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 ... 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.

To take away the "god beings" from a religion (typically) is like trying to take the wet from the water.

Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?

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?

Oh, we are definitely in agreement there. The contention is how you believe the working brain/consciousness came to be, via the evolutionary process.

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.

I know it takes "longer". That is all part of the theory, a theory of which the motto is apparently..

"Given enough time, anything can happen."

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.

Based on the argument from intentionality. If consciousness was an emergent property of the brain, it wouldn't be possible for thoughts to be about objects which are completely independent of itself.

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.

Um, it is in fact relevant, because you can't get to the point of the evolution of life and species on earth, if you don't have ordered laws of nature (natural law).

And that is my point, on naturalism, there was no order...there was completely chaos..high entropy; which will never result in organized complexity.

You're not nearly old enough to observe microevolution

God was old enough, and he says it didn't happen that way.

But seriously, you are batting 1000 with this "time of the gaps" reasoning you keep appealing to.

.. 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.

Do we have a complete fossil record of any organism?

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.

Yet, we just found out that the universe began to exist, when the Bible has been telling us this from the jump, based on the first seven words of Genesis.

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.

Exactly, just like the English alphabet has only 24 letters, yet those letters in specific sequences, can create many different words, sentences, and paragraphs at varying lengths.

In the same way, the building blocks of DNA can produce countless different plants and animals, as you alluded to.

I'm surprised you even mentioned DNA, because that is yet another problem for your side of things...problems of which we need not get in to...for your sake, not mines

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).

Ok, so basically, what you are saying is; under the right circumstances, humans can evolve wings? After all, all that is needed is some new code which can build new body parts that didn't exist before.

You said that, not me. That is voodoo science, in my opinion.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on another person.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Though turtles have alleles, not all alleles are turtles.

Notice what's happened though, now instead of one head, you have a whole nother head. According to the whole "new information" angle, we've got new information in the form of how critters can have two heads.

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.

1+1=2

So, from the prior information state of "make one head", we have a new, and more complex information state, "naw make it two, it'll be hilarious".

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.

No. No. No.

The critter that evolved prior to the cheetah would have the ability to move. Then it's great grand young'n had a gene called "a little faster". And it's daughter's great grand son had a gene, "I wanna fetch me a gazelle", and low and behold, we have a critter than can fetch a gazelle.

Evolution ain't about trying to "get somewhere", it's about "well how bout that, here we are".

Nothing was added or created, it was already there.

Because you're not thinking on the level of the alleles, but on the speed as a result of em.

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.

That's the problem with "kinds", it's too generic and unspecific for any real analysis.

A bird is a "kind" of avid, which is a "kind" of ornithirid, which is a "kind" of diapsid reptile.

So we can see that among the birds and reptiles, there's genetic and structural similarity at the point of being reptiles, but that the birds have developed in such a way they think the tongue flicking out ain't so polite.

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.

See above example. Is a terrier a "kind" of dalmatian? Is a poodle a "kind" of bulldog? Yes to both, because "kind" is so flexible a term. Or no, because, we have eyes and a discerning mind.

Is a dalmatian a "kind" of bear? They're both "kinds" of carnivores. They're both "kinds" of mammals. Both're " kinds" of chordates. Both're "kinds" of animals.

It's a bit sad this "kinds" argument crops up so often, and across so much time.

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

Yet when we go into details, we see that there's characters by which we can place critters into like groups, and dissimilar groups, as shown above.

So it is with "micro" evolution. Are we talking truly microscopic differences, or the difference twixt a daschund and a great Dane? Here we can reasonably and logically conclude that barring a veterinarian's own intervention, those critters ain't gonna have offspring, such that by a given amount of changes in their alleles, over a given amount of time, we should expect to find that neither veterinarian, nor God himself can get em to reproduce.

They've speciated - even if there is no immediate and obvious difference in their prior forms. Still look the same, but can't reproduce for the same reasons we don't see elephants and ostriches brought together in holy matrimony (even as we reasonably expect there to have been microscopic changes).

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

I hope I've shown why some of these -ahem- kinds of comparisons miss the mark.


Here's "your argument"...

If ya really, really wanna fuss this issue, point out how scientists don't always agree on what species a critter is. Here I'm getting at how one scientist might consider one particular character, or set of characters to be sufficient for declaring a new species, and how other scientists use a different set of criteria.

You wouldn't believe the paper rustling and marker flinging such disagreements might provoke

snip, snip

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...

