Subjectivity/Objectivity and evidence in science and philosophy

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Jay313

A total side issue, but “Son of Man” was Jesus’ preferred term in public contexts precisely because it carried no Messianic connotations in his audience’s mind, despite its presence in Daniel 7.

That is one theory. However “Son of Man” is clearly Messianic in the book of Enoch, and this was being widely read at the time. Also, we see Jewish leaders reacting to Son of Man as if it was a blasphemous reference. I’m not NT expert, but I’m not sure if this theory holds up.

@Jay313

Dr. Rana’s article, “If Christ Be Not Raised,” suffers from a common problem with the symposium. Namely, he spends more time promoting his alternative theory than actually reviewing Adam & the Genome. By my count, Rana interacts with Venema’s portion of the book in just two paragraphs, or roughly 100 of the article’s 1700 words. Not exactly a “review,” by my understanding.

I would agree. I hope you felt differently about my contribution. I did engage Scott and Denis throughout.[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:153, topic:35961”]
Why would it be a strange requirement when positive evidence is the requirement for all scientific conclusions?
[/quote]

I’m not arguing for a scientific theory. I am explaining the limits of the established scientific fact.

You seem to be trying to build everything off science. Please explain to us how you determine scientifically if genocide is wrong? Is racism wrong too? Or are these moral concerns just illusions because science cannot establish moral status.