NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Kid Cid]

i don't think so.

 

for either macro evolution or creationism, it's all circumstantial evidence and both theories have potential for reasonable doubt. if evolution were true beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would we have all this debate?

 

"Reasonable" is the operative word here. For a fair number of folks, that burden of proof has been met. For you, it obviously hasn't.

[Savage Beatings]

if evolution were true beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would we have all this debate?

 

Because some people have so much invested in their interpretation of the truth, that they cannot allow for the possibility that an alternative interpretation is correct. So the debate would continue even if an undisputable fact were to totally shut down one of the arguments. No matter what, everything that we think we know is filtered through the lens of what we hope the Universe reallty is. That's why this argument will *continue as long as people are alive to to both hope for and doubt the existance of God.

 

*I actually hope for the day when all men will see the beauty of the synthesis between faith and reason. That's my lens. But I'm kinda ghey, so don't go by me.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Savage Beatings

[Azazello1313]

if evolution were true beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would we have all this debate?

 

we have all this debate because the reasonable answer butts up against the old metaphysical answers people have built up around themselves like a fortress, and it takes a while (centuries) for some people to adapt to that. same with the flat earth, the heliocentric planetary system, and so on. eventually the people who think the earth MUST be flat or at the center of the universe, because GOD said so, finally wise up, and eventually everyone agrees how silly it was to think that their religion rested upon such a preposterous view of the world around them.

[Bill Swerski]

Because some people have so much invested in their interpretation of the truth, that they cannot allow for the possibility that an alternative interpretation is correct. So the debate would continue even if an undisputable fact were to totally shut down one of the arguments. No matter what, everything that we think we know is filtered through the lens of what we hope the Universe reallty is.

 

Some people (even scientists) don't understand that science is only a model that we use to interpret truth. It's a d@mn good model that works well for our purposes, but our puny little brains very well may be incapable of comprehending the true nature of the universe.

 

*I actually hope for the day when all men will see the beauty of the synthesis between faith and reason.

 

As do I, but it'll never happen here. One side will express their outright contempt for religion, while the other will go extreme measures to defend glaring historical inaccuracies in the Scripture.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[TheGrunt]

check out this link.

makes me think of the big bugs that were recently found ...

 

hear me out ... i'm not pushing creationism as fact as much as i'm trying to convince that evolution is not a done deal and much doubt remains. further, if the scientific community started with creationism as their starting theory of origin, with the bible as an accurate history of record, we would see them create as many volumes of "scientific evidence" to support this theory (such as the above findings/arguments).

 

and neither of these approaches invalidates the need for science and the scientific method. whether we came to be by evolving or by creation or by martians, it has no bearing on the scientific research of the day. in fact, science today is based on very specialized classes of species. how they came to be specialized is really irrelevant to all forms of research that provide positive benefits to mankind.

I'm jumping into this argument way late, however, after reading through this thread for some time I find this to be very good information here.

 

So I'll add this...

 

To provide evidence against intelligent design, I'll begin by defining evolution, which is "the change and development of plants and animals over time, resulting in the emergence of new species (and usually the disappearance of older ones). Natural Selection is the hypothesis that this takes place because (a) individuals with varied characteristics occur (through genetic recombination and mutation), and (b.) those whose characteristics improve their capacity to survive (in the specific environment in question) are more likely to reproduce, thus passing their characteristics to their offspring (survival of the fittest)."

 

One way for natural selection to operate, showing how individuals with varied characteristics are produced, for example, is the mixing of genes from different parents. Another such way is mutation.

 

The idea here is that an intelligent, all-powerful designer would have created features that are perfectly designed for their function; on the other hand, evolution, having to select among only those features that actually occur via genetic combination and mutation, may well end up with features that function adequately but are far short of optimum. To provide further explanation of this, we can look at the example of a "Panda's thumb".

 

Panda's are members of the order of Carnivora, where the conventional bears are the most omnivorous representatives of their order. For unknown reasons, however, Panda's went the opposite direction -- they contradict their order by subsisting almost entirely on bamboo. Point being is that the panda's thumb (used as a 'tool' to help facilitate their massive hunger for bamboo) is not a finger at all. It is constructed from a bone called the radial sesamoid, normally a small component of the wrist. Thus, the panda's "thumb" is not a true thumb at all, but rather a structure involving a bone and muscles that take quite different forms in the panda's relatives. Though it works well enough in eating bamboo, an all-powerful intelligent designer would have designed a specific structure for this purpose rather than adapting pre-existing parts in a serviceable but still somewhat clumsy way.

