CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:76
Arguments:80
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why Do Evolution Advocates Fight When They Have No Valid Beginning? (67)

Debate Creator

KNHav(1957) pic



Why Do Evolution Advocates Fight When They Have No Valid Beginning?

Your science should have an answer. A tangible duplicatable answer. Its science.

Dont start with a living thing. Thats starting after the fact.

In the beginning, how was it formed without destroying itself. And how did it progress and how did nature balance while the process continued and how did the first animals present themselves.

So far all I have is a story of living things after living things existed. No one explained anything other than we have a dna for eyes so some creatures got eyes.

And that doesnt answer my question!

I think you cant answer. And, You dont actually know. 
Lol ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 😅😂😅🙃😄😅😂
Add New Argument

Who has a valid beginning is a matter of opinion, but they argue because they feel creationists have no valid beginning.

2 points

How many millennia will religious idiots use the God of the gaps argument?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

What a shock, you can't answer the question.

JatinNagpal(2678) Clarified
1 point

Considering that no logical system can ever be complete, it'd probably continue till we're just radiation.

1 point

I think it will be used forever, too. I am hoping to get her to recognize that fact though.

At this moment of time most people feel envious of those who can believe in the backward scriptures written in an era of ignorance by a collection of well meaning authors trying to explain the mysteries of the Cosmos with no scientific understanding.

Such fortunate sheepeople can live in a fool's paradise without having to wonder from where the universe and everything there originated.

No frustrating quest for answers to a deep and complex enigma, just a blind and totally irrational faith. Man man, oh man.

The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.

I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.

However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.

Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Winklepicker says:

The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.

I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.

However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.

Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age

So then my question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?

And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!

It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.

So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.

So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.

The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation.

Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.

If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?

.

1 point

You must have read my assertion that the answer to how life began will come from the continuing scientific research on the subject.

This is my belief.

To ask anyone to believe the preposterous nonsense about Adam and Eve or Noah who built a ship large enough to accommodate every creature on earth along with all the variations of food and supplies necessary to sustain such a cargo of diverse animals is the epitome of disrespect for the intelligence of your fellow human beings.

When I was about 10 years old and during my brainwashing as a child I began to reason that the teachings of the Bible were nothing more than the ravings of frustrated and agitated academics with over vivid imaginations.

I'm equally certain if the knowledge of modern day science were presented to the numerous academics of their day who composed the Bible they would own up to their previous ignorance and enthusiastically embrace the new knowledge.

If by scientific genius time travel were possible and Jesus could be brought into the present he would die a second time from amazement at the millions of people who accepted his self contradictory statements.

If, in the absence of an acceptable scientific explanation for the beginning of life, I was to concede that there may be the possibility of ''A CREATOR'' it certainly wouldn't be any of the embarrassing drivel being spewed out by the proponents of today's popular religions, including Christianity and Islam.

You keep asking questions, well it's my turn now.

Who do you religious freaks think you are asking normal people to believe the biggest load of pig shit ever published in hardback?

If there was ''A CREATOR'' from where did he come?

Did ''THE CREATOR'' create him/herself?

In what dimension did this entity live and where and how did their ream exist before it was created?

If you believe in your God, then why did he/she endow the human race with a sufficiently large brain and inquisitive mind to question the teachings of the most incredible collection of fiction ever put on sale?

I firmly believe that most of you weirdos don't really believe the verbal diarrhea which you spout, but only engage in the activity as an ego building exercise to see how many weak minded fools you can convince that there is a big, silent shy man zooming around the cosmos with love in his heart for all of us.

Man, man oh man.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Evidence that is presented in trials. The evidence is overwhelming. Someone outside of our physical reality wrote it. Before people decide if the Bible is valid or not, a fair trial of the evidence should precede your judgement pf it.

Especially since you put skepticism in writing as though you analized and concluded. Assumptions are a dime a dozen at best.

Many pieces that individually count as evidence, and collectively weigh as a evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

So take pi and e found as 1 plus 1, heavily weighted against odds of mere coincidence

Then take TORH written directionally showing reading both right to left and left to right with YHWY in the mid book.