I was a bit, to a whole bunch harsh in trying to get you to see that you're going at this all wrong, that your argument is, frankly, an ancient ruin of illogical comparisons (such as "kinds"), and not much more'n arguments dug up that were buried long ago.

For any of it that was seen as personal, for any of it that was personal, for any of it that didn't show proper respect to you and every member of the site, I sincerely reject and pologize for such comments.

It was never my intention to besmirch your character, but to besmirch your argument, though I failed in that regard.

Snip remainder out of embarrassment at myself.

[brunumb]

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".

Classic Claytons response. I suppose if you can't argue against the facts, one strategy is to pretend the facts don't exist and distract with a little mockery.

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?

The example was merely a (wasted) attempt to illustrate how big changes can result from many little changes over a long time. In any event, the experiment you asked for has been completed by natural selection over the course of millions of years where current birds evolved from ancient reptilian ancestors. You're welcome.

[brunumb]

Exactly, just like the English alphabet has only 24 letters, yet those letters in specific sequences, can create many different words, sentences, and paragraphs at varying lengths.

Hmmm. I would like to believe that was a typo, but given the quality of the arguments you make, I'm not so sure.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #171]

Oh, we are definitely in agreement there. The contention is how you believe the working brain/consciousness came to be, via the evolutionary process.

Simple. Rudimentary nervous systems evolved into more centralized and organized ganglia, which eventually evolved into brains as more complexity in muscle movements and coordination was necessary, along with being able to respond to threats, find food, care for young, and all of that kind of thing. Animals became more complex and a higher degree of control over the various body parts drove (natural selection) the development of more complex brains, and higher levels of consciousness. What animal living today would you pick as being the simplest that possesses "consciousness." Where do you draw the line on what that entails?

Given enough time, anything can happen.

Or, more steps in the process, if the steps are at a (very) roughly fixed rate, requires more time to reach a certain level of change. Macro changes require more steps, so generally take longer. But it is counting generations that is important, not absolute time.

Based on the argument from intentionality. If consciousness was an emergent property of the brain, it wouldn't be possible for thoughts to be about objects which are completely independent of itself.

What? I had to Google that argument and found descriptions that referred to it as the Theistic argument from intentionality. There's nothing theistic about consciousness being an emergent property of a working brain. Just acceptance that a huge number of neurons coupled to memory and complex interactions between different areas of the brain can produce this overall thing we call consciousness. What other components in a human body could possibly cause consciousness? Why does it apparently vanish when we die, and where does it go in that case?

And that is my point, on naturalism, there was no order...there was completely chaos..high entropy; which will never result in organized complexity.

High entropy routinely results in local organized complexity when the whole system is considered. Crystals (eg. snowflakes) are ordered structures but their formation gives off heat to the environment which increases the entropy of the overall system. Our tiny little planet and the life forms on it are part of a much larger system that has energy going in and out constantly.

God was old enough, and he says it didn't happen that way.

Where did he say this? I wasn't aware then he'd penned his thoughts directly but only through claimed inspirations by certain humans (ie. second hand).

Do we have a complete fossil record of any organism?

We have enough to constrain the big-picture puzzle (preponderance of the evidence). It really is impressive taken as a whole.

Ok, so basically, what you are saying is; under the right circumstances, humans can evolve wings? After all, all that is needed is some new code which can build new body parts that didn't exist before.

Sure ... certain dinosaurs evolved wings (became birds), insects evolved wings, bats (mammals) evolved wings, some birds still have wings but can't fly (ostrich and others). But natural selection won't drive evolution towards wings unless there is some survival/reproduction need for that path. Look at a bat skeleton:

https://www.dkfindout.com/us/animals-an ... nside-bat/

Can you honestly look at that and not see the similarity to other mammal skeletal structures (including humans)? Wings are basically just arms that have adapted to serve another function, along with all of the other changes needed to make a flying animal. Humans don't need to fly (now anyway), so there is no reason evolution would waste effort on such a thing.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

There's been a lot of posting since I was here last. I just noted a couple of things.

The Cambrian 'explosion' is over a very long time (I recall 2 billion years but don't quote me) and was not a sudden appearance of all species or anything like that, but a proliferation of sea life starting with sponges and ending with the appearance of the first fish.

'time of the gaps' is hardly it. There is evidence for a geologically long time and a gradual evolution. God of the gaps is popping 'God' into anything that is unexplained.

