Wrong Argument(s)?

[POI]

Many Christians did not reason themselves into becoming a Christian. Hence, it may not be reasonable to reason themselves out of Christianity.

Example:

If all (said topics) were to be debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would you still be a Jesus/God believer? Or maybe then just a "generic deist", other?

(Said topics) would be the Kalam, the cosmological argument, morality, etc....

I became a Christian through personal experiences rather than these arguments, I remain a Christian, in large part, through these arguments because I think personal experiences can have rational defeaters.

******************************

In essence, the interlocutor admits none of the apologetics is what made him become a believer, but instead, reinforces his a priori belief.

For debate:

1) Being you were a believer before any of these arguments, what exactly lead you to believe your personal experiences were from the Christian God, as opposed to the self alone, or other?

2) Since apologetics is not really convincing much of anyone to go to the other side, why lead with, or emphasize these arguments at all, or ever? Why not instead lead with, or emphasize the topic(s) which can actually persuade people - (like personal experiences, other)? If the goal is to be persuasive, why lead with so many unconvincing arguments instead?

[TRANSPONDER]

There is nothing in the Bible that humans could not think of but in fact think better, like the cosmos, Biology, history and morality.

Sorry, I disagree with your opinion.

This do not go as in the Bible, though the Bible tries to follow things, but gets it wrong. Illness is not caused by Demons; not the kind that can be cast out instantly by fasting and prayer or by faith as small as a mustard seed, according to which Gospel you read.

How would you prove any illness is not caused by “demons”?

Evolution is the best explanation for existence and Life. And 'God' even if 'Who made everything, then?" had merit, it only raises the question, "Which god?"

Ok, maybe to you evolution is best explanation. I don’t think it is a good explanation for anything, because if it would be true, it should be observable and repeatable. For example, if evolution theory is true, it should be possible to breed rats into mini whales by selecting best individuals.

As usual, nobody cares about your opinion or mine, but where the evidence points.

The evidence points at bugs and viruses causing disease, and our being able to cure much of it thanks to science. Demons and the removal of disease through prayer never worked in the old days. Does any reasonable person require any further evidence?

If we treated evidence as you do, we could never solve any crime unless we saw it happen. Just looking at the evidence proves nothing - according to you. I know those who protest that 2000 years and no 2nd coming is but a day to God, refuse to accept that evolution takes time and insist that we turn butterflies into mammoths in the laboratory. In our lifetimes the best we might hope for is a cat that has webbed feet and a tail like a beaver "But it's still a cat!" And even of a rat could be turned into a whale in the lab, I know for sure what the excuse would be 'Just because it was done in a lab, doesn't mean it happened that way'. The evidence is that a natural process of turning a rat (so to speak) into a whale happened and the evidence proves it and your demand it be done in a lab in a week or so is no valid argument other than to you or to like-minded evolution denialists.

[1213]

...Demons and the removal of disease through prayer never worked in the old days. Does any reasonable person require any further evidence?

Sorry, I think you gave zero evidence.

[1213]

Please provide documentation to support your claim that the evolutionary theory teaches that it should be possible to turn rats into whales. If your claim is true (hint, hint, it isn't) you should be able to provide at least 5 or more sources that agree with you. I look forward to seeing them.

Here is the "family tree of whales". Do you think this is true?



If it is true, why could it not be possible to breed rats till they are whales?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Demons and the removal of disease through prayer never worked in the old days. Does any reasonable person require any further evidence?

Sorry, I think you gave zero evidence.

The evidence is that prayer did not cure diseases in the old days, and nor did attempts at medicine before the scientific discoveries. If this is unknown to you, you clearly don't have the basic understanding of the matter to come to any conclusions. What's worse, you reject it when someone points it out to you.

You don't think you have a real reasoning problem here?

The cetan sequence? The fossil evidence is compelling. As well as DNA and morphological evidence. The whale used to be a land animal. The evolution of the nostril shows the gradual adaptation to water. Even where it was found shows the ability to move over longer distances from land as it adapted more. The distinctive common ear bones is a further marker of the same species changing until it became another.

What is the evidence against this? The only one I saw was the coincidence (possibly) of the land critter and the sea adaptation, but that only means some adapted to sea and some stayed on land - the reason why if monkeys changed to humans, there are still monkeys, and if Americans came from Europeans, there are still Europeans.

