A Memo to anyone who links to this blog

I plan on making revisions to improve the quality of info that I posted on this blog, but I intend to make the revisions at the following URL:

http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/

This blog is called Refutation of Infidels which is dedicated to, but not limited to, refutations of material on Infidels.org at the Secular Web. Of course I plan on refuting others like Acharya S and others on the new URL.

I also eventually plan on revising and improving my refutation of Zeitgeist and posting the improved version there as well. The same goes for my material on the Census of Luke and Quirinius now that I have better materials for the subject.

I’m Moving my Blog!

Actually, I am transfering to two separate blogs with two different themes.

For posts on Biblical history, I will he posting here: http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/

As for posts debunking the “Jesus Myth,” I’ll be posting here: http://nonpaganorigins.blog.com/

Well, see you there.

The Tacitean Reference to “Christus”

Cornelius Tacitus, the second century Roman historian, was born at about 55 AD to a wealthy father who was a member of the equestrian order. Between the ages of 26 and 27, he was admitted to the Roman senate and involved himself in Roman politics. — Later, between the years 105 and 109, he wrote and published the Histories which was his first historical work. Later, after his governorship in Asia in 113 AD, he published the Annals in which he wrote about the emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero.

It is in this second work that Tacitus makes reference to the persecution of first century Christians by Nero and to Jesus himself:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. (The Annals 15: 44)

This passage tells how Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for setting Rome on fire when the public began to suspect him. — Also, like the references from Josephus, this passage has been used as historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. But naturally, not everybody is convinced.

One objection to the reference’s authenticity is that since Tertullian, an early Christian apologist, didn’t cite it, that is an indication that it was most probably interpolated later. — Besides being an ineffective argument from silence, the fact is that citing this passage would have been practically pointless because it only would have served to confirm Jesus’ existence which was actually never questioned by early skeptics of Christianity.

Claims that this passage is an interpolation or was put through a Christian filter are disproven by it’s anti-Christian tone. in the text which describes Christians as “hated for their abominations,” “mischievous” and “evil.” — Later, in just a few sentences, the passage says:

[The Christians were] convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Not only is this inconsistent with what a Christian interpolator would have written, but it is historically consistent with the misinformation that was in circulation about the Christians in the first and second centuries. — Also, the anti-Christian language used is another obvious reason why early Christian apologists wouldn’t have cited it.

Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, argues in favor of a “block interpolation in his paper, meaning that Tacitean passage is authentic with the exception of the two sentences that clearly mention “Christus” (or Christ) and the Christians. — This cannot be true because, even though this suggestion can work in modern English, it violates the Latin grammar. Stephen C. Carlson, another New Testament scholar, pointed out in his response to this assertion that,

Doughty cannot propose something as simple block interpolation as the following, because the relative clause, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat, would then be missing its verb.

Basically, this means that the references to Christ and the Christian were most certainly intended to be in the text because it makes no grammatical sense in the Latin language to delete them.

The “Jesus-Myther” and conspiracy theorist D.M. Murdock, in her comments about the Tacitean reference, attempts to show that Tacitus didn’t write the passage claiming that “the tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus.” — This is not an honest claim because competent scholars have actually affirmed the opposite. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 43)

She then parrots the fringe assertion that Tacitus’ Annals are a fifteenth century forgery caling it a “peculiar and disturbing fact.” The fact is that no serious historian of scholar that I know of doubts the authenticity of the Annals. As a matter of fact, their genuineness has been confirmed by its accuracy in the most minute details such as with coins and inscriptions which were discovered since that period disproving one of Ms. Murdock’s major justifications for dismissing the Tacitean reference. Certainly, if it weren’t for the one reference to Jesus, such a ridiculous claim would never have been made.

Some argue that even though the passage is most likely authentic, Tacitus may have only uncrittically accepted his information of Jesus from his friend Pliny the Younger. But, there a problrm with this. Even though it is known that Tacitus did source Pliny sometimes, this does not mean that he was uncrittical of the information he was given. In Annals 15.53, he describes information he gained from Pliny as being “absurd.”

