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

[brunumb]

Yet, when it comes to entire human bodies, along with consciousness, all of a sudden we throw intelligent design in the toilet and flush it...

That's basically what one does with a hypothesis having absolutely no evidence to back it up

...and resort to "perhaps maybe Mother Nature pulled off this magnificent stunt".

However you want to diminish the process in a mocking retort, the evidence stacks up and supports evolution through natural selection. It is the best explanation we have for all the accumulated data and observations regarding life on this planet. When it comes to God, no sign of anything yet.

[JoeyKnothead]

A late edit cause I messed up the quotaters.

We see it occur every time humans reproduce. Notice the child doesn't look exactly like either parent. Carry this out to it's logical conclusion and after enough time, genetics come into play with new species.

Evolutionist: "Given enough time, anything can happen, such as a reptile evolving into a bird".
Christian: "Given enough time, Jesus will return and welcome his followers to the kingdom of God".
I guess we both have our hopes, don't we.

We have compelling evidence that both birds and reptiles exist. Further examination of that data reveals they belong to the Sauropsida, specifically among the Archosaurs, which includes the birds and crocodilians.Then drilling down we find specific species that have further embushinated the family tree.

Where's your compelling evidence that Jesus even existed, and that he's coming back just soon as he finishes him that stroll into town? And of course, if ya could offer compelling evidence on that whole "kingdom of God" thing, we'd sure be proud for ya.

We have volumes of data to support the conclusion, the fact, that evolution occurs. To say otherwise is folly.

The only data I see is; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

Logical concludings are a thing.

There's also some background ya might be missing here...

Cats and dogs are seen as two separate Suborders of critters belonging to Order Carnivora, then Suborders Feliformia and Caniformia. So we see, they share the inherited characters of the Carnivora, such as similar tooth structure allowing for grasping prey and then shearing off flesh and getting it all choked down. They just lack the ability to make a proper gravy to go with it. But then on further analysis, we see differing anatomies such as jaw structure and other less obvious features coming into view, and we start seeing individual species within their respective suborders.

There's an argument to be made about what constitutes a proper species. Is it non-hybridization? Non-overlapping ranges? Different reproduction and prey strategies? This is where it does get tricky, because there's some overlap here. What we can see is that the further apart critters get from sharing these traits and habits, the closer they get to becoming distinctly different enough that an inability to produce offspring from mating becomes the most compelling argument for speciation.

There has been no exception to the rule, so far as I can see.

You're gonna absolutely freak out when you find out the cetaceans have a land lubbing history.

All living things are composed of atoms, which are not living before assembling to become living things.

Those atoms are not sentient, but they are living. You do realize living organisms are composed of living cells, don't you?

An atom is no more living than a football bat is a useful tool. To propose otherwise is to display a gross ignorance of the science.

Atoms are non-living structures until they combine with other atoms, and in a process not fully understood, only then create life (in relatively small numbers of such combinations). Cells are a relatively basic component of life, but they're also analogous to the structures we might find in non-living compositions of atoms, such as mountains and rocks and even lakes and streams. It's in how granular we present the data where this too becomes tricky.

You're not believing that fact has no bearing on its truthiness.
Snip remainder.

Well..

As I said, not believing fact ain't showing that fact errant.


The science is clear here... Through a change in DNA (alleles), new species can come into existence. There's reams and reams of data in support here, not just some magical mystery book of potions and wishes.

Where are your facts? What facts can you present regarding Jesus' existing, returning, and all that "kingdom of God stuff?"

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Some excellent posting. Of course we know where our venomous pal is coming from. Some of us non -believers came from there ourselves.

But we (or they - I'm a lifetimer) saw that the arguments for Goddunnit are wrong on all levels. The 'evidence' does not stack up and is almost always objections to geology (1), Palaeontology (denial of Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik and 'Lucy', and arguing the gaps for God.