And these are found in the beginning starting at verse 1 and are at 49 Hebrew letter intervals with YHWH found at 7 letter intervals. 7 is an important highlighted Bible number in every book of the Bible. Jesus says to forgive 70 times 7 which equals 490 !

And we see this 7 and squ root of 49.

And also 490 divisible by 10, Noah was 10th generation from Adam through Seth. Through the flood it was like Baptism, the earth was cleansed.

The prophesy about Noah - He would bring REST (7th day) to our souls. So God used it as a picture and the math shows its related on a string of 7.

Oh, And the day recorded in Genesis when Noah came out of the Ark just so happened to be the date of Jesus' Resurrection! According to the Hebrew calendar of all their Divinely given feasts!

Then fullfillment of precise prophesies throughout history. (over 2000)

And also for the Messiah (over 300)

Prophesies for nations, times, societies, individials, generations, and and peoples ... all pre-written, as displaying all days of mankind as purposely pre-designed, with appointed times that occur as scheduled in the Bible.

Most of which are literally time stamped!

The authentication shown in pre-discovered knowledge. Not just "it sound like" but also has definining of modern knowledge, that took science almost 6000 years to catch up to!

Isaiah Job and Psalms discuss the earth as round.

And Job discusses precipitation and a unique gravitational pull within 2 constellations out of all the known constelations. These are the only two that have a gravitational pull clustering them together by gravity.

Also the book of Enoch discusses Pleiades. Enoch discusses 7 stars stuck in a hole in space. Jesus then calls the 7 churches in Rev. 7 churches in His Right Hand.

Also the 7 churches in Rev identified are represented by 7 original churches, which coincidently are on the 7 mountains of Rome. Which curiously the hills resemble the pattern of the 7 brightest stars out of 10 stars, three are dim total of (10!)

So when God appointed time He connected every star and planet as a directive. Not like the worldly zodiac, but appointed times. Like the star shining over Jesus' birth.

Job 38

31 “Can you tie up the cords of the Pleiades

or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you lead out the constellations of the zodiac in their season

or guide the Great Bear and its cubs?

.

.

Also the zodiac as we know it show each constelation as 12 tribes of Israel and connects each star in the constellation in order from the brightest to the least bright. Each bringing forth prophetic fulfillmemts we see in the Bible.

And these all combined are just samplings and the tip of the iceberg. The evidence shows it is written from an outside source, not by men with ink and paper, but personally by the finger of God!

.

2 points

Have you considered the possibility that neither science nor religion have the right answer? If two idiots present you different tall tales and really neither is iron clad then why do you have to pick either one of them to be right? And in a clash of tall tales it doesn't really matter whether they want to fight or not, but they're still going to fight.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

All you are saying is that you are excusing yourself from acknowledging truth, as if such dodging excuses your immoralities.

ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

If you're going to pull the whole "evolution is for people to be immoral", then please go on to explain why.

ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

Thanks for bringing up the important part of this debate- we are unsure of how life formed.

With that out of the way, it's important to use logic to infer which explanation is the most plausible. We have some explanations on the table, but we're still looking at which ones might be correct.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Because there IS only one Way.

In religions and beliefs there are many ways to live life in the world.

But there is only one way to the Paradise of God. And that is only through the complete work of Jesus, through the cross. He IS the narrow way and His death and resurrection are the way back to God.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

God made natural laws that we know as science. He made DNA, the speed of light, gravity, and balanced everything by intricate design, the anthropic principle. So it's not necessarily that science and religion disagree.

It can't be both, it's either creation by Divine Design, or it is creation by nothingness and man is self created by intelligent selection of dead matter manipulated by the nothingness god of evolution.

So the debate is foundational, by what or by whom was mankind and all of creation created.

And then a push to set the deceptive records straight whenever we can.

I really dislike steering. And it rules every area of our society, academia, media, special interest groups, and politicians are prime offenders. Militant atheists, even run many fields of study steer information, and apply professional pressures to filter Bible reliability and verifications of it's basic historic truth and accuracy.

What did they do instead of upholding professional integrity to accuracy? They tossed put accuracy and called God and His people liars. So it wasn't enough to dismiss its spiritual value. But we now have a whole generation that were told lies through science, and history, and many studies effected.