Also, there is a major inconsistency with the suggestion that Tacitus sourced Pliny. As mentioned before, Tacitus claimed that the Christians were guilty of abominations. On the other hand, after Pliny had investigated Christian beliefs, he decided that they were generally harmless, as he indicated in a in a letter to Emperor Trajan. — Had Tacitus uncrittically sourced Pliny, one wouldn’t expect divergent conclusions.

Was Tacitus simply repeating what he heared from Christians? Obviously not. If he didn’t uncrittically accept information that Pliny, someone he respected, gave him, then why would he give Christians, who he despised, the benefit of the doubt? — This is like suggesting that he got his anti-semetic “information” of the origins of Judiasm, found in Histories 5.2-5, from the Jews themselves which is absolutely absurd.

As a closing statement about the Tacitean reference, Ms. Murdock says:

Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an “historical” Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

She thinks that it has to have been written by an actual eyewitness account to Jesus to be of any value. This is a popular argument among the “Jesus-Myth” crowd, but the standard is extremely unreasonable. Tacitus wrote about several historical figures several decades after the fact and to which he was not an eyewitness. For example, he wrote about Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, all of whom had come and gone before Tacitus was born. However, no reputable historian would consider the idea of suggesting that because Tacitus wasn’t an eyewitness to the events surrounding these emperors, that his historical accounts of them are therefore of no historical value.

The same goes for several other ancient historians such as Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Josephus and others who wrote several decades or centuries after the events the report on and are still believed useful by modern historians and scholars. — The fact is that if we were to hold these other histories to the same standard as “Jesus-Mythers” insist to holding any secular, historical reference to Jesus, then we would end up erasing a huge amount of known history. If a historian writes about an event decades after the fact, that does not invalidate the historicity of what he reports. It does not have to be a first hand eyewitness account to be historically relevant.

The evidence all points to the reference being authentic. It matches Tacitus’ usual writing style and is unlikely to be a Christian interpolation because of its anti-Christian tone. And since it is unlikely that Tacitus uncrittically gave anyone the benefit of the doubt, it is very probable based on personal knowledge about the existence of the historical Jesus.

A Non-Scientific Question Evolutionists Ask

In the comments in my previous post on evolutionists’ ignorance about intelligent design, I ended up getting into a discussion on vestigial organs which were being cited as good evidence of evolution. When I noticed that comment, I pointed out that both Creationism and Intelligent design do not claim that organs cannot (and do not) degenerate, and that therefore vestigial organs are not evidence against Creation at all.

I then got asked,

Vestigial organs are exactly what evolution would predict. If evolution isn’t true why are they there? To make it look like we evolved?

This somebody apparently didn’t read my comment very well because I said the exact opposite. — What I actually said was,

Am I saying that the designer made useless or sub-optimal organs? [ . . . ] It should be mentioned that neither the models for Intelligent Design or Creation rule out the possibility of organs falling out of use or degenerating, so even if it could be proven that an organ was vestigial, it would not be evidence against Creationism at all.

I ended up getting responses which basically said “I don’t think God would do this” and “Why wouldn’t God fix it so they wouldn’t degenerate.” – I tried to explain it through a Biblical perspective because I was being asked questions about, well, God. — You guessed it! Saying “Why would God” and “I don’t think God”  are the non-scientific questions that evolutionists commonly ask.

I pointed out that the degeneration of organs can be explained by God’s curse when sin entered the world. If the Bible is correct when it claims that death, suffering and illness are the results of sin, then so would the degeneration and reduced function of vestigial organs.

I immediately got criticized for quoting the Bible when I was asked questions about, well, why God would permit organs to degenerate.  This person just couldn’t get it into his head that questions about why God would or wouldn’t do something are not scientific and therefore do not merit scientific answers.

I was asked,

If you really do not throw away science when it contradicts your beliefs because science never contradicts your beliefs, why did you quote scripture as a response to questions about anatomy and physiology pertaining to evolution???”

To this, I answered,

Because you are asking me philosophical questions of what God would and should do. — Those are not scientific questions, so do not expect a scientific answer.

The response I got to this was,

Whatever. For myself, you gave yourself away by quoting scripture. Have a good day.

All I can say is when  evolutionists asks philosophical, non-scientific questions about what God would do, they should not complain when they get non-scientific answers.

