In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth. This refutes Darwinian theory. I don't know how Catholics can give such unqualified support for evolution, myself.
54 comments
"I don't know how Catholics can give such unqualified support for evolution, myself."
I don't know how Christians can give evidence that Jesus died, and rose from the dead, let alone Jesus existence period.
"In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth."
... I don't know whether to cry or laugh hysterically.
Citation needed on reviving the dead.
Catholics don't give unqualified support for evolution. They simply say evolution isn't incompatible with the faith. Basically, they say God creates the immortal soul. How he gets the mortal flesh to put it in, whether by evolution or other means, is irrelevant to the faith, and is an issue for scientists to work out.
Raising the dead, even if true, wouldn't disprove evolution. EMTs and emergency rooms resurrect people every day who, a century ago, would have been declared dead.
I don't remember the J-man ever raising someone from the dead? Maybe he did, my bible's a TAD dusty. Hell, maybe I should start praying to him again, I had a couple sweet pets that would look awesome zombified.
"In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth. This refutes Darwinian theory."
That's a beauty of a non-sequiter you've got there. What'd you pay for it, and did the strawman come with it or was that extra?
And in turning water into wine, Jesus proved that fermentation isn't responsible for alcohol in our adult grape-based beverages. This refutes Ernest and Julio Gallo's theory. I don't know how Welch's can give such an unqualified support for fermentation, myself.
Jesus existed.
But there is no proof he performed miracles, (rising from the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, healing the blind, etc etc)
There is no proof his mother was a virgin, in fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there a story a while ago that said Jesus had siblings? i'm only going from memory of something i heard when i was younger, i could be wrong. Point is, Mary wasn't a virgin, she was a liar, and Joseph was stupid.
Funny, when I was doing biology, they sent us on a CPR refresher (suitably modified[*]), no mention of it refuting Darwin though.
[* Such as, if they were working with cyanide, check they don't have blue lips before giving mouth-to-mouth!]
The story of JC rising after 3 days was not even in the original bible, but added 400 years later - as was the "virgin birth".
1.) No, He didn't.
They really are fundamentally incapable of realizing that their myths and assumptions aren't universal. It's like they really don't know that non-christians don't believe their fairy tales.
I'm trying to figure out how many jabs with a screwdriver* my brain would have to take before it could be this stupid, and I'm having a hard time counting that high.
*either kind: Philips or On the Rocks.
They really do see some sort of mutually opposed, implicit anti-religion in the theory of evolution, it's amazing. All this ire over something that never would have occured to them as contradictory had but a few demagogues not made use of it.
@Brenz
struby wrote:
"I don't remember the J-man ever raising someone from the dead? Maybe he did, my bible's a TAD dusty." "When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
-- John 11:43:44
(Hmmm ... now that I read that again, it looks like Jesus actually unleashed The Mummy! )
In walking across the water, Jesus proved that buoyancy is not responsible for keeping all objects afloat on the water. This refutes Archimedean theory (I guess he's screwed!). I don't know how nautical engineers can give such unqualified support for buoyancy, myself.
In reheating left-over meatloaf in the microwave, I've proven that it was never actually cooked in the oven!
Even ignoring the more than dubious veracity of these occurances and that this would have no relevance to evolution (unless there is a mutation that would grant the hereditary biological natural ability to resurrect, which would certainly be a potentially huge advantage… while also being at least as problematic to Christianity as it is to our current understanding of biology - especially given that cryptobiosis , the ability to enter a state of suspended animation with minimal physiological activity that may be phenomenally resistant to environmental extremes and can possibly last for very long times* yet allowing for a swift full recovery once conditions are appropriate, IS a scientifically recognised and under-research biological phenomenon)…
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