Now, your point appears to accept the argument for evolution of life -forms from the genetic basis. That's a whole lot added to the pot. But you revert to the 'how did life start' question. It's a different apologetic. Accepting (it appears) evolution but saying that God had to start the basics.

There is no evidence to support that, only a gap that God is used to fill. But there is evidence that life started in the sea or water, at least. There is no life on land until after the Cambrian explosion. And that just plants. Life is about 90% water -based. Insects were water based until the Silurian to Carboniferous period., so the fossil record tells us. In between Cambrian and Silurian was Devonian - the time of the fishes.

But genetics is based on DNA and all that needs is a mix of biochemicals in water and a complex molecule to self -replicate. There's the start of 'Life'. It is at least a theoretical explanation. A god just 'does it'. And, as usual, it still has to be proves which god it is.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just read through those long posts addressing 'We are Venom's arguments. Which are pretty much the stock anti - evolutionist apologetics.

At the risk of labouring the point, even if evolution could be disproved, that would not mean that 'God' had to be the answer, and even if one could demonstrate a god, you still have to prove which one (that is, which religion and its' particular god or gods) is the right one. Never mind which sect, denomination or dogma.

We looked at the 'Cambrian explosion' and Abiogenesis and we looked at the evidence to support speciation. The argument is not that we can point to a cat turning into a cheetah before our werry eyes (they'd only say 'it's still cat -kind' anyway) let alone a butterfly turning into a mammoth or cats giving birth to dogs (which only shows that they don't understand the argument they are trying to debunk), but the geological and palaeontological evidence proves that it didn't happen the way Genesis says - all in one week and with the 'kinds' pretty much as they are.

I needn't labour the way creationism tries to deny the evidence and at the same time try to fit it into a Creationist scenario. Famously (not that they ever mention it now) it was always assumed that the dinosaurs all died in the Flood, which was actually handy support for the Flood as an explanation of the Extinction, but then they tried to adapt the evidence of Strata to the Flood scenario.

They decided which was the 'Flood deposit'. But then dinosaur tracks were found in that level and they had to put dinosaurs on the Ark, too, doubling the problem they had with feeding and mucking - out all the species. Not only dinosaurs of course but all the prehistoric species from Edophasaurus to Megatherium. Never mind that it seemed that even most fish wouldn't survive a global flood.

Over the past few decades I've seen denial of ANY kind of evolution (as proven by the pepper moth) change to acceptance of evolution within species or 'kinds' (micro' evolution) but denial of speciation (macro). Even to claiming a genetic barrier that does not of course exist in the DNA (Macro and Micro evolution are exactly the same thing).
I found it interesting that on Hamm's Ark (those Genesis apologists who say they never heard of him must know nothing of Creationist apologetics, never mind not understanding the evolutionary argument) they have a model of Pakicetus. This says, doesn't it, that his Creationist bunch have accepted that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus evolved into Basileosauris and eventually whales. And the evidence for that is lockdown proof that a land species can turn into a sea species. Proof of one is proof of all.

This led pretty quickly to adapting the evidence of evolution to Creationism, except that ALL evolution (after the Extinction) happened in about 1,000 years (1). It's amazing that they argue that 'time' is the problem with evolution but they can airily cram all evolution from the K2 event to the proto - historic into a mere 1,000 years. A wangling of the facts similar to expanding '7 days' into the (scientific) age of the universe.

I've debated this stuff over years and in the end it comes down to the same thing...no, not the resurrection ...but 'you can't change my mind' denial and God waving a magic wand to get over problems, like what they heck they all ate after the Flood. Never mid a tiny gene - pool that simply wouldn't work. Easy, God can magic it so it would.

But the problem there is...and this was great fun...if God ever does a miracle to make the Flood work, you don't need the Flood at all. An unwritten Rule seemed to appear: 'The Flood must work through natural means - God cannot do more than tiny miracles to help it work'.

Rather like Theistic evolution: ok - Evolution works and is true, but it needed God to enable it to work. This is of course what I/C actually argues - evolution happened but because irreducible complexity prevents natural speciation, God has to help it work. But Behe and co. slipped up (though nobody seems to have noticed) in making it deny that Evolution happened at all.

Sorry to ramble on, but while creationism keeps putting up problems for evolution that only exist in their own lack of understanding (amazing how they accuse the Bible -skeptics of that), the problems with their Genesis -literalist beliefs are far greater. Rather as an uncreated god is