Which came first- KRST or Christ?
Often when theists are discussing religion they will refer to their holy scripts and rituals as evidence for their religious beliefs. The major religions of today such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, all require a belief in a specific figure in order for the entire belief system to be true. Christianity requires Jesus, Islam requires Mohammed, Judaism requires Moses, Buddhism Buddha (to an extent), and so on, and all of these require their religion to be “True” at the expense of others. For example, either Jesus was divine or he was not; if he was then Muslims are in trouble. Likewise for Christians if Jesus was not, then this leaves them with the entire foundation of their religion in shambles. The reason I bring this up is because these are some unassailable tenants of each religion and one would think that since these points are so important there would be a lot of support behind them. However, when we look at history, especially history that predates all of these religions, we are forced to raise an eyebrow when we compare these stories to other stories of old. For the purposes of this post I am going to focus mainly on Christianity simply because most readers are most familiar with it, however this idea can be applied to any form of organized religion in the Western World.
The story I will bring up here is the story of Horus and how it relates to Jesus. These two divine beings both have so many similarities it is astounding that Horus is not more respected today than Jesus. Why do you ask? Not only does he share those attributes, but he’s older! Walk on water? Done did it! Jesus restored sight to the blind? Bush league; Horus did that a few thousand years before. Crucified in a very dramatic trial next to two thieves, Jesus? Someone call the patent office, Horus was doing that before crucifixion was cool. Jesus took a vacation between ages 12 and 30? Horus is the one who started the 18 year sabbatical. Horus is read as KRST, which actually sounds like a new youth group in Middle America, and Jesus is the Christ. The list goes on and on.
Basically we find that the story of Horus mirrors that of Jesus on several different points ranging from the way he was conceived to the way he was killed. Keep in mind now, Jesus is the cornerstone of a massive religion that is very active in our modern world. Also keep in mind that his stories with all their different versions can be found in nearly every culture around the Mediterranean BEFORE Christianity was founded, before Jesus was even a name people threw around. So what does this mean for those that hold Jesus as the one true way to salvation and as a guiding principle for their entire way of life?
Well, a little honest introspection will lead us to the conclusion that there might possibly be some discrepancies in the story of Jesus life and by proxy his teachings. If we were to assume that everything in the Bible was true we are forced to somehow find out a way to justify the existence of demigods like Horus’ existence BEFORE Jesus. After all, Jesus can’t be the one son of god and then go slap a high five with Horus, that doesn’t make sense! No, either one story is fabricated, both are fabricated, or the stories are all folk tales that had been told time and time again throughout cultures that existed far beyond the time of the written word, or a combination of all three. Notice that none of the options has room for both being completely true, otherwise Ra and Isis really DO exist and Western culture is in for a rude awakening-and Brenden Frasier isn’t going to always be around to help us fight the mummies.
So I encourage anyone, theist, deist, atheist, whatever, to do some research on other religions, particularly those that predate the birth of Jesus and then some. You’ll find so many social norms and moral practices canonized that you will be forced to wonder why it is that Jesus and Horus and Heracles and Krishna and so many others we no longer know the names of are all seen as deities that were one god incarnate on earth…and then forgotten as soon as another came along. What makes Jesus so special? Why do Christians or Muslims not pray to Horus instead of to Jesus or Mohammed? I challenge anyone that believes in an organized religion to answer that question truthfully and honestly in light of the evidence discovered in our research of pre-Christian doctrine. Until we find out the one true story maybe we should all brush up on our Roman and Greek mythology, our paganism and our druidism, our Egyptian and Norse prayers, because one of them has to be the one true way…………right?
Jason K.
Obviously, I think they are all just “Aesop’s Fable’s”, to apply to your life. Originally, people had made up God’s to control the weather, etc., so, someone could be accountable for the crops. Now that we understand deities don’t control the weather, some people still choose to worship deities. It still baffles me when folks cling to these ideas about “God’s will”. Everything that happens is God’s will? Child molesters? Wife beaters? Homophobes? And worst of all…We Blasphemers? But, truly, Jason, I have always wondered why most Christians will concede that according to the bible, the Jews are the “chosen” people. So, in light of that, why are there any “Christians” left? It would seem they would all convert to Judaism…anyone have any thoughts on that?
Kristina Clement
May 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm
There was a really interesting show on the History Channel a couple weeks ago comparing Horus to Jesus. Actually, I think it was on around Easter. This is why I love the History Channel.
laurelrk
May 17, 2010 at 10:00 pm
That is actually a question I’ve thought about too. How can you be part of a club that supposedly has open membership to “run the show” and then elect not to run the show? I honestly have no way to answer that question because I am not of that mindset. It just reeks of such cognitive dissonance I just can’t wrap my head around it.
jastiger
May 17, 2010 at 11:36 pm
The Horus-Jesus connection is bogus. Many of the so-called connections just aren’t connections at all (there is one story that mentions Horus’ death and it isn’t by crucifixion, Horus never walked on water, he wasn’t born of a virgin, etc.). You do the rest of us no favors when you spread this sort of thing around. You don’t need to spread bad history and false information in order to discredit Christianity. There are plenty of legitimate ways to do that.