They closed an entire generation's ears to using their own judgement. They went as far beyond neutral to indoctrination as you can get! Steering and in reality they have borne false witness have publically declared false testimony by even saying that the Jews fabricated hhistory and lead people by spinning lies.

And when given opportunity to set the record straight they deny it all against academic reason. This generation wants to moan about how evil God must be for judging innocent mankind, but mankind has a pretty low bar and they fall below it, and just keep lowering the bar.

We are nearing the final times. Everything pre-foretold is set, the players are in place. The last end time battle written about 1000s of years ago is focused all around Israel. And if the Bible were not true Israel would not exist. God says in His Word He would cause her allies and her adversaries.

The final end is Gods will and purpose. He is gathering His own. He has also blessed the wicked as well as the good.

The sun rose on both, and a life lived is a gift.

It's similar to the philosophical question who would you save if faced with the choice. If a group of people, all have rejected God and eternal life are stuck on track one, and the train engineer's children are stuck on track 2, say, God is the train engineer, who does God choose to spare?

God sees His sheep on one track, and the lost that He knows will never become sheep on the other track, He lets the group that is lost and will never be saved, perish by the train.

He already spared us by letting the train hit His own Son.

So in the end does what He as always done s, separating Seth from Cain, Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, sheep from goats, light from darkness, and the world (like Egypt) from His people.

He sacrificed once and for all on the cross, and already was a gift offered to all, and those who came to Him accepted the gift purchased life for life with His own Son's blood.

So if your on the wrong track in this example, He chooses to keeps the sheep safe to fulfill His purpose for their benefit to eternal life, and He sacrafices the others as pawn, because He already knows who has made their final choice for eternal death anyway. He knows their choices beforehand.

2 points

Honestly, you need to stop ignoring the fact that evolution does not explain the beginning of life. It explains how it evolved. And why does science need to have the answer to everything? Nothing has the answer to everything. Here's a question for you: Where did your god come from. Bet you can't answer. Lol ha ha ha ha ha

1 point

Why do religious people think that the after 10,000 times predicting that there is no explanation for something and having an explanation found that they can still claim that not having an answer means there is no answer?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

A message to all the religious people who claim they believe in God: assuming that God is not involved with science is your fault.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Evolution defined as used

By you. As used by you. You don't represent what evolution teaches.

So please stick to the definition.

You can't redefine what evolution teaches them complain that we still use what evolution actually teaches to represent evolution. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

No one thinks it is mean and cruel to hypocritically tell people to challenge their own beliefs when you don't challenge your own. That's just hypocrisy.

ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

If you're going to say evolution, say it right. Adaptation is evolution, this has very much been established. You're referencing abiogenesis, which is what you call evolution. You're also referencing evolution, which you call adaptation.

In short, change evolution -> abiogenesis, then adaptation -> evolution and you're good.

1 point

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Do you believe that God has the power to make a species go through 100 different adaptations?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Of course God can make a species go through a hundred adaptations... you probably went through a few hundred yourself to become so dense.

ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

I find it ironic that you claim that life stabilizing out of a biological molecule soup of energy is a big jump, but bringing forth life from nothing, taking chaos and making it balanced, isn't.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

God is not nothing. Therefore there is no irony.

Nothing is nothing. God is something, not nothing, God is someone. And He is proven by mounds of evidence. He and His word are proven.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Authenticity of the Gospels

I took the account of "Jesus' last words" that are disputes of atheist, and I noticed an element that shows their positioning in the crowd, from the court to Golgotha.

All four are eyewitness accounts.

I took out a pen and paper and detailed just the trial and cross. I did it from each prespective. From it, I can literally tell you where they were standing!

Their eyes telling details told me.

Matt. He was a paranoid scared emotional mess that day.

. 1 - Matthew tells details of Judas, as if he, Matthew, was lerking in the area were he could see the religious leaders congregating. He was there without the other three writers. He notes Judas' sequence of events as though he was watching Judas throw the money back.

.... a) So the Pharisees I'd visualize were conspiring together, probably all in one section. And when Judas returned the silver, Matt saw him, that Judas was distraught, and then later found he hung himself.

