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

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Indeed . And to refer back to the OP (which is a long way back now) 'True' can mean (apart from being considered to be true on Faith) reliably the opinions of God, even if the writers make a few slips, Or reliable in what it records as much as any other history of the time, irrespective of what input God might have had or not.

My view is that it is Not reliable; and even where there is history (the wars with Assyria and Babylon, for example) there is a heck of a lot of spin to credit God with control of the situation.

It is a well - kept secret of course that I do not consider the gospels reliable, Acts even less so, without any historical basis other than Paul's letters and some cribs from Josephus. And Paul writes his letters to give HIS side of the story. We don't hear from his opponents. Except possibly from James, which I have a funny feeling might be an authentic missive from Jesus' brother.

The case for God (reasons to believe) seems to depend again and again on the apologetic of proving that evolution is false, leaving God as the only option and that there is no credible alternative to God making 'The universe'. That has been argued against and I'm sure we are ready to do it again, whichever line the Biible apologists want to try.

[brunumb]

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.

Typical apologist's dodge. It is clear from all your protestations that you are relying on a false and misleading representation of evolution. There was a clear distinction between the point I was making and the one DrNoGods was making. Of course it was not in your interests to acknowledge that. When one has to rely on mockery and disingenuous misinterpretation of arguments it becomes clear that there is nothing of substance forthcoming. Observers of the thread will recognise that.

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.

[brunumb]

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.

Refusing to accept compelling evidence is symptomatic of the firmly closed mind. Regurgitating false representations of that evidence or the theory of evolution itself may help explain why either cannot be accepted.

[brunumb]

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

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

Right on cue, the dodge. When one has nothing to present to back up wild claims, present a diversion instead. Very telling.

[brunumb]

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.

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

[brunumb]

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.

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

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?

Evolution is not a theory about the initial origin of living things. You do understand that, don't you? What it does is beautifully account for the variety of life and how it changed over time on this planet. There is no popping into existence of all the different species in one magical event. 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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #147]

... 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.

(underline mine)

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

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.

Evolution isn't random chaos. 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.

Yeah, the World Wide Web of Bio-Babble.

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."

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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

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?

Evolution is not a theory about the initial origin of living things. You do understand that, don't you? What it does is beautifully account for the variety of life and how it changed over time on this planet. There is no popping into existence of all the different species in one magical event. 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.

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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.



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).

Yes, evolution is a religion.