I was careful not to say the Romans did it.
Saul came before the Romans, and he could have simply gotten the body of Jesus and paraded it around, had there been no resurrection.
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
I was careful not to say the Romans did it.
Saul came before the Romans, and he could have simply gotten the body of Jesus and paraded it around, had there been no resurrection.
Have a nice day.
You're trying too hard not to understand.
And I don't feel like repeating myself.
Believe what you're told by your academic sapiens, if you want to.
I'll believe otherwise.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
If it was that simple. You are relying heavily on ifs and maybes.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Honestly, I didn't know what you meant. For example, who couldn't exhume the body? You didn't say.
Martin23233
Active member
So before we can get to addressing 'all things' that i have already answered again...and some of the newbies you keep clamoring and begging for lets see just how honest you were when you typed "But we agree! We both agree that the basic core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is"
Are you basically just parroting OR are you really offering up some honesty after finally (and recently it appears) and admitting that to what I have been saying and quoting from ID sites all along? - that ID is, in it's truest practice, is about detecting intelligence and not assigning the source of the intelligence unless it can be proven.
Even your sly attempt to make it look like ID is only acting/purporting to not know - are you saying that ID really does know? -
Whatsisface
Well-known member
No I'm not.
A few words is hardly onerous. You seem to be making excuses.
What counts is why you believe something true, those academics will give good reasons for what they think.
Last edited:
I think the gospel story was the same originally. The Jews were expecting a messiah, and Jesus claimed (or was taken to be) that messiah. The gospels say Jesus was popular with the Jews, and cheered when he entered Jerusalem. According to Acts, Jews flocked to join the first Christians. There is probably some exaggeration, but it is probably broadly true.
It was different once it became a gentile religion, but the persecution only started once it was already bigger enough to be noticed.
Fair comment. But the Jews were very divided at that time. Sure some Jews were against them, but a lot were not.
My feeling is the story of the Empty Tomb only appeared twenty to forty years later - which is why Paul does not mention it in 1 Cor15. This is way too long after for a body to be produced.
Which shows they were made up by people around at the time....
We live in the information age - for us these things are easy to check. That was not the case 2000 years ago.
It is telling that Josephus never mentions the slaughter. Or any other text from that era. Including the other gospels.
The population of Bethlehem was probable just a few hundred (eg see here), so we are taking a couple of dozen babies. If the gospel was written in Antioch in AD 80, I wonder how many of those babies would, 50 years later, be around to dispute it? Google says it takes 135 hours to walk from one to the other; it was a long way in those days.
It is likely the author of Matthew was recording a story circulating in the community; a story that had got established because there happened to be no one from Bethlehem in Antioch (or where the community was).
Statistics
So my last post was 3870 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted... nothing. Zero characters. He ignored it all.Here is the trend over the last few exchanges. This is the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange: 94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94 and now 100 again.
Why does he have to dodge so much if he has truth on his side? Well, the simple answer is he does not have truth on his side. He has to dodge so much simply because he cannot even make up an answer that sounds plausible.
Plant Galls
If he has already answered them, he will be able to tell us where.
Back on the 22nd of August, in post #2078, Martin cited a paper about plant galls that he claimed refuted Darwin. I pointed out he was wrong, post #2082. Where is his answer to that?
Anyone can search CARM using the facility at the top right of this page. If you do a search for "galls", you will see I asked Martin about this another seven times - and started a thread on that specific topic. I did that because I was confident I was right.
In contrast, that search will show Martin has not written about plant galls at all.
This is just one example that happens to have a word we can easily search for, but is typical of Martin's deceitful posting on this thread. He is full of claims he has addressed questions, but the evidence proves he routinely ignores 80% to 100% of what I post, and there are entire subjects he has just dodged entirely.
Here are some other topics that I say Martin has yet to answer.
- the probability calculations for ID (post #2480)
- how the DI skipped predictions from the scientific method (post #2479)
- your false accusation that I quote-mined Dembski's book (post #2382)
- what your definition of species is (so many posts)
If he is right, and he has "already answered" them, he will be able to point us to the posts where he did so. He will be able to prove me wrong.
Does anyone doubt that he would love to prove me wrong, if he could?
And yet I predict he will not offer any post where he already answered any of these. In fact, he will probably just snip this from his next reply.