.... b) The details Matt gives about the court room seem to be from he observe from lerking around behind the area the Pharisees were congregated. If thats the case, then there is a pretty good chance it's an eyewitness prespective of the court room.

. 2 - John was with Mary, the whole time. Mary being the mother of Jesus was not running and hiding. He stood by Mary. As Jesus' mother she had some freedom throughout the events.

.... a) Mary was inside the court room. John was with her, comforting her, while everyone else was hiding.

.... b) So he is the best most detailed one on details from a ring side seat prespective. And not of the conversations of people outside the court room.

.... c) So his details at court, as well as the cross are the details are from a prespective one one would record as if sitting up front.

.... d) It's the same way at the cross. John was in front, not hiding.

. 3 - So in the court room, John records testimonies and details as if the center hall was in his plain view.

. 4 - At the foot of the cross Jesus is having conversations with John

.... a) No others record personal conversations of Jesus from the cross.

.... b) Others record loud statements heard as if in the crowd

.... c) John records what he can hear because of his position.

.... d) John records "I am thirsty, the others mention Jesus

calling out a statement loudly, then people running around putting vinegar on a sponge giving Jesus a sponge of bitter

wine to drink. But it doesn't match what the statement was, it's like unmatched. These other guys hear a statement, then record actions that don't match what was heard loudly from in the noisy crowd!

.... e) But John records I am thirsty. And them running around giving Him this awful drink.

Every piece tells where all of these men are, and not one is

even trying to tell anther prespective.

And I can go point by point on all four

. 5 - Matthew says - the two thieves were yelling insults.

.... a) Matt goes on and on about people shouting insults. You can really get in Matt's head, it's like his focus is on the screaming so he was in that frame of mind, and in the midst of a hostile crowd.

.... b) If Matthew was on the far left of the thieves. He may only be able to make out some of what the left thief was saying. But could visibly see the thief on the right side yelling back.

.... c) Matthew seems to be on a rant as he mentions the list of people all around him hurling insults, and recants them as if the injustice is beyond reason, he seems to be in shock of it all, and emotionally agitated.

. 6 - Luke seems to be more toward the cross on the right side of Jesus, and can hear the thief on the leftt insulting, and the the thief on the right side of Jesus defending Jesus.

.... a) But it's not a discrepancy, it's the opposite, it fills it prespective of eyewitness like recounts of any event, if you add up all the parts, or better yet create a scene with puzzle pieces of prespectives, you can picture it exactly as it was, as each wrote it from where they personally were during the event.

. 7 - Mark is the only one who records Joseph, the rich guy who donated the tomb, needing to get up "enough courage to request the body of Jesus post mortum"

.... a ) Mark, being somewhat connected to Peter was probably with Peter and the wealthy man named Joseph, on thr edge of the crowd, off to the side just off the street where people were not engaged in the event, but passing by in their everyday routine.

.... b) Mark records more "passers-by material,"

.... c) Even with the details of the trial for Mark are from a distanced observer.

.... d) If Mark was or wasn't an eyewitness could go either way, either he was there as Peter's sidekick hanging with Peter, and writing as more of Peter's prespective being in Peter's circle, and influenced by Peter's prespective by association. Or he wasn't there and recounted details as Peter gave.

------------------

I was amazed when I did it myself, I have determined that historians even biblical scholars complicate things. The professional peer pressure is a likely factor in their declarations. We all need to be scholars. We cannot take anything at face value in these last days.

A flood of deceptions are poured out in maximum proportions. This is by blinding judgement from God. Giving people over to their deceptions, sin, and flesh, all consuming with a gravitational pull that up till recent years has been lifted for some ability to reach out of the dust, and follow the light to the Way of Truth and Salvation. The gravitational pull of the blackhole of Sheol is the end of man.

In the end will lock and seal them under the law and under the "serpent's belly." The serpent is the prosecutor and jailer. Imprisoning all dust and flesh under him.

Only those made righteous through the work of Jesus, providing the Ark to escape being swept away as by flood, through the Ark of the Covenant, through the way of the cross and the resurection.

I went to these accounts myself to answer skeptic criticism of the Gospel accounts validity as eyewitnesses.

Just taking this one event, the biggest event in the Gospels. I found all four written, each with a different prespective from their vantage point of where they were standing or walking during the event.

