I will have a go at answering.

Many scholars don't think that Jesus said things attributed to him by John and I agree. Most scholars don't believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and I agree. So, you have someone misrepresenting something Jesus said about something misrepresented about what Moses said.

Even if Jesus did say it and Moses did write it, I can't find anywhere in the first five books of the bible that mentions Jesus by name...

Horatio,
Your statement runs counter to thousands of years of Jewish scholarship. When you use the word "Most" I assume you mean superlative of many, greatest in number, a majority. To paraphrase Spblat: Can you show me a published paper supporting your claim in some respectable peer-reviewed journal that most scholars believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch?

If you want to play the peer review game just remember that I can play it too...

I know I have read a couple and I will try and locate them for you. Until then here is the main work that started the JDEP theory. I don't think it's peer reviewed but it is scholary and not written by a biased author:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prole11.txt

Your quote from John didn't say what Moses said, or even say what book of the Torah he was talking about, so I have no idea.

Again, the point is that Jesus was not talking about the New Testament. He was talking about the Old Testament. You are equating the Old Testament with the entire bible without justification. If you know of a quote from Jesus that states that a collection of books and letters that were written after his death should be considered trustworthy, then please say what it is.

Going by his quoted words, Einstein wasn't anti-all-atheists. He was against "fanatical atheists" and he believed such fanaticism stemmed from the painful process of liberation from organized religious indoctrination.

He was also an agnostic and did not positively believe in a god, while he positively disbelieved in any personal god.

I'm not sure what you mean by Einstein and "matter from nothing." Can you elaborate?

It's true the fossil evidence fits a God explanation, but that's because any evidence would fit a God explanation, and that's why a God explanation is not scientific. It is not falsifiable. No matter what evidence was observable, "God did it" could explain it (barring any limitations placed on the God proposition). On the other hand, evolution is falsifiable and scientific. There are potential patterns of fossil evidence that would refute evolution (e.g. if the earliest mammals were older than the earliest bacteria). Scientific theories must also make predictions and evolution makes predictions about the pattern of the fossil record that have been confirmed.

The fossil record (along with other evidence) showing a nested hierarchy "tree of life" pattern to life is very strong evidence for evolution and common descent.

In short, yes, God could explain it, but then so could the FSM.

I'm no scientist, but I was taught in junior high school (circa 1961) that Einstein said matter cannot be created or destroyed. I believe that is generally accepted as true today. Einstein was, I believe, pointing out the problem this causes for atheists.

True, if in deed the fossil record is a tree with branches. My understanding is the fossil record shows parallel lines where a species shows up, continues for a time with small changes, then goes extinct. Connecting these parallel lines into a branching tree is only done because of an a priori belief that evolution is true.

Right, some lines (or branches) do end with extinction, but others haven't ended (or we and any other species wouldn't be here today) and show bigger changes over bigger times. Obviously, evolution doesn't say species can't go extinct.



No, it's done by morphological, biogeogprahical, biochemical (et al) analysis. You should know this since you read that 29+ evidences paper.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1724&start=0

(I also replied in that thread in more detail about why "creation" is not scientific.)

The only way to assert God created all life individually or any life individually is by an a priori assumption. The scientific evidence best supports common descent by evolution.

You are referring to the law of conservation of energy. Until seeing what Einstein exactly said about it, I can't comment on that, but conservation of energy is not a problem for atheists for at least two reasons: 1) the total universe (our space time and beyond) may be eternal in which case the total energy always existed, and 2) our current science is known not apply to the conditions at the advent of the Big Bang and so conservation of energy may not apply (likely does not) to the cause of the Big Bang or to what happens in the origin of the total universe or any universe.

Nobody knows how universes are caused so nobody knows yet what laws of nature apply there.

Oxy wrote:

Oz,
Do you believe
A: matter cannot be created or destroyed?
or
B: matter can be created or destroyed?

Please do not answer that you (we) don't know for sure. I'm asking what you believe to be true.

I accept what science says. Under our current space time conditions, the science says matter is conserved (though there may be some potential exceptions with quantum fluctuations but I can't say for sure about that).

However, you seem to be ignoring my post where I said the universe could potentially be eternal, which would mean creation of matter is irrelevant to its origin. You're also ignoring that the origin of our space time occurred under conditions that are KNOWN to be beyond our current scientific understandings. Under those conditions, the reality is that science does not know for sure and so neither do I.

I also want to comment on the wording of your question "do you believe?" which I believe carries the baggage of your worldview. You seem to think deciding what is reality is a matter of subjective "belief" rather than something objectively to be discovered. In getting at truth, it doesn't matter what I believe, I can believe anything about anything, what matters is what can be objectively shown to be true.

"Believe" also carries the implication of "believe in" like in "believe in ghosts" which implies belief in something not provable. When asking about a scientific question, "do you believe?" is a very foreign concept.

Further (and I think this is why spblat started his thread), your question implies that if I don't honestly know the answer, I am compelled to make a choice one way or the other. Why do I have to pick an answer instead of "don't know"?

Yes. It's called E=MC^2. It's like asking is ice destroyed when it melts to water.

Einstein believed that matter could not be created or destroyed. At this point, until someone can demonstrate something other, I choose to believe the same as Einstein. Call me a fool.