ID Is Creationism Masquerading As Science
I am not sure what this is about. What newbies? I am not aware of anyone in this discussion newer to CARM than Martin. Again reality is not what Martin would have us think.
I am not sure what Martin is trying to say here.
ID could be done as a scientific investigation, but his point about "not assigning the source of the intelligence unless it can be proven" prevents that. And what we are discussing here is the ID promoted by the Discovery Institute et al, not what it might be or could be.
Archaeology and forensic science do it right. They detect design, but also - as part of that process - try to learn about the designer. And it has to be that way to be science, because of the prediction part - perhaps that is why the DI want to re-define the scientific method to skip that part. If the murderer was this guy, we would expect to see this pattern of injuries. If the potsherd was Minoan, we would expect this pattern of decoration. Speculating about the designer is necessarily part of the process.
In science, anyway.
In the pseudo-science that is ID, the identity of the design is deliberately kept secret. This is why Martin cannot answer this simple question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
And that brings us to:
Prediction Confirmed
Last time around I said:
A necessary consequence of that hypothesis is that IDists think the designer is the Abrahamic God, but can never admit to that. Therefore, I can predict that an IDist will be unable to answer the question: Do you think the designer is God?
Martin once again does as predicted, and so my hypothesis is further confirmed. ID is creationism masquerading as science.
IDists Know The Designer Is The Abrahamic god
I am not sure why you think this is "sly"; I have said very clearly that IDists only pretend not to know who the designer is.
This is creationism in disguise. I have said that numerous times. It is creationism, but you pretend not to know who the designer is.
If you honestly did not know who the designer is, you could answer this question with "I do not know".
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
But the truth is that you do know, and you cannot deny Jesus. You are convinced that the designer is the Christian God.
Martin23233
Active member
What is the Pixie hiding from?
So before we can get to addressing 'all things' that i have already answered again...and some of the newbies you keep clamoring and begging for lets see just how honest you were when you typed "But we agree! We both agree that the basic core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is"
Are you basically just parroting OR are you really offering up some honesty after finally (and recently it appears) and admitting that to what I have been saying and quoting from ID sites all along? - that ID is, in it's truest practice, is about detecting intelligence and not assigning the source of the intelligence unless it can be proven.
Even your sly attempt to make it look like ID is only acting/purporting to not know - are you saying that ID really does know? -
here is the problem The Pix has... their logic is flawed. All Pixie can do is make claims that ID is all about religion ...and the only evidence Pix uses is from a few religious comments. Instead of attacking ID... the Pix can only attack a few individuals or religious sites. Funny how silly that is.. but if one can't attack ID ..then why not shift their attack to religion and it's use of ID in isolated cases. (which does not support the Pixies claim...it only shows that some in religion support or accept ID). But as I have proven to the Pix many do not support ID as well.... so that pretty much buries the Pixies claim.
So asking again Pix... if / when you can show that you at least understand ID, i can address your questions.. but since you appear to not ...there is little need to offer up answers to questions you phrase under a misguided interpretation.
So before we can get to addressing 'all things' that i have already answered again...and some of the newbies you keep clamoring and begging for lets see just how honest you were when you typed "But we agree! We both agree that the basic core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is"
Are you basically just parroting OR are you really offering up some honesty after finally (and recently it appears) and admitting that to what I have been saying and quoting from ID sites all along? - that ID is, in it's truest practice, is about detecting intelligence and not assigning the source of the intelligence unless it can be proven.
Even your sly attempt to make it look like ID is only acting/purporting to not know - are you saying that ID really does know? -
here is the problem The Pix has... their logic is flawed. All Pixie can do is make claims that ID is all about religion ...and the only evidence Pix uses is from a few religious comments. Instead of attacking ID... the Pix can only attack a few individuals or religious sites. Funny how silly that is.. but if one can't attack ID ..then why not shift their attack to religion and it's use of ID in isolated cases. (which does not support the Pixies claim...it only shows that some in religion support or accept ID). But as I have proven to the Pix many do not support ID as well.... so that pretty much buries the Pixies claim.
So asking again Pix... if / when you can show that you at least understand ID, i can address your questions.. but since you appear to not ...there is little need to offer up answers to questions you phrase under a misguided interpretation.
