religion

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I already stated that natural selection does not apply to non-biological entities and why.

Natural Selection is not Macro Evolution/Darwinian Evolution

Weaker life forms die. That's all it confirms.

Does not write genetic code to create never before seen life forms out of existing life forms

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You do also realize that your source material is coming from Acharya s.

I hope you don't find her as a competent authority on the historical nature of Jesus.

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

She's not conservative, and she certainly isn't a historian.

[Korrupt]

seek help

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

She's not conservative, and she certainly isn't a historian.

And I never claimed she was either. Nice try though. Too bad your reading comprehension precludes you from any debate. Go sit down in the corner and put the dunce cap back on.

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except there is actual physical and forensic proof of Christ's death and resurrection

It's called The Shroud of Turin

The image on the cloth (which dates consistently to the time of Jesus death 33 AD) is a 3 dimensional image on a piece of cloth of a man brutally beaten, tortured and crucified. No known technology exists today that could put that image on a cloth like that and certainly nothing existed back then that could have done it.

The image on the cloth contains distance mapping. The image can be read like a 3d map. Photographs and paintings don't work that way.

The image actually has characteristics of an X-ray. Bone structure can be seen, especially on the hands and facial area

All the wounds on the cloth are 100% consistent with biblical accounts. The weapons that were used for torture are 100% accurate to what the Romans would have used for torture during that time. The wounds on the head are consistent with a rudimentary crown of thorns. The wounds on the wrists are 100% consistent with what the Romans would have done if they nailed someone to a cross. They wouldn't have put the nails through the palms. They would have put them through the wrist area between the 2 bones there for stability. 100% consistent.

Recent studies confirm the image could only have put there by a severe discharge of Light and Energy.

The carbon dating from 1988 used a tampered sample on the end of the cloth that had been repaired after the shroud was damaged in a fire. Recent dating techniques which studied the decay rate of the microfibers age the shroud consistently with the time of Jesus' death

No traces of paint or any such nonsense is on that cloth

Real blood with bilirubin has been confirmed on the cloth. All consistent with severe torture before death. The body goes into shock during severe stress and produces this chemical in the blood

The type of blood on the cloth is AB. Scientists have confirmed the blood was on the cloth before the image

The image is actually "on top" of the cloth and could conceivably be scraped away by a razor. It literally rests upon the top most fibers of the material. It only penetrates the tope two microfibers. A human artist (hundreds of years before Da Vinci) could not have faked that. No human artist could fake that today

The type of material was very expensive in that era and is consistent with biblical accounts

Pollen found on the cloth is consistent with what would have been found in jerusalem during that era. Physical evidence on the cloth itself to confirm where the event took place

Road dust found on the area around the hands and feet are almost exclusively from that area in Jerusalem during that time

There are over 120 scourge marks on the body. 100% consistent with biblical accounts.

All evidence contained within the shroud is 100% consistent with biblical accounts

3D negative image on a piece of cloth. It almost looks like a human being trapped under ice.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioca...hroud_of_Turin


?? oh you mean that fake thing they faked when it was fake. Cool story bro

[radditsu]

Also i dont know what studies you are talking about, since you cant study it anymore.

[radditsu]

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/


its in this documentary as well. as a ton of other bullshit people think aren't made by man so books and commercial airtime can be sold.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioca...hroud_of_Turin


?? oh you mean that fake thing they faked when it was fake. Cool story bro

Holy shit, did G13 post something about the Shroud of Turin? Bwahaha. BTW, the dates arent the only thing that point to a fake.

-Draping the cloth under and over the body is a practice from the Middle Ages.

- No record of this particular shroud can be found before it showed up in Lirey, France, around 1350

-Two succeeding bishops from the area pronounced the shroud a fake when it was first discovered, the second purportedly producing the artist who created it.

-"No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face" - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus's resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it?" - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "Dr M. M. Baden, a pathologist, pointed out the blood trickles from the scalp are evidence of forgery, on the ground that blood from a scalp wound does not flow in rivulets but mats the hair." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "Also of note is the lack of wrap-around distortion. For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wrap-around distortion across the torso, thighs and legs is striking." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

I would like to see some of this evidence.
The legitimacy of Tacitus account is only debated by a handful of historians .
Ass a whole it is accepted.