thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.Originally Posted by The12lber
thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
The point of my comment wasn't that, though.
It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.
I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.
Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?
Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.
The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.
Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.
Last edited by The12lber; 01-31-2008 at 09:59 PM.
well there is no threat to my faith. i post the things i post either because someone asked a question or said something that was false about believers and the things they believe. i personally don't need all the scientific facts and archeological facts to prove the things i believe. but i do understand that some people cant wrap there head around it without them. and thats perfectly understandable. I was just trying to answer some questions and shed a little bit of truth. which seems like the same thing you are doing. so no wrong on either sides both just trying to show our opinions and thoughts about the topic.
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?
What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder). This would suggest that at one time there was a perfect genetic code that has merely been losing parts over time resulting in diseases and mutations - what millions of doctors and scientists are constantly fighting today. Scientists cannot even directly link a human to a monkey (our supposed closest relative). Ever heard of a "missing link"?
Of course there is micro evolution (changes) resulting from mutations and genetic selection, but it does not ever involve new genetic information being created. Take for example a dogs. All of the genetic information needed to create virtually every species of dog can be found in a wolf. A poodle would be an obvious result of breeding and mutations.
"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"
Epic fail, sir.
Actually, it is still closed. You are not creating any new matter, merely converting from one form to another through an expenditure of energy. In your example, you are not decreasing entropy, so you are not violating the 2nd law. That's an important distinction.
Snowflakes, etc, are an example of patterns, not codes. Patterns do not require intelligence to create them, codes and languages do. Can you show me a message that did not come from intelligence?
Last edited by David88vert; 02-02-2008 at 08:25 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote