Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[james bond]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

 

[alang1216]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

 

[Hollie]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.

 

[james bond]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means. You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions. Nothing coming into existence over time. We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth. It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late. OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory. The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.

 

[james bond]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.

Actually, history shows us that it was atheism and communism which has killed the most people in history.

 

[Hollie]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.

Actually, history shows us that it was atheism and communism which has killed the most people in history.

No. Religion wins in the human destruction contest.

 

[alang1216]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means. You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions. Nothing coming into existence over time. We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth. It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late. OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory. The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

 

[Ringtone]

The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.

Like I previously surmised from your attitude, alang, you really don't want to know the truth.

The resurrection accounts are not theological in nature at all. That's not even Ehrman's line of argumentation in this instance, as that would be glaringly nonsensical. You're either making things up in that wise . . . or, in all likelihood, conflating things in your mind again. The accounts of Christ's resurrection are strictly narrative, and it has been known since the Third Century that Mark 16: 9-20 is not autographically sound. Indeed, we (scholars and serious students of textual criticism and the forensics thereof) know that the Apostolic Fathers, before the Church Fathers, knew that it was not autographically sound, and, via the textual forensics of the manuscripts of their works, we can confidently trace that understanding of things back to the time of the autographs, i.e., all the way back to the First Century!

I was saving that surprise for you when we got to the "contradiction" cynically alleged by Erhman regarding the number of angels encountered by the women at the tomb. Erhman, unlike the biasly predisposed and naive audience that lines his pockets, knows that the Markos pericope anastasis is not autographical and, thus, not a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of narrational contradiction, let alone a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of textual unreliability. Scholars, including Erhman, know that this passage was never a part of the original text in the first place! Indeed, we know that the Markos pericope anastasis was not even a part of the earliest manuscripts. It crept in via the hand of an overeager scribe of the early Third Century. LOL!

But, of course, you already knew that the Markos pericope anastasis was not part of the original text from Erhman. So I have some questions for you. Regarding its actual origin, why didn't you investigate the chronological order of things for yourself? Why didn't Erhman's obvious dissembling awaken you? Are you really this gullible and thoughtless, alang? Sorry, but your lack of curiosity for one who claims to care about the truth is appalling.

By the way, Erhman has been roundly scorned by secular and believing textual critics alike for his manipulatively cynical abuse of laymen. In his popular works, he routinely attacks the reliability of the textual body, to sensational and profitable effect, based on what scholars and serious students of the Bible know to be nothing more than insignificant variants, namely, obvious and easily corrected transcription errors—misspellings, word omissions, word substitutions, garbled syntax and the like. LOL! Erhman is a shameless huckster. A smile and a shoeshine. These comprise 99% of the total variants, approximately 396,000 of the 400,000 total, and the instances and nature of the comparatively minuscule remainder are known for what they are as well!

Most of these consist of variants with essentially equal evidence for and against their autographical authenticity; hence, we currently cannot be absolutely certain of their authenticity. Due to their historical, transcriptional and ideological origins, we know that the rest are additions to the textually autographical body of forensics. These are either theologically gratuitous, dialogically gratuitous or narratively gratuitous additions that crept into what is in fact a minority of the codices, and most of these were known to be errant additions to both the Apostolic and Church Fathers of centuries ago.

An example of the latter is the Markos pericope anastasis discussed in the above. Other examples include the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes (Matthew 7:1), the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11), and the pericope Trias (I John 5:7), all of which derive from the Textus Receptus, the codex on which the King James translation is based.

Most translations of the 20th Century do not include the passages from the errant additions or, because of their historic literary value, anontatively bracket them with caveats regarding their highly improbable authenticity. Study editions of the KJV, my favorite for its overall translational quality and elegance, retain them with the caveats.

The Markos pericope anastasis and the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes, for example, are not precluded from the textually autographical body of forensics merely because they are potentially contradictory relative to their contexts, but because they do not occur in the earliest surviving manuscripts at all. Their chronological origin is that of a comparatively miniscule line of the codices from the Third and Fourth Century. While the pericope adulterae and the pericope Trias do not imply any contextual contradictions at all, they are precluded because they are of the very same specious origin.

(By the way, an interesting and persuasive line of evidence suggests that the pericope adulterae, while definitely not part of the original text, is an historically authentic oral tradition.)