If there is any dispute with the evidence other than science - denial, I should love to hear it.

Oh the butterflies to mammoths argument. We already see this has been done. Penguins were obviously once birds, now they swim. Seals and otters were once land creatures but are adapted to water. Bats used to be like mice, now they dly. We don't need humans to do it - nature is doing it before our eyes.

cue - God made them that way. This is an excuse, dismissal of the as good or better evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it. It is faith based dismissal of the better argument. That's without even bringing up the apologetics trick of pricing the argument out of the market - demand something absurd that they are sure can't be done, and make that the clincher.

Funny thing, a poster demanded science makes life in the lab. When they did (or he thought they had) he changed the rejection "Just because they made life in a lab, doesn't mean it happened that way". If a rat was bred into a whale in a laboratory, would you accept evolution was true? Of course you wouldn't.

[1213]

The evidence is that prayer did not cure diseases in the old days

Sorry, you have offered only your word about this, it is no evidence for that.

The cetan sequence? The fossil evidence is compelling. As well as DNA and morphological evidence. The whale used to be a land animal. The evolution of the nostril shows the gradual adaptation to water. Even where it was found shows the ability to move over longer distances from land as it adapted more. The distinctive common ear bones is a further marker of the same species changing until it became another.

What is the evidence against this?

The problem is, we have no proper evidence for that to be true. No need for evidence against it, it can be dismissed, because it is only imagination that can't really be observed happening in nature.

Penguins were obviously once birds, now they swim. Seals and otters were once land creatures but are adapted to water. Bats used to be like mice, now they dly. We don't need humans to do it - nature is doing it before our eyes.

Penguins still are birds. And many birds obviously can swim. If it is true that seals were once land animals, or bats mice, it should be possible to test it and repeat it. I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe such changes have happened. Why do you believe it?

Funny thing, a poster demanded science makes life in the lab. When they did (or he thought they had) he changed the rejection "Just because they made life in a lab, doesn't mean it happened that way". If a rat was bred into a whale in a laboratory, would you accept evolution was true? Of course you wouldn't.

I don't think that is true, that people could have made life in the lab. Please give a link to that study?

If rat would be bred into a whale, it would prove that the evolution theory can actually work as it is claimed. Obviously one could say it doesn't necessary prove that it is what happened in nature, but at least then we could say that it is a valid scientific theory. Now it looks bad pseudoscience and modernization of mother earth cult.

[TRANSPONDER]

The evidence is that prayer did not cure diseases in the old days

Sorry, you have offered only your word about this, it is no evidence for that.

The cetan sequence? The fossil evidence is compelling. As well as DNA and morphological evidence. The whale used to be a land animal. The evolution of the nostril shows the gradual adaptation to water. Even where it was found shows the ability to move over longer distances from land as it adapted more. The distinctive common ear bones is a further marker of the same species changing until it became another.

What is the evidence against this?

The problem is, we have no proper evidence for that to be true. No need for evidence against it, it can be dismissed, because it is only imagination that can't really be observed happening in nature.

Penguins were obviously once birds, now they swim. Seals and otters were once land creatures but are adapted to water. Bats used to be like mice, now they dly. We don't need humans to do it - nature is doing it before our eyes.

Penguins still are birds. And many birds obviously can swim. If it is true that seals were once land animals, or bats mice, it should be possible to test it and repeat it. I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe such changes have happened. Why do you believe it?

Funny thing, a poster demanded science makes life in the lab. When they did (or he thought they had) he changed the rejection "Just because they made life in a lab, doesn't mean it happened that way". If a rat was bred into a whale in a laboratory, would you accept evolution was true? Of course you wouldn't.

I don't think that is true, that people could have made life in the lab. Please give a link to that study?

If rat would be bred into a whale, it would prove that the evolution theory can actually work as it is claimed. Obviously one could say it doesn't necessary prove that it is what happened in nature, but at least then we could say that it is a valid scientific theory. Now it looks bad pseudoscience and modernization of mother earth cult.

We have records. It is a matter of history that thousands died of disease and injury and people died younger than they do now. It is also a matter of historical record that medicine then did not cure what medicine can cure now. It is utterly denialist (at least) to pretend that this is not historically the case.

The fossil evidence for the cetan sequence is the evidence. The ear bones show the skeletal connection, the evolution of the nostril to blowhole is evidence that supports an evolution and distribution of fossils supports this, even with the present skeletal structure showing it once had to be a land animal.

Your view of what is an what is not evidence is not the general one (1). Your rejection of this (which would not be accepted in a lawyer's rejection of forensic evidence in a crime case) is simply denial, and you have no counter evidence other than fingers in the ears and eye shut denial. A habitual pose of the Biblical denialist.

Your rejection means nothing at all without you showing why the evidence is not valid. Science denial is no more than a Good bad example of why Bible apologists of the denialist kind fail to make a case, and have to rely (I suppose) and others being of the same mindset.

You miss the point about a penguin. It is still a bird, but it cannot fly. But once it could, as you observe some birds fly underwater. The evolutionary process is evident. Even more with the seal, It is at the Ambulocetus stage, where it is not efficient on land, but cannot yet leave it.

All these examples (including bird's wings once being land limbs and I will bet the penguins' without first looking). Your dismissive demand for something that evolution stated plainly doesn't happen as quick as that if at all and would prove nothing even if Laboratory magic could do it, is no more that - as i said - picking something you are sure evolutionists can't do and making that the only thing that matters. But as I say, if it was done, I know that you won't accept it 'Doesn't mean that was how it happened'. And it would not prove evolution theory anyway as it was science - engineered, not evolved.

I am asking again, what evidence do you have that refutes the evidence for evolution? Hint, denial of evidence for is not evidence against.

I did not claim life had been made in the Lab, rather that it had been reproduced. My point was an apologist Thought like had been created in a laboratory and changed his requirement for Abiogenesis and reneged on his condition for accepting it 'Just because they did it, doesn't mean it happened that way'.

Given that I did not say that science had created life exactly I can give a link to what was done, since you ask.



Sorry for the increasingly unco- operative internet (and infuriating ads they force us to watch) but you can click the onscreen link.

(1) I looked up Websters evidence which was too broad and related to legal evidence (USA ah? and went for forensic evidence which makes the point that was is sound evidence in criminal cases in scientific clues not what you personally see with your own eyes, nor the murder committed before your very eyes in real time, and not what you personally are prepared to accept.

Traditional forensic analysis methods include the following: Chromatography, spectroscopy, hair and fiber analysis, and serology (such as DNA examination) Pathology, anthropology, odontology, toxicology, structural engineering, and examination of questionable documents.

[1213]

We have records. It is a matter of history that thousands died of disease and injury and people died younger than they do now.

Could you give one example of such a record?

The fossil evidence for the cetan sequence is the evidence. The ear bones show the skeletal connection, the evolution of the nostril to blowhole is evidence that supports an evolution and distribution of fossils supports this, even with the present skeletal structure showing it once had to be a land animal.

Similarity in structure doesn't necessary mean they are related. It is possible that all those have been individual species that were once created.

You miss the point about a penguin. It is still a bird, but it cannot fly. But once it could, as you observe some birds fly underwater.

Unfortunately I don't see any good reason to believe it's ancestors once flew.

I am asking again, what evidence do you have that refutes the evidence for evolution?

You don't seem to understand my point. I don't believe it, because I think there is no good reason to believe it. I have not seen any evidence that would support the theory really, objectively and scientifically.

...
Given that I did not say that science had created life exactly I can give a link to what was done, since you ask.



Sorry for the increasingly unco- operative internet (and infuriating ads they force us to watch) but you can click the onscreen link.

Thanks, unfortunately that doesn't seem to work.

[TRANSPONDER]

Black death, Plague of London along with the fire 1666, all the outbreaks of diseases that ravaged military camps because they did not understand hygiene?

The history of disease such as smallpox or cholera in the new world native populations or for that matter back in the east with new immigrants. And of course pandemics in our own time. I don't recall anyone effectively using prayer, but medical science.And with your evolution denial - again dismissing and ignoring the evidence. The progression of the nostril gradually from the snout to a blowhole shows a sequence of evolution along with the limb adatation. You should at least see that the evidence points to an evolutionary progression, and appeal to God making them as separate kinds ignores the evidence that the eventual flippers were once legs as well as the simultaneous evidence of adaptation to water life.

