Evolution

Once again Pro ignores the three-dimensional encoded photo-negative image on the shroud. Why? Because none of the brightest scientists with advanced technology can figure out how such an image got on the shroud. It"s simply ridiculous to think that a forger in medieval times would be able to do what none of today"s modern technology can do. No one has been able to duplicate anything on the level of this shroud. In the absence of any naturalistic explanation, its quite reasonable to conclude that a divine miracle has occurred. I have shown that historians generally accept the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and origin of the disciples belief in Jesus" resurrection as historical facts. I have shown these are not just Christian scholars, but the wide range of scholars including atheists, skeptics and agnostics. I have given links to debates where such anti-Christian historians wrangle all kinds of excuses to explain away these facts such as the hallucination hypothesis, or the myth theory. But in each case, these theories have been shown to be useless. Pro himself subscribed to the myth theory, arguing that there is no evidence Jesus even existed. But this myth theory of his has serious problems: "(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder -- for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced. The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward. Almost no knowledgeable scholar today holds what Bultmann said it was necessary to hold in order to believe the myth theory, namely, that there is no first-century textual evidence that Christianity began with a divine and resurrected Christ, not a human and dead one. Some scholars still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. There is not even one generation. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels. Julius Muller put the anti-myth argument this way: "One cannot imagine how such a series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character [Jesus]....if eyewitnesses were still at hand who could be questioned respecting the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence, legendary fiction, as it likes not the clear present time but prefers the mysterious gloom of gray antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonderful creations into a very remote and unknown land." (The Theory of Myths in Its Application to the Gospel History Examined and Confuted [London, 1844], p. 26) Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. No one has ever answered him. (3) The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer. The two-layer cake theory has the first layer made entirely of air -- and hot air at that"William Lane Craig summarizes the evidence -- the lack of evidence: "The Gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the Gospels....The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus' miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Puadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a non-miraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions. These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. This means...that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of the story." (Apologetics, chapter 6) (4) A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient." http://www.google.com... Thus, we have good reason to accept, in the absence of any good argument against the historical facts about Jesus" resurrection, and in the absence of any plausible naturalistic theory, that Jesus did rise from the dead and was who he claimed to be. Thus, as the Son of God, we should accept what he say when he tells us that God created mankind, the same God who raised him from the dead. (Matt 19:4) My opponent claims that "in the Bible," Jesus' body was "wrapped with strips of linen cloth like a mummy." The fact that he resorts to using the Bible tells me he does find it historical, which supports my point, otherwise, why use it as a source? But Matt 27:59 disagrees with him, saying that "Joseph took the body, wrapped it in A CLEAN LINEN CLOTH." That explains why the Sroud is only one sheet and not multiple linen sheets. If you look at the 3-D images in the videos you will see the hair on Jesus' head that came down the sides of his face, so I have no clue why Pro is calling for his head to appear on the shroud. Even so, we also have the rest of his entire body imprinted down to the feet, what more does Pro want? Exo 20:4 only forbids making images for the purpose of worship, not making images altogether. God told the Israelites to make images in Exo 25:18-22 and Num 21:8. So Pro would need to show the purpose of the shroud was worship, this he hasn't done. Pro says "languages are getting shorter is because people are finding faster and more efficient ways of of communicating," but rewording a sentence in English is not a faster or more efficient way of communicating in comparison to ancient Latin which uses "case" so that the sentence is understood no matter how its turned around. If we evolved from animals, language should develop from simple beginnings to the complex, but that's not what we have. Ancient languages are more complex. Yes, our bodies absorb nutrients of food, but the nutrients are not from alien DNA. Pro assumes without proof that we could actually digest such a thing. What if the DNA had no T, G, A, C base, only X, Y and other letters? How do you know it would be good for us? Have you tried food like that? Has anyone? This is pure speculation. Pro says "In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found." Now how does he know the single-celled life forms turned into multicellular life forms? He doesn't, its just assumed because he can't imagine any other way for them to get there, but I can imagine creation by God. Scientists have never witnesses this change happen in nature, it just a theory. And how does he know these dates are even correct? No one has lived 2, 570 years to see if C-14 actually takes that long for half of it to decay. You have an equation, how do you test it in the real world to see if its true? Pro thinks the size of the skull determines the level of intelligence, but men's skulls are larger than female skulls and men are not more intelligent than women. Pro thinks he isn't much different from a chimp because some scientists classified him in that bracket, well, when I see a chimp compose a symphony, or do a simultaneous equation I'll believe it. As for Pro's argument on the brain, Scientific American reports that we'd need 300 years to full our memory capacity. http://www.google.com... Evolution would not produce a brain with vastly more storage capacity than we could use in our lifetime. Evolution is therefore false, more rebuttals next round, I'm out of space.