Unknowns are not evidence. Our pal gave himself away when he gave the two alternatives . Natural explanation - or God. No. Either an explanation or nobody knows.

So often the argument against 'evilooshun' (evolution in the very broadest sense, not just the changes in biological forms) is based on lack of understanding of the subject. In many cases they simply copy and paste stuff from creationist websites, and they not only ignore the explanations (see inverted strata, below) but deliberately lie. Like the lie about where the spine enters Lucy's skull.

You may wonder why Christians (or so they say) think that telling lies is ok. I try not to lie about this stuff,; to myself or to others, because I am only cheating myself if I do. But Creationists do it all the time. (Bible apologists just misinterpret, mislead and deny, and that's nearly as bad).

I think it's because they operate on Faith and not on following the evidence. For the believers, Faith is why they know they're right and evidence is there just to support the faith, and it doesn't matter if it has to be bent out of shape or just invented, because nobody really knows anything 100% for sure anyway, right?

But the rationalist - skeptic (I'm one and have the brand on my botty -wotty to prove it) follows the evidence where it leads, even if we may not like it and have to change our minds.

Which is why some are former believers and are now atheists (2).

(1) inverted strata comes to mind. This is supposed to contradict geology. But then it isn't hard to see in the cliff face that the mountains shifted about and part of the strata got rolled over on the one below. (Rock under immense slow pressure can act like putty). They didn't know? They didn't look? They know, and looked and cropped the image so their dupes wouldn't see it. See also 'inverted whale' Same trick and lie.

(2) ok. I have seen plenty of 'I used to be an atheist..like you, until...' But then discussion shows that maybe they used to be skeptical in some way, but got talked into Christianity (or some other) by the religious propaganda. And they only got one side (3). They NEVER know the basic atheist responses. Thus it seems that an atheist who knows the refutations of the Christian apologetics won't be persuaded (read 'fooled') and they rely on getting people who dobn't know and they feed them the misleading, misinformation and lies. 'Hey..what do a few lies matter if some souls are saved..?'

(3) the Lee Strobel film that argues how one gets persuaded to believe in Christianity. The viewer is assured that he looked at both sides. But we who know, see clearly that he apparently talks only to Christian fundamentalists and the Other Side is never represented. As an atheist he never asked the opinion of atheists? Someone wasn't telling the truth.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #134]

Yet, when it comes to entire human bodies, along with consciousness, all of a sudden we throw intelligent design in the toilet and flush it... and resort to "perhaps maybe Mother Nature pulled off this magnificent stunt".

Don't start with human bodies and consciousness ... start with much simpler (although still very complex) single-celled organisms some 4 billion years ago. We have a viable explanation for how we got from there to human bodies a measly ~2 million years ago (say, Homo erectus). So the job is to explain how the first replicating cells that we'd today call "life" arose from collections of the right assemblage of molecules, light, water, heat, electricity (lightning or static), etc., or if these were brought to Earth from elsewhere by some means (panspermia), or ?? That is what we don't know the answer to yet, not the general process (evolution) that happened after these first populations of living things appeared which led to the animals and plants we have today. You're jumping the gun starting with humans.

Jumping the gun, you say, doc? Yet, I am constantly babbling about the fact that the universe began to exist, which was an occurrence that preceded the rise of humans (and life in general)..doesnt it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

The evidence that evolution (macro) did happen is shown by the fossils and particularly the transitional forms, plus DNA and morphology. For instance birds' winds show hand/arm formations.

Sure, just like the letter C evolved into the letter G after a hundred million years in a printing factory.

After all, they are similar letters, right?

At one time Archaeopteryx was the only reptile/bird transitional but there are many other examples now.

Or maybe, just maybe, a hundred million years ago; some birds had teeth.

Have you ever entertained that hypothesis? Or do we jump immediately to evolution?