 

My claim is that evolution provides a better explanation of the panda's thumb than divine creation. A single mutation could have produced the whole structure, which then would have been favored by natural selection because of its advantage for feeding. This hypothesis can also be supported by the similar change in the panda's foot -- which in itself yields no survival value and so presumably would not have been designed by an intelligent designer.

 

I should also reiterate that this by no means is a personal opinion of my own, but simply an argument for evolution. I may also provide evidence to support the theory of intelligent design, however that may be something I can bring up in another post.

[Pope Flick]

Though it works well enough in eating bamboo, an all-powerful intelligent designer would have designed a specific structure for this purpose rather than adapting pre-existing parts in a serviceable but still somewhat clumsy way.

 

What if God wanted it that way?

 

This entire debate is only happening because both sides have implicitly agreed that these concepts are mutually exclusive. In doing so you've supposed a motivation on the part of the Supreme Being. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

[Ursa Majoris]

eventually the people who think the earth MUST be flat or at the center of the universe, because GOD said so, finally wise up, and eventually everyone agrees how silly it was to think that their religion rested upon such a preposterous view of the world around them.

Every religious belief has it's diehards.

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

 

ah no it was written later... not in the time of jesus

 

Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D. It is widely believed that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written around 100 A.D. This is not hundreds of years later. It's 67 years, which may seem like alot but when put in perspective you find that it isn't.

There are other people in history who lived hundreds of years before the earliest writings that we have on them, people such as Alexander the Great. Yet no one questions the authenticity or accuracy of these writings. By comparison, 60 or 70 years is nothing. It's certainly not enough time for legend to grow as there would still be plenty of people alive that could refute the writings if they were not accurate. But, I believe that a 67 year gap is still not accurate and that the gospels were earlier. Here's why:

 

1. Three early church fathers - Polycarp, Ignatius & Clement all quoted passages from all but 2 of the new testament books in letters that they wrote between 95 & 110 A.D. Although nothing was quoted from John 2, there was quotes from John 3 meaning that John 2 had been wrote by this time as well. The book of Jude was not quoted, but would have to have been wrote by this time if Jude was dead, as it is believed he was. With one of these writers in Rome and the other two hundreds of miles away in Smyrana, these books would have to have been written much earlier to have circulated across the ancient world by that time. So, it's safe to say that all of the new testament books were written no later than 100 A.D., with others including Matthew, Mark and Luke being written before 95 AD.

 

2. Jerusalem. For first century Jews, Jerusalem was the center of national, economic and religious life. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 - just as Jesus had predicted that it would be. Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the new testament? If you were to read a book about the history of New York City, and there was no mention of 9-11, what would you assume? You would assume that the book had been written before 9-11. The same holds true here. Most of the new testament had to be written before this event or it would have certainly been mentioned.

 

3. Luke records the name of 2 Christian martyrs, but ends his book Acts with Paul and James (brother of Jesus) still being alive. Paul was killed during the reign of Nero which ended in 68. According to Josephus (a non Christian historian in the first century) James was killed in 62. Luke doesn't mention this in Acts, meaning it was written before 62.

 

4. Luke was written before Acts, and after Mark which would probably put Mark as being written somewhere in the mid to late 50's.

 

I can give more examples if you like, but I think this effectively reduces your "hundreds of years" to a couple of decades. I can get it even closer if you like.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Pirate lookin' at 40

[Ursa Majoris]

Since it was me that talked about "hundreds of years", I should make it clear I was referring to the long line of OT prophets, not Christ.

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

My bad. I misunderstood that.

 

I shall leave the dating of the old testament writings to someone else.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Pirate lookin' at 40

[TheGrunt]

What if God wanted it that way?

 

This entire debate is only happening because both sides have implicitly agreed that these concepts are mutually exclusive. In doing so you've supposed a motivation on the part of the Supreme Being. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Perfect response. Another excellent question, what if it has to be this way?

