possible flaws in evolutionary theory, and because of his confirmation bias, he ignored all evidence that didn't support his views. He could have 10 degrees, and he would still be an untrustworthy and non-credible source of information. You probably find what he has to say interesting because of your own confirmation bias. It's the same reason why people watch a video by that idiot Joshua Feuerstein. He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he uses some big words, says things with such conviction, that people think "yeah, I knew I was right for not believing in all that science garbage, all them scientists are wrong about everything!" It's all just confirmation bias.

I see. When I read or hear something which I find to be interesting and I'm able to get past the fact that I don't share the belief of the author but instead hear him out, it's confirmation bias. Since I don't share his belief you would think I'd be biased against him. You'd like to reduce anyone who has questions about Darwinism to just being hicks who are impressed by big words too, I suppose, never mind that there are lots of scientists who are finding that there are more and more questions about evolution because of science and modern technology allowing them to see much deeper into things like the complexity of cell structure and understanding DNA at a level Darwin couldn't have imagined when he thought cells were just little blobs of protoplasm.

Even Darwin himself understood well and acknowledged, that a considerable objection to his theory existed in the fossil record called the cambrian explosion, an event that has caused some scientists to think of his tree of life diagram as a quaint 19th idea. But... we're getting way off topic here, aren't we?

[Geckonidae]

This was perhaps a bad example. I used it because it had just read the obituary 30 seconds before seeing this thread. You and I know there are of course better examples, but it does highlight the mechanism by which scientists can be duped, and in this case by pressure from Big Pharma (trust us it's safe) and progressives (if you support women's rights you'll approve it).

Or maybe you used that example because without scrutiny, it's very powerful and persuasive. As I said previously, there absolutely are cases of group think among scientists, but nothing on the scale that is suggested here. Going by this logic you could say that there are lots of examples of husbands murdering their wives, so it's OK to assume that every widower murdered his wife. No need for evidence.

Don't you think it's ironic that Wells, who refuses to believe in anything but intelligent design, twists the facts and omits pertinent information in his quest to convince people that scientists are doing exactly what he's doing?

This is the same sort of reasoning Darwinists use to justify using the peppered moth as an example of evolution. Textbooks, darwinists, etc. say it shows an example of how evolution works when it's a very poor example because it merely highlights the "mechanism by which evolution could work."
...
He didn't say that biologists rely on these drawings, but rather that text books use them as proof of evolution.

Seriously...that's where we're going with this? Let me preface by saying that I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here, because I'm sure you already understand the difference between textbooks and scientific research.

Textbooks are not the definitive sources of all things science, they are teaching aids. Textbook Illustrations are not used as first-hand evidence to prove theories, they are used to help the learner understand concepts. You can't just throw research papers and raw data at students and expect them to make sense of it all...you have to dumb it down. Some textbooks have mistakes or illustrations that don't make sense, but human error in the creation of a school book doesn't mean the underlying scientific principals are suspect. Why use a staged picture of moths? Because it's a heck of a lot faster and easier than waiting for moths to pose for you. We're not talking about an elaborately faked photo...the posing of the moths has always been obvious. The photo is not the sum total of the research that was done, it was only used as a visual aid to illustrate the concept. This research is not the foundation upon which all evolutionary science rests, it only represents a tiny fraction of the research and evidence available, and it's far from the best evidence available. It's just a conveniently easy concept to explain in a textbook.

Let me make this very clear. Actual biologists, who have already gone well beyond first year courses, are not pointing to that well known picture of a moth and saying "see, evolution must be true, this picture is all the proof you need."

Go look at this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect. There are lots of illustrations there, exactly like you will find in a college or university text book. I can tell you that these illustrations are horribly out of scale, they do not accurately show you what the cross section of a conductor looks like, and they may lead some people to believe that electrons look like little arrows. But these are just low level illustrations to explain more complex information. Someone did a bunch of research that I probably wouldn't understand, did a bunch of math that I also wouldn't understand, and then drew some pictures that I could understand to help illustrate the concept. If there are textbooks with misprints of the illustrations, but students still manage to understand the concepts, does that mean skin effect isn't real? (No...it doesn't)

Maybe Wells should sit in a few highscool classrooms so he can document any poor analogies or horribly drawn whiteboard diagrams used by science teachers. Clearly that would be more evidence of this giant conspiracy.

[Glacier]

An accurate text book drawing is important when the whole point of the drawing is to show you that the similarities show descent from a common ancestor. If the actual accurate sketches don't show this, then clearly it's a pretty weak argument. That's the point Wells was making.

[Geckonidae]

I see. When I read or hear something which I find to be interesting and I'm able to get past the fact that I don't share the belief of the author but instead hear him out, it's confirmation bias. Since I don't share his belief you would think I'd be biased against him. You'd like to reduce anyone who has questions about Darwinism to just being hicks who are impressed by big words too, I suppose, never mind that there are lots of scientists who are finding that there are more and more questions about evolution because of science and modern technology allowing them to see much deeper into things like the complexity of cell structure and understanding DNA at a level Darwin couldn't have imagined when he thought cells were just little blobs of protoplasm.