Brad
May 18, 2010 at 9:15 am
Brad, the death of Horus by crucifixion and the virgin birth etc. are astrological-astronomical metaphors. Horus was the Egyptian sun-god and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun’s movement in the sky. Two thousand years ago, as the sun dawned on December 25th, the constellation Virgo could be seen on the eastern horizon. The Sun – and the Son – were born ‘of a Virgin.’
Also, at winter solstice, during the three day pause of the Sun’s transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation. This is the death of the Sun – the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept.
However, the resurrection of the Sun was not officially celebrated until the spring equinox, or Passover. This is because at the spring equinox, the Sun officially overpowers the darkness, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than night, and the revitalizing conditions of spring emerge.
Ben
December 11, 2010 at 1:01 am
This one is very easy. Christ was before Horus. Since Christ is God the creator, and created the falcon whom the Egyptians worshipped, then it could not have been the other way around.
Christ however, actually did live and die, while Horus was just a figment of man’s imagination, as with all false gods.
I understand that you will have a hard time with this, but you will have to do your homework.
Mike
May 25, 2010 at 7:14 am
So the connection between the ancient story of Horus has absolutely NOTHING in common with the story of Jesus? There are tons of heroes throughout history that share many of the same properties of Jesus, Horus is just one of them. It is simply a newer religion attempting to latch on to older ones in order to gain legitimacy.
Mike you assume quite a bit when you make a statement like that. There are historical accounts of different mystical figures that share certain properties. You can’t just barge in and say “Oh but THIS one was first simply because I believe it to be so”. Even you must have a problem with that way of thinking.
jastiger
May 25, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Nope, It’s just like “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The chicken of course.
You see, we are looking at things from different angles. You from are like many who turn to Nostrodamus and try to make his so called prophecies work out, when in reality he was no prophet at all. Just because there are many similarities does in no way disprove Christianity, or even religion.
God had Christianity in mind BEFORE the universe was created, but again, that will be hard for you to swallow since you have no belief in God and do not understand the Scriptures.
Mike
May 26, 2010 at 7:26 am
I do not understand how the scriptures are written at one point in time and then there are completely different religions that use the same stories found in the scriptures BEFORE the scriptures were written. This isn’t about reaching for Nostradamus for verification of prophesies, but about looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion from it.
For example the airplane. Built by the Wright Brothers and first successful (recorded) flight done in Kitty Hawk, NC. Does this mean that the 747 is to be hailed as the first real plane because it is the one we use so often today in our commercial flight? Or do we see that perhaps someone was onto this whole “flight” thing way before the 747 was conceived?
jastiger
June 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm
The Scriptures were not written at one point in time. it took over 1500 years for the Scriptures to be written. The problem that we are facing here is in what way the Scriptures were written.
Each of the 40 individuals who wrote the Scriptures were inspired by God. The Bible is not some man invented work, it is the Word of God. God used the agency of men to record what He wanted humankind to know. Not everything that we would LIKE to know is found in the Bible (Deuteronomy 29:29), but only the things that God knew that we needed to know. That we are His creation, that sin is in the world, and that salvation is available to all, and how to find that salvation.
I understand that you don’t believe in these things, but I’m just telling you how Horus was not before Christ. Christ is God the Creator, who created the falcon, and whom men invented as their god (false god). The 747 thing does not fit the argument.
Mike
June 2, 2010 at 9:34 am
Then why does the existence of a false god with many of the attributes of the REAL god predate the bible?
jastiger
June 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm
There are NO false gods that pre-date the REAL God. Just because false gods existed before the Bible began to be written, does in no way legitimize any of the multitude of false gods.
The REAL God existed first (eternally), created the universe, humanity, animal kind, plants, etc. The REAL God created the earth with a purpose, and put humanity on the earth with a purpose.
The REAL God gave mankind the ablity to choose, whether to serve Him, or not to serve Him. Humanity learned of the attributes of God, as God conversed with man before He wrote anything down. Some men chose not to serve the REAL God, so they invented their own false gods, that exhibited many of the same attributes of the REAL God.
It is no different than what we find today within “Christianity.” In the first century, the church of Christ was established as the one and only church that Jesus said He would build, and for which He died. His apostles established that one and only church, with its one and only set of doctrine.
Over the centuries, men have made the choice that they did not want to serve the REAL God by being a part of that one and only church, so they copied many of its attributes, and changed the things they didn’t like. So today we have multitudes of false churches (false gods) that may appear to “Christian” in origin, but are not. There still is only one true church, with its one true doctrine. All denominations will do is keep people lost, and thinking they are ok with God. The same as the false gods that could do nothing for those who served them.
Mike
June 3, 2010 at 11:37 am
Suppose I assume that God exists. I will also temporarily imagine that God created falcons.
This is a debate about the characteristics of Jesus in human form, not his alternate self God. We both know that the Bible says that Jesus came to Earth roughly around the year 0. The Egyptian civilization (and mythology) was already ancient by that time (even according to the Bible). The sole fact that the Egyptians observe falcons in no way leads them to attribute specific characteristics which are similar to Jesus’ to their made up God Horus. Although people have the knowledge of the ideals of God, they don’t yet know what specific things Jesus would do in his life, that is only revealed by Jesus. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that that Jesus has inherited some of the attributes of Horus.