Statistics
So my last post was 4520 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted... nothing. Zero characters. For the second time in a row, he ignored it all (for the record, he does quote 433 characters from a post I made nearly a week ago - but nothing from my last post).Here is the trend over the last few exchanges. This is the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange: 94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100 and now 100 again.
Hiding? Seriously?
This is bordering on delusional. This is a guy who in the last eight exchanges has always skipped at least half of what I post, and several times has ignored everything I have posted.
I am not hiding anything. I am addressing every bit of nonsense Martin posts.
Martin, in contrast, seems unable to address the vast majority of what I type.
What Is Martin Hiding?
His accusation that I am hiding is made all the more ironic given he cannot answer this simple question:And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
The reason he cannot answer it is that he is hiding something. He is hiding the fact that he believges the designer is the Christian God.
Just repeating himself
This is the text from Martin's post #2546.
I addressed this is post #2549. Each and every word of it, utter nonsense thought it is. And how did Martin respond to that? He ignored it. If he wants a response to this, he is welcome to actually read post #2546 and respond to that.
ID Is About Religion
But Martin cannot say what that flaw is.
His beliefs are based on faith - because ID is all about religion, not evidence. He absolutely KNOWS I am wrong, because he absolutely KNOWS his religion is right. But he has no clue how I am wrong.
Not true. From an earlier post:
Fact:
It is a fact that the Discovery Institute maintains two web sites, one (intelligentdesign.org) carefully stripped of religion to present the "sciency" face of ID. The other (discovery.org) that reveals they sponsor conferences like "The Convergence of Science & Theology" and "Dallas Conference on Science & Faith".
This is not just my opinion. People can go to these web sites and see the truth for themselves.
Martin could too if he were prepared to open his eyes.
Fact:
It is a fact that I have asked Martin three whether he thinks the designer is God. It is a fact that he ignored the question all three times. These are facts anyone can confirm by going back through the last couple of pages of the thread. This is not my opinion.
The simple fact is Martin cannot say one way or another whether he thinks the designer is God.
And the reason for that is that the answer is yes, but if he admits that, the disguise slips and ID is revealed to be creationism.
Fact:
ID is about religion. This has been established in a court of law.
Attacking ID
We have spent months where I attack ID and Martin defends it, and every time he lost, and then quietly let the topic drop out of the discussion.
Shall we talk about the ID science of plant galls, Martin? Do you remember how that went? You brought it up once, I destroyed your argument, and you have ignored it every since when I bring it up.
Just as you will ignore it this time.
This is the so-called science of ID. It is flawed, it is nonsense, it is ripped to shreds whenever you bring it up.
What has happened is that you cannot defend ID, so have shifted your defence to ID not being religion.
Do you want to talk about front-loading again, Martin? Oh, that's right. You are the guy who advocates front-loading, despite not knowing what it is!
Shall we discuss how ID can be falsified? We started by discussing how evolution can be falsified, but when it comes to ID, you are strangely quiet. I asked you about this in post #1992, as you do with so much of what I posted, you just ignored.
See, Martin, this is why we are not discussing ID. When we do, you lose, and drop the topic.
In fact there are now only two topics for which you presumably feel you can make an argument: ID is not religion; and SETI is science.
Every other topic you lost and you lost so badly you refuse to even consider them now. And that is why I am not attacking ID; it has been destroyed so utterly there is nothing left.
ID Is About religion
So answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
The fact that you cannot proves you are hiding who the designer is. That is creationism in disguise, not science.
Your logic is flawed.
Remember when you made the false accusation that my logoic was flawed? If there had been any truth in that claim, you would go on to explain how it is flawed, as I will do now for your nonsense.
You error here is a fallacy called "Affirming the consequent". If ID is a religious belief, that would not implies that all religious people believe ID is true. For example, the claim that Mohammad split the moon is a religious claim. However, many religious people do not believe it is true.
Now, do you see how when I accuse you of a flaw in your logic, I can state what it is? That is because when I say it, it is true. When you say it, it is not.
All He Has Left Are Excuses
That is not true, is it Martin? You know as well as I do that you have no hope of addressing any of these questions. You know there is no way I will ever agree with your nonsense, so you are using this to excuse dodging the questions.
