Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes 'We are VENOM' is right in that natural selection selects. it does not Create. That is all it needs to do. It is the Creationist view that species have to be 'Created'. They don't. They have to be Selected. They proceed to develop ('micro' evolution) and the ones not 'selected' (less adapted to prosper in a changed environment) will decline and go extinct. That is how it works.

That is the point, it is selecting from genetic information that was already there in the first place.

Nothing new is added to the pot.

It is the evolutionists who make it seem as if natural selection is a creative process, when it isn't. It is a selecting from a system that was already in place, which is, first of all, where the elephant in the room presents itself....which is where abiogenesis and all of that good stuff rears its ugly head...and that is exactly what the evolutionists doesn't want to talk about.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That does sum it up nicely ... you simply refuse to accept evolution despite all of the valid and extensive evidence for it.

Just like you refuse to accept Christianity despite all of the valid and extensive evidence that I believe is for it.

See what I did there?

Sentient life only had to await the evolution of sufficiently capable brains, which exist from the very tiny (eg. worms and insects) to us humans with the most complex and capable brains so far.

Wow, the leap of faith it takes to believe that is honestly, in my opinion, no better than me believing that God said "let there be light", and it was so.

But there is a whole swath of brains in between that developed over time (via evolution) which we can see in the fossil record, as well as in the extant members of the animal kingdom on Earth today.

See, look at that....

"....that developed over time".

This is "time of the gaps" reasoning.

Just throw in a hundred million years to make the problem go away.

SMH.

Before brains there were ganglia (eg. lobsters have ganglia and only about 100,000 neurons compared to a dog (with a brain) which has around 500 million neurons). Lobsters preceeded (evolved before) dogs by nearly 400 million years, ganglia preceeded brains, and simple nervous systems preceeded ganglia. It all just makes too much sense. Sentient life didn't just appear, poofed into existence by a god. It arose from the long, slow gradual development of ever more complex and capable brains. We have the evidence for it.

My question is ultimately "where did consciousness come from", and you don't begin to answer the question by presupposing consciousness.

That would be what they call; begging the question.

Evolution isn't random chaos.

If you start off with a big bang where STEM (space, time, energy, matter) sprang into existence from an alleged singularity point, there is nothing but chaos there.

There is no order or organization...and you will never get the amount of low entropy that we observe from such high entropy conditions.

That just isn't how it works, amigo.

You're leaving out the natural selection part which isn't random. It is reactionary to the environment (which includes climate changes, predator/prey mix, geography, etc. etc.). Just look at the current corona virus and how it is mutating (BTW ... where among the biblical "kinds" are microorganisms?). It is undergoing mutations that help it survive and reproduce in human hosts, and transfer more efficiently. We can watch this in real time and it is a perfect example of evolution at work. It is the rapid reproduction rate of a virus (compared to, say, a human) that allows these evolutionary changes to be observed in months rather than many millennia (like reptiles to birds). So-called "macro" evolution is just "micro" evolution over enough time to result in new species. It is not an ape giving birth to a human or a dog giving birth to something that is not a dog.

I can only go by what I observe. I observe microevolution, not macroevolution. If you want to believe that millions of years ago, the animals of of yesterday where able to do things that animals of today have NEVER been observed to do..then go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

Anyways, the Bible is clear that God made EVERYTHING, with microorganisms included. We know that living organisms adapt to there environment and blah blah blah.

But no knew "kind" of animal has been created since the initial creation. Sure, there are different varieties of the original "kinds" (as God ordained), but that is the extent of things.

To believe anything otherwise is to go beyond observation, experiment, and prediction...you know, science.

You could change that to "Sci-Babble" and use it to cover anything in any discipline of science that you disagree with even outside of biology. But I notice you didn't have any challenges to the information in those links and why they might be wrong, but just discarded them as "Bio-Babble."

I don't know you personally, but if I was a betting man I would bet that you would have no problem with someone referring to the preacher on the pulpit's sermon as "religious babble".

Not trying to be condescending, but when someone is "teaching" evolution, they are teaching, in my opinion, a false religion.

[JoeyKnothead]

That is the point, it is selecting from genetic information that was already there in the first place.

Not when changes to the alleles occur, then selection pressures might come into play regarding the new changes (and sometimes even old changes).