In any event, we know where the bodies lay, as it were, and with absolute confidence, via the exquisitely attentive forensics of textual criticism, we may confidently assert the autographical reliability of at least 99% of the textual body of manuscripts.

Back to your post. . . .

We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

No, actually, I was in the process of systematically debunking the supposed "contradictions" alleged by Erhman. I've utterly demolished two of them so far: (1) regarding the number of women who went to the tomb that morning and (2) regarding the number of angels seen by the women at the tomb that morning. You debunked the second one yourself and spoiled my surprise; albeit, you did so unwittingly because you have never bothered to think things through for yourself.. Sigh So I had to help you see the obvious again. Indeed, Erhman's allegation of contradiction regarding the number of angels is not merely a comparative misreading of the accounts in the Textus Receptus, but an outright lie perpetrated on the ignorant. Once again, Erhman knows very well that the Markos pericope anastasis was never a part of the original texts in the first place!

I've written a couple of articles about Bart Erhman's grossly misleading characterization of the textual variants among the biblical manuscripts and their impact on the autographical reliability of the forensically reconstructed textual body. I made a similar distinction as that of Wallace, which Craig touches on, namely, the distinction between "the scholarly Bart Erhman", who knows better, and "the popular Bart Erhman" who lies all the way to the bank. It's actually a running joke among honest textual critics within the community.

I wrote: "Textual critics of the biblical manuscripts will appreciate the observation that while the pericope krisis is the Osteenian variant of the textual body, Bart Erhman is the Osteenian of textual criticism." (By the way, just in case you missed it, that's Osteenian as in that charlatan Joel Osteen.)

The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels. As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.

False. The Romans made exceptions for the Jews, especially, and for all occupied nations in general during relatively peaceful times for political and legal reasons: Apologetics: Is It Possible that Jesus' Body Was Left on the Cross? - Timothy Paul Jones

Your indemonstrable supposition of disbelief and childish cynicism is dwarfed by the mountain of historical, textual and rational evidence. You just don't believe that Jesus is the Christ. The rest is just the noises you make when you hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence as follows:

I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions." You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever. You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.

That's two down in flames.

Next?

 

[Ringtone]

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

You better carefully reread that article, alang. We have yet to observe a star being born, and this paper is not about stars forming at all.

 

[Hollie]

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

You better carefully reread that article, alang. We have yet to observe a star being born, and this paper is not about stars forming at all.

Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks instead of "... the gawds did it". folks?

Thanks.

Astronomers Observe the Birth of a Massive Star in the Milky Way (scitechdaily.com)

 

[Ringtone]

Our universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause. I agree. What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB. There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god. There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god. Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy. The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble. No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.

False! I do not preclude the existence of vacuum energy prior to the Big Bang (or the birth of our universe) at all, no more than I assume that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. And there is no history of science "filling the gaps without a god" relative to origin, not even close, which is the sense in which you're mindlessly invoking that fallacy, albeit, in this case, unwittingly. While James unwittingly appeals to that fallacy at times, he is correct when he observes that Hollie et. al., which now includes you, don't grasp what the God in the gaps fallacy is! As far as I know so far, dback and I are the only members on this board that really understand the matter of cosmic origin relative to current astrophysics, and a multiverse would in no way, shape or form impinge on the fact that the physical world, regardless of its history and structure, necessarily began to exist in the finite past. But you don't know why that's true, alang, because you don't know the pertinent science or grasp the logical and mathematical ramifications of the matter.

But here's a little nudge for you, alang: we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature, once again, regardless of the extent or structure of its being.. LOL! That's akin to the stupid notion that there is a Creator of the Creator.

 

[Hollie]

Our universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause. I agree. What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB. There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god. There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god. Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy. The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble. No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.

False! I do not preclude the existence of vacuum energy prior to the Big Bang (or the birth of our universe) at all, no more than I assume that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. And there is no history of science "filling the gaps without a god" relative to origin, not even close, which is the sense in which you're mindlessly invoking that fallacy, albeit, in this case, unwittingly. While James unwittingly appeals to that fallacy at times, he is correct when he observes that Hollie et. al., which now includes you, don't grasp what the God in the gaps fallacy is! As far as I know so far, dback and I are the only members on this board that really understand the matter of cosmic origin relative to current astrophysics, and a multiverse would in no way, shape or form impinge on the fact that the physical world, regardless of its history and structure, necessarily began to exist in the finite past. But you don't know why that's true, alang, because you don't know the pertinent science or grasp the logical and mathematical ramifications of the matter.