As for the accuracy of the claims of similarity I chose from university sites and professional Egyptology journals to get reliable data, I challenge you to do the same in counterpoint.
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rel232/resource/RileyPaper.htm
Popular Religion in Graeco-Roman Egypt: II. The Transition to Christianity
B. R. Rees
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 36, (Dec., 1950), pp. 86-100
Published by: Egypt Exploration Society
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt”, p. 313, Ian Shaw, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0192802933
Which says a common title of Horus was “savior”
Mark
June 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Jesus Created the universe, humanity, plant life, animal life, physics, the first & second law, etc. etc. is all knowing, and can see into the future. It was BEFORE He created anything, that the plan was set aside for him to come to earth as the Savior of mankind. It was BEFORE He created anything, that He knew how He would sacrifice Himself, as well as when that would occur. So BEFORE the earth and humanity and the falcon ever existed, the plan was put in place for Jesus Christ to come to earth, born of a virgin (5 BC), to live His life as a man and then at age 30 to begin a 3 1/2 year ministry that would prepare the way for His gospel to be preached, and His church to be established BEFORE He would allow Himself to be crucified by the Romans.
Horus did not exist before the world was created, Because man did not exist to invent him. And although there are SOME similarities, it does not prove anything. As I stated before, God has always used various things used by men to either make a point, to establish a covenant, or to teach so that men would understand.
I can’t help the ignorance of university sites, and professors who have fallen into the age old belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the mother Christian Church. The professor is correct about one thing – the early Christian church did not celebrate the birth of Christ – and there was a reason for it. The celebration of the birth of Christ was an invention of the Catholic Church – it was not ordered by God.
Just because there are many people claiming to be Christian, does not make it so. And just because the majority of the denominations go along with certain celebrations, again does not make it true Christianity.
People need to look at the Bible Alone, before they make accessments of what Christianity is all about, because the Bible shows that it is a far cry from what it actually should be.
Mike
June 5, 2010 at 8:56 am
mike is a close minded f***
masternation
December 13, 2011 at 11:19 pm
So basically, you don’t have a good explanation for why many religions and cults had “Jesus like figures” before the actual Jesus was around. Anyone that disagrees with you is wrong on the grounds that they are wrong.
You have brought absolutely no evidence to the table to prove your point. All you have done is decry alternative explanations that do not match your own. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus is the “real” Jesus and Horus was not.
jastiger
June 5, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Well Jason, the problem is it would do no good for me to bring evidence to the table when you wouldn’t believe it anyway.
The facts and evidence are there if you will just search them out. Of the alternative is to debate the issue and see my evidence then. But of course you, nor anyone else is willing to do that.
Mike
June 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Which word came first? messiah or christ???
Christ is a the english transliteration of the greek word Khristos which is a greek translation of the hebrew word Messiah, which means “annointed one (by God)” it ends here.
EPIC FAIL.
james paul
November 23, 2010 at 4:53 am
Your point??
Mike
November 25, 2010 at 10:13 am
Anyone who denies the horus-jesus connection, or indeed that most of the bible is plagiarised from Egyptian texts is most certainly naive or simply refuses to actually do any research.
If you are actually looking for the truth to these matters the information can be found through
a little research.
start here:
ggreenberg.tripod.com/writings/w-egypt-eden.htm
and here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/calum/egypt.html
What I’m sick and tired of is Christians, or indeed all the fanatical religious, who are so firmly entrenched in their beliefs that they refuse to take an unbiased approach to these matters. It just demonstrates how well politically motivated religion works, and why it was implemented in the first place.
Ben
December 8, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Well Ben, your problem is that your views are based upon a the fallacy that we evolved, and that Egypt was one of the oldest civilizations. Just because there APPEARS to be simularities between horus & Jesus proves nothing.
The prophecies of Jesus were around long before Egypt ever existed. It is they who plagiarized, not Moses or anyone else. Men have been plagiarizing the Scriptures for centuries and they continue to do so.
You and your irrational buddies can rant and rave all day long, but horus proves nothing. Jesus is eternal, horus is not.
Mike
December 10, 2010 at 9:53 am
How do you explain Egyptian civilization before Jesus? The extensive carbon dating? The similarities in the stories? I mean, weren’t the Jews enslaved by Egyptians in the Old Testament? How does the Jewish culture precede the Egyptian one?
jastiger
December 10, 2010 at 11:38 pm
A fallacy that we evolved? Look, I can respect Christians who maintain a belief in God, while not denying the irrefutable evidence of evolutionary phenomena and natural selection, but to call it a fallacy is just ignorance. How do you propose to explain nested hierarchies and classification in taxomony, or that the first fossil remains are of very simple living things and as the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase, and no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth, and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle. Or the unmistakable evidence of mutated human chromosome 2 which was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.
The only way that special creation could explain this is if you’re willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. For goodness sake don’t say the devil did it.