 

If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting the order of nature in our universe, though shown random using the example of the Panda's thumb, may in fact be Gods plan. This is a very good example of a common ground interest both sides may share with each other -- there is an amount of regularity in things. Here, however, the Designer theorist presupposes an Orderer (God; intelligent designer), a designer independent of the universe. The problem with suggesting that--in God's plan--the degree or amount of order in our universe mattered (God designed the Panda to awkwardly use its "thumb" the way it does), then the proponent of the intelligent designer argument would be in effect saying that some degree of order might be accepted as intrinsic (that is, such order is intrinsic to the nature of the universe or the material of which it is composed), while arguing that a greater degree of order could not be intrinsic. So I ask, if some order can be intrinsic, what would be the basis for a limit?

 

So to counter your argument that both sides should not presuppose the argument for intelligent design or evolution as mutually exclusive, the aforementioned reason(s) show why it's hardly a stretch to to do so. To reevaluate your claim, however, the premise of your argument could be that the universe is orderly in a sense that is simply a matter of observation, and which, now, both sides can mutually accept a common ground interest to reason that evolution and God coexist.

[Azazello1313]

Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D. It is widely believed that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written around 100 A.D. This is not hundreds of years later. It's 67 years, which may seem like alot but when put in perspective you find that it isn't.

 

john was likely written around 100, give or take 15 years or so. mark was written most likely shortly after 70 AD, matthew and luke within a decade or two after that. the genuine pauline letters were written in the 50s, they are the oldest existing christian documents. many of the new testament documents, specifically revelation, 2 peter, and the deutero-pauline "pastoral" epistles (titus, 1 and 2 timothy) were most likely not written until the second century.

 

i would say all of that tells you a couple things. one the one hand, it was all written about soon enough that you can probably be fairly certain that it pertains, at least loosely, to things that actually happened. it would be like writing about JFK now....there's enough distance to mythologize a bit, but you can't stray too far because people are still around that have memories and knowledge enough to make you look foolish. on the other hand, it certainly destroys the claim that JJ made way back in this thread that "christianity was a book religion from the start". nobody wrote ANYTHING about jesus until two whole decades after his crucifixion, and those writings were to specific missionary churches half way around the known world and were written to address specific situations in those churches. it wasn't until two decades after THAT that anyone thought about writing down a narrative of jesus' mission. it wasn't until CENTURIES later that anyone thought about canonizing some sort of official list of christian scripture, and even then it was only really done at the behest of the emperor constantine, who thought there needed to be a little more top-down uniformity in the practice of his newly adopted religion.

 

a book religion from the start?

Edited November 27, 2007 by Azazello1313

[bushwacked]

I may also provide evidence to support the theory of intelligent design, however that may be something I can bring up in another post.

 

We are all waiting breathlessly for you to copy and paste again.

[Azazello1313]

john was likely written around 100, give or take 15 years or so. mark was written most likely shortly after 70 AD, matthew and luke within a decade or two after that. the genuine pauline letters were written in the 50s, they are the oldest existing christian documents. many of the new testament documents, specifically revelation, 2 peter, and the deutero-pauline "pastoral" epistles (titus, 1 and 2 timothy) were most likely not written until the second century.

 

i would say all of that tells you a couple things. one the one hand, it was all written about soon enough that you can probably be fairly certain that it pertains, at least loosely, to things that actually happened. it would be like writing about JFK now....there's enough distance to mythologize a bit, but you can't stray too far because people are still around that have memories and knowledge enough to make you look foolish. on the other hand, it certainly destroys the claim that JJ made way back in this thread that "christianity was a book religion from the start". nobody wrote ANYTHING about jesus until two whole decades after his crucifixion, and those writings were to specific missionary churches half way around the known world and were written to address specific situations in those churches. it wasn't until two decades after THAT that anyone thought about writing down a narrative of jesus' mission, and then you have four separate narratives that paint dramatically different pictures of jesus. it wasn't until CENTURIES later that anyone thought about canonizing some sort of official list of christian scripture, and even then it was only really done at the behest of the emperor constantine, who thought there needed to be a little more top-down uniformity in the practice of his newly adopted religion.

 

a book religion from the start?

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

john was likely written around 100, give or take 15 years or so. mark was written most likely shortly after 70 AD, matthew and luke within a decade or two after that. the genuine pauline letters were written in the 50s, they are the oldest existing christian documents. many of the new testament documents, specifically revelation, 2 peter, and the deutero-pauline "pastoral" epistles (titus, 1 and 2 timothy) were most likely not written until the second century.

