Archaeology of the New Testament

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Denying them or your fallacies doesn't make them just disappear. They are YOUR problems. Only YOU can deal with them. Denying them is not dealing with them.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I absolutely deny them! The truth will set you free! Dickhead!

 

[Into the Night]

Nope, just giving your ridiculous post the ridiculous response it deserves.

I don't believe in a creator. I'm also not Christian, Catholic or apart of any other religion that, again, tried to retro fit evolution into the ridiculous biblical creation story by manufacturing the idea of "intelligent design".

Lost context again, eh?

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Lost context again, eh?

cypress is an idiotic toolbox, similar to you.

 

[ZenMode]

Lost context again, eh?

Nope. Just, once again, responding to your unserious post with an appropriately unserious response. I don't believe a being, that is capable of a level of intelligence, exists and was involved in the creation of the universe and its contents, therefore I didn't bring intelligent design.

@Cypress is apparently a creationist, so he also didn't bring up intelligent design.

It was you who used the phrase in the posts before you accused me of using it.

YOU rolled out the 'intelligent design' angle. YOU brought it up!
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

The Bible dies not describe the Theory of Evolution.

Post in thread 'Archaeology of the New Testament'

Jun 8, 2026

Ah yes... Time to roll out the "intelligent design" angle in an attempt to retro-fit the nonsensical creation story from the Bible into evolution.

YOU rolled out the 'intelligent design' angle. YOU brought it up!
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

The Bible dies not describe the Theory of Evolution.

Anywho....the claim is that an all-knowing/powerful being designed the universe, and all of its contents, down to the microscopic level.

YOU made the claim.

So, yes, evolution is why we have the flaws we do in human beings, that doesn't logically fit in to @Cypress...

• Into the Night

 

[Cypress]

Link?

No it's not. It's absolutely a scientific question.

The origin of the universe is a scientific question.

Like I said above, why is this time different? Why do you think a god is the correct answer this time when man has been wrong over and over and over? Can you name one thing that started as a scientific answer and ended up being correctly explained as an act of god?

I have a belief system that goes like this: "Everything that many has explained as an act of god has been proven wrong by science." Why would I go with the 0% success rate this time?

Nope. I marvel at the universe and all of the things in it, just like you do.

The flaws I listed are valid.

No, the ultimate cause and origin of the universe is not a scientific question because it's not testable.

You massively overestimate the type of questions science can answer. Science makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy. It does not answer the deeper existential and philosophical questions of teleology and ultimate first cause.

We've been studying gravity for two thousand years and still cannot explain exactly why matter causes a warping of space. Even after centuries, we have no explanation for the values of the universal constants, there is no theory or first principle that can explain them. We are only aware of them by physical measurement.

Given that track record, there is absolutely zero chance we will ever really scientifically understand the ultimate cause and purpose of all physical reality.

There are many questions which can only be answered by logic, reason, and inference, not by scientific experiment.

 

[Cypress]

How do you know the Universe has an origin?

By established mathematical theorem, sound science, and logical deduction.

 

[Cypress]

@Cypress is apparently a creationist,

Yes, I think the universe had an origin about 13.7 billion years ago, or at some finite spacetime boundary in the distant past; aka it was created.

 

[Cypress]

So, yes, evolution is why we have the flaws we do in human beings, that doesn't logically fit in to @Cypress story.

I don't know of any religious belief that claims humans should be physically flawless, and that everything in the universe should serve our comfort, convenience, and safety.

In fact, if you hadn't read some article by some atheist complaining about how flawed our retina and joint structure were, it would never have occurred to you that anything was seriously wrong.
You would have marveled at the joy your eyesight gave you from a sunset, and you would have enjoyed the capabilities of your body when you played golf, basketball, or tennis. So your reality would have trumped an article an atheist wrote.

 

[ZenMode]

No, the ultimate cause and origin of the universe is not a scientific question because it's not testable.

Not being testable doesn't mean it's not a scientific question with a scientific answer.

You massively overestimate the type of questions science can answer. Science makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy. It does not answer the deeper existential and philosophical questions of teleology and ultimate first cause.

We've been studying gravity for two thousand years and still cannot explain exactly why matter causes a warping of space. Even after centuries, we have no explanation for the values of the universal constants, there is no theory or first principle that can explain them. We are only aware of them by physical measurement.

Given that track record, there is absolutely zero chance we will ever really scientifically understand the ultimate cause and purpose of all physical reality.

There are many questions which can only be answered by logic, reason, and inference, not by scientific experiment.

"Science" may not be able to provide absolute scientific answers about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean, as with gravity, evolution, etc that science can't provide theories that are INFINITELY more useful than "a sky wizard did it".

You are clearly very religious and are doing all you can to steer the answer that way, not because it's the best answer (it's not by far) but because it's what you want to believe.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, I think the universe had an origin about 13.7 billion years ago, or at some finite spacetime boundary in the distant past; aka it was created.

You believe in a conscious being that designed and created the universe.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't know of any religious belief that claims humans should be physically flawless, and that everything in the universe should serve our comfort, convenience, and safety.

Third time, or more, you've rolled out this strawman.

In fact, if you hadn't read some article by some atheist complaining about how flawed our retina and joint structure were, it would never have occurred to you that anything was seriously wrong.

Other than every human having a blind spot in their vision where the optic nerve enters the retina. A blind spot that other mammals don't have because their eye is designed the right way.