Nothing new is added to the pot.

There's changes anew nigh on every time reproduction occurs. Your refusal to accept that fact is on you.

It is the evolutionists who make it seem as if natural selection is a creative process, when it isn't.

This evolutionist prefers not to use "creative" specifically because it might confuse those theists less knowledgeable, or profoundly uneducated on the science of evolution, so you're clod clumping there.

The process of evolution reacts on novel, and in some cases even old changes, so much so as to eventually produce new species. This is settled science. To argue otherwise is to expose yourself as wholeheartedly absent even the most fundamental understanding of the issue.

It is a selecting from a system that was already in place

"Selection" is used in this topic merely as a useful term. The process is best understood as changes in alleles, and the effects of one's surroundings impacting the reproductive success of a given critter.

which is, first of all, where the elephant in the room presents itself....which is where abiogenesis and all of that good stuff rears its ugly head

Should abiogenesis must occur, if it does, it would do so before evolutionary pressures come into play, so that argument fails from the get go.

As well, these evolutionary pressures are shown to exist even if it was a god who started life.

...and that is exactly what the evolutionists doesn't want to talk about.

I just did. Again you present arguments so easy to beat down, you've got me, of all people, adoing it. I got an eighth grade education. May the gods have mercy on the soul your arguments if the big brains set in serious at ya.


Your thoughts on this issue will forever be suspect as you fail to understand even the most basic concepts here. I encourage you, sincerely, if you hope to change minds on this topic, you simply must become better informed. That ain't to insult ya, for on bible stuff I'm dumb as a rock, so any charge I put to you about evolutionary theory, I readily and openly charge to myself regarding theological matters.

Your arguments have all been seen before, discussed before, and duly dismissed before you ever put finger to keyboard. They're so old they expose you as being behind the times on the issue.

Your gross ignorance of the science involved, coupled with your desire to try to speak on a topic of which you display such ignorance does not bode well for you ever - ever - putting such fault to the ToE that you should never - never - be respected as a knowledgeable, rational thinker, or speaker, on this matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

I remind folks, I presented data in support of my contention that evolution occurs.

And ask, where is We_Are_Venom's data in support of his assertions regarding Jesus' existing, Jesus' returning, and that whole "kingdom of God deal"?

As I remind folks, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

LOL, you requesting that I present support of my assertion of Jesus existing/returning; I am reminded of the U.S.A and its possession of WMD, and I am the U.S in this case....in the sense that I certainly have evidence of this business regarding Jesus, I just choose not to use it.

"My wife, Morgan Fairchild, says I can't present my weapons grade evidence."

But in all seriousness, that is a conversation for another thread. I wasn't expecting to get into a full fledge debate about evolution, but as usual, as soon as someone expresses disbelief in the theory, that is when all of the naturalists come out of the woodwork to defend their religion (evolution).

How convenient. The theist enters a debate to present claims, only don't it beat all, providing evidence for those claims is just too much of a bother.

In debate.

Yes, evolution is a religion.

Religion or not, at least I endeavor to support the claims I put forth in the matter, and don't hide behind my wife, Morgan Fairchild, when I'm asked to do so.


Alas, the liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

[We_Are_VENOM]

How you feel about evolution is irrelevant. The evidence is there and it has not been refuted . In fact, the theory has steadily grown in strength over the last 150 years as better and better evidence has accumulated. refusing to accept it is not a refutation, simply a denial that carries no weight or credibility.

Take what you said, and apply it to Christianity...and you will understand how I feel about Christianity.

Evolution is not a theory about the initial origin of living things. You do understand that, don't you?

Sure, I do. But I also understand that if you don't have a viable theory as to how life began, you can't possibly have a viable theory as to how life evolved...at least on naturalism.

Now, I've emphasized this point numerous times on this great forum, and will continue to do so as needed.

What it does is beautifully account for the variety of life and how it changed over time on this planet.

That in itself, if true, still doesn't negate Creationism.

There is no popping into existence of all the different species in one magical event.

According to the Cambrian Explosion, there is no hundred million year gradual process, either.

As for the appearance of first life, we still don't know but there are many irons in that fire. God is not one of them.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Huh? Last time I looked there was a universe and scientists were actually investigating its origin.