But here's a little nudge for you, alang: we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature, once again, regardless of the extent or structure of its being.. LOL! That's akin to the stupid notion that there is a Creator of the Creator.

Actually, the God in the gaps fallacy is a logical fallacy easily understandable and one tread over frequently by the hyper-religious.

Your claim that: “we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature”, is a stereotypical claim by religioners suggesting that there is a supernatural cause for the existence of nature. As usual, we are left with the hyper-religious making unsubstantiated, unsupported and unverifiable claims.

 

[Ringtone]

Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks. . . .

LOL! Hollie, you're not a science minded folk, but a slogan-spouting dunce, who in this case does not recognize that the article is written by a less than fully competent journalist of science, not by the scientists who made the discovery. You don't recognize the sensationalism of the title precisely because you really don't know the science.

Look up protostar, Know-nothing.

I know how stars form. I've written a number of treatments on the matter.

Might I suggest you leave matters to folks who can read and think clearly from the scientific actualities of the matter.

I don't give a hoot for the language the author is using in the title of this article to describe what we are actually observing in this case. I know you don't, but I believe that such matters should be stated and thought about clearly.

We have yet to observe the birth of a star as such. Such a thing is currently impossible to observe in real time. What we are observing in this case is the growth of a star that in astronomical terms was recently born, and the article that alang cited is not about forming stars, but about how "[t]he stellar wind from a newborn star in the Orion Nebula is preventing more new stars from forming nearby."

Back to this recent discovery:

The researchers say their observations – published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics – reveal how matter is being dragged into the center of the huge gaseous cloud by the gravitational pull of the forming star – or stars – along a number of dense threads or filaments. . . .​

​

“The remarkable observations from ALMA allowed us to get the first really in-depth look at what was going on within this cloud,” said lead author Dr Nicolas Peretto, from Cardiff University. “We wanted to see how monster stars form and grow, and we certainly achieved our aim. One of the sources we have found is an absolute giant — the largest protostellar core ever spotted in the Milky Way!​

It's already been born, Hollie. What we are actually observing now is it's growth from a protostar to an increasingly mature star, as it gathers mass from its parent molecular cloud. This star is still in its protostellar phase, the earliest phase of development. That's all.

I know I said that I was done talking to you, but I couldn't allow your ignorance to confuse the others. Precision in language is important to precision in thought, Hollie, otherwise the actualities of things can fly right over one's head.

Now drop and give me 50! And don't you ever again think you can teach me anything about . . . well, anything. LOL!

By the way, you drooling 'tard, do you not grasp the fact that you're literally saying that science might find a natural cause for the existence of nature before nature and, therefore, before any natural cause for anything at all existed. LOL! You simply cannot make such stupidity up.

 

[Hollie]

Might I suggest you leave matters of science to science minded folks. . . .

LOL! Hollie, you're not a science minded folk, but a slogan-spouting dunce, who in this case does not recognize that the article is written by a less than fully competent journalist of science, not by the scientists who made the discovery. You don't recognize the sensationalism of the title precisely because you really don't know the science.

Look up protostar, Know-nothing.

I know how stars form. I've written a number of treatments on the matter.

Might I suggest you leave matters to folks who can read and think clearly from the scientific actualities of the matter.

I don't give a hoot for the language the author is using in the title of this article to describe what we are actually observing in this case. I know you don't, but I believe that such matters should be stated and thought about clearly.

We have yet to observe the birth of a star as such. Such a thing is currently impossible to observe in real time. What we are observing in this case is the growth of a star that in astronomical terms was recently born, and the article that alang cited is not about forming stars, but about how "[t]he stellar wind from a newborn star in the Orion Nebula is preventing more new stars from forming nearby."

Back to this recent discovery:

The researchers say their observations – published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics – reveal how matter is being dragged into the center of the huge gaseous cloud by the gravitational pull of the forming star – or stars – along a number of dense threads or filaments. . . .​

​

“The remarkable observations from ALMA allowed us to get the first really in-depth look at what was going on within this cloud,” said lead author Dr Nicolas Peretto, from Cardiff University. “We wanted to see how monster stars form and grow, and we certainly achieved our aim. One of the sources we have found is an absolute giant — the largest protostellar core ever spotted in the Milky Way!​

It's already been born, Hollie. What we are actually observing now is it's growth from a protostar to an increasingly mature star, as it gathers mass from its parent molecular cloud. This star is still in its protostellar phase, the earliest phase of development. That's all.