To the issue at hand, stories from the life of Horus had been circulating for thousands of years before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). If any copying occurred by the writers of the Egyptian or Christian religions, it was the followers of Jesus who incorporated into his biography the myths and legends of Horus, not vice-versa. To say that Jesus is eternal, and that his prophecies were around long before Egypt existed, but with no historical evidence to support this claim is just Christian nonsense born out of a necessity to explain the data. Well, you’d best get used to coming up with some answers as modern scientific insight significantly influences such topics.
Also, it’s not just the Horus-Jesus connection. The plagiarisation of numerous bibical accounts is evident, including David, Zechariah, Soloman, Armageddon, the eating of the fobidden fruit of the tree of knowledge (although the Egyptian Ritual show us Ani and his wife, the pair, as SPIRITS, in the Aarru-garden eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and drinking the water of life, but with no relation to a fall from paradise through plucking the forbidden fruit), The Annunciation, Conception, Adoration and Birth, and many many other accounts which were written many thousands of years before the intended time frames of the Biblical texts, and furthermore are incontestably considered as mythology rather than any basis on any actual events that transpired. One example, consider the origin of Lazarus whom Jesus was supposed to have raised from the dead. In the Egyptian texts Asar was an alternative name for Osirus, Horus’ father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as “the Asar,” as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is “El-Asar.” The Romans added the prefix “us” to indicate a male name, producing “Elasarus.” Over time, the “E” was dropped and “s” became “z,” producing “Lazarus.” This example does not work vice-versa hence we cannot say the Egyptians plagiarised the story, but instead that the biblical redactor did.
Ben
December 11, 2010 at 12:31 am
Jason and Ben,
since you have no idea what the Scriptures teach, there is no point in trying to argue with you on this point. As I have pointed out numerous times already, and you continually ignore it, Jesus is the creator of all things. He is God, eternal, who became flesh and blood. Since Adam and Eve, God’s revelation to man has been passed down from generation to generation. Many have chosen to distort that message, and to design their own brand of religion (ie, Egypt; et al). Just like there are varying stories of the flood, there are also varying stories of the garden, and even prophecies of the coming Messiah. If you want to believe in Horus, then that’s your choice – continue to be deluded.
As for miracles of the virgin birth, or God causing Pharaoh to release the Hebrews, yes, they really happened. And don’t say you don’t believe in miracles, because you do (evolution would have to be a miracle, if it were true).
Mike
December 11, 2010 at 9:26 am
If evolution is not true, how do you explain organisms alive today that did not exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? Think nylon eating bacteria or influenza mutations.
We aren’t asking you to disbelieve your scripture. We are asking you to explain how your specific scripture is somehow more accurate than the scripture that pre dates it. Ben laid out some pretty good examples of how Christianity seems to have quite a bit in common with other myths. Hell, even if you believe in it, you have to recognize that the actual words used can be used as synonyms for other words in other myths. How do you explain that? How do we know YOUR version is more accurate?
There are varying stories of the garden, of the flood, of all of this stuff, some predate Christianity and some do not. How do we know which one is accurate? On which basis do we decide?
jastiger
December 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm
As I said, if you are a believer, then you understand that the Bible is true.
We’ve gone over this evolution thing I don’t know how many times. No one is denying MICRO-evolution, but there is no rational support for MACRO-evolution.
Mike
December 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Nor is there rational support for an all powerful creator. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know enough about evolution to determine if the theory is entirely accurate or not – however I do know when it comes to arguing for “God’s Creation” we are asked to take the biggest leaps on faith alone without physical evidence of any kind. So not only are you being hypocritical, but you refuse to respond to any of their points as per usual, ad nauseum.
Dan Reed
December 15, 2010 at 5:19 pm
What points Dan? This is your site, not mine, it is you who are trying to debunk God and creation. So prove it. I’m simply here to get you to think, which is pretty hard.
Mike
December 17, 2010 at 8:58 am
“What points Dan? This is your site, not mine, it is you who are trying to debunk God and creation. So prove it. I’m simply here to get you to think, which is pretty hard.”
You are amazingly dense as usual. You know as well as I can’t prove there is a god and I can’t prove there is NOT a god. This is NOT my site, it’s one I’ve found some interest in – that is all. However, to say you are here to get people to think is a joke, right? You get to a point of thought, but then amazingly you fall back on faith as if it is fact, when it is NOT. You don’t respond to points brought up or questions asked solely because you don’t have answers to them other than that it is something your religion tells you, or it is something you take on “faith”.
Dan Reed
December 17, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Mike, the simple fact is that the evidence to support evolution is inescapable. It is not a miracle, it is not a matter of ‘if’ it were true. The mechanics of its existence are undeniable. I’m sorry that it directly contests your entire belief system. That must be very difficult to bear. And, what we are learning about Christianity and the history of the bible, the evidence leans strongly to most of the accounts having been plagiarised from earlier cultures. In fact, the confusion of converting mythological deities into actual persons explain many of the contridictions it suffers. I am simply looking for the truth to these matters, and an end to theistic belief systems as the fraud of the age. Unfortunately for you your pride stands in the way of reason. That is delusion. However as long as you continue to live in peace I have no problem with that.