So again, the challenge is for you to explain the origins of your computer...and the catch is that the answer you provide has to lie within the computer, no external cause of the computer can be given.

I will wait.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not when changes to the alleles occur, then selection pressures might come into play regarding the new changes (and sometimes even old changes). There's changes anew nigh on every time reproduction occurs. Your refusal to accept that fact is on you.

I'm not sure I understand you here. If a turtle is born with two heads, that is because the genetic information on "heads" were already there, but somehow, there was an "oops" in the process...but the information was there, nevertheless.

Or you can simply tell me where this "new" genetic information is coming from. Natural selection selects from the data that was already there...it isn't pulling from a new closet and grabbing completely different clothes.

If a cheetah evolved to be able to run fast, that is because it already had a "fast running" trait/gene (whatever you want to call it), which was selected.

Nothing was added or created, it was already there.

This evolutionist prefers not to use "creative" specifically because it might confuse those theists less knowledgeable, or profoundly uneducated on the science of evolution, so you're clod clumping there.

Well, when you are the one going around town claiming that a reptile evolved into a bird, I would call that a new "creation", given the fact that they are, in my opinion, two completely different kinds of animals.

The process of evolution reacts on novel, and in some cases even old changes, so much so as to eventually produce new species.

Yeah, but even this "new" species is still limited to the same kind of animal. A dog, wolf, and coyote are different species, but they are still the same kind of animal.

This is obviously microevolution, which no one in his right mind will deny...because we can see it...we observe it.

However, a reptile to bird, a land-dwelling-whale....all is bogus hocus pocus which has no place in science.

This is settled science. To argue otherwise is to expose yourself as wholeheartedly absent even the most fundamental understanding of the issue.

"Selection" is used in this topic merely as a useful term. The process is best understood as changes in alleles, and the effects of one's surroundings impacting the reproductive success of a given critter.

Hey, you can call it what you want, sir. What you can't call it, is something you can observe in reality.

Should abiogenesis must occur, if it does, it would do so before evolutionary pressures come into play, so that argument fails from the get go.

As well, these evolutionary pressures are shown to exist even if it was a god who started life.

Well, even if God started life, that would still flush naturalism down the toilet, wouldn't it?

I just did. Again you present arguments so easy to beat down, you've got me, of all people, adoing it. I got an eighth grade education. May the gods have mercy on the soul your arguments if the big brains set in serious at ya.

Lets see how much you "did".

Ok...here is a question...

If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true? Fairly simple question, don't you think?

Your thoughts on this issue will forever be suspect as you fail to understand even the most basic concepts here. I encourage you, sincerely, if you hope to change minds on this topic, you simply must become better informed. That ain't to insult ya, for on bible stuff I'm dumb as a rock, so any charge I put to you about evolutionary theory, I readily and openly charge to myself regarding theological matters.

Well, well, well...here we have it people...I've mentioned this SEVERAL TIMES...every single time we have a conversation on evolution, it always happens...it never fails....it never, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER fails.

Whenever someone expresses any disbelief in evolution, this person ALWAYS gets accused of not understanding the theory...

"You just don't understand the theory"

"That is not what evolution says"

It always happens. Because after all, evolutionists are so smart, and the person not buying the theory is so dumb/ignorant.

It never fails. Ever.

It is simply, you believe a reptile evolved into a bird. I don't. My disbelief isn't based on what I don't understand, but rather, what I DO understand.

Your arguments have all been seen before, discussed before, and duly dismissed before you ever put finger to keyboard. They're so old they expose you as being behind the times on the issue.

Your gross ignorance of the science involved, coupled with your desire to try to speak on a topic of which you display such ignorance does not bode well for you ever - ever - putting such fault to the ToE that you should never - never - be respected as a knowledgeable, rational thinker, or speaker, on this matter.

[brunumb]

I can only go by what I observe. I observe microevolution, not macroevolution. If you want to believe that millions of years ago, the animals of of yesterday where able to do things that animals of today have NEVER been observed to do..then go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

When did you last observe a snake or burning bush talking? Or a three day old mutilated corpse reanimating? May I suggest applying your skills on a farm that grows cherries.