I know I said that I was done talking to you, but I couldn't allow your ignorance to confuse the others. Precision in language is important to precision in thought, Hollie, otherwise the actualities of things can fly right over one's head.

Now drop and give me 50! And don't you ever again think you can teach me anything about . . . well, anything. LOL!

By the way, you drooling 'tard, do you not grasp the fact that you're literally saying that science might find a natural cause for the existence of nature before nature and, therefore, before any natural cause for anything at all existed. LOL! You simply cannot make such stupidity up.

I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.

Besides your usual blathering, you offered nothing to substantiate your ignorant and false claims so why not limit your participation to cutting and pasting silly fundie Christian YouTube videos?

BTW, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that your hilarious claim: “we are never going to find a natural cause for the existence of nature”, is still absent any corroboration that there is a supernatural cause for the existence of nature.

Your claims to magic and supernaturalism are mere noise and the cut and paste nonsense from any one of the extremist ID’iot creation ministries.

 

[Ringtone]

I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.

You're still confounding the matter in your head and, perhaps, confusing others. I never said stars cannot be seen forming—more at growing in terms of gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds. On the contrary, I emphatically said that's precisely what we're observing, i.e., the formation (or development) of a star that is currently in the protostellar phase.

What part of my assertion that stars can be observed forming = the assertion that they cannot be observed forming?

You drooling 'tard.

What we cannot observe in real time is the birth of a star. The title of the article is misleading. It's the stuff of sensationalism. That is the takeaway from my initial post on the matter. Nothing else, nothing other. But you utterly misapprehended the essence of my observation from the jump, precisely because you don't know much about the particulars of the actual science.

Now, of course, Hollie, you're either a lunatic, a narcissist or a sociopath, so while an apology from you or, at the very least an acknowledgement of your error, is in order, I don't expect that one will be forthcoming, any more than I expect you to be embarrassed by your staggering stupidity in this instance. You need professional help for sure, and I mean that in all sincerity with the hope that you will seek the help you need. But I cannot talk to you anymore. I tried one more time, Hollie, for the sake of others. You can't say I didn't. But orangecat et. al. are on their own now. They'll just have to sort things out for themselves as best they can without my wisdom when you confound things with your baby talk.

Now drop and give me 50 more!

 

[Hollie]

I can see you’re embarrassed at your own ignorance regarding science matters. You can deny facts but the facts are, stars can be seen forming despite your claim they cannot.

You're still confounding the matter in your head and, perhaps, confusing others. I never said stars cannot be seen forming—more at growing in terms of gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds. On the contrary, I emphatically said that's precisely what we're observing, i.e., the formation (or development) of a star that is currently in the protostellar phase.

What part of my assertion that stars can be observed forming = the assertion that they cannot be observed forming?

You drooling 'tard.

What we cannot observe in real time is the birth of a star. The title of the article is misleading. It's the stuff of sensationalism. That is the takeaway from my initial post on the matter. Nothing else, nothing other. But you utterly misapprehended the essence of my observation from the jump, precisely because you don't know much about the particulars of the actual science.

Now, of course, Hollie, you're either a lunatic, a narcissist or a sociopath, so while an apology from you or, at the very least an acknowledgement of your error, is in order, I don't expect that one will be forthcoming, any more than I expect you to be embarrassed by your staggering stupidity in this instance. You need professional help for sure, and I mean that in all sincerity with the hope that you will seek the help you need. But I cannot talk to you anymore. I tried one more time, Hollie, for the sake of others. You can't say I didn't. But orangecat et. al. are on their own now. They'll just have to sort things out for themselves as best they can without my wisdom when you confound things with your baby talk.

Now drop and give me 50 more!

I have to admit it is entertaining to watch you low wattage types assemble a post full of juvenile insults. That really is the best you can muster.

I was hoping you would apologize for the misinformation and sidesteps you attempted as you tried to walk back your nonsense claims, but alas, the hyper-religious are lacking such integrity.

I'll take this latest misapprehension of yours as just another drop then, drop another ten and then turn and run as you hope to sidestep your falsehoods and errors.