Ben
December 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Ben, as I have told Jason many times, the only evolution that exists is MICRO-evolution. However, MACRO-evolution is the miracle that cannot be proved, nor is it logically supported. I would love to debate you on it anytime.
Since you are blinded by the miraculous non-existent evidence of Macro-evolution, I’ll not speak about the plagiarism of various cultures.
Mike
December 14, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Hey Mike, can you google Australopithecus for me?
jastiger
December 15, 2010 at 9:47 am
And your point? It’s just an ape, like every other type of fossil that evolutionists use to TRY and make their THEORY fit. It proves nothing. It was not a human being. It was an animal. Please give us proof that macro-evolution is alive and working today. Show me the testable examples.
Mike
December 17, 2010 at 9:05 am
Ever heard of ‘speciation’, the evidence is available. You know, when evolutionary theory was first realized the religious fervently denied it in its entirety. Then, when the data seemed to fit within the theory it became a science, and through technology eventually testable in almost every way to a point where the religious would come across as biased or simply stupid to deny it. And so now it’s, “oh, yeah micro evolution, sure, but macro.. no.”. It’s laughable.
“the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation – this is especially common in plants.” – Rieseberg, Plant speciation.
Ben
December 17, 2010 at 3:13 am
The fact of the matter Ben, we are talking about human evolution, not plant and animal evolution. speciation does not work and is not provable with humans, therefore, your “theory” of evolution does not work. For if you can’t use it prove how humans got here, then your entire house of cards falls. Which it does anyway, because you don’t need eons of time for plant and animal speciation as you have already pointed out.
Mike
December 17, 2010 at 9:14 am
Why would evolution work 100% of the time in plants but 0% of the time in humans?
jastiger
December 18, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Exactly.
“..the almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time.” – Ken Miller
Ben
December 19, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“The people who say that macroevolution, by which they mean really big evolution, has never been observed, inevitably cannot give you a strict and rigorous definition of what macroevolution is. They’ll simply say it’s the formation of new categories or evolutionary novelties. They’re loath to put specifics on that idea, to tell you what percentage of the genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change, because I think they know very well that once they make specific what they mean by macroevolution, some darn biologist is going to go out into the field or into the lab and follow exactly that rate of change and show that macroevolution really does occur.”
Ben
December 19, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The problem is Ben and Jason, every time I ask for prove of Macro-evolution you run to plants, bacteria, etc., but have never given proof of humans. And to say that evolution works 100% of the time in plants (again you run to plants to prove your theory), where is the proof that every plant is constantly evolving?
Mike
December 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
You live in Iowa right? I’d invite you to visit the Iowa State University agriculture department. Come back and talk about evolution after having a lengthy discussion with the botanists we have there.
Better yet, google Roses and thornless roses.
jastiger
December 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Again, why would talking with an evolutionist help me understand your point? You can try all day long to SAY plants are evolving 100% of the time, but that doesn’t make it true.
Mike
December 21, 2010 at 10:11 am
[...] (16) http://atheistandagnostic.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/which-came-first-krst-or-christ/ [...]
The Spiritual Origins of Santa Claus « Sagacious Mama
December 18, 2010 at 12:42 am
Jason to answer your question “Why would evolution work 100% of the time in plants but 0% of the time in humans” – I will ask the question – “Do organisms (plants, animals, bacteria) change over time? Yes they do. But the problem that haunts your theory is this – Are they purposefully evolving? NO they are not. Mutations and such do not benefit organisms whatsoever, in fact they hinder them, causing them to grow slower, live not as long, and not be as healthy. (evolutionist – Douglas Futumya).
Regardless whether micro-evolution has occurred, marco-evolution has not for no new species has been produced. That is what evolution is trying to claim. (M. Bowden – Science vs. Evolution).
The fact of the matter is that Evolutionists for the past 50 years and probably since the beginning of this anti-theory, have been unable to agree on anything, except that they can’t prove it.
Evolution is not capable of experimental verification (Dr. Kerkut).
The modern Darwinian palaentologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to WATER DOWN THE FACTS with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable (Biologist W.R. Thompson)
The Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Medelism, IS FALSE. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified… (biologist Soren Lovtrup)
There is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. (evolutionist – Michael Denton)
According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none. (Robert Jastrow).
On and on, we can go to show that there are doubts in the minds of evolutionists everywhere, as to the plausibilty of such a theory. No science, no reason, no open inquiry. Just hatred for the one who created it all.
Mike
December 20, 2010 at 10:40 am
Evolution causes creature to live shorter lives and not be as “good” as they would otherwise be? Please do show some links on this, I have got to find out where you are pulling this information from. Evolution by definition is the idea of natural selection choosing which traits to pass on and which traits to not pass on (in an extremely broad sense). If your eye couldn’t see the color blue suddenly, but everyone else can, that might not be such a huge deal. Your eye can’t focus light AT ALL..now you’re most likely going to die. Via natural selection people whose eyes can’t focus light well enough to see at all will die. This is the change that we see over time. Some evolving is not beneficial, some is.
I’m sure you think it is a miracle that towns are situated near rivers too. I mean, why else would a river appear there? See the logic here?
