The Passion of the Christ.

[OnyxCougar]

Good Call!
Try

www.answersingenesis.org


Thanks, Monkey!

[DanaC]

Most of the "corroboration" of bible stories and events connected to the alleged Messiah strikes me as very dubious. That there was a Rome and that there was a Judea I have no doubt. That people were crucified is a matter of record. Jesus was a common enough name. I think more likely is that the events described in the Passion of Christ are an amalgamation of several people and events. The existence of "Jesus of Nazereth", son of Mary and Joseph of Aremathea have not been proved nor can they be.

[Happy Monkey]

That's a pretty goofy page, but at least it's got this.

[OnyxCougar]

Why goofy? Because it conflicts with evolutionary thought?

[DanaC]

Maybe because it reeks of "made up" pseudo science?

[OnyxCougar]

The fact is, the science they use to get their conclusions is the same science that evolutionary scientists use to get theirs.

The conclusions are different, the science is the same.

Show me one example of "psuedo science".

[DanaC]

Well....mostly I just see a circular path whereby the creationist seeks his evidence primarily from within the bible.

I also see a bunch of attempts to refute what proper scientists have discovered/hypothesised.

I see no serious evidence in favour of creationism that isnt derived from an attempt to refute the scientific work of others.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by DanaC
Well....mostly I just see a circular path whereby the creationist seeks his evidence primarily from within the bible.

I also see a bunch of attempts to refute what proper scientists have discovered/hypothesised.

I see no serious evidence in favour of creationism that isnt derived from an attempt to refute the scientific work of others.

So a different hypothesis isn't science? Isn't science the creation and testing of different hypothesis?

And what is a "proper" scientist? Are you saying that someone that uses the VERY SAME scientific method to hypothesize creationism is not as good a scientist as one who uses the SAME methos to hypothesize evolution?

What I'm seeing in your replies is close minded refutation without reflection.

Prove those hypotheses use science other than the evolutionists use.

[DanaC]

Isn't science the creation and testing of different hypothesis?

Well yes.....and its the testing of the hypothesis which I dont think is being done as thoroughly as good science would dictate. Good science wold dictate that the scientist test his hypothesis to breaking point and if it breaks discard it.

I dont believe that these creationist scientists have tested their theories to the limit I think they have tested it enough to conclude that the earth was created.....

Perhaps I am being unfair, I am trying to find some kind of science on this page but all I seem to be able to find are either links to adverts for books about creationism or a list of things NOT to say to us evolutionists....

Perhaps you could help me isolate some actual science on here please

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by DanaC


Well yes.....and its the testing of the hypothesis which I dont think is being done as thoroughly as good science would dictate. Good science wold dictate that the scientist test his hypothesis to breaking point and if it breaks discard it.

Agreed. So you would advocate, then, discarding evolutionary theory, since so far, it cannot be proven?

[OnyxCougar]

Did you even thoroughly read one of the scientific articles on the linked site?

[DanaC]

Agreed. So you would advocate, then, discarding evolutionary theory, since so far, it cannot be proven?

No I would not. I did not say that good science meant the scientist had to be able to prove his hypothesis I simply said he must do all he can to try and break his hypothesis. If after he has thrown all he can at his hypothesis, testing it against every available shred of evidence to the contrary it still holds water then its acceptable to propose it as theory. I think that's my main problem with whatI have seen of Creationist scientific theory. Its not a case of being able to prove your theory so much as being unable to disprove it despite great effort to do so.....Being able to find measurable evidence helps of course :P


This has plenty of scientific evidence and links to articles without attempting to sell me the answers in a book.

The Scientific Case For Common Descent

I am still trying to find a link that takes me to something useful. Maybe I am on the wrong page. Could you post a link to on of the scientific articles? I seriously cant find them,...I did listen to that radio thing. Ken Ham......verrrrry cheesy. So cheesy I think he should change his name to Cheddar Ham

It occurred to me that we have hijacked a thread about the Passion of Christ and turned it into a discussion on Creationism :P Maybe we should move this on to a new thread

New Thread. Evolutionary Science -v- Creationism