You would have marveled at the joy your eyesight gave you from a sunset, and you would have enjoyed the capabilities of your body when you played golf, basketball, or tennis. So your reality would have trumped an article an atheist wrote.

(copy/paste)
This is at least the 6th time you've tried to rollout this strawman of flawless or perfect. Nobody has said anything about flawless or perfect. I'm not saying man should be built like Wolverine. I'm talking about obvious design flaws....errors.... mistakes.

So, are you going to address the question of why your God would create an entire universe, that is 99.999999999% uninhabitable, and create a single planet to house one single creature with which to have a relationship.....and then make that creature's:
- eyes backward
- spine and knees designed for mammals that walk on four legs
- hearing and sight that degrades over time
- DNA susceptible to mutations
- breathing and eating through the same tube, making the basic act of staying alive (eating) inherently dangerous and sometimes deadly
- unable to regrow limbs, as other creatures can

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. Just, once again, responding to your unserious post with an appropriately unserious response. I don't believe a being, that is capable of a level of intelligence, exists and was involved in the creation of the universe and its contents, therefore I didn't bring intelligent design.

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

@Cypress is apparently a creationist,

So?

so he also didn't bring up intelligent design.

He is not you.

It was you who used the phrase in the posts before you accused me of using it.

I am not you.

YOU rolled out the 'intelligent design' angle. YOU brought it up!
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I am not you.

The Bible dies not describe the Theory of Evolution.

That is correct. The Bible does not describe the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Into the Night]

No, the ultimate cause and origin of the universe is not a scientific question because it's not testable.

Science is not a question.

You massively overestimate the type of questions science can answer.

Science is not an answer.

Science makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy.

A theory of science does, so far.

It does not answer the deeper existential and philosophical questions of teleology and ultimate first cause.

This part is correct.

We've been studying gravity for two thousand years

No, people have been studying the EFFECTS of gravity.

and still cannot explain exactly why matter causes a warping of space.

Go read up on Einstein. He came up with the model.
The Universe is not a model.

Even after centuries, we have no explanation for the values of the universal constants,

There is no such thing as a 'universal constant'.

Natural constants are created by Man. Their purpose is to convert a relation to our units of measurement, also created by Man.

there is no theory or first principle that can explain them.

There is no such thing as 'first principle' in science. I have already explained how they are created by Man and what their purpose is.

We are only aware of them by physical measurement.

Man made the measurement, AND the scale used to measure by.

Given that track record, there is absolutely zero chance we will ever really scientifically understand the ultimate cause and purpose of all physical reality.

Go learn what reality means. Reality is not defined by science. Too many Magick Words.

There are many questions which can only be answered by logic, reason, and inference, not by scientific experiment.

Science is not experiments.

 

[Into the Night]

By established mathematical theorem, sound science, and logical deduction.

There is no mathematical theorem of the Universe. Science is not the Universe. Logic is not the Universe.
All theories of science are created by Man.
Mathematics is created by Man.
Logic is created by Man.

Try again. How do you know the Universe has an origin?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I think the universe had an origin about 13.7 billion years ago, or at some finite spacetime boundary in the distant past; aka it was created.

How can it be created? Any being or event has no place to be. There would be no Universe yet!

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know of any religious belief that claims humans should be physically flawless, and that everything in the universe should serve our comfort, convenience, and safety.

In fact, if you hadn't read some article by some atheist complaining about how flawed our retina and joint structure were, it would never have occurred to you that anything was seriously wrong.
You would have marveled at the joy your eyesight gave you from a sunset, and you would have enjoyed the capabilities of your body when you played golf, basketball, or tennis. So your reality would have trumped an article an atheist wrote.

He is not an atheist. None of what he read to join his religion has anything to do with atheism.
Go learn what 'atheist' means.

 

[Into the Night]

Not being testable doesn't mean it's not a scientific question with a scientific answer.

Science is not a question.
Science is not an answer.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. ALL theories of science MUST be testable. That test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

"Science" may not be able to provide absolute scientific answers about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean, as with gravity, evolution, etc that science can't provide theories that are INFINITELY more useful than "a sky wizard did it".

Science is not an answer.
Science does not discuss the origin of the universe.
Science only defines gravity as a force, and leaves it at that.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
Why do you believe in a Sky Wizard?

You are clearly very religious and are doing all you can to steer the answer that way,

Just like you. Kettle fallacy.

not because it's the best answer (it's not by far) but because it's what you want to believe.

Same as you. Kettle fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You believe in a conscious being that designed and created the universe.

So he stated. You are just now figuring this out?

 

[Into the Night]

Third time, or more, you've rolled out this strawman.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman occurred. YARP

Other than every human having a blind spot in their vision where the optic nerve enters the retina. A blind spot that other mammals don't have because their eye is designed the right way.

Even Eagles have a blind spot in each eye, Void.

...deleted needless repetition...

RAAA

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

So?

He is not you.

I am not you.

I am not you.

That is correct. The Bible does not describe the Theory of Evolution.

Yep, so this is where I pull the plug. I never mentioned intelligent design and I don't believe in intelligent design, because I don't believe in any of your intelligent designers.

So, here's what would normally happen...

I ask you to show me where I mentioned intelligent design, you say "RQAA" because you're unable show me where I mentioned intelligent design and then I say "I'm done responding until you show some desire to have a serious conversation".

I'll just skip to the last step and save us both the time.

Derp... as always, derp.