Define macro evolution. Explain how things are able to micro-evolve but not macro-evolve (and what that even means)
People still disagree on certain aspects of the theory of gravity, of physics, and chemistry. No one in evolution is denying that gradual change over time occurs. The only real debate is over how exactly it occurs, but the main consensus is on some form of natural selection. This is not a scientific community in an uproar on whether it exists, but rather how it exists in very specific ways. By your logic we would never have television or computers because we don’t KNOW how it works down to the most minute detail so we’d have to pitch it out.
Evolution is obviously capable of experimental verification. Ever eat a banana? A seedless orange? Take some Nyquil?
This is impossible to discuss with you because you seem incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that things become the way they are because of their environment and the laws of nature we have around us. Not because someone or thing deemed it so.
jastiger
December 20, 2010 at 9:19 pm
(Mutations and such do not benefit organisms whatsoever, in fact they hinder them, causing them to grow slower, live not as long, and not be as healthy.)
The mutation in color of the peppered moth during the coal based industrial revolution wasn’t beneficial evolution?
(There is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed.)
There is no avoiding the conclusion that the world LOOKS as if it were FLAT, either! (from a certain perspective) You seem to be making the assumption that ordered complexity = design. When evaluating our perception of ‘design’ we know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it DIFFERS from nature. Indeed, nature is the BENCHMARK against which we compare an object to see if it is designed, and our entire perception of what is “designed” is based solely on this notion.
We don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of MANUFACTURE, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion we have for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.
Ben
December 22, 2010 at 5:31 am
“Your eye can’t focus light AT ALL..now you’re most likely going to die. Via natural selection people whose eyes can’t focus light well enough to see at all will die. This is the change that we see over time.”
Jason, please give me the evidence on the number of people dying because they are blind or color blind. I didn’t realize that there was a mortality rate for blind people because didn’t properly “evolve.”
“I’m sure you think it is a miracle that towns are situated near rivers too. I mean, why else would a river appear there? See the logic here?”
An apples and oranges argument, surely you can do better than that.
“Define macro evolution. Explain how things are able to micro-evolve but not macro-evolve (and what that even means”
You are asking someone who you deem incapable of wrapping his head around a non-proved hypothesis? When you begin answering my posts, then I’ll answer yours. A discussion is BOTH people talking, not a one sided one, which seems is always the case here.
“People still disagree on certain aspects of the theory of gravity, of physics, and chemistry.”
Really? please give me the evidence of that.
“No one in evolution is denying that gradual change over time occurs.”
Really? apparently you didn’t realize that evolutionists can’t agree – some believe in gradual change, while others are saying it is not gradual but spurts or explosions (Stephen Gould, Scientific American, Oct. 1994).
“The only real debate is over how exactly it occurs, but the main consensus is on some form of natural selection. This is not a scientific community in an uproar on whether it exists, but rather how it exists in very specific ways.”
You would think that after decades of “scientific” testing and observation that evolutionists would be able to confirm what form it was (If it were true). The fact is that the scientific community may not be in an “uproar,” but they are divided on its existence. Dutch Botantist Hugo DeVries said, “Natural selection MAY explain the survival of the fittest, but it CANNOT EXPLAIN the arrival of the fittest.” Natural selection CANNOT EXPLAIN adaptation, nor can it create new genera, families, phyla, etc. The fact that an organism has adapted to its environment, says absolutely nothing about how it came to be adapted.
“By your logic we would never have television or computers because we don’t KNOW how it works down to the most minute detail so we’d have to pitch it out”
Again, sidestepping the issue with ad hominem logical fallacy.
“Evolution is obviously capable of experimental verification. Ever eat a banana? A seedless orange? Take some Nyquil?”
Your point? Certainly you are not going to make the claim of seedless oranges appearing by natural selection?
“This is impossible to discuss with you because you seem incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that things become the way they are because of their environment and the laws of nature we have around us. Not because someone or thing deemed it so.”
Jason, I feel the very same way. That you too are incapable of logically concluding that your miracle of evolution is a bigger step of faith, than my miracle of intelligent design.
But as always, I’m prepared to back up my plausible theory of how we can here against your plausible theory in public debate.
Mike
December 21, 2010 at 10:44 am
Evolution is not capable of experimental verification (Kerkut).
- Taken out of context and written waaay back in 1960. Kerkut was simply stated that even though some of these processes may be reproduced this shows only that such processes are possible; it does not however prove that they did occur.
Let’s get one thing clear: in science, “theory” doesn’t mean hypothesis or mere speculation. Evolutionary “theory” is as testable and factual as the atomic theory of chemistry. While we can only carry out experiments based on data to simulate what would happen, the results are still considered factual in regards to the ‘actual’ results. You could just as easily dispute that our bodies are made from atoms on this basis.
Therefore, there is so much evidence in support of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990
Try explaining this:
Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), however nearly all other animals do (except primates). Therefore, we predict that humans & other primates should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character.
Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans. It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning & has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.
And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory.
There are mountains of evidence just like this. How much do you need exactly?
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.
There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
Ben
December 22, 2010 at 3:20 am
“Therefore, there is so much evidence in support of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.””
