I’m talking proof, not theory.
Is there more proof of a man named Jesus (claiming to be the messiah) and living and dying over 2000 years ago than there is proof of evolution?
I understand some will say mostly all science is theory, gravity is theory, water freezing is theory. I understand theories. I’m talking cold, hard facts.
Why don’t you first define what you mean by evolution, then describe what you mean by proof. Otherwise, we are unlikely to get anywhere.
Not even close. The amount of evidence for evolution is simply enormous; the amount of records surviving from 200o years ago is relatively tiny. Mind, he probably did exist; it’s just that the evidence for evolution is so moutainous.
Evolution=The evolving of humans, animals, plants, biology into what they are today. Is there any proof of evolution? I’m no scientist, so I don’t really know.
Proof=Solid evidence that something is real
The evidence for the existence of Jesus consists of the Gospels (four not entirely indepedently sourced and highly ideologically motivated biographies written some decades after his death); the epistles (letters most of which were written by a man–Paul–who never even claimed to have met the historical Jesus, and many of which are of highly contested authorship); a couple of extremely suspect references in Josephus, likely later pious interpolations; several other references by classical writers which are generally references to the existence of Christians–people who believed in Jesus–not direct accounts of Jesus’ existence; and of course the whole phenomenon of Christianity, the emergence in the Roman Empire of a major world religion based on the life and teachings of the alleged person in question.
The evidence for evolution includes massive numbers of documented observations of consistent patterns of anatomical relationships among living organisms; later, independently made patterns of observations of biochemical relationships between living organisms (DNA, proteins) which overwhelmingly confirm the observations of gross anatomy; observations of the geographical distribution of living things (marsupials in Australia; Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos); many discoveries of fossil evidence of extinct related and transitional forms; the existence of such oddities of design as the “Panda’s thumb” or air-breathing yet fully aquatic mammals; the observation that living things very frequently behave in ways that are (to us) amoral, bizarre, or repulsive, but which are logical strategies for maximizing reproductive success in a given ecological niche; observations of adaptation through natural selection taking place right in front of us (such as the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria); and numerous observations of actual speciation.
So, in short, no.
There is more proof of Jesus than Evolution if you count the number of pages. Pages printed=factual basis for arguement
As mentioned, you need to define proof. It’s not like just pointing at some stone cold object proves Jesus existed, there’s thought processes involved, too. Fingerprints can only be proofs if you include the theory they’re pretty much unique, carbon dating requires theory, as does everything else. Theories, on the other hand, does not always require physical proof (well, you’d probably need some physical confirmation for acknowledgment, but theory withouf proof gets you further than proof without theory), and at least parts of evolution seem evident without reference to fossils.
Also, the word theory is not used as you seem to think. Definitions 5 & 6 comes close to the common usage as guesswork or conjecture, while theory in the scientific sense applies to a set of statements usually considered to be logically or empirically proven.
A better worded question would be “Is there more evidence for Jesus than evolution”? The answer would be no. Ignoring human evolution, and the emotional respose it creates, look at other animals and plants. The farther you go back in time in geological formations the simpler the organisms. Dates can be determined by radioactive decay, annual patterns of layers of deposit, tree rings, magnetic orientation of igneus rock, etc. DNA evidence (random drift over time) supports the geologic record.
Evidence for Jesus has been summed up nicely by MEBuckner.
diggleblop I’d have to say there’s very little IF ANY real proof, (scientific evidence) of Jesus’ existence. That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. MOF, I think he did, but that’s another thread.
However, there’s plenty of evidence for evolution. But that doesn’t explain everything either.
So, what’s your take on the OP? You asked the question. 
There is a ‘wanted poster’ for Jesus produced by the Romans
We have some evidence of evolution, mammoths and elephants for example, not to mention Darwin’s tortoises.
a wanted poster? I’d like to see that
Proving the existence of Jesus is really not the issue. The case against Christainty is not necessarily that Jesus never existed, but was he actually the son of God and not just a person claiming to be that. We have proof that David Koresh existed, but does that mean that his claims are true, just because he existed?
It is the issue of this thread.
As MEB set out, there is precious little reliable evidence to prove the existence of Jesus the person. There is even less evidence of his divinity. Nevertheless, a tremendous number of folk choose to believe in both.
Think of it this way: Is there more “proof” of Jesus than Quantum Mechanics? Evolution is every bit as much a proven scientific theory as is QM. And I’m using the term “proven” losely, so don’t get all semantic on me about that. QM and Evolution by natural selection are both about as “proven” as anything ever gets in the world of science.
You were whooshed. I don’t know what you saw, exactly, but I guarantee there aren’t any genuine Roman wanted posters for Jesus. What you saw was almost certainly some kind of mock-up.
Let me ask you this. Was it written in English? Did it have the word “Wanted” on it in English? If so, then what does that tell you?
That the Romans spoke English !
:dubious:
Definitely an apples and oranges kind of comparison. The evidence used to establish a historical event is different that the evidence used to support a scientific theory. It’s like asking is there more proof of Abraham Lincoln or gravity?
There’s sufficent evidence of the appropriate type to prove that Jesus existed as a historical person and that evolution exists as a scientific process. But I’d have to give evolution the nod for having “more” proof - as a scientific theory, the evidence supporting it is reproducible, so it’s essentially infinite. If you want more proof of evolution, you can conduct some experiments and produce more evidence.
There is a strong consensus among historians that Jesus was probably a historical person (which is obviously a different question from whether the supernatural claims made about him were true) but there is really no smoking gun, lead pipe proof, and there is a tremendous amount of diversity in opinions about exactly who he was, did or said.
The evidence for evolution is extremely strong, clear and unambiguous. It’s as “proven” as anything can be called that it in science.
