The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[chrispalasz]

bernee51: Below are some of the definitions of the words 'fact' and 'faith' - of which I'm sure you are well aware.

They seem to me to be mutiually exclusive terms. Without 'facts' you need faith with facts there is no need of faith. What do you have - faith or facts?

Both.

I like your approach; but special circumstances allow for special conditions. In the circumstance of Christianity, the condition is that Faith and Fact are one and the same. But don't worry... this is not always the case; and actually, this is only the case with Christianity. So, you don't have much to worry about.

Exactly what 'facts' is your 'faith' built on.

God's existence fits only with definition #4 - something which is believed to be true. An even longer bow must be drawn to surmise that Jesus=god. Now we have two beliefs making up a fact. i.e. the belief in god and the belief in Jesus.

You have demonstrate quite clearly the depth of your faith - no question. You cannot, logically, prove the fact of the existence of your god or your belief that Jesus=god without compromising your faith.

Right. Definition 4 is a good one. Things that are believed to be real or true can be facts.

I will agree that I cannot prove my faith to anyone. It might interest you to read this post and/or to join in on this discussion thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2559#12559

GreenLight311 wrote:
It may be true that if logic came first there may be no religion. But it is more true that if Faith had never come, there would be no logic.

bernee51: Can you clarify what you mean by this. Logic is not dependent on religion.

Logic is "the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning"

By your own definition (in the atheism thread) logic and religion are antithetic.

Surely. Sorry, I don't like to be confusing. What I mean is that if one believes that Jesus Christ created everything and Jesus Christ is God - then we could say that if there were no Jesus Christ then there wouldn't be anything.

So what I was alluding to is that God created logic and He created Faith also, but He did not create logic before Faith. He created Faith first. I believe that it is by Faith that we produce logic, according to the order in which God created both. So if you destroy Faith you have no basis for logic.

Seriously... you can just ignore this part. It's really not something worth getting into. I don't care to discuss it... but if you really want to press it further - I suppose I'll answer.

[Dilettante]

Greenlight311 said

John Paul II does not represent Christianity in the least

But I never asked anyone to believe that John Paul II "represents" Christianity. I only pointed out that he is definitely a Christian, and the leader of the largest subdivision of Christianity. These are objective facts, aren't they? If I said I am a doctor, I wouldn't necessarily have claimed to represent the entire medical profession, even if I were the president of the Association of Dermatologists.

And Catholic dogma is very highly heretical.

Well, I suppose it is for non-Catholics. One man's dogma is another man's heresy, we all know that. I don't suppose you are setting yourself up as the definitive authority...

Eeeek. John Paul II does not represent me... he does not represent Christianity, and he does not represent Christ!

Again, I never expected you to believe that. As for "he doesn't represent Christ", Catholics believe he does...to a certain extent, as head of their church. But non Catholics are not required to belive that!

As for all humans being descended from a single couple...

First, I hope this isn't your reason that you mentioned above.

Second, in what way is this less likely or less appealing than the scientific theory of how humans came about?

Third, you are not correct in your assessment of Genesis. The two creation accounts are both included for a good reason - they portray different points. We are to believe them both. It is not necessary to choose one or the other - the purpose of each is not contradictory.

It is definitely more appealing in some ways, but it is a lot less likely than current scientific explanations which postulate a common ancestor to both apes and humans. Evolution may still have unanswered questions, but it fits the facts better. It would take me a long message to explain why I think it does, but if you want I can try...

[Dilettante]

Okay Greenlight 311, lets try...
First, a definition of evolution:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations

No more no less...It turns out that, ehile the precise mechanisms of evolution are still open to debate, evolution as such is an observable fact which does not necessarily conflict with Christianity. It does, however, conflict, as you rightly point out, with the biblical literalism espoused by some groups of Christians, but not with Christianity as a whole.
Now for Adam and Eve...or perhaps just Eve:

CLAIM: The scientific discovery (NOTE:not “creationtific” discovery) a few years back that mitochondrial DNA was identical in all people of various ancestry and thus showed that mankind arose from one female.
First, mitochondrial DNA is NOT identical in all humans. However the differences can be used to construct a family tree of sorts, and the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that all modern humans inherited their mitochondria from one woman, dubbed Eve (possibly to bait creationists), who lived (I think) around 200 Kyears ago.
(The mutation rate observed for the mitochondrial DNA was used to establish the times involved.)
Second, the fact that the mitochondria of all of us can be traced to one woman does not mean we arose solely from her-- it just means that she's one of our common ancestors.
The maternal inheritance of mitochondria is analogous to the inheritance of last names in our paternalistic society.
The point is, there may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of our common maternal line. If a consistent paternalistic society had existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common paternal line.
James Merritt (TalkOrigins.org)

