Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

[hatsoff]

Mate, you didn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas until you looked it up on Wikipedia. You're out of your league, so for own interest you should probably drop it.

Don't assume you're clairvoyant. It was a simple miscommunication, of which you were primarily to blame (how you could think a non-Muslim would have been considering the Gospel of Barnabas to be authentic is beyond me). You make ridiculous and plainly false claims, and then when you're challenged with proof that you're wrong, you tell me I'm not educated enough to be worth your time.

You know, I wouldn't be rubbing all this in if you would just admit your mistakes.

Rubbing it in? Hmmm

WHy would I believe a Muslim would support the Gospel of Barnabas? It was written by them in the 7th century and is used this day as the accurate description of Christ...by Muslim apologists.

Please read more carefully. I asked why you would think a non-Muslim, who more importantly was arguing for a late first or early second century date, was referring to the Gospel of Barnabas, and not the Epistle. It's easier to stamp your feet claiming I'm not worth your time, but much more difficult to admit you were wrong.

Off you go.

Edited February 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Mate, you didn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas until you looked it up on Wikipedia. You're out of your league, so for own interest you should probably drop it.

Don't assume you're clairvoyant. It was a simple miscommunication, of which you were primarily to blame (how you could think a non-Muslim would have been considering the Gospel of Barnabas to be authentic is beyond me). You make ridiculous and plainly false claims, and then when you're challenged with proof that you're wrong, you tell me I'm not educated enough to be worth your time.

You know, I wouldn't be rubbing all this in if you would just admit your mistakes.

Rubbing it in? Hmmm

WHy would I believe a Muslim would support the Gospel of Barnabas? It was written by them in the 7th century and is used this day as the accurate description of Christ...by Muslim apologists.

Please read more carefully. I asked why you would think a non-Muslim, who more importantly was arguing for a late first or early second century date, was referring to the Gospel of Barnabas, and not the Epistle?

Good thing I never claimed to be an expert in reading.

Simple, it would have fit the Gnostic mind set of Jesus being an enlightened human, but not divine. Though Muslims have latched onto it, there are many non-Muslims (generally Neo-Gnostics) that do see it as credible (I believe Hoeller falls into this category, though he deals more with the traditional Gnostic writings). This is why I thought you were actually talking about the Gospel of Barnabas, because there are a lot of neo-Gnostics that accept it as well. My apologies for being well studied on the issue, well enough in fact that I can tell when even a bad argument fits the context.

And the reason I won't admit I was wrong is because I wasn't, and I'm not wrong. I'm quite good at what I do, even if it is irrelevant in life.

[hatsoff]

This is ridiculous, man. If you really do study this sort of thing professionally, then I would hate to think of all the folks who are mislead into believing your authority. You have it wrong, and you're evidently trying to weasel out of it by avoiding the heart of the issues.

When you're willing to actually lay out some evidence for your late-third-century dating of GThomas and the Didache, let me know. Until then, I'm done with you.

[seanpont]

This is ridiculous, man. If you really do study this sort of thing professionally, then I would hate to think of all the folks who are mislead into believing your authority. You have it wrong, and you're evidently trying to weasel out of it by avoiding the heart of the issues.

When you're willing to actually lay out some evidence for your late-third-century dating of GThomas and the Didache, let me know. Until then, I'm done with you.

He won't admit he's wrong; he's too proud. When you catch him in error, he just gets nasty.

[apothanein kerdos]

Where did I say the Didache was created in the third century?

Likewise, as I stated, the only whole GoT that we have is in Coptic, and at best this can be dated to the late 4th century. The Greek fragments are in from the 3rd century. Prior to this, little is known. At best it would have been written early in the third century due to the writing style and philosophical input. The form of Gnosticism that it puts forth is far more advanced than Neo-Platonism or proto-Gnosticism. You won't find a single scholar that teaches it was composed in the first or second century.

[apothanein kerdos]

This is ridiculous, man. If you really do study this sort of thing professionally, then I would hate to think of all the folks who are mislead into believing your authority. You have it wrong, and you're evidently trying to weasel out of it by avoiding the heart of the issues.

When you're willing to actually lay out some evidence for your late-third-century dating of GThomas and the Didache, let me know. Until then, I'm done with you.

He won't admit he's wrong; he's too proud. When you catch him in error, he just gets nasty.

At what point did you catch me in error? Wanna link the topic? Is it the slavery one where I met your strict requirement, and the best you could come up with was "nu-uh!"?

[CSLewis]

Woah I thought this thread was about evolution. Guess I was wrong.

2 Timothy 2:14-26

[cjrose]

Intelligent elvolution is Intelligent Design which is Creationism.

All three have 2 basic logical flaws at their core. The first is based on, "the god of the gaps", argument. Wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, especially in geology and biology, all three invoke the "god hypothesis"; if science fills the gap, all three search for a new gap. Hence the "god hypothesis" is non-falsifiable. The second flaw is the either-or fallacy; the assumption that there are only 2 possible solutions for a given problem. All three argue that there are only 2 solutions to the origins of humans, evolution (through natural selection) or divine creation. All three claim there are problems with natural selection, therefore divine creation is the only plausible explanation. All three show lack of imagination in postulating possibilities and show their sheer ignorance of the subject matter.

What are flaws to non believers are solid truths to believers. The more time you ( general ) attempt to find an answer to our "flawed" belief, the further from the truth you grow when the truth is right before you.

JA, welcome back and great OP

[cjrose]

Woah I thought this thread was about evolution. Guess I was wrong.

2 Timothy 2:14-26

[Guest Solomon153]

I believe that both theories of evolution and creation are right.I believe that the initial thrust of the universe to exist was ivariably followed by it constantly evolving. To say that their are not proofs of evolution you are either blind or incredulous. Was science created or is it still evolving? Was the united states created or is it still evolving?To think that reality is like a statue that does not move is completly false. Reality is constantly moving because it is fluid.The family tree is like a chain in which the first link does not resemble the last link. Each person is created,but the tree is constantly evolving, and reflecting the new elements into which it comes into contact with.