 

[Hollie]

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

You better carefully reread that article, alang. We have yet to observe a star being born, and this paper is not about stars forming at all.

Gee, whiz.

It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Scientists witness an explosive birth of a star 1,500 light years away

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos.

indianexpress.com

Astronomers witness a star being born

Astronomers have glimpsed what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust.

www.sciencedaily.com

Golly. Maybe you can steal something from William Lane Craig refuting the above with some snappy Bible verses,

 

[Ringtone]

Gee, whiz. It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Scientists witness an explosive birth of a star 1,500 light years away

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos.

indianexpress.com

Astronomers witness a star being born

Astronomers have glimpsed what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust.

www.sciencedaily.com

Golly. Maybe you can steal something from William Lane Craig refuting the above with some snappy Bible verses,

(Be sure to expand the above quotation, readers, as a write a real zinger near the end of this post . . . just for giggles.)

Sigh

Well, it looks like I have to talk to you once again after all, as I gave you too much credit when I assumed that, at the very least, you grasped the actualities of observing objects of astronomical distances, particularly stellar objects, in real time. Why I should have assumed that about you, Hollie, suggests that, perhaps, I too need to have my head examined. Clearly, by now I should know better than to grant you of having any common sense at all. My bad.

From the first article you cite now, which has absolutely nothing to do with the observation I made earlier regarding the observation of stars in the protostellar phase of formation:

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos. Around 500 years ago, a pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.​

​

Eventually, two of these stars either grazed each other or collided, triggering a powerful eruption that launched other nearby protostars and hundreds of giant streamers of dust and gas into interstellar space at speeds greater than 150 kilometres per second. This cataclysmic interaction released as much energy as our Sun emits over the course of 10 million years. Today, the remains of this spectacular explosion are visible from Earth.​

And, of course, "the remains" are the molecular constituents that gravitationally gathered to birth the new star. The image of that birth is many light years old. The image is not a depiction of its birth in real time; rather, this image is a depiction of what the birth of the star looked like many light years ago. The second article you cite discusses the birth of this new star in greater detail.

It can be credibly said that we can observe protostars forming because by the time the images reach us, these young stars are still in the protostellar phase of their development, still gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds in real time. But these images are not depictions of the current state of the stars being observed in real time either!

Real time, Hollie, real time! What part of real time, which is the predicate of the observations I make in my posts, don't you understand? What part of these stellar object's astronomical distances don't you understand? More to the point, what part of the impossibility of observing any stellar object at all in real time don't you understand?

The only astronomical objects that we could ever possibly observe in real time would be planets, moons, asteroids and the like; that is to say, the persons on them would observe them in real time. We are never going to observe stellar objects in real time as any given technology of observation would be incinerated before the astronomical distances could be traversed, and landing a means of real-time observation on them is redundantly absurd.

Gee, whiz.

It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Golly. Maybe, Hollie, you can steal something from H. G. Wells refuting the above in real time with some snappy passages of science fiction.

LOL!

Now drop and give me 50 more in real time!

Your arms must be a convulsion of stabbing pangs by now.

(By the way, on top of the fact that the astronomical distances and the nature of stellar objects relative to their observation flew right over your head, even after I repeatedly alluded to their observation in terms of real time, you're still dissembling in real time. You previously claimed that I said that we can't observe stars forming, when in fact I said no such silly thing. Indeed, I asserted the very opposite, albeit, not in terms of real time.)

 

[Hollie]

Gee, whiz. It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Scientists witness an explosive birth of a star 1,500 light years away

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos.

indianexpress.com

Astronomers witness a star being born

Astronomers have glimpsed what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust.

www.sciencedaily.com

Golly. Maybe you can steal something from William Lane Craig refuting the above with some snappy Bible verses,

(Be sure to expand the above quotation, readers, as a write a real zinger near the end of this post . . . just for giggles.)

Sigh

Well, it looks like I have to talk to you once again after all, as I gave you too much credit when I assumed that, at the very least, you grasped the actualities of observing objects of astronomical distances, particularly stellar objects, in real time. Why I should have assumed that about you, Hollie, suggests that, perhaps, I too need to have my head examined. Clearly, by now I should know better than to grant you of having any common sense at all. My bad.

