10. Christ Myther Nonsense
@ 27:30ff - "Jesus Christ was not a real person . . . accounts of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts . . . there's no actual person who was an eyewitness to Jesus being alive. . . . we don't know who the gospels were written by. Jesus had a great multitude of followers but no one ever bothers to write down the existence of [His] person."
@ 28:15ff - "Johnny Rosenberg - The Christ; a Critical Review and Analysis of the evidence of his existence." Our atheist opponent went on to list the following names as those who mentioned nothing about Jesus: Josephus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Arian, Plotinus, Dyan [sp?], Protonius, Seutonius, Juval, Meridus, Perseus . . . none of these guys actually mentioned that Jesus existed as a person."
First, it's a given for the regenerate believer that since this contradicts the New Testament, it is false. Thus, my first and final defense is the historical documents that the Holy Spirit has given us in Holy Scripture.
Second, most contemporary scholars (including theological liberals) consider the Christ Myth theory the absolute **lunatic fringe** of historical Jesus scholarship. That ought to give our atheist friends cause for pause before making bare-naked assertions about the non-existence of Jesus. Second, there is plenty of historical evidence listed here to demonstrate what I said in the first sentence.
Third, it's an outright lie to say that Jesus isn't mentioned in any of the above writers for in fact he is specifically mentioned in Josephus and Seutonius. There are several non-Christian texts that mention Jesus:
Thallus -- just a discussion of some accessory objections; include a link to a more thorough treatment, and a comparison of views.
11. @ 28:55 ff Adam and Eve never existed.
First, this contradicts Scripture, hence, it's necessarily false.
Second, our opponent made a few general remarks about genetics that no creationist would even disagree with and then insinuates that this is evidence for particles to people evolution.
Third, this is a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation since our opponent conflated one definition of evolution (genetic variation amongst the same general kinds of animals) with another (particles to people). Those two definitions of "evolution" are not the same. One has to do with genetic variation displayed among creatures that stay the same kind of creature, the other is a philosophical belief system that has no supporting scientific evidence whatsoever. See Mutations: Questions and Answers
@ 29:15ff "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming" (Question begging epithet designed to emotionally sway the audience). "There are seven completely different lines of evidence that prove that evolution exists . . . and these ideas prove that there never was an Adam and Eve." Our opponent's seven lines of evidence included:
6. Genetics - Genetics: Questions and Answers. Also consider the following notes I took from Dr. Georgia Purdom's presentation titled "Genetics, Evolution, and Creation" at Creation College 2003 last year regarding the common evolutionist argument that the fusion event at human chromosome 2 is evidence for evolution:
Q2: Does a human chromosome 2 fusion event support human-chimp ancestry?
It is true that human chromosome 2 may have resulted from the fusion of 2 chromosomes.
Evolutionists believe this proves chimp-human common ancestry. But this is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent":
P1 - If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, then you'd expect to observe a fusion event at human chromosome 2.
P2 - We observe a fusion event at human chromosome 2.
C - Thus, chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
Problem: This shows that it could just as easily be explained as the work of a common designer.
Affirming the consequent explained in an easy to understand manner:
P1 - If it has rained, the grass will be wet.
P2 - the grass is wet.
C - Therefore, must have rained.
Problem: It could just as easily be explained by someone spraying the grass with a water hose or dew on the grass.
"Evidence for fusion in a human chromosome tells you little to nothing about whether humans share a common ancestor with living apes. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human/ape common ancestry." [i.e., even if human did diverge from a common ancestor with chimps, the fusion event happened after the supposed divergence! - Casey Luskin, Intelligent Design advocate]
Luskin goes on to say,
"All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence or a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event." Casey Luskin, "And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)" IDEA Center, http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgt/showdetails.phpfd/1392 [emphasis in the original]
Evolutionists who believed that humans are more genetically related to orangutans than chimps said this,
"Schwartz and Grehan contend . . that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; . . . and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed." Physorg.com, "Humans Related to Orangutans, not Chimps," http://www.physorg.com/news164508477.html [Just b/c molecularly similar, doesn't mean they have a common evolutionary ancestor]
[He never mentioned the 7th line of evidence].
"These all disprove Adam and Eve."
No it doesn't, it just proves that our atheist friend isn't acquainted with the easily accessible online material that Ph.D. level creationists have provided for years to answer these supposed lines of evidence. Regarding the existence of Adam and Eve, if you want to know about the certain existence of any historical person you need a historical document produced by the One who knows everything and who never lies (Titus 1:2). God has provided such information in the Bible and contrary to your assertions, the Bible is indeed a reliable guide for faith and practice for the Christian.
12. If Evolution Happened, Adam & Eve Didn't Exist.
@ 29:44 - "If this [Darwinian evolution and non-existence of Adam and Eve] happened, there's no such thing as original sin."
I agree! And atheist Richard Bozarth agrees with us too:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. [G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.]
This is why we think theistic evolution is bogus. As a matter of fact, for those who are interested, here's the entire series of articles against theistic evolution from our beloved friends at Creation Ministries International:
Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe?
- 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution (Available in Finnish, German and Spanish)
- ‘A child may see the folly of it’
- Biblical problems for theistic evolution
- Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos
- Chamberlain and the Church
- Church of England apologises to Darwin: Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism
- Response to the evolution appeasers (Treasury, New Zealand)
- Why I rejected theistic evolution
- Bryan on theistic evolution
- Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading creationist answers an often-asked question
- The big picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture
- Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
- Curse and Catastrophe
- The future: some issues for ‘long age’ Christians
- God and evolution: do they mix?
- Theistic evolution: future shock
- Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?
- A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople’
- What should a Christian think about evolution?
- Taking firm hold on an illusion (review of Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, by Darrel Falk)
- Harmony and discord (review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins)
- Dr Broughton Knox, former principal of Moore College, denounced evolution
- Viva la Evolution?
- Paying homage to the stork
- A Circus of Clergy
- Churches celebrating the ‘Year of Darwin’
- God-centred or man-centred?
Did God use evolution to create the world?
- The atheists know … Why Christianity has to fight evolution
- Did the Creator use evolution?
- Some questions for theistic evolutionists and ‘progressive creationists’
- Evolution incompatible with Christianity
- The god of an old Earth
- Jacques Monod vs Theistic Evolution (Available in French)
- Is evolution ‘anti-religion’?
- The Skeptics and their churchian allies
- Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists)
- The horse and the tractor — Why God and evolution don’t mix
- Evangelical compromise misses the essentials
(Semi-technical, review of The Essence of Darwinism by Kirsten Birkett)