 

i would say all of that tells you a couple things. one the one hand, it was all written about soon enough that you can probably be fairly certain that it pertains, at least loosely, to things that actually happened. it would be like writing about JFK now....there's enough distance to mythologize a bit, but you can't stray too far because people are still around that have memories and knowledge enough to make you look foolish. on the other hand, it certainly destroys the claim that JJ made way back in this thread that "christianity was a book religion from the start". nobody wrote ANYTHING about jesus until two whole decades after his crucifixion, and those writings were to specific missionary churches half way around the known world and were written to address specific situations in those churches. it wasn't until two decades after THAT that anyone thought about writing down a narrative of jesus' mission. it wasn't until CENTURIES later that anyone thought about canonizing some sort of official list of christian scripture, and even then it was only really done at the behest of the emperor constantine, who thought there needed to be a little more top-down uniformity in the practice of his newly adopted religion.

 

a book religion from the start?

 

You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject, but I must respectfully disagree. Any of the gospels written after AD 70 would have surely mentioned the destruction of the temple.

[TheGrunt]

We are all waiting breathlessly for you to copy and paste again.

Snort! (copied that one from a forum on Woot)

 

The funny part is, I take this as a reaction out of frustration on your part. You are only showing me that you have nothing to offer of any intelligent manner to this conversation; possibly because you are reading a thread you know nothing about, causing you frustration, and just as likely, you may even find self-fulfilling humor in your low-impact disregarded posts. Either way, if you have nothing informative to offer here you should refrain from further personal degradation and move along.

[Azazello1313]

You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject, but I must respectfully disagree. Any of the gospels written after AD 70 would have surely mentioned the destruction of the temple.

 

they all DO mention the destruction of the temple, which is exactly why 70 AD is thought of as the earliest possible date for the gospel of mark.

 

Mark's "Little Apocalypse" in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE. The events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple left a deep impression on the Jews of the time. Jerusalem and the Temple were the center of religious life for Palestinian Jews, and the war with the Romans had ravaged the countryside and left thousands dead. Thus, it is understandable that some would associate these horrible events with the end times. An exegesis of Mark 13 shows how the author's description corresponds with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt.

 

The destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 CE, is mentioned in v. 1-4. Leaving the temple area, a disciple said: "Teacher, look at the huge blocks of stone and the enormous buildings!" Facing the temple, Jesus responds: "You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another - all will be torn down." Peter and some others then question Jesus about the signs of the apocalypse privately, a tell-tale sign of Mark's redactional hand (instead of earlier well-known tradition).

 

In v. 5-8, the author speaks of "wars and rumours of wars," but "this is not yet the end." If ch 13 is speaking of the First Jewish Revolt, this indicates that some had predicted earlier that the end would come during the war, a view which the author must deny (or perhaps slightly modify, cf v. 24) after the fighting has ended. The author speaks of "famine" during this time when nation is rising against nation, and Josephus reports the horrors of pestilence and famine during the First Jewish Revolt.

 

The Five Gospels: Buy at amazon.com! Concerning v. 9-13, Robert Funk writes in The Five Gospels: "The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place - or ideas that were current - after Jesus' death: trials and persecutions of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The note about children betraying their parents may be an allusion to the terrible calamities that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.)"

 

Verse 14 says: "When you see the 'Abomination of Desecration' standing where it should not be - let the reader take note! - those in Judea must flee to the mountains." The parenthetical comment to "let the reader take note" underscores the fact that this speech was written for the Christians of Mark's time. The contemporary audience of Mark would understand very well what he was talking about, although the 'Abomination of Desecration' is a cryptic reference to us. The phrase is borrowed from Dn 9:27, where it refers to Antiochus profaning the Temple of Jerusalem c. 165 BCE (probably with an image of Zeus), although it has been adapted to the evangelist's times. In the context of the First Jewish Revolt, this probably refers to the profanation of the Temple by the Romans. Josephus tells us that the victorious soldiers raised their imperial standards and worshiped them in the holy place (Wars of the Jews 6.6.1).

 

Randel Helms comments on the reference to Daniel in the Gospel of Mark (op. cit., p. 8):

 

Who Wrote the Gospels? : Buy at amazon.com! So Daniel's "time, times, and half a time" is three and a half years, or twelve hundred and ninety days. The author of Daniel was referring, with the "abomination of desolation," to the altar to Zeus that Antiochus IV established in the Jerusalem temple in December, 167 B.C.E., as I Maccabees 1:54 tells us. But in Mark's eyes, Daniel really was speaking of Mark's own time, the "time of the end," when another "abomination of desolation" was set up in the Jerusalem temple. For according to Josephus, the regular offering ceased in the temple in July, 70, the temple was burnt in August, and later that month the imperial Roman eagle was set up in the temple precincts and sacrifice was offered to it; then in September the temple was razed to the ground (Josphus, The Jewish War, Chapters 6, 7). Three and a half years thereafter would be early in the year 74. It should not be surprising that a first-century author might apply the Book of Daniel to the Jewish War; Josephus himself did so, he tells us, in the summer of the year 70, at the height of the seige (Josephus, 309).