And about our relatives the African apes:

Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis). Why did the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and Robert Broom go to Africa in search of early hominid fossils? Why not dig in Australia, North America, South America, Siberia, or Mesopotamia? Charles Darwin gave an answer for this question over 130 years ago - long before any early hominid fossils had been found.
"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." (Darwin 1871, p. 161)

Thus, the theory of common descent predicts that we may find early hominid fossils on the African continent.
Confirmation:
Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa. For examples, discussion, pictures, detail, and extensive references refer to Jim Foley's comprehensive Fossil Hominid's FAQ. These examples include such fossil species as Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus garhi, Kenyanthropus platyops, Kenyanthropus rudolfensis, Homo habilis, and a host of other transitionals thought to be less related to Homo sapiens, such as the robust australopithicenes. At this point in time, the difficulty in reconstructing exact genealogical relationships among all of these fossils species is that there are too many links, not that there are missing links. Like most family trees, the family tree of the hominids is best described as a wildly branching bush.
Potential Falsification:
We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common

Now, if any of the above fossils are found in the above regions, I'll post a public apology in this forum and I'll eat my words (with some vinegar and olive oil dressing, of course)

[chrispalasz]

Dilettante: But I never asked anyone to believe that John Paul II "represents" Christianity. I only pointed out that he is definitely a Christian, and the leader of the largest subdivision of Christianity. These are objective facts, aren't they?

No, sir. John Paul II's Christianity is also in question. I cannot conclude that he is definately a Christian. Christians have the Holy Spirit inside of them. I cannot say definately that he does. I tend to question whether the Holy Spirit could be guiding the man that is the head of the largest heretical denomination that claims to be Christian.

Dilettante: Well, I suppose it is for non-Catholics. One man's dogma is another man's heresy, we all know that. I don't suppose you are setting yourself up as the definitive authority...

No. You are correct. I most certainly am not the definitive authority. Jesus Christ is... and the Catholic church has been corrupt beyond His Word for hundreds of years.

Dilettante: It is definitely more appealing in some ways

You think so? What ways, specifically? I don't see how it's more appealing. I believe it because it's true... not because I find it more appealing.

[samuelbb7]

So the Bible says we all had a single women ancestor and evolution now agrees that the bible is correct we had a single women ancestor. the Bible put our ancestrory as coming from the Northern Aftica region where evolutionist who used to teach that we had multiple lines now agree we came from. Also in a recent study of men it is now shown that all men decided from men who lived in the area of turkey near the mountains of ararat.

Now the bible and the evolutionist are differing on dates and why. But it seems that evolutionist are finding that the Bible seems to have been right all along. They just need to give up and admit that the bible is all right about creation.

Now secondly as the National Geographic admits only one pieces out of every thousand pieces of the puzzle have been found. Yet we are to believe that a puzzle missing 999 out of a thousand pieces is not guesswork?

[Dilettante]

samuelb7 wrote

So the Bible says we all had a single women ancestor and evolution now agrees that the bible is correct we had a single women ancestor.

Actually, if you read the post again you'll see that's not what it says...

Greenlight311 wrote:

No, sir. John Paul II's Christianity is also in question. I cannot conclude that he is definately a Christian. Christians have the Holy Spirit inside of them. I cannot say definately that he does. I tend to question whether the Holy Spirit could be guiding the man that is the head of the largest heretical denomination that claims to be Christian.

Aaah...so you ARE setting yourself up as an authority after all!

and the Catholic church has been corrupt beyond His Word for hundreds of years.

I'm not sure whether you are saying this as an authority or not, and since you offer no evidence to back your claim that the Catholic church has corrupted Jesus's word, I'll classify your assertion as a mere opinion or perhaps prejudice.

You think so? What ways, specifically? I don't see how it's more appealing. I believe it because it's true... not because I find it more appealing.

The Adam and Eve story is more appealing because it puts humans at the center of the universe, at the top of all created beings. Evolution, however, is more humbling because it puts us together with the apes. I think evolution is true, however unappealing.

[Amadeus]

Two points:

1. I am sure you can find much evidence about the corruption by the Catholic church of God's Holy word in a Catholic debate thread.