New Blog: “The Non-Pagan Roots of Christianity”

I’m just letting my readers know that I have just started a new affiliated blog  of the the primary focus is to debunk the “Jesus Myth” crowd. It is called ” The Non-Pagan Roots of Christianity“ and can be reached by clicking here. — I’m still going to blog here interconnecting the two blogs.

Evolutionists’ Ignorance about Intelligent Design

Recently, a video on YouTube issued a challenge to the Discovery Institute, a Pro-Intelligent Design think tank, repeating certain arguments that are common in the Neo-Darwinist community that supposedly refute ID. Casey Luskin, one of the senior fellows at the organization, took up the challenge despite his first inclination to ignore it because the video mis-identified Stephen Meyer as the president of the organization. He first thought that anyone who couldn’t correctly identify the president of the organization would not know very much about Intelligent Design. However, he decided to look into the videos claims anyway. What he found was that the challenge only contained rehashings of Ken Miller’s straw men arguments against design and, therefore, ignorance of what ID proponents argue. (Text Link)

Lately, in debates with Evolutionists, I have run across the same kinds of anti-ID arguments which makes me repeat what Casey Luskin asks: “Does any critic out there understand Intelligent Design?” — I realize the majority of skeptics of ID will say, “Hell, yeah! I do.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case from my standpoint. The point of this post is to correct common misconceptions about Intelligent Design.

In a YouTube video of a lecture Ken Miller gave, he attacks Michael Behe’s concept of Irreducible Complexity saying,

Here’s the argument in very simplified form: If you have a complex multi-part biological machine composed of many parts its function, everyone agrees, can be favored by natural selection.  But the argument is that evolution can’t produce them, because the individual parts have no function of their own. That’s what Irreducible Complexity means.

In the forum debate I had with this evolutionist, I got directed to YouTube videos about the Dover trial. In response I said that the Dover trial was irrelevant because it was all decided on Ken Miller’s straw tests mentioned above. The response was the insistence that Miller’s assessment of Irreducible Complexity was accurate telling me that the bacterial flagella was not irreducible because the single components that compose it have their own sub-functions even when separated from the basic organ. — What could I do? I insisted that it was a straw.

So, I’m going to issue a challenge of my own to Ken Miller, or to any Evolutionist: Produce a quote from Darwin’s Black Boxin which Michael Behe makes the claim that the components that make up an organ do not have their own functions. — Do it, and I’ll admit I was wrong on this point. But, good luck. It does not exist because Behe never made the claim.

In his response to Miller’s argument, Michael Behe said,

I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. That would be silly. Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system.

Behe also pointed out that in a 2002 debate he had with Ken Miller at the American Museum of Natural History he corrected him on this matter, but that Miller still has yet to revise his argument.

After this, the evolutionist pulled out the claim that since you could take away several proteins from the flagellum, that therefore it was reducible. — In an interview with NOVA, Miller describes IC as such,

He [Michael Behe] says that all these parts are required for the system to function, and if you take even one away, it stops working. That means its complexity is irreducible. In other words, you need all the parts. (Brackets, emphasis mine)

I know I’m probably going to get a major reaction from Evolutionists reading this for what I’m about to say, but this is also a misconception of what Intelligent Design argues. It’s based on a misunderstanding of what Behe writes on page 39 of his book.

I told the evolutionist that it didn’t matter if there were still sub-functions because the real argument focuses more on the essential parts that contribute to the “basic function.” He then mentioned the L and P-rings of the flagella which he claimed contribute to the “basic function.” — After he told me this, I did a little quick research on Talk.Origins (a major anti-Creationist website) and found something pretty interesting. As it argues against the Irreducible complexity of the flagellum, it says:

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. (Text Link)

In other words, the reality is that some flagella naturally have the L and P-rings while others do not. This does not mean that the ones that do have them can necessarily work without them. This is like saying that the five-part mousetrap is reducible because a mousetrap can be constructed that works with only four pieces or less. Take away a piece from the five-part trap, and it won’t work. – And by the way, it should be mentioned that the mousetraps which work with less parts than the traditional five-part one are “designed” to function with less pieces, so this is far from a refutation of Irreducible Complexity.