I guess the one positive here is that you are tacitly admitting that you dodge questions.
Martin23233
Active member
The Problem the Pixie wishes to avoid... as stated by ID:
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
But here we have The Pixie...still trying to misrepresent ID (seems intentional now but ok).
Once the Pixie can formulate that she(or he) actually grasps what ID is... then I can easily answer her(or his) questions about ID.
Quit dodging Pix... 'step-up' and just admit that ID does not make any claims as to who, what , why or where the Designer is. Once you can honestly answer that (been posting that for months...well past your recent Qs that you want answered ). I know you posted that ID purports... but that is just your silly weak attempt to not answer the question... Once you understand ID you should be able to answer it w/o trying to sping and make silly claims that it falsely claims such. LOL 'purports' ..really? can you show that ID actually points to a GOD? using and ID site and not a religious site? I already shot your claim that ID is religion down by shown many in religion not accepting ID.
So please show the readers here that you at least understand the core of ID.... otherwise you just come off as yet another weak atheist attempting to inject agenda over facts.
Martin23233
Active member
and all Nouveau can do is just inject ignorance of the topic.... hmmm why wouldn't Nouveau offer up something of substance? Maybe it is because N can't .. they have nothing to offer but agenda. Nouveau... i'll offer the same question to you as I have for weeks on end to the Pix... hopefully you won't twist , spin or dodge... Does ID claim that God is the Designer? eh?
Granted you probably have not read much about ID ... at least you are not a self-proclaimed PhD like Pixie says she(or he)is. but neither of that is of importance since most can actually read ID sites and understand it is about the science of detection of design....and not about assuming why or who. But I'll offer you a chance at least read the link above and show me where ID claims God is the Designer.
Nouveau has offered up substance. Martin just runs away.
Everyone knows ID is just creationism in a trenchcoat, Mr Cdesign Proponentsist.
Which is why you keep evading Pixie's question.
I do not think that is true. I believe the Empty Tomb was invented later - after Paul was writing. He makes no mention of it in the beginning of 1 Cor 15, which is very odd if he knew about it.
Far more likely no one had a clue when Jesus was buried - it is not even certain he was. I appreciate the gospels say he was, but they were written decades after the event, when the story had become embellished. It is certainly plausible Jesus was taken down by Joseph of Arimathea, but the corpse would have then been cast into a communal grave nearby. Jewish custom required that the body get buried, but not in any special way. It is reasonable for Pilate to agree to burial, but not to honourable burial.
The first Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, casting off the old - again, see 1 Cor 15 - and to them what happened to the corpse was irrelevant. Paul could not get the body because no one knew where it was by then, but in any case it would have proved nothing to those first Christians.
We could as easily suppose the first Christians could cite the Empty Tomb as evidence, but there is no indication in Acts that they did so. The Empty Tomb was invented later, so could not be used by either side.
Statistics
So my last post was 4588 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 67 characters. Yes, he quoted less than 100 characters, or about 1.4%, ignoring over 98%. In fairness, that is an improvement over his last two posts where he ignored the lot.Here is the trend over the last few exchanges. This is the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange: 94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100 and now 98 again. Bear these figures in mind when he accuses he of dodging questions.
ID Is Creationism In Disguise
Martin has now given up any hope of showing ID is true. All he hopes to salvage from the wreckage is the claim that ID is not religion. It is not a great hope - especially as he knows as well as anyone that he believes the designer is the Christian God.But what else does he have?
The problem Martin has is that if I am right, then we would expect IDists to insist that ID is different to creationism.
I am not just claiming ID is the same as creationism, I am claiming ID is creationism in disguise - it is creationism but its advocates are pretending it is not. And as evidence of that, the paragraph above is excellent. Martin has presented evidence of ID advocates trying to pretend ID is not creationism - trying to maintain the façade.
Both creationists and IDists start with a religious text, and both then try to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. But IDists pretend they did not do that first step.
How do we know they did? Well, for one thing Martin cannot answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
He cannot answer it because - as we all know - he believes the designer is actually the Christian God, but he is an IDists, so he has to pretend it is not so.
There is no real science where the scientists have to pretend like that.
Yes, they are different.
Creationists are honest enough to admit their beliefs are based on the Bible. The IDists pretend their beliefs are not to maintain the façade.