I detailed each Gospel account during the trial and crucifixtion of Jesus. I could literally see the event from their unique prespectives, of their individual vantage point of where they were standing. And by what they could see, and not see. And what they could hear, and not hear. And what was going on around them according to their proximity and their placement during the entire event from the court up to the last breath of Jesus.

I could clearly see their frame of mind, their personalities, their memory with their emotions of that particular day seen in their writing of the details, and their mental state on that day, their response to a variety of elements that they each separately experienced that day.

This was one time where they were scattered, one time where each would have the most differences in their experience, because being scattered gave each a different vantage point all together because of their unique placements during this event.

Whereas the other chapters of each Gospel are more personality and prespective as from within the group. The trial and cross were actual prespective by their presence and placement during the event, separated from being together within the group.

In my opinion, what "they" say is not the final determination limiting my own responsibility to think. Secular and even many Bible scholars" are guessing, or playing the professional peer review game.

Some conclude what they want to conclude, what they intend to spin as truth, regardless of actual truth. Some are afraid of all their professional peers. And most blogs and sites for or against the authenticity of eyewitness in the Gospels are just a mimick of either version they want to use to support their own views.

--------

So I studied for myself, and found this question of eyewitness authenticity answers itself right in the biblical text itself. By a little reading comprehension, contextual inference, and common sense, the writer shows us who exactly were the eyes of each of the Gospel accounts are.

The court and cross accounts in each Gospel is unique because they weren't viewing the event together as a group.

They were scattered, this portion of the Gospel is written from a more unique and per individual prespective. The disciples were completely separated out of the group, and either hiding alone, or with just a few of the others. We can see that difference in throughout this event specifically.

John was inside the courthouse area with Mary, and at the foot of the cross with Mary.

John was going through this day at Mary's pace, managing Mary's grief, along side her all day.

Luke was the second closest, still hanging low, but his vantage point was inside the court area, but on the side toward where the people exited headed to Galgatha. Luke caught many details of the court case, and also caught some side conversations, after Jesus was sentenced in the court area and also while Jesus was being lead to Golgotha.

Matthew was behind where the Pharisees were, and was outside of the court room, opposite side of were Luke was.

And Mark was not in the court area close enough to detail testimonies or the commotion after the sentencing.

Mark was likely hanging low with Peter, and also along with the rich man named Joseph, who donated his tomb.

Mark's account shows he was likely with Peter and Joseph, the tomb gifter. The account is described as if it were from prespective of one on the furthest edge of the entire event, yet within proximity to record them from a prespective of one standing further away from the action that the other three.

Mark's prespective is from by the road side, where people were going past. Passing through the commotion while going about their daily routine.

Most of Mark's comments are as if from a prespective of watching it all from an area where people passing through, and not where people were in huddled together as spectators inside the crowd. "Passing by" and "shaking their heads." And not from in the midst of the crowd, noise, and chaos.

Mark writes Jesus' criminal sentencing and the crucifixion as recounted by a prespective of one close enough to see the activity outside the courthouse, and hearing bits as people went by them, on the road to Golgotha, but not close enough to record the details of testimonies and conversations.

At the trial John sat with Mary inside the court room, a premium seat. And at the cross, John was directly in front of the cross.

Luke made it to Galgatha before John and Mary. So you can imagine that Mary was an emotional wreck, and John moved at her lead as he comforted her.

Luke made it down to where they were erecting the cross to its upright position before John. He catches Jesus saying Father forgive them ... and also the conversation Jesus had with the thief on the right side.

Luke was standing closer to the thief on the right side. And also seems to be in the mist of a less noisy crowd compared to Matthew's position. Mark pretty much stayed in the business road, at the outer edge or outside of the crowd.

Matthew was standing on the far side of the left side thief, and in the midst of a noisy hostile crowd.

.

1 point

Why do gravity advocates fight when they can't explain the origin of life?

1 point

In the beginning, how was it formed without destroying itself. And how did it progress and how did nature balance while the process continued and how did the first animals present themselves.