2. Evolution ALSO claims that we are at the top of everything. They are BOTH humancentric (if that is even a word )

[Dilettante]

Amadeus wrote

I am sure you can find much evidence about the corruption by the Catholic church of God's Holy word in a Catholic debate thread

I am not sure what you mean. Does Jesus himself (the only universally recognized authority on Christianity according to Greenlight) take part in those debate threads? What kind of evidence are you referring to? It is frequent for Christian sects to call each other "heretical", but I don't think that proves anything except that their views are very different. There is no such thing as "mere Christianity", no matter what CS Lweis thought.

Evolution ALSO claims that we are at the top of everything. They are BOTH humancentric

Actually it doesn't. Evolution is not a neat TIME-LIFE centerfold with amoebas at one end and humans at the other. If you take some time to get acquainted with evolutionary biology you'll see what I mean. The popularized version of evolution does not do justice to the real thing.

[chrispalasz]

Dilettante: I am not sure what you mean. Does Jesus himself (the only universally recognized authority on Christianity according to Greenlight) take part in those debate threads? What kind of evidence are you referring to? It is frequent for Christian sects to call each other "heretical", but I don't think that proves anything except that their views are very different. There is no such thing as "mere Christianity", no matter what CS Lweis thought.

Yes, Jesus Himself does take part in debate threads. Jesus Christ is alive and well, and He exists in every person that is truly a Christian through the Holy Spirit. That is why Christians are "the Body of Christ".

Have you read "Mere Christianity"? I haven't. I'm just wondering.
If I can dig up all the posts that explain what Christianity is, I'll link them for you. From what I'm reading, you seem to have a misunderstanding about that. Christianity is NOT the combination of every denomination that so calls itself "Christian". Christianity comes from God alone - and it is made up of individual people from any denomination that have the Holy Spirit inside of them and truly know and follow Jesus Christ. That's the short version.

Dilettante: Actually it doesn't. Evolution is not a neat TIME-LIFE centerfold with amoebas at one end and humans at the other. If you take some time to get acquainted with evolutionary biology you'll see what I mean. The popularized version of evolution does not do justice to the real thing.

Please provide some source of reference that will address the issue you feel I or Amadeus is comfused about. Or maybe you can briefly explain it on this thread, or pull up some quote.

[Dilettante]

Greenlight wrote:

Yes, Jesus Himself does take part in debate threads. Jesus Christ is alive and well, and He exists in every person that is truly a Christian through the Holy Spirit. That is why Christians are "the Body of Christ".

I may agree that Jesus exists in every person who is "truly a Christian"(perhaps you could define that) through the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't help me in deciding who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't have a sixth sense to discern who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't. Also, I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be inside everyone, perhaps in variable proportions. But I am no authority (I am actually a non-authority, a dilettante). That's why it surprises me when people doubt that someone who says he's a Christian actually is one. Excuse my frankness, but doesn't it sound a bit self-righteous to go around calling people "heretics"? How do you know? If you can't describe any objective signs of heresy, I'll have to think it's just your personal opinion.

Have you read "Mere Christianity"? I haven't. I'm just wondering.

I did read it a few years ago. It seemed to me like an eloquent defense of something which does not exist: Lewis himself was an Anglican. Every person I've met who claimed to be "just Christian" turned out to profess some particular version of Christianity, perhaps with a touch of others. "Mere Christianity" sounds like one of those Platonic concepts which are floating up in the air but which lack actual existence.
I'd like to see your definitions, although I'm not sure a bunch of definitions of Christianity could be of much help, because each would inevitable be someone's particular definition. Even the early Christians were divided into different churches with different practices and beliefs. When you say that true Christianity is made up of the true Christians in every denomination, that sounds to me like circular reasoning. Who are the true Christians? Those who profess true Christianity. And what is true Christianity? That professed by true Christians. You need to break the circle for me, or I will learn nothing!

On the topic of evolution:

Please provide some source of reference that will address the issue you feel I or Amadeus is comfused about. Or maybe you can briefly explain it on this thread, or pull up some quote.

Evolution is more like a tree (a phylogenetic tree) and we (homo sapiens) are at the tip of one of the branches, but not on top of others such as homo heidelbergensis or homo neanderthalensis. Other species are at the tip of other branches, no one is really "on top" of a pyramid or any such thing. Other species (presumably insects) may outlive us. That is humbling compared to the Genesis account, where we are kings and queens of Creation!
An excellent source for information on evolution is the TalkOrigins archive at http://www.talkorigins.org/