If Martin ever presented the merits of the case for ID, this might have some point.
The problem he has he he knows any supposed merits will be shot down in flames very fast - as happened with plant galls.
I would say it is Martin who is intentionally misrepresenting ID. Why else can he not answer this simple question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses
Because if I agree with him about ID, he will magically be able to explain why plant galls are evidence for design.
Circular Logic
I do wonder if Martin's thinking here is down to how ID works. If you start by believing ID is true, then the ID arguments make sense. The logic goes:
- ID is true
- Therefore ID is true
The circularity of the argument is, presumably, not apparent to him.
ID Avoids Saying Who The Designer Is
The problem Martin has - or one anyway - with just ignoring the vast majority of what I post, is that he has missed that I have been very clear about this from the start. Martin demands that I admit something I have been saying for weeks.
I fully agree with Martin: ID does not make any claims as to who, what, why or where the Designer is.
Post #2469
We all agree "ID does not make the claims about the designer". That is because it is not real science. That is because it is hiding the simple fact that IDists think the designer is the Abrahamic God.
In real science, when design is detected, scientists do all they can to identify the designer. Archaeologists and forensic scientists do this all the time. They are real science. They have no agenda that they have to keep secret.
Post #2479
In real science, when design is detected, that is only the start. Once a archaeologist has determined an artefact is designed, he will do all he can to learn more and the designer. Once a forensic science has determined a death is designed, he will do all he can to learn more and the designer.
Real science.
Compared to ID - once design has been detected it stops. It has to to maintain the disguise.
Thus, ID is peudo-science.
Post #2512
Martin has this exactly wrong. The basic core of ID - purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is - is foundational to my argument!
Post #2549
Archaeology and forensic science do it right. They detect design, but also - as part of that process - try to learn about the designer. And it has to be that way to be science, because of the prediction part - perhaps that is why the DI want to re-define the scientific method to skip that part. If the murderer was this guy, we would expect to see this pattern of injuries. If the potsherd was Minoan, we would expect this pattern of decoration. Speculating about the designer is necessarily part of the process.
In science, anyway.
In the pseudo-science that is ID, the identity of the design is deliberately kept secret.
What Martin fails to get is that this is what stops ID being science.
The Verb "Purport"
Martin has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the verb "purports". Which is odd, because it is a word he uses.
Post 2160
In the same way ID can't say anything about the designer you seek....sure...there are many in ID that attribute it to God...and there are certainly some that attribute it to aliens... and there are even some fringers that attribute it to us ( and time / advanced travel ). but all ID purports is that there is intelligence.... vs. the crumbling blind and random slow evolution that 'caused it' .
Post #2509
The Pixie gets lost once again. Had the Pix actually grasped what ID is the she would not make such blunders - embarrassing blunders
ID does not purport to know who, what , where the Designer is. It only points out through science that there is intelligence behind certain detected design that is not natural randomness. But intelligence.
The first time I use the word is post #2512. And, to be honest, I used it to mock Martin. Now here is Martin calling me out for doing what he did. Sometimes this feels like shooting fish in a barrel. I swear Martin is not a sock-puppet I created to make me look clever.
ID Avoids Saying Who The Designer Is
ID is creationism in disguise. Therefore, we would expect to be unable to find ID actually pointing to God.
What we would expect to find is IDists avoiding saying who they think the designer is, because they KNOW it is God, but have to maintain the facade. We can see that in action every time Martin dodges this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
Still Using Flawed Logic
Again we see the issue with Martin skipping my post. I pointed out his flawed logic here - as have others on this thread - but still he clings to it. maybe he has nothing better.
Many in religion do not accept that Mohammed split the moon. Nevertheless, it is a religious claim.
ID Is Creationism In Disguise
Martin's problem is that I do understand the core of ID all too well.
What he really wants is for me to tow the party line - to pretend it is not about religion, just as he does. I am not about to do that that.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
I just finished your fellow countryman Ishiguro's great novel Klara and the Sun yesterday in which Klara referred to her interlocutors in the third person. Are you Martin's AF?
I'm going to highly disagree with your theory.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
And I highly disagree with yours.
Thanks for showing that Paul was not aware of the Empty Tomb story.