Gaps in Evolution

[josie_L]

Interesting question. Why do you need an explanation?

You need to read what Charles Darwin wrote to me to make sense of why I wrote what I did?

 

[StAnastasia]

You need to read what Charles Darwin wrote to me to make sense of why I wrote what I did?

Are you asking a question here, or making a statement?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Interesting question. Why do you need an explanation?

I’m sorry to say it was the same old “we don’t know = god did it” argument.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

JEWISH TESTIMONY

The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).

Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.

ROMAN SOURCES

There are allusions to Christ in Roman times (see Bettenson, 1961, pp. 3-7).

Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epist. X.96).

The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44).

Writing about A.D. 120, Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). “Chrestus” is a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke alluded to this situation in Acts 18:2.

ANTAGONISTS OF CHRISTIANITY

Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst, 1897, 1:180-189).

Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew , He announced Himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ’s own people killed Him, and that His resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.

Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.

Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power.

THE PATRISTIC WRITERS

The Patristic writers authored significant works between the end of the first and eighth centuries A.D. These so-called “church fathers” (patres) produced volumes important to understanding the changes occurring in the Christian religion during the post-apostolic age, and testify profusely to the historical Christ (see Bettenson, 1956).

Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), for example, lived in the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor. He spoke passionately of Christ, and wrote against certain heretics of his day. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) said that Polycarp had personal association with the apostle John, and with others who “had seen the Lord” (Eusebius V.XX). He died a martyr, having served Jesus Christ for eighty-six years (suggesting that almost his entire life was dedicated to the Savior). The testimony of the “church fathers” certainly is more compelling than the trifling objections of biased critics who are twenty centuries removed from the facts.

apologeticspress.org/articles/87

to be continued . . .

Wiki nor the apologeticspress is a proper source. You ask me about the cambrian explosion and i give you peer reviewed papers, please do the same.

 

[curioosbadger]

What we have established about the big bang is fact, no?

the big bang theory is the explanation of the fact that everything appears to be expanding from a singularity. scientific theories are explanations, not speculations

 

[josie_L]

This is an amazing website to understand in full the non-biblical sources cited earlier. garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm#ch9

Here is just one example of what Gary Habermas (historian) extrapolates from Tacitus:

Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55 120 A.D.) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral “integrity and essential goodness.”(1)

Tacitus is best known for two works — the Annals and the Histories. The former is thought to have included eighteen books and the latter to have included twelve, for a total of thirty.(2) The Annals cover the period from Augustus’ death in 14 A.D. to that of Nero in 68 A.D., while the Histories begin after Nero’s death and proceed to that of Domitian in 96 A.D.

Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important one is that found in the Annals, written about 115 A.D. The following was recounted concerning the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero:

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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.(3)

From this report we can learn several facts, both explicit and implicit, concerning Christ and the Christians who lived in Rome in the 60s A.D. Chronologically, we may ascertain the following information.

(1) Christians were named for their founder, Christus (from the Latin), (2) who was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also Latin), (3) during the reign of emperor Tiberius (14 37 A.D.). (4) His death ended the “superstition” for a short time, (5) but it broke out again, (6) especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin.

(7) His followers carried his doctrine to Rome. (8) When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (54 68 A.D.), the emperor placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. (9) Tacitus reports that this group was hated for their abominations. (10) These Christians were arrested after pleading guilty, (11) and many were convicted for “hatred for mankind.” (12) They were mocked and (13) then tortured, including being “nailed to crosses” or burnt to death. (14) Because of these actions, the people had compassion on the Christians. (15) Tacitus therefore concluded that such punishments were not for the public good but were simply “to glut one man’s cruelty.”(4)

Several facts here are of interest. As F. F. Bruce has noted, Tacitus had to receive his information from some source and this may have been an official record. It may even have been contained in one of Pilate’s reports to the emperor, to which Tacitus would probably have had access because of his standing with the government.(5) Of course, we cannot be sure at this point, but a couple of early writers do claim to know the contents of such a report, as we will perceive later.

Also of interest is the historical context for Jesus’ death, as he is linked with both Pilate and Tiberius. Additionally, J. N. D. Anderson sees implications in Tacitus’ quote concerning Jesus’ resurrection.

It is scarcely fanciful to suggest that when he adds that “A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out” he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had rise from the grave.(6)

Although we must be careful not to press this implication too far, the possibility remains that Tacitus may have indirectly referred to the Christians’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since his teachings “again broke out” after his death.

Also interesting is the mode of torture employed against the early Christians. Besides burning, a number were crucified by being “nailed to crosses.” Not only is this the method used with Jesus, but tradition reports that Nero was responsible for crucifying Peter as well, but upside down. The compassion aroused in the Roman people is also noteworthy.

to be continued . . . .