Talk.Origins goes on to mention bacteria that can lose components that are “helpful but not absolutely essential,” and that “only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum.” — This shows that Talk.Origins, as well as many other evolutionists, does not understand Michael Behe’s argument.

Behe never says that every protein (or every single piece) is necessary for the flagellum to work. — On page 39 of his book, he says:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Read carefully. When Behe talks about the parts of an Irreducibly complex system, he never says “Every single piece and protein is needed.” — When he talks about the ”any one of the parts,” he specifically mentions the “several well-matched, interacting parts” which contribute to the basic function. This detail actually ends up making a lot of difference in the meaning. 

Not every piece and protein  is essential for IC to work, and Behe never makes that claim. So, Irreducible complexity actually means that a certain minimum of pieces are needed in a certain arrangement to work. The pieces and proteins that can be added or detracted from the system are not part of the “several well-matched, interacting parts” in the irreducible system itself. — When I posted this argument in the forum, the evolutionist I was discussing this with stopped responding meaning I probably won the round. But, to be fair, it could also mean that he was just tired of the conversation.

The “Dry Facts” about Transitional Fossils — Debunking Wikipedia

Just recently I got into a debate while posting comments on a Pro-Creationist blog with an evolutionist that goes by the name Eelco. It started on this blog post when I began asking for the basis of the claim that evolution is essential for Biology. All he did was tell me to read books on it which I did. Recently, I took a Physical Anthropology class (with this textbook) which is basically all about Evolution. I mentioned that chapter one makes the claim that evolutionary theory is a major basis for Biology, but without giving the basis for the statement.

The response I got from Eelco was that if there was any convincing evidence against evolution, then he would be happy to “ditch” the theory. So, In response I linked him to a half-hour documentary entitled Living Fossils (which may be watched here) and to a website called “The Fossil Museum.” Both the links are based on the works of Harun Yahya. — Eelco resorted to insinuating that my links were Creationists and therefore were not trustworthy. The then linked to Talk.Origins claiming that the claims made were refuted. He added,

Glossy websites with flashy movies do not convince me at all. I want the dry facts. These websites show no references to the dry facts.

This statement, at least to me, is a clear indication that he didn’t take the time to look over the websites’ contents because “dry facts” are all they present. As a matter of fact, Harun Yahya’s works are what saved me from becoming an evolutionist.

When he insisted that the fossil record was full of many transitional forms, “too many to put in a blog here,” I told him to mention two. — He then called me “lazy” and linked me to a Wikipedia page that lists several alleged “transitional fossils” which is what I am planning to refute here. — I could have just tried avoid his argument by pointing out that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by academics, but I decided to take it seriously because I do not believe in using that red herring.

When I examined the link, I noticed that the page uses artists’ “reconstructions” instead of photographs of the fossils themselves. (But to be fair, there are some  exception on the page.) I am overtly skeptical of  these kinds of reconstructions because they are influenced greatly by the artists’ imagination and have little, if any, scientific value. (See: “Deceptive Fossil Interpretations“)

As I was skimming through the list of “transitional” fossils, I found that the Tiktaalik (a fossil fish) was listed as an intermediate form. This particular specimen, lately, has become a very popular example of an intermediate from sea to land because of it’s fins. The problem with this claim, it turns out, is that the its fins are not connected to the main skeleton and therefore could not have supported it’s wight on on land. Although Darwinists hypothesize that they could have been used to prop itself up on a water bed, they had similar hopes for the Caelocanth which turned out to be totally wrong. (See “Tiktaalik roseae: A fishy ‘missing link’“) 

It doesn’t help that it has been admitted, even by those that believe it’s a transitional form, that the “quality of the specimen was poor.” (See: “The rise and fall of the Tiktaalik“) — Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the specimen’s quality is poor, then isn’t it presumptuous to claim it is an intermediate form?

Also, it turns out that it also lists Homo Habilis are a transition under the section for human evolution. — The fact is that the claim that Homo hahilis is a fossil on the way to becoming a Homo sapien is outdated. Two fossils found recently indicate that instead of evolving into Homo erectus the two actually co-existed. — Meave Leakey of the Koobi Fora Research Project at the National museums of Kenya said,

Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis. . . The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition. (See: “Evolution of Homo genus thrown into doubt“)

In the same section, it lists Australopithecus also which has ended up facing the same fate as Homo habilis. — Yoel Rak, an anthropologist from Tel Aviv University, examined a jaw bone from an Astralopithecine fossil and concluded that “Lucy” was a side branch of evolution and “didn’t contribute to the evolution of modern people.” (Click here) I go over this in more detail in a previous post.