From the first article you cite now, which has absolutely nothing to do with the observation I made earlier regarding the observation of stars in the protostellar phase of formation:

Astronomers have captured images of a violent and explosive star birth about 1,500 light-years from Earth, which gives new insights into stellar formation across the cosmos. Around 500 years ago, a pair of adolescent protostars had a perilously close encounter that blasted their stellar nursery apart.​

​

Eventually, two of these stars either grazed each other or collided, triggering a powerful eruption that launched other nearby protostars and hundreds of giant streamers of dust and gas into interstellar space at speeds greater than 150 kilometres per second. This cataclysmic interaction released as much energy as our Sun emits over the course of 10 million years. Today, the remains of this spectacular explosion are visible from Earth.​

And, of course, "the remains" are the molecular constituents that gravitationally gathered to birth the new star. The image of that birth is many light years old. The image is not a depiction of its birth in real time; rather, this image is a depiction of what the birth of the star looked like many light years ago. The second article you cite discusses the birth of this new star in greater detail.

It can be credibly said that we can observe protostars forming because by the time the images reach us, these young stars are still in the protostellar phase of their development, still gathering mass from their parent molecular clouds in real time. But these images are not depictions of the current state of the stars being observed in real time either!

Real time, Hollie, real time! What part of real time, which is the predicate of the observations I make in my posts, don't you understand? What part of these stellar object's astronomical distances don't you understand? More to the point, what part of the impossibility of observing any stellar object at all in real time don't you understand?

The only astronomical objects that we could ever possibly observe in real time would be planets, moons, asteroids and the like; that is to say, the persons on them would observe them in real time. We are never going to observe stellar objects in real time as any given technology of observation would be incinerated before the astronomical distances could be traversed, and landing a means of real-time observation on them is redundantly absurd.

Gee, whiz.

It's as though you're, you know, just clueless.

Golly. Maybe, Hollie, you can steal something from H. G. Wells refuting the above in real time with some snappy passages of science fiction.

LOL!

Now drop and give me 50 more in real time!

Your arms must be a convulsion of stabbing pangs by now.

(By the way, on top of the fact that the astronomical distances and the nature of stellar objects relative to their observation flew right over your head, even after I repeatedly alluded to their observation in terms of real time, you're still dissembling in real time. You previously claimed that I said that we can't observe stars forming, when in fact I said no such thing. Indeed, I asserted the very opposite, albeit, not in terms of real time.)

You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.

Yet, how strange that scientists disagree. What is interesting is that the timeframes and distances involved in the observations made, present a real kerfuffle for you Henry Morris groupies. The notion of a 6,000 year old planet tends to conflict with objects hundreds of thousands of light years away. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma with the religioners claiming timeframes that conflict with modern methods of measuring distance across space.

What would William Lane Craig do?

 

[alang1216]

The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.

Like I previously surmised from your attitude, alang, you really don't want to know the truth.

The resurrection accounts are not theological in nature at all. That's not even Ehrman's line of argumentation in this instance, as that would be glaringly nonsensical. You're either making things up in that wise . . . or, in all likelihood, conflating things in your mind again. The accounts of Christ's resurrection are strictly narrative, and it has been known since the Third Century that Mark 16: 9-20 is not autographically sound. Indeed, we (scholars and serious students of textual criticism and the forensics thereof) know that the Apostolic Fathers, before the Church Fathers, knew that it was not autographically sound, and, via the textual forensics of the manuscripts of their works, we can confidently trace that understanding of things back to the time of the autographs, i.e., all the way back to the First Century!

I was saving that surprise for you when we got to the "contradiction" cynically alleged by Erhman regarding the number of angels encountered by the women at the tomb. Erhman, unlike the biasly predisposed and naive audience that lines his pockets, knows that the Markos pericope anastasis is not autographical and, thus, not a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of narrational contradiction, let alone a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of textual unreliability. Scholars, including Erhman, know that this passage was never a part of the original text in the first place! Indeed, we know that the Markos pericope anastasis was not even a part of the earliest manuscripts. It crept in via the hand of an overeager scribe of the early Third Century. LOL!

But, of course, you already knew that the Markos pericope anastasis was not part of the original text from Erhman. So I have some questions for you. Regarding its actual origin, why didn't you investigate the chronological order of things for yourself? Why didn't Erhman's obvious dissembling awaken you? Are you really this gullible and thoughtless, alang? Sorry, but your lack of curiosity for one who claims to care about the truth is appalling.