 

Helms goes on to argue that the reference to the messianic pretenders in 13:21-22 suggests that the author of Mark wrote shortly after 70 rather than a few years before. Josephus tells us about Menahem, the son of Judas, as well as Simon, the son of Gioras, "both of whom were striking messianic pretenders." Helms states, "As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming."

 

Josephus refers to false prophets during the final phase of the Roman assault on the Temple as it was engulfed in flame: "A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes." (Wars of the Jews 6.5.2)

 

Possibly the inspiration for v. 15-18, Christians abandoned Jerusalem before the siege began and fled to the city of Pella according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.5.3).

 

The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem that occured in 70 CE.

 

The Historical Jesus: Buy at amazon.com! J.D. Crossan writes in The Historical Jesus that Jesus "said, according to Mark 13:24, that there would be a clear but not prolonged interval between the Temple's destruction and his own return. Mark's community was living in that interval, having rejected those false but Christian prophets who, in 13:5-8 and 21-23, had proclaimed Jesus' return at...the destruction of the Temple in the First Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 C.E. Mark, in other words, clearly and deliberately separates all that led up to the parousia of Jesus in 13:24-37. And all is placed on the prophetic lips of Jesus himself. That, says Mark, was what he actually said."

 

Paul J. Achtemeier writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 4, p. 545): "the assurance that one cannot calculate by historic events when the risen Christ would return in glory, found again and again in chap. 13, may have been designed to head off discouragement when the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was not immediately followed by that return."

 

James the Brother of Jesus: Buy at amazon.com! Robert Eisenman writes (James the Brother of Jesus, p. 56): "From the same internal textual considerations already noted, it is possible to show that Mark, too, was written after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE. The whole nature of its anti-Jewish polemic and opposition to the family and brothers of Jesus on the one hand and its pro-Peter orientation on the other distinguish it as having appeared after the destruction of the Jerusalem centre - in particular, after the attempt by the Roman Community to represent itself as the legitimate heir to Jesus and the Messianic movement he represented, however absurd, historically speaking, that might have seemed to any objective observer at the time."

 

Eisenman comments (op. cit., p. 56): "There are, in fact, several veiled references to events of this kind in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, in the introuduction to the Little Apocalypse, where Jesus is made to predict the utter destruction of the Temple (13:1-2) and in the Apocalypse itself, when the Pauline Mission is anticipated (13:9-10) - but, even more importantly, in the depiction of the rending of the Temple veil at his death (Mark 15:38 and pars.). This veil was more than likely damaged in the final Roman assault on the Temple or in the various altercations and the turmoil preceding this. Josephus specifically refers to it, along with its replacement materials, as having been delivered over to the Romans after the assault on the Temple. It was doubtless on display in Rome, damaged or otherwise, along with the rest of the booty Josephus describes as having been paraded in Titus' Triumph."

 

Mythology's Last Gods: Buy at amazon.com! Many scholars see another historical allusion in Mk 5:8-13 to a 'Legion' which had a pig as its emblem and which Josephus tells us remained in Jerusalem in the war's aftermath (Wars of the Jews 7.1.3). William Harwood writes in Mythology's Last Gods: "Since the fall of the city a few months earlier [in 70 C.E.], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates."

 

Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography: Buy at amazon.com! Although the author of the Gospel of Mark is suffering through tribulations and his traditions betray resentment of Roman power, he wants to distance himself from the Jews who are at the cause of the revolt. At the same time he wants to present Christianity as something that is politically innocuous to the Roman authorities. For this reason there is a tendency to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews in Mark (cf. 15:9-15), a tendency that becomes even more exaggerated in later times. In reality the anti-semitic prefect would probably not have given Jesus the time of day, especially if he represented a threat to order during the Passover festival. There is no other tradition of a custom to release prisoners during a festival, and such open amnesty goes against administrative wisdom. J.D. Crossan sees in the story of Barabbas a condemnation of the Jews who chose insurrection (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 143): "In Greek the technical term for such a rebel bandit is lestes, and that is exactly what Barabbas is called. He was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter - depending always, of course, on your point of view. But Mark was written soon after the terrible consummation of the First Roman-Jewish War in 70 C.E., when Jerusalem and its Temple were totally destroyed. We already saw how the Zealots, a loose coalition of bandit groups and peasant rebels forced into Jerusalem by the tightening Roman encirclement, fought within the city for overall control of the rebellion in 68 C.E. There, says Mark, was Jerusalem's choice: it chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. His narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem's fate, as he saw it."