As for Homo erectus, which Wikipedia also mentions, American Scientist reported that there’s new genetic evidence that it contributed to the gene pool of modern humans after they appeared on the scene. Scientific American misses the positive implications for Creationism, but I deal with that here.

Another well know fossil that Wikipedia lists is Archaeopteryx which is said to be a link between dinosaurs and birds. Two reasons why Darwinists consider it a transitional form is because of it’s claws and teeth which they claim are reptilian and therefore not avian.

It isn’t true that teeth are a reptilian trait and therefore not avian. When you look in the fossil record, there are dinosaurs that did not have teeth, and the same it true of some modern reptiles today. Also, birds before and after Archaeopteryx had teeth. — As a matter of fact, CNN news reported that experiments had caused Chicken embryos to develop teeth. Professor Sharpe, from King’s College in London points out,

Basically, this tells you that the bird still has the genetic information required to initiate tooth development, if their are cells capable of responding to it [i.e., a cell transplant]. (Emphasis mine, brackets mine)

The CNN news report begins by saying the genes were “inactive for 70 million years.” (Text link)  Since the genetic information was still in the birds for seventy million years, it should be mentioned that this is not evidence of Darwinian evolution. This shows that the claim that fossil birds with teeth are evidence of evolution is invalid. –The claims made about Archeopteryx’s claws also fail because even some modern birds like the Hoatzin and the Taouraco have claws today.

Larry Martin, expert in the anatomy of archaic birds at the University of Kansas in New Scientist, said that many “palaeontologists are misled into finding similarities by their ignorance” of avian anatomy. He then said,

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it. (See: “Birds do it . . . did dinosaurs?“)

And, I’ve been saving the best for last, under the page’s section for human evolution it lists “Ida.” — That’s right! Despite the conflict within the evolutionist community about whether or not she is an ancestor of modern humans, Wikipedia lists her as a definite ancestor without any disclaimer. I guess the simple claim that Darwinius masillae is an intermediate “missing link” is enough for Wikipedia.

Never mind all the disagreement among scientists about her true status and the fact that “many experts aren’t so enthusiastic” about it. (See: “‘Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists.”) — Personally, when I first heard of Ida, I was unimpressed, but perhaps that just because I’m a evil, Christian Creationist. (See: “Not Impressed with Evolution’s latest ‘Missing Link’“)

The uncritical usage of these fossils — especially Darwinius masillae– by Wikipedia is a good indicator that it is not a reliable source for serious research. Just to get a good idea of Wikipedia’s unreliability, I should remind its users that Jimmy Wales, its creator, has recommended against using it.

Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.” (Source)

One English professor I had said that if we sourced Wikipedia for any paper we handed in, he would give it a failing grade. I always avoid citing it. I prefer the Encyclopedia Britannicawhich is considered an extremely accurate source.

It’s really not a secret that Wikipedia is biased against both Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. Anyone who reads it’s articles on Intelligent Design will run into hostility against it. For example, it accuses the Discovery Institute of making the false claim that Darwinian evolution is  ”the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.”  However, Wikipedia’s sources for it’s accusation are not found on the organization’s website, but from arguable Anti-ID sources. (Click here)

In an exchange one Creationist had with Wikipedia’s staff, they basically admitted that they were were against posting any arguments against Darwinism.  But wait! They had a good reason: It was because more scientists believe in evolution. (Click here)

In my exchange with Eelco, he said that even if fossils like “Lucy” were shown to not be our evolutionary ancestors, that wouldn’t disprove evolution. I agree. — By itself, a single fossil being demonstrated to not be a “missing link” wouldn’t refute evolution, but it does show that claims that a fossil is an intermediate form are speculative interpretations which are subject to change.