By the way, Erhman has been roundly scorned by secular and believing textual critics alike for his manipulatively cynical abuse of laymen. In his popular works, he routinely attacks the reliability of the textual body, to sensational and profitable effect, based on what scholars and serious students of the Bible know to be nothing more than insignificant variants, namely, obvious and easily corrected transcription errors—misspellings, word omissions, word substitutions, garbled syntax and the like. LOL! Erhman is a shameless huckster. A smile and a shoeshine. These comprise 99% of the total variants, approximately 396,000 of the 400,000 total, and the instances and nature of the comparatively minuscule remainder are known for what they are as well!

Most of these consist of variants with essentially equal evidence for and against their autographical authenticity; hence, we currently cannot be absolutely certain of their authenticity. Due to their historical, transcriptional and ideological origins, we know that the rest are additions to the textually autographical body of forensics. These are either theologically gratuitous, dialogically gratuitous or narratively gratuitous additions that crept into what is in fact a minority of the codices, and most of these were known to be errant additions to both the Apostolic and Church Fathers of centuries ago.

An example of the latter is the Markos pericope anastasis discussed in the above. Other examples include the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes (Matthew 7:1), the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11), and the pericope Trias (I John 5:7), all of which derive from the Textus Receptus, the codex on which the King James translation is based.

Most translations of the 20th Century do not include the passages from the errant additions or, because of their historic literary value, anontatively bracket them with caveats regarding their highly improbable authenticity. Study editions of the KJV, my favorite for its overall translational quality and elegance, retain them with the caveats.

The Markos pericope anastasis and the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes, for example, are not precluded from the textually autographical body of forensics merely because they are potentially contradictory relative to their contexts, but because they do not occur in the earliest surviving manuscripts at all. Their chronological origin is that of a comparatively miniscule line of the codices from the Third and Fourth Century. While the pericope adulterae and the pericope Trias do not imply any contextual contradictions at all, they are precluded because they are of the very same specious origin.

(By the way, an interesting and persuasive line of evidence suggests that the pericope adulterae, while definitely not part of the original text, is an historically authentic oral tradition.)

In any event, we know where the bodies lay, as it were, and with absolute confidence, via the exquisitely attentive forensics of textual criticism, we may confidently assert the autographical reliability of at least 99% of the textual body of manuscripts.

Back to your post. . . .

We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

No, actually, I was in the process of systematically debunking the supposed "contradictions" alleged by Erhman. I've utterly demolished two of them so far: (1) regarding the number of women who went to the tomb that morning and (2) regarding the number of angels seen by the women at the tomb that morning. You debunked the second one yourself and spoiled my surprise; albeit, you did so unwittingly because you have never bothered to think things through for yourself.. Sigh So I had to help you see the obvious again. Indeed, Erhman's allegation of contradiction regarding the number of angels is not merely a comparative misreading of the accounts in the Textus Receptus, but an outright lie perpetrated on the ignorant. Once again, Erhman knows very well that the Markos pericope anastasis was never a part of the original texts in the first place!

I've written a couple of articles about Bart Erhman's grossly misleading characterization of the textual variants among the biblical manuscripts and their impact on the autographical reliability of the forensically reconstructed textual body. I made a similar distinction as that of Wallace, which Craig touches on, namely, the distinction between "the scholarly Bart Erhman", who knows better, and "the popular Bart Erhman" who lies all the way to the bank. It's actually a running joke among honest textual critics within the community.

I wrote: "Textual critics of the biblical manuscripts will appreciate the observation that while the pericope krisis is the Osteenian variant of the textual body, Bart Erhman is the Osteenian of textual criticism." (By the way, just in case you missed it, that's Osteenian as in that charlatan Joel Osteen.)

The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels. As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.

False. The Romans made exceptions for the Jews, especially, and for all occupied nations in general during relatively peaceful times for political and legal reasons: Apologetics: Is It Possible that Jesus' Body Was Left on the Cross? - Timothy Paul Jones

Your indemonstrable supposition of disbelief and childish cynicism is dwarfed by the mountain of historical, textual and rational evidence. You just don't believe that Jesus is the Christ. The rest is just the noises you make when you hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence as follows:

View attachment 444943

I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions." You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever. You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.

That's two down in flames.

Next?

Let's move on to the birth narratives then. Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?