The penguin once flew because it is - as you say yourself - a bird that flies underwater. Other birds fly underwater, but are not as adapted as the penguin. I'll have a look by the flipper should resemble a bird -arm arrangement and there out to be fossil semi penguins. I'll look But the seal is neither this nor that. It is obviously a transitional form and even if you maintain it was made as it is where is it in the fossil record? The fossil record is of evolution and extinction - not 'kinds'.

I see your point only too well. You don't. You think you are finding good reasons to seriously question the evidence for cetan evolution - but only by appealing to a less good and less probable explanation (faithbased) and mispresenting what the evidence is (evolution of the breathing hole), or ignoring it altogether. (the flipper was once an arm). You think you are doing legitimate question (which would not alter the evidence fitting evolution better) but you are doing faithbased dismissal and denial.

Yes, I know how it works.We have seen it before.You simply ignore and deny everything and you think you win. You don't. I could say that the burden of proof was on you to show that the seal flipper looks purpose designed. It doesn't. It looks evol;ved, justlike whales and dolphins.

https://www.polartrec.com/expeditions/w ... 12-02-07-0

(it's a bit hard to find something to image or link without demands for donations or access to personal information) Let's look at the penguin.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's not perfect but this

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles ... ery%20well.

Shows that Penguins (originating in Australasia and reaching large size) evolved from birds that could fly.

Fossil or ancient skeletons show fossil ancestors of penguins that were more birdlike and could fly.

Deny it or not, but the cetan sequence validated evolution as the more probable theory and that means that seal and penguin evolution - and every other- over the 'kinds' hypothesis. This renders 'kinds' creation a faithbased preference rather than evidence - based, even aside from 'not seeing' the evidence through not looking or wanting to look.like here?

"Thanks, unfortunately that doesn't seem to work."

What doesn't? The link or the argument? The argument is that artificial life was made by a computer -designed DNA and an cell. It is sorta artificially imitating life, though not showing abiogenesis happened that way.And nobody say that it does - except that poster I referred to who mistakenly though abiogenesis had been proven and shifted his goalposts, which is why I said that even if your absurd proof' (rats to whales) be done, you'd just shift the goalposts.

Now just what 'didn't work' assuming you are not just doing kneejerk denial without bothering what the argument even was?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 1213 in post #37]

The following are your words:

The problem is, we have no proper evidence for that to be true. No need for evidence against it, it can be dismissed, because it is only imagination that can't really be observed happening in nature.

You don't seem to understand my point. I don't believe it, because I think there is no good reason to believe it. I have not seen any evidence that would support the theory really, objectively and scientifically.

It is fine that those objections quoted above describe your personal standards for the acceptance or rejection of a claim, but science does not operate within those nonscientific parameters. Misunderstandings like this often occur because some overly enthusiastic science communicators referred to a scientific theory as having been proven true when it is more accurately described as being not demonstrably false. Theories are never proven true in science but become widely accepted by experts in the field after a multitude of experiments that were designed to try and falsify them failed to produce the necessary disconfirming evidence. Therefore, to dismiss a scientific theory on the grounds that it has not been proven objectively true by proper evidence is to misunderstand how evidence works in science.

Again, you are free to dismiss scientific theories in accordance with your nonscientific reasoning. However, anyone reasoning within the boundaries of proper scientific inquiry are necessarily justified in accepting a scientific theory on the grounds that all experiments designed to try and falsify the claim have consistently failed to produce the necessary disconfirming evidence.
Accordingly, if you intend to offer valid objections to a scientific claim, then they must take the form of an internal critique (i.e., within the boundaries of science). Otherwise, practitioners of the scientific disciplines will have no justification for attempting to resolve nonscientific objections to their scientific claims.

Side note: It is a reasonable presumption that you (a follower of Christ) are compelled by Biblical doctrine to value and practice intellectual honesty. As such, you must necessarily understand that the credibility of your expressed nonscientific standards rests on your ability to consistently apply them. Otherwise to apply different or weaker standards to theistic claims than to scientific claims would be to commit the intellectually dishonest fallacy of special pleading. Therefore, I will charitably presume that you will have no trouble equally dismissing any theistic claims as imaginary that "can't really be observed happening in nature" or where you "have not seen any evidence that would" "objectively and scientifically" support them as being true.