Eelco kept trying to push the “dry fact” of transitional fossils until I ended up telling him the only “dry fact” is that “they found some dead animal in the dirt.” Whatever conclusions arrived at about the fossil’s evolutionary place are based on an interpretation, not fact. Many layman evolutionists forget this.

The Parallels Between Jesus and Krishna — A Refutation of Acharya S

In Hinduism, Krishna is said to be an incarnation of the god Vishnu or the eighth avatar. The Encyclopedia Mythica says that he is also one of the most popular gods in Hindiusm. He is often depicted in art as a child  with blue skin and playing a flute. And in depictions of him as an adult, he appears very feminine-like – at least at I see it.  Historians believe that he was born at around the thirtieth century BC, about 5,000 years ago.

Like in the cases of the alleged “parallels” that Jesus has with several pagan deities (or non deities) like Horus and Buddha (which are refuted  here and here),  D.M. Murdock also then makes the exact same claims about Krishna, saying that “The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many.” So, my purpose is to show if her listed claims claims hold water.

She begins her list by claiming that,

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (”Divine One”)

The only truth in this is that Krishna’s mother’s name was Devaki, and that she is technically divine (Click here) But is is not true that she was a virgin when Krishna was born. Devaki had a total of eight children. It so happens that Krishna was the youngest which proves she had her fun at least eight times before he was born.

In her footnotes, Ms. Murdock tries to explain this fact away by saying that in Hinduism, Devaki “was considered to have had a miraculous conception.” The problem here is that, with exception of “Jesus-Myth” propaganda, I could find no references that substantiate that this is true. But even if Hinduism taught that Krishna’s birth was miraculous (which it does not), that still wouldn’t explain away the fact that Devaki was not a virgin because we know she had other children before Krishna.

Next, she claims,

His father was a carpenter.

Wrong! — His father Vasudeva was a nobleman, not a carpenter. (Text link) Besides, considering the fact that Devaki was a princess, if he was a carpenter, then he would never have been able to marry her.

His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

This is completely false, and I will bet any amount of money that nobody can find a single Hindu reference which back it up. In the   story of Krishna’s birth, as far as I can tell, the only two that were present were his parents.

He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.

This is an attempt to tie Krishna to King Herod’s “slaughter of the innocence” from the Gospel of Matthew, and a similarity does appear to exist. — King Kasma was told in a vision that one of his sister’s sons would destroy him, so he locked her up and killed six of her eight children as soon as they were born. However, Kasma didn’t slaughter thousands of infants, only his nephews were a potential threat to him.

He was of royal descent.

True, but trivial.

He was baptized in the River Ganges.

I can’t find any reliable sources that confirm this.

He worked miracles and wonders.

Even if he did, this wouldn’t be evidence of causation because miracles are only an expectation in religious writings.

He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.

Again, even if he did, so what? Miracles are only to be expected in religious writings.

Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.

I could be wrong on this one, but I have to conclude that this claim is bogus. But even if it were true, it could be easily explained as a coincidence.

“He lived poor and he loved the poor.”

Considering the fact that Krishna became a king, this is not particularly true.  — But even if true, it would be irrelevant because being poor 5,000 to 2,000 years ago was just a fact of life.

He was transfigured in front of his disciples.

Really? I can’t find any reference for this claim.

In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

This is absolutely false! There is no Hindu literature which back it up at all. — Krishna was accidentally shot in the heel by a hunter who thought he was a deer .(See “Mahabharata 16: 4“ ) Also, the claim that Krishna was crucified is suspicious  because that particular form of capital punishment didn’t exist during his lifetime. Crucifixion first appeared in the 6th century BC, about 2,400 years after Krishna. (Click here)

He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

He ascended into heaven, but he didn’t rise from the dead. The New World Encyclopedia says that it is commonly believed that he left his body behind. — In other words, the circumstances are completely different from those of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords,” and was considered “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.”

It is true that Krishna was known by several names. For example, he was called “lord of the whole world,” “all victorious god,” “speaker of truth,” as well as many other titles. ( Source) 

 But, I cannot find references that confirm that he was known by any of the titles that Ms. Murdock lists, and I would actually argue that there is negative evidence that he was known by some of them. — Krishna would not have been known as the “firstborn” because he was the youngest of eight children.

His disciples bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” meaning “pure essence.”