Even Darwin himself understood well and acknowledged, that a considerable objection to his theory existed in the fossil record called the cambrian explosion, an event that has caused some scientists to think of his tree of life diagram as a quaint 19th idea. But... we're getting way off topic here, aren't we?

Maybe if you stopped making assumptions about what I think, you would be less offended. I happen to come from a long line of hicks and hillbillies. My dad always said: "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull..." I'm sure you know the rest. It just so happens that spewing BS using big words and lots of confidence really is persuasive. You don't have to be a hick to be taken in by a persuasive lies. I happen to think that we hicks are more likely to be suspicious and skeptical actually. Rednecks though...those guys will believe anything.

Did you read this page yet? http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/10-answers-to-jonathan-wellss-10-questions Yeah, we get it, Darwin wasn't 100% correct about every detail and he didn't have all the answers. We've had over a hundred years to fill in the gaps and expand on his ideas. We (as in humanity) understand the mechanics and history of evolution better now than ever before.

Yes, we're way off topic here. Has anyone unearthed evidence in the past two days of some guy being crucified and then resurrected? No? Still a myth I guess.

[Geckonidae]

An accurate text book drawing is important when the whole point of the drawing is to show you that the similarities show descent from a common ancestor. If the actual accurate sketches don't show this, then clearly it's a pretty weak argument. That's the point Wells was making.

OK, so by your logic, this illustration can be used as evidence that either the ark had gay lions, or it never happened.


Taking this back on topic, take a look at all of these different illustrations of the resurrection myth:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=jesus+resurrection&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=925&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI6LKsgPiJyAIVyzuICh1d4gqF#

If these illustrations are all supposed to depict the same event, why are they so different? They can't agree on which side the round door is on...or if there is a round door. Were there stairs or not? Was he wearing a robe with a belt or with a sash? Or just a sheet? Is this what Jesus really looked like?

Oh wait, those are just illustrations that carry no weight on their own.

Textbooks are used to teach concepts, they do not replace peer reviewed research. If a textbook is using an outdated image to teach a concept that is still supported by newer research and mountains of evidence, it doesn't disprove the science. It's just a sloppy textbook publisher. I'm not sure how you could not get that. There are backwards school boards in the US that require textbooks to include information on "intelligent design". The fact that it made it into a textbook doesn't mean it's true, nor does it mean everything else in the textbook is fiction.

I think I'm about done with this topic, but I have some final questions for you since you started this thread. Why do you think that people like David Wood and Jonathan Wells are worth listening to? It's clear that they have agendas, and it's clear that they are willing to twist the truth and omit facts if it supports their agenda. Given how unreliable they are, how does someone take what they have to say over mountains of fossil evidence and peer reviewed research? And how would the possibility of a few small gaps in our understanding of the mechanics of evolution support the idea that some god being designed all life on Earth, sent his son down, let him die, and then brought him back to life?

[Glacier]

OK, so by your logic, this illustration can be used as evidence that either the ark had gay lions, or it never happened.

What on earth are you talking about. If you use an illustration that distorts the truth as evidence for a theory, then it is dishonest. It's like Fin Donnelly stating the Kurdi's application was denied knowing full well the public would take it a certain way, or it's like me telling you that it's 11:00 knowing full well that you don't know I'm talking about a different time zone.

Misrepresenting the facts to promote a theory is wrong, and that's what people are doing when they use these illustrations as evidence for evolution. It's perfectly fine to use illustrations, but to use them to tell a story that just isn't there isn't science, it's urban legend.

[Madhue]

Misrepresenting the facts to promote a theory is wrong,

does the same go for Islamophobia?

[Glacier]

does the same go for Islamophobia?

Of course. No one should lie or misrepresent the facts. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to have a disagreement over opinions (eg. it's perfectly reasonable for us to disagree on who won the debate between David Wood and Anjem Choudary on the question of whether or not Shariah would help the West).

[Madhue]

Of course. No one should lie or misrepresent the facts.

my long standing issue with Christianity is their failure to conduct themselves as being "Christ-like" and the battery of excuses manufactured to allow for that poor conduct. I thin Christianity has failed on two levels, not promoting the concept of being Christ Like and becoming an institution. I've long be fascinated with the concept of Religion but the flaws to its execution repel me.

[Glacier]

my long standing issue with Christianity is their failure to conduct themselves as being "Christ-like" and the battery of excuses manufactured to allow for that poor conduct. I thin Christianity has failed on two levels, not promoting the concept of being Christ Like and becoming an institution. I've long be fascinated with the concept of Religion but the flaws to its execution repel me.

I think you're echoing a common frustration over the disconnect between many Christians and the teachings of Christ. Even the great Mahatma Gandhi noted this when he said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I have a similar phrase that recognizes that most Muslims are also hypocrites, but in a good way, "I do not like your Muhammad, I like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Muhammad."