 

[josie_L]

Wiki nor the apologeticspress is a proper source. You ask me about the cambrian explosion and i give you peer reviewed papers, please do the same.

This is not science so the same criteria does not apply. What I gave you was a factoid about the consensus existing amongst historians. If you wish to expand on this then by all means do so on your own time.

 

[josie_L]

the big bang theory is the explanation of the fact that everything appears to be expanding from a singularity. scientific theories are explanations, not speculations

What are you talking about? And how does this answer my question?

 

[josie_L]

I’m sorry to say it was the same old “we don’t know = god did it” argument.

I know through faith and reason that God created the Universe, hence, I have no problems stating He did.

 

[josie_L]

Are you asking a question here, or making a statement?

I was making a statement. The question mark was put there inadvertently (typo).

 

[texson]

Bravo! josie L!
Thank you for supplying in detail, more historical reference than I
was prepared to provide. You have the patience of Job, as does St.A.

“Darwin” has chosen to reject Jesus Christ. Hopefully he will realize the way,
the truth and the life before he runs out of time.

 

[curioosbadger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by curioosbadger View Post
the big bang theory is the explanation of the fact that everything appears to be expanding from a singularity. scientific theories are explanations, not speculations

What are you talking about? And how does this answer my question?

Im clarifying, since youre asking for an explanation for an explanation, the terms theory and fact arnt interchangeable, they mean subtly different things.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was making a statement. The question mark was put there inadvertently (typo).

Thanks.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Bravo! josie L!
Thank you for supplying in detail, more historical reference than I
was prepared to provide. You have the patience of Job, as does St.A.

“Darwin” has chosen to reject Jesus Christ. Hopefully he will realize the way,
the truth and the life before he runs out of time.

LOL how can i reject something that doesn’t even exist. You have chosen to reject zeus! I hop you will see the light before it is to late!! I will pray for you.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The question has to be asked, why did none of the numerous historians** alive at the same **time as jesus record anything about him. Why is it all popping up as hersay decades later?

There are major events carried out that could not have been missed by real contempary historians. For example the resurrection, if that really happen then every historian alive at the time would have documented it. By your own admission NOT ONE DID.

 

[peary2]

This is the answer from Catholic Answers, which I think is quite self-explanatory:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

[planten]

** There is a book by Mirza Tahir Ahmad titled “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth.” It touches on the subject of evolution. He believes in Evolution only to the extent that there is an origin of Species and there is survival of the fittest. But, it appears that he does not support the “Natural Selection.” I give a very small part from few pages of that book below**:

**Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

ANSWERING the question as to who has been responsible, throughout the ages, for taking important decisions, which had to be taken at every step of evolutionary advancement, the Quran pronounces the following:

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving,

The Same Who has created seven heavens in stages (). No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?

Aye, look again, and yet again, your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued. 1**

In the absence of God, life could not have travelled on a purpose-built path following a single direction throughout. At every step there was a wide aimless expanse of possibilities stretched before it, riddled with difficulties through which it had to carve its path. There were countless options which could potentially have changed the course and direction of evolution at every such critical moment in time. The question arises as to why life pursued a definite evolutionary course in a single direction as though none else was available.

The only explanation offered by scientists relates to the role of natural selection. Though they fully recognize the dimension and the gravity of the problem, they would have us believe that at every crucial point of decision making it was natural selection which took the decision, always making the right choices out of a countless number of available options.

Ever since Darwin coined the phrase ‘Natural Selection’, it has served as a magic wand for the scientists who probe into the mysteries of nature. In relation to events which appear to present evidence of the role of a wilful Conscious Creator as the choice maker, they seek protection behind the mist of this vague term which is mostly incorrectly understood. Every step forward in the path of evolution is inadvertently attributed by them to innumerable chances having created a host of options for natural selection to choose from. But this choice, on the part of natural selection, they agree, is not conscious. When different characters and species struggle for survival in a competitive situation, it is quite natural for some to survive at the cost of others if they happen to possess greater potential for survival.