There is no Hindu source that backs this up. But even if such a name was given to Krishna, it wouldn’t indicate causation. — Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, would have answered to the name “Yeshua” which is the true pronunciation, and “Iesous” is the Greek pronunciation. — “Jesus” is only the English pronunciation and is, therefore, irrelevant. So it turns out that Ms. Murdock is playing meaningless word games.

Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate the earth.

Yet another unsupported claim. But even if it were a true parallel, it would not make any difference because a fight between good are evil are very frequent in religion.

Before Ms. Murdock gives her list of alleged similarities between Jesus and Krishna, she says:

It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was “Christna,” which reveals its relation to ‘”Christ.” It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

So, now she’s claiming that English spelling can tie Jesus to Krishna. What a hoot!!! — For someone who claims to be a well versed scholar, this is a very unusual tactic to resort to.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was copied from Krishna. The only sources that Ms. Murdock give in her footnotes are from fellow “Jesus-Mythers,” and not one Hindu source is listed. If she were an expert of religious mythology as she claims, then she should be able to back up her claims by using primary sources.

Two Reasons why Intelligent Design is not Creationism

On the Internet, it is not unusual  across  claims on Atheist  and pro-Darwinists that equate Intelligent Design with Creationism. That’s because Creationism is held by many religious people who also believe in ID, this has been a basis for many groups to argue against teaching Design in the classroom because they automatically believe that Intelligent Design must therefore be religious, and that it would therefore be a violation of the Separation of Church and State to allow it to be taught in public schools.

The fact is that even though so many Neo-Darwinists are so quick to assume that Intelligent Design is to be equated with Creation, the proponents of both theories do not agree that this is true.

Harun Yahya, the well read Muslim Creationist and intellectual, criticizes Intelligent Design as “another one of Satan’s snares,” saying that in rejecting Darwin’s theory of evolution, it is all too easy to fall for another “distraction,” namely ID. (Text Link) — He argues that in order to create, God has no need to design. This does not mean that he doesn’t use arguments of Design Theory as evidence for Creation. In an interview, he expressed his personal dislike of Intelligent Design. (Click here)

Michael Behe, on the other hand, while describing his disagreements with Creationism, points out in his book,

As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (Darwin’s Black Box, page 5)

Behe believes that all living things alive today, including us, share a single common ancestor. Does it look like he is a Creationist? – I didn’t thinks so.

I think it should be pointed out that Behe’s characterization of Creationists is not an absolute. There are many Creationists that believe that both the earth and universe are billions of years old. For example, Harun Yahya. Personally, I’m on the fence, but I digress.

Despite the fact that Behe makes it very clear that he believes in an old universe and common descent, this has not stopped many of his critics from misrepresenting his views, portraying him as a “Young Earth Creationist” that believes dinosaurs never existed. (See “Misquoting Michael Behe  in the U.K.“) — For the record, most Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists acknowledge that dinosaurs existed.

Of course, not all IDers agree with Behe that all organisms share a common ancestor, but the fact that the theory of Intelligent Design allows it shows a major difference that it has in contrast to Creationism. On this premise, Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

As for the second reason why ID and Creation are not interchangeable has to do with the identity of the designer. At the Dover trial it was ruled that ID  wasn’t science because it “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.” (Click here)

Creationism, by definition, is theistic and rooted in the belief that “God did it.” — Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is agnostic.  — I know I’m probably going to get comments saying “ID is to theistic, you liar!” No, it’s not. The fact of the matter is that ID does not care whether the “designer” is natural or supernatural. For all ID is concerned with, the designer could be an unknown extraterrestrial with superior intelligence to ours, but not quite a god.

Bradley Monton, who is an atheist and philosophy prof at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says that he thinks the arguments in favor of Intelligent Design are much “stronger than most realize,” and that his fellow atheists have ”mangled” the pro-ID arguments. He also adds “I agree with the claims of Intelligent Design proponents that the doctrine of Intelligent Design is not inherently theistic.”  (Text link)

In a five part interview on ID the Future he explains that a designer can be explained as perfectly naturalistic. So, based on this second premise, not only is ID not Creationism, it also means a major reason why the Dover Trial ruled it wasn’t science is completely wrong. — *Gasps* NO, it can’t be!