 

The most probable understanding of the "Little Apocalypse" is that it was written with reference to the events of the First Jewish Revolt: The Temple is destroyed (v. 2), there are wars and threats of wars (c. 7), nation rises against nation and there is famine (v. 8), many are brought into custody (v. 11), one should flee from Judea (v. 14), there are false prophets (v. 22), and all this is "more distressful than any time between the work of creation and now, and for all time to come."

 

Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

[bushwacked]

Snort! (copied that one from a forum on Woot)

 

The funny part is, I take this as a reaction out of frustration on your part.

 

You were copying and pasting large amounts of verbiage from writings that you didn't acknowledge as someone else's work and prefaced them as your own thoughts.

 

[DemonKnight]

You were copying and pasting large amounts of verbiage from writings that you didn't acknowledge as someone else's work and prefaced them as your own thoughts.

 

 

God holds no copyright.

[bushwacked]

God holds no copyright.

 

 

Well, he was actually using a renegade scientist's work I was somewhat familiar with. But, the sudden eloquence of a point was a dead give away.

[TheGrunt]

You were copying and pasting large amounts of verbiage from writings that you didn't acknowledge as someone else's work and prefaced them as your own thoughts.

 

(sigh)

 

I wasn't copying any sort of original idea if that is what you are trying to infer. You should really do some reading yourself before trying to poke disinterest toward things you obviously don't understand. And besides, 90% of what I wrote above is my own thoughts but using examples from previous well-known literature -- which I assumed most of you should know about if you are to intelligently argue one way or another in this thread. It's only natural someone is going to reference previous knowledgeable readings from their past, especially when discussing philosophical type subjects, so why is it so difficult for you to understand and see that here? And how does what you have to say provide any sort of beneficial knowledge to countering or agreeing to any argument posted in this thread? Simply telling me that other people have written very closely related pieces of work that I am talking about doesn't disprove anything that I have mentioned. Which you obviously already know because you are throwing around some off-the-topic smokescreen to take attention away from your own lack of knowledge in something. The problem is you don't realize that in your case the best thing to do here is not say anything at all. That way nobody knows how lackluster your thoughts really are.

[bushwacked]

Which you obviously already know because you are throwing around some off-the-topic smokescreen to take attention away from your own lack of knowledge in something. The problem is you don't realize that in your case the best thing to do here is not say anything at all. That way nobody knows how lackluster your thoughts really are.

 

This is probably the 100th evolution thread consisting of 20 + pages we have discussed at the Huddle in the last 4 years. If you have something to say ....do it on your own terms.

 

JJ gets a free pass on this since he is recently brainwashed.

 

Copying and pasting stuff from Gould or other opinion pieces you were exposed to during your freshman year in college doesn't impress anyone considering we already discussed it at length.

[TheGrunt]

This is probably the 100th evolution thread consisting of 20 + pages we have discussed at the Huddle in the last 4 years. If you have something to say ....do it on your own terms.

 

JJ gets a free pass on this since he is recently brainwashed.

 

Copying and pasting stuff from Gould or other opinion pieces you were exposed to during your freshman year in college doesn't impress anyone considering we already discussed it at length.

I don't think you get it. I am not copying and pasting anything. I'm sure you searched all throughout Google/ Wikpedia/ whatever just to find some relevant information proving your assumption that I "copied and pasted" to be true -- however, obviously, you found nothing. That's because I didn't copy and paste.

 

Meh... You are pathetic. Congratulations.

[AtomicCEO]

Can't we all just agree that there is no God, and that you religious people should stop this silly undying faith you have? Is that so hard to agree on?

[TimC]

Can't we all just agree that there is no God, and that you religious people should stop this silly undying faith you have? Is that so hard to agree on?

 

Do you like bananas, ape boy?