Here we may also mention another hackneyed phrase of Darwinian terminology ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ which is so extensively used by the naturalists. This phrase is coined on the presumption that natural selection, however blind it may be, would always go for the right choice and only the fittest would survive in a competitive world. Whatever is inferior in the struggle for existence is doomed to become extinct. Darwin’s principle is perhaps misinterpreted to a degree that the very principle becomes questionable. We have irrefutable evidence spread all over the globe that even the most inferior character bearing species and the most ill-equipped animals at the lowest rung of evolution are still found to have survived. The extinction of some, as against the others, only takes place when the contest for survival is extremely severe and mutually confrontational. Then too, it does not invariably lead to the survival of the fittest in its absolute sense. Survival of the fittest in its absolute sense, though possible, is yet unlikely to occur in the case of every struggle for existence. The fittest at such outcomes would only be the fittest in relation to that particular challenge. The unfortunate who may not survive these moments of trials may otherwise possess many more highly advanced qualities of life which may adjudge them to be the fittest in some other contexts.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

** There is a book by Mirza Tahir Ahmad titled “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth.” It touches on the subject of evolution. He believes in Evolution only to the extent that there is an origin of Species and there is survival of the fittest. But, it appears that he does not support the “Natural Selection.” I give a very small part from few pages of that book below**:

**Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

ANSWERING the question as to who has been responsible, throughout the ages, for taking important decisions, which had to be taken at every step of evolutionary advancement, the Quran pronounces the following:

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving,

The Same Who has created seven heavens in stages (). No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?

Aye, look again, and yet again, your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued. 1**

In the absence of God, life could not have travelled on a purpose-built path following a single direction throughout. At every step there was a wide aimless expanse of possibilities stretched before it, riddled with difficulties through which it had to carve its path. There were countless options which could potentially have changed the course and direction of evolution at every such critical moment in time. The question arises as to why life pursued a definite evolutionary course in a single direction as though none else was available.

The only explanation offered by scientists relates to the role of natural selection. Though they fully recognize the dimension and the gravity of the problem, they would have us believe that at every crucial point of decision making it was natural selection which took the decision, always making the right choices out of a countless number of available options.

Ever since Darwin coined the phrase ‘Natural Selection’, it has served as a magic wand for the scientists who probe into the mysteries of nature. In relation to events which appear to present evidence of the role of a wilful Conscious Creator as the choice maker, they seek protection behind the mist of this vague term which is mostly incorrectly understood. Every step forward in the path of evolution is inadvertently attributed by them to innumerable chances having created a host of options for natural selection to choose from. But this choice, on the part of natural selection, they agree, is not conscious. When different characters and species struggle for survival in a competitive situation, it is quite natural for some to survive at the cost of others if they happen to possess greater potential for survival.

Here we may also mention another hackneyed phrase of Darwinian terminology ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ which is so extensively used by the naturalists. This phrase is coined on the presumption that natural selection, however blind it may be, would always go for the right choice and only the fittest would survive in a competitive world. Whatever is inferior in the struggle for existence is doomed to become extinct. Darwin’s principle is perhaps misinterpreted to a degree that the very principle becomes questionable. We have irrefutable evidence spread all over the globe that even the most inferior character bearing species and the most ill-equipped animals at the lowest rung of evolution are still found to have survived. The extinction of some, as against the others, only takes place when the contest for survival is extremely severe and mutually confrontational. Then too, it does not invariably lead to the survival of the fittest in its absolute sense. Survival of the fittest in its absolute sense, though possible, is yet unlikely to occur in the case of every struggle for existence. The fittest at such outcomes would only be the fittest in relation to that particular challenge. The unfortunate who may not survive these moments of trials may otherwise possess many more highly advanced qualities of life which may adjudge them to be the fittest in some other contexts.

All we have here is a lack of understanding, of evolution. “The Survival of the Fittest” has nothing to do with how “fit” and animal is in the sense of physical fitness.

Also there is no “rung of evolution”. All of todays anmials are equally as evolved.

It’s also worth pointing out life doesnt follow a “purpose-built path following a single direction”.

 

[buffalo]

LOL how can i reject something that doesn’t even exist. You have chosen to reject zeus! I hop you will see the light before it is to late!! I will pray for you.

Perhaps Zeus does exist. But again, he does not possess the attributes of the Catholic God. So we wouldn’t worship him or apply Pascal’s wager to him.

 

[buffalo]

The question has to be asked, why did none of the numerous historians** alive at the same **time as jesus record anything about him. Why is it all popping up as hersay decades later?

There are major events carried out that could not have been missed by real contempary historians. For example the resurrection, if that really happen then every historian alive at the time would have documented it. By your own admission NOT ONE DID.

At the time He was a minor issue to historians. An obscure Jew crucified. Hardly worth mentioning or recording. One of many crucifixions.

However, one cannot deny the speed at which His message spread and gained adherents. The 4 Gospels were not hearsay. Two were written by eyewitnesses. One recorded the experieneces of another eyewitnesses. The other recorded interviews with other eyewitnesses.