Ben, I understand that you an others want so desperately to make evolution a “fact,” but asserting it as such, does not prove that it is. Humans are not primates, and never have been. I realize that you would rather have tree swinging ancestors than being created in the image of an intelligent designer, and it is you my friend who has the emotional block that is resistant to evidence.
Please tell me, you say that evolution is testable, tell me which tests have proved that violent explosions today continue to create universes. I mean since the atomic bomb, we should have new universes being created all over the place, shouldn’t we? If not, why not?
The problem is that you (and all other evolutionists) are surrounded by a dilemma that you refuse to recognize, and one you can’t escape (that is until you open your mind to reason). Please show me the testable data that makes it a “fact” that intelligence arises from non-intelligence. that conscienousness arises from non-consciencousness, that life arises from rocks and dirt. I would really like to see that data.
What I’m afraid you will be left with, is the same that you have always been left with, assumptions – no “facts” just assumptions.
Mike
December 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm
The science of evolution is still very much in it’s relative infancy, and only recent technology has allowed us to discover further. Don’t worry, Mike, you may live to see those answers; somehow though I can’t imagine you’ll ever being convinced.
(I realize that you would rather have tree swinging ancestors than being created in the image of an intelligent designer, and it is you my friend who has the emotional block that is resistant to evidence.)
It’s not a matter of what I would rather it be, just of what is. I am open to all evidence, and once the veil is lifted, evidence for a divine creator gets very thin.
Tell me, about your “intelligent designer”, why whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective – they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism, such as vestiges of pelvic bones and femora, or a closed exterior opening of the ear canal complete with a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears – a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing. Or the ear pinnae – a feature that can serve no purpose in an animal with no external ear and that can reduce the animal’s swimming efficiency by increasing hydrodynamic drag while swimming.
Not very “intelligently designed” after all, it would seem.
Or fossil tooth indications that these early animals drunk freshwater (yes, freshwater whales with teeth!)… how did they do this?
“Similarly, the whale embryo develops a number of features that it later abandons before it attains its final form, such as body hair, teeth and nostrils in the usual place for land mammals. How can creationism explain such seemingly nonsensical process, building structures only to abandon them or to destroy them later? Darwin (1859) asked the same question. Would it not make more sense to have embryos attain their adult forms quickly and directly? It seems unreasonable for a perfect designer or creator to send the embryo along such a tortuous pathway, but evolution requires that new features are built on the foundation of previous features that it would modify or discard later.”
(Please tell me, you say that evolution is testable, tell me which tests have proved that violent explosions today continue to create universes. I mean since the atomic bomb, we should have new universes being created all over the place, shouldn’t we? If not, why not?)
The big bang is an hypothesis, Mike, and I’m quite certain none of us are of a perspective to test if new universes are being created. Moreover, this does not fall into the category of evolution.
I’m not denying the existence of some supernatural force or entity putting things in motion, simply because I can’t prove that it didn’t occur this way. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do. I’m quite certain though, that it was not an “all-powerful” God-man called Jesus. It is a ridiculous concept of an early man trying to conceive the nature of the beginnings of the earth with little or no knowledge of scientific processes at our avail today.
Ben
December 23, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Something else I’ve noticed Mike is that is some of your posts here your refer to Christ as God the creator, rather than the Son of God as many others divisions of Christianity believe (and it’s the scientific community in disarray!!), so I’m assuming your beliefs center around the idea of the Trinity (yet another concept with extremely close bonds to Egyptian mythology ideal). Who, therefore, do you believe the name YHWH (Yahweh) to refer to? Jesus?
In Egyptian YHWH would have been written with the glyphs Two Reeds, an Arm, and a Reed Shelter (or twisted wick), a Chick and Reed Shelter. One reed represents the letter ‘i’, and two are usually pronounced as a long ‘i’ – ‘eeee’. The Arm is like a guttural ‘a’, pronounced ‘ah’ from the throat. A soft ‘h’ is represented by the twisted wick glyph, and a Chick is transliterated as a ‘w’, but is sounded as ‘oh’ or ‘u’. Yahwh should therefore be voiced as ‘Iah Oh’.
When read correctly there is no mistaking the name. Iah Oh is a reference to the god Horus in some Egyptian texts.
Ben
December 24, 2010 at 1:06 am
Ben,
Don’t worry about me not being able to be convinced by reasonable evidence. The evolutionary Hypothesis has been with us for over hundred years, which does not make it new. Despite our advancements in techology, this theory has yet to be proved, in “fact” it has more than been disproved, or proved to be “devolution” rather than evolution.
As hard as evolutionists have tried to indoctrinate the world, still over 50% of the population believes it to be untrue. But that proves nothing really, it is the scientific evidence and rational reasoning that proves evolution a myth.
Evolution is based upon the same dishonest research as denominationalism. Like denominations who believe in inherited sin, they developed the theory and then search for passages of Scripture that “appear” to support their theory and then teach it as fact. The same can be said for the pope, priesthood systems, premillinnialism, rapture, antichrist, last days, etc., etc.