I could be wrong, but I suspect the real problem that the anti-ID crowd has it that Intelligent Design is religiously friendly even though it isn’t religious by itself.  But if that’s the case, then by that standard the Big Bang theory isn’t science either. (See “Creation of the Universe“)

Long story short: ID doesn’t necessarily deny common descent, but Creationism does. And even though Creationism is theistic, ID is agnostic. For these two reasons, Intelligent design is not Creationism.

Not Impressed with Evolution’s latest “Missing Link”

You would have to be living in a cave to have not heard about the new fossil, a 47 million year old specimen which has been hyped to be a new “missing link” common ancestor that we supposedly share with other modern primates called Darwinius massillae (or “Ida.”) Needless to say, as a Creationist, I am skeptical of the claim.

If you are a Darwinist reading this now, you are probably thinking “Of course you are skeptical because you are a willfully ignorant fundamentalist Christian anti-Science Creationist.” – I would be a liar if I said that a good chunk of my skepticism of the claims being made about this newly discovered fossil aren’t rooted, in part, in my religious preference, but it would also be inaccurate to say that my skepticism is based solely on religion.

Even before I looked at any Creationist response to the new find, I got doubtful just by looking at its published photos. I just couldn’t find any relevant resemblance between “Ida” and modern humans. — Forgive my skepticism, but I am just not impressed by the fossil as far as the claims about it go. I’m not saying it’s not an important scientific find, just that I do not think it’s a “missing link.”

We need to remember that these claims have been made before, and they have often failed. A famous example is the coelacanth which was once said to be a transition from water to land. Another similar example is the Titaalik which only recently has been admitted to be too poor a specimen to be known as an intermediate form. (See “The Rise and Fall of the Titaalik?.”)

Back to “Ida.” When this find was announced, and when I saw its picture, I saw this as confirmation of my suspicion that Darwinists are only to anxious to declare any new fossil discovery a “missing link.”  They overlook another possible interpratation of the fossil: That, rather than being a common ancestor of humans and apes, it is simply an extinct species of monkey which is fully and perfectly formed.

One doesn’ t have to be a Creationist, or even an Intelligent Design proponent, to doubt that Darwinius massillae is a link between ape and man. In fact, there are several Evolutionist paleontologists that doubt all the hype being made about it. — ScienceNow Daily News reports that,  

Many experts aren’t so enthusiastic. “It’s an extraordinarily complete, wonderful specimen, but it’s not telling us too much that we didn’t know before,” says paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

It goes on to quote two paleontologists Richard Kay of Duke University and Callum Ross of the University of Chicago who say,

There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked. . . Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification. (See “‘Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists.”)

Also, in an article in New Scientist, Chris Beard agrees saying that “Ida” isn’t a “missing link,” at least not in the way that it’s being hyped up to be. (Click here)

Oh, wait, wait wait. — Here it comes, here it comes! The charge of Creationist “quote-mining.” — “Kris, you deceptive Creationist quote-minor! You probably took those quotes out of context, didn’t you?” No, I didn’t. I linked my sources, so check them for yourselves.

“Well, you may not have misquoted them, but those scientists are Evolutionists, not Creationists.” — I realize that, but I have already admitted that they are Evolutionists. I know there are some irresponsible Creationists that misrepresent what Darwinists believe, but I try not to be one of them.

As a final thought, on a podcast response to claims about Ida,” Progressive Creationist Dr. Fazale Rana made a point of talking about how the public reacts to claims of “missing links.” He then notes the common Darwinist claim that the fossil record proves evolution because of all the transitional forms that have allegedly been found. — He then points out the inconsistency between this claim and the usual media hype made about “missing links” by saying that if the fossil record indeed showed the progression from one type of creature to another, then the discovery of new “missing links” would not generate so much excitement because they would already simply prove what was already taken for granted.

I have my differences of opinion with Dr. Rana, but that is a great point. Usually when something is so well known, new evidence would not make any difference. The realistic attitude people take is usually “Interesting, but this already confirms what is already a well known fact.”He says that he considers this an “indirect” indication that the fossil record really doesn’t provide the evidence for evolutionary change  that Neo-Darwinists would have us believe.