[But the best example of evolution (Macro) is the fossil sequence of a land animal to whales, both in the front flippers that were clearly once arms and in the progression of the nostils to lowhole in these transitional forms. When you have signal evidence of such a transition, the others, such as Tiktaalic and Australopithecus have that much more credibility.

"Clearly once arms". Clear to who? To you?

Creationism has nothing but denial of the evidence.

No, because one can accept evolution while still maintaining his theism.

The universe is not eternal. It had a start and will probably have an end. However the larger cosmos of 'stuff' from which it arguably formed, could be. That is the only way to solve the infinite regression problem. Claiming the existence of a complex creator -god (never mind which one) with no explanation as to origin is logically less likely.

Forgive me, but I missed the part where the infinite regression problem was solved?

Where is the solution?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Evolutionist: "Given enough time, anything can happen, such as a reptile evolving into a bird".

The only data I see is; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

A clear case of straw-manning.

The theory of evolution does not say that A reptile can/will evolve into A bird. Nor does it contradict the statement that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

If one wants to argue against evolution it behooves that person to argue against the actual theory and not some disingenuous misrepresentation of the theory. When done deliberately it is blatantly dishonest and probably reflects the actual paucity of arguments against the theory.

Yet in post #137, Doc is conceding my "disingenuous misrepresentation" of the theory.

I will let you two duke it out. Not my theory.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Supported by actual evidence in the fossil record that this did, in fact, happen. You obviously don't believe it happened for religious reasons (presumably because it contradicts the biblical "kinds" narrative), but there is plenty of real world evidence that it did.

No, more like the theory of evolution contradicts not only what i see in nature, but I refuse to accept this notion that mindless and blind forces (nature) can create sentient life or you can get so much order and organization from random chaos.

And there are plenty of other examples besides reptiles to birds to show that what you call "macro" evolution is a real thing. Google and the World Wide Web are wonderful inventions (or your local library or university). Check them out.

Yeah, the World Wide Web of Bio-Babble.

Unsupported by anything but a holy book prediction with no time frame. Surely you can appreciate the difference between the Evolutionist and the Christian in your example. One is basing their view on physical evidence that fits within the big puzzle of what is currently known about how life diversified on Earth, and the other is basing their view on nothing but writings from 2000+ years ago when humans knew little to nothing about how nature works.

We (believers) have our evidences, too. You reject ours, and most of us reject yours.

No robbery, fair exchange.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... vograms_06

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-bird ... -20150602/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ame-birds/

https://www.scienceofbirds.com/blog/the ... n-of-birds

https://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

All bio-babble...no disrespect to you.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why don't you just make a start and see how far you get.

Tonight, with a special lady, I will do just that

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sorry, but that's a false argument. Equivocation specifically - and a pretty obvious one.

(1) Science (nature)

(2) science - the study and explanation of nature.

Two different things.

If you don't see it

'crime'

(1) a crime

(2) investigation of it to show what happened.

I mean, as correct as you are, you missed the point.

You cant use science as a tool without a physical universe to conduct the work.

Just like you can't investigate a crime if you don't have a crime to investigate.

Now, if that explanation doesn't sit right with you, just replace 'science' with 'universe'.

There, happy now?

Also your objection to 'explaining your computer' is just the usual 'infinite regression' objection that has already been addressed, when you think about it. Just making it a particular item in our world rather than our world itself is just a way of disguising the same question that has already been addressed.

Actually, the point I am conveying is; you cant use science to explain the origin of the universe.

If there is no universe, there is no science.

Your example: If there is no crime, there is no investigation of crime.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's basically what one does with a hypothesis having absolutely no evidence to back it up

Remarkable. Because that is the same way I feel about evolution.

However you want to diminish the process in a mocking retort, the evidence stacks up and supports evolution through natural selection. It is the best explanation we have for all the accumulated data and observations regarding life on this planet. When it comes to God, no sign of anything yet.

Natural selection selects, it doesnt create. You understand the difference between the two, dont you?