Evolution is no different, Darwin and his disciples have developed a “theory” that seems plausible, and then everything area of science they turn to is looked at with that view in mind. “Evolution is fact, therefore, the fossils of this ape must prove it was in the process of evolving into a human.” or “Evolution is fact, therefore, the only way I can explain vestigial organs (because I can’t explain them any other way), is that they were used at one time in the evolving process, but are no longer needed.”
On, and on I could go, with such examples, but I think you get the point. yes, I do believe that there are three distinct personages in one God, as the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, but the concept is most certainly taught. God the Father is the originator of all things, the Architect so to speak, God the Son (The Word, Jesus Christ), is the builder, and God the Holy Spirit is the laborer. All three working together to create the universe for one purpose – to provide mankind with the perfect environment to prepare him for eternity. This is one thing that evolution does not provide – a purpose for our being here, or for life after death.
It would seem more logical to desire to be created in the image of an intellegent designer and to know there is life after this one – than to believe there is no purpose whatsoever for this life and the grave is the end. But that’s just me.
“The big bang is an hypothesis, Mike, and I’m quite certain none of us are of a perspective to test if new universes are being created. Moreover, this does not fall into the category of evolution.”
Excuse me, but the big bang DOES fall into the category of evolution, since IT is how it all supposedly began. Evolution is the creation of new organisms whether it is bacteria, animals or universes. That’s like making the claim that Bill Allen of the Evolution Times (National Geographic), made that Darwin never claimed that humans evolved from apes.
Using the time worn excuse that evolution is fact, but not proven because it takes “time,” is getting old. Why not just come out and be honest and tell the people it’s like that old saying, “believe a lie long enough and it becomes true.” It appears that’s what evolutionists want, enough time for people to be indoctrinated and forget that its just a lie.
Mike
December 25, 2010 at 11:45 am
On way we can respond to this is by asking a simple question. If evolution is wrong and we cannot explain vestigial organs or old fossils using evolutionary explanations then how do we explain them? Remember, we are using science here as you purport to as well. If evolutionary theory is dead wrong and is a huge lie with no basis in reality, then what is “more right” and based “more” in reality?
Remember, you discredit evolution based on evidence. What evidence do you have to disprove evolution and prove an alternative theory? I wait with baited breath.
jastiger
December 26, 2010 at 11:08 am
Mike, you simply have dodged the question.
How do you explain vestigial organs from a design perspective? The fact that you have dodged it simply tells me what I already know. You can’t. The fact that vestigial organs exist in animals does not co-exist with your explanation of a perfect intelligent designer.
Instead you attempt to critisize why science cannot explain evolution in its absolute entirety.
Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the facts of evolution based on evidence – and there is a lot of it. That is why creation as an explanation is kept in the ‘faith’ basket. I wouldn’t even bother asking you to show me what evidence you have to support creationism as an explanation for evolutionary evidence such as the above and others I have mentioned here. You don’t have any. You can’t explain it in any other way, it disputes your own explanation, but yet you critisize my explanation for which I have evidence from multiple fields which marry in agreement to support it.
Ben
December 28, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Ben, If you will re-read what I said, you will find that I DID NOT dodge your question. I answered it plain and simple – which may be hard for an intellectual to grasp – The fact is that vestigial organs have a purpose, as God designed them to have. Just because we have not yet discovered their purpose, does not give support to evolutionary theory. It has been recently discovered that the apendix is part of the lymph system. And the same can be said for other so called non-essential organs.
Jason, scientific evidence against evolution – where do we begin,there is so much evidence out there – but it will only be meaningful to an open,honest and rational mind.
Are Blind Cave Fish a good example of organic evolution? Hardly, Even scientists during and after Darwin’s Day rejected this illustration as an absurdity because it does not fit available facts. In short, blind cave fish are exactly that – blind. Because they have been isolated to a cave environment.
The fallacy of “Natural Selection.” This theory is based on tautology, not science. Like trying to convince the world that “Darwin was a man.” or “biology is studied by biologists,” Your point?
Natural Selection “survivial of the fittest,” is the same as saying “survivers survive.” Duhhhhh! But it does not and cannot explain how species arrived on earth.
You require emperical evidence that God exists – yet you have no emperical evidence for evolution and blindly follow its advocates.
All microevolution, biology and fossils provide is raw data which must be “interpreted.” It is this interpretation that more times than not, pushes aside the facts. No different in the religious world – men what the evidence to slant their way, instead of teaching the truth, which is why we have denominations and other false religious belief systems.
Then of course we have the disturbing evidence of Pasteur who proved the false concept of spontaneous generation causeing evolutionary “scholars” to admit “life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is ALWAYS AND EXCLUSIVELY the product or offspring of another cell.” (Simpson and Beck).According to Borel’s Law there is absolutely no chance that life could have “evolved spontaneously” on earth. Dr. Marcel Golay says that the odds of such a thing ocurring is 10(450) to 1. So even math does not give evidence to evolution.
You want more? There is so much more, and no, I did not provide you will exact quotes, mainly because space prevents it, but also, as I have urged before, I would be more than willing to debate you or anyone else publically where all my scienctific evidence will be provided for your “baited breath.”
Mike
December 30, 2010 at 6:04 pm