By the way, there is really only evolution. If you accept the premise of what you call 'microevolution', then you are also accepting 'macroevolution' which is merely the former extended over a much longer time interval than our short lifespans allow for direct observation. The process is similar to regular small savings over a long period of time leading to immense wealth. What existed at the start and what exists at the end are significantly different.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #162]

Just like you refuse to accept Christianity despite all of the valid and extensive evidence that I believe is for it.

See what I did there?

Yes ... you clearly stated that you believe there is extensive evidence for Christianity. I would agree ... Christianity definitely exists (among many other religions). It is the existence of the various god beings that I have a problem with.

Wow, the leap of faith it takes to believe that is honestly, in my opinion, no better than me believing that God said "let there be light", and it was so.

Give us one example of a sentient being that does not have a working brain. Are you saying that a working brain is not a requirement for sentience?

See, look at that....

"....that developed over time".

This is "time of the gaps" reasoning.

No ... it is just noting that evolutionary change is dependent on the rate of reproduction (the number of generations that can exist within a given time period ... viruses and bacteria change orders of magnitude faster than primates). What you call "macro" evolution takes a lot longer than "micro" evolution simply because there are many more changes required.

My question is ultimately "where did consciousness come from", and you don't begin to answer the question by presupposing consciousness.

No need to presuppose consciousness. Just follow the evolutionary development of animals with brains, from worms to humans for example, and you'll find a point where some populations fit the definition of being sentient. And these animals will have working brains. Why can't consciousness simply be an emergent property of a working brain? Sure looks that way.

If you start off with a big bang where STEM (space, time, energy, matter) sprang into existence from an alleged singularity point, there is nothing but chaos there.

And this is completely irrelevant to evolution and life on Earth. Our solar system (and planet) formed about 4.6 billion years ago, billions of year after any origin event. As far as how life developed on Earth, how the universe began is meaningless.

I can only go by what I observe. I observe microevolution, not macroevolution.

You're not nearly old enough to observe microevolution ... at least with larger animals like dogs and cats that you like to bring up. But we do have a pretty extensive fossil record that can solve that problem, and it shows very cleary that "macro" evolution is a real thing and did happen ... many, many times.

Anyways, the Bible is clear that God made EVERYTHING, with microorganisms included.

The Bible may claim that, but the humans who wrote it did so long before the microscope was invented and they had no idea microorganisms existed. This is most likely why they are never mentioned in the Bible. And there was no real science back then to explain nature, so they made up stuff like the creation story in Genesis. Good attempt by the old timers, but we know today that this is not how any of it really happened ... including all of the animal "kinds" being poofed into existence.

But no knew "kind" of animal has been created since the initial creation. Sure, there are different varieties of the original "kinds" (as God ordained), but that is the extent of things.

Really? You've argued that all natural selection can do is work with what is already there. But what is already there is a tremendous set of building blocks (DNA and the 4 base pairs it contains) that can be organized in countless different ways to produce every plant and animal on the planet with all of their diversity and different parts. You're describing it as if there is some kind of lego kit where you can only build something from those specific parts, which have always existed. But DNA can organize to create completely new lego pieces that didn't exist before. Sure, the base pairs were there all along, but their specific order along a DNA strand to make genes can change to make new genes (among other things like controlling how genes turn on and off, etc.), which code for new proteins, which can build new body parts that didn't exist before (eg. feathers, hollow bones and eventually wings for dinosaurs that became birds). It is almost infinitely variable and has created all "kinds" of new animals in response to environmental and other changes (ie. natural selection).

[We_Are_VENOM]

When did you last observe a snake or burning bush talking? Or a three day old mutilated corpse reanimating? May I suggest applying your skills on a farm that grows cherries.

But see, the difference is; my methodology isn't based on observation and experiment, yours is (science), or at least, supposed to be.

Second, I admit that my belief is based upon faith (reasonable faith), you don't.

By the way, there is really only evolution. If you accept the premise of what you call 'microevolution', then you are also accepting 'macroevolution' which is merely the former extended over a much longer time interval than our short lifespans allow for direct observation.

"Time of the Gaps".

The process is similar to regular small savings over a long period of time leading to immense wealth. What existed at the start and what exists at the end are significantly different.

I can conduct an experiment by saving small amounts over time, thus accumulating a large amount in the end.

What experiment can you conduct which will give you a reptile to a bird?