That is an interesting topic for scientific research. It would fit with everything else we know about evolution. Hopefully we will find out in time.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

monkey man with a devil's mouth, the crowning advancement of evolution

1 point

Democrats don't believe in science unless it is science of Climate Change !

ironskillet(220) Clarified
2 points

I don't even know where to begin. Everyone believes in a lot of science that is accepted as fact, such as gravity. Furthermore, are you saying that the science of climate change is nonexistent?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Climate change is inevitable, if it exists. Its not like we will be able to fix it.

The Bible says the world will be destroyed by intense melting heat. Sounds nuclear but climate change could add many natural devastations told of the end times.

So should we be surprised? Probably not.

1 point

monkey man with a devil's mouth, the crowning advancement of evolution promising the devil will evolve into a god.

1 point

You might notice that I have concluded dozens of my posts with the point that believers in evolution feel it excuses their immoralities.

The Bible puts it more plainly, "in the last days shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts.". The fight against God and support evolution because they want a license for their lusts, be those lusts pride, power, money, whatever. If you get them talking, you will find they all have sexual perversions which they excuse themselves in. Every one of these scoffers has boasted of sexual sin. It's the stronghold of the devil, they want to believe they are animals so their immoralities are excused. They are dishonest or they would acknowledge true science which prevents the hypothesis of evolution or the big bang from being a theory and by rules of science should completely disqualify evolution or big bang from any public funding except maybe in a philosophy class room discussing alternatives to believing God is God.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

might notice that I have concluded dozens of my posts with the point that believers in evolution feel it excuses their immoralities.

It's true. We have noticed you don't know what you are talking about.

e Bible puts it more plainly, "in the last days shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts.".

It is hilarious that scoff evolution and you don't act like Jesus at all.

The fight against God and support evolution because they want a license for their lusts, be those lusts pride, power, money, whatever.

Or the lust of pretending to be a good Christian.

room discussing alternatives to believing God is God.

Evolution and big bang do not discuss God. They would not being in that type of philosophy discussion.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

How do you know what's true ?

1 point

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

So where did evolution start? with a single celled animal? Where did it come from? A chicken like you?

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

You appear to be a clown who expects me to believe in evolution because you cling to it as an excuse for your immoralities. You are one big snob, trying to play intellectual punk snob games. You're just a big mouth punk pretending to be smarter than God and I'm not impressed. You talk about straw men, then you compare a crime scene to evolution? Are you serious? Yes, I know, you are serious and to me you're a joke. If you want to believe evolution excuses your immoralities and you are better and smarter than God and cannot be condemned in death to Hell, go ahead and believe it you snob.

Your crime scene comparison is beyond stupid. If there's a bullet hole, a bullet went through the hole. If there's a pile of bones of a dead animal, an animal died. That's observable facts. Evolution is nothing but your beliefs begging the question. Evolution does not say anything, it would be nonexistent except for clowns like you saying it is real. Evolution is dead.

Evolution is a simple concept shoved down the throats of children as soon as they open their eyes after birth and sometimes before that. There's nothing to understand, it's all about what you want to believe and you want to believe it because you do not want to renounce your lusts. Science supporting evolution is backwards, declaring it true and then declaring all of nature proves it's true, it's the logical fallacy of begging the question. Evolution is pseudo-science, it's make believe garbage which cannot be observed and can be shown only in cartoon animations, it's fairy tales..........and no surprise that fairies and other sorts of perverts love it.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Science supporting evolution is backwards, declaring it true and then declaring all of nature proves it's true, it's the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Fortunately, that isn't what happened. Over a century of research has established it is true. Science is about discovering new information. We would never advance as a species if we forced people to go through all of the experiments currently known before being allowed to make new discoveries.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

How did you get to be such a snob ?

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Evolution does not say or claim anything, it's people like you who say things and make claims based on your belief in evolution.

It's a useless good for nothing evil belief system. Why don't you flush it down the toilet and keep it out of my face?

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

There's nothing to discuss in evolution, it's a lie. If you want to believe in it, go ahead. What good is it? None, it's good for nothing and all it does is turn people like you into snobs...and that's the best that comes out of it. The rest is much more evil than that.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

It turns out that medical advances can be made when we figure out our biology. If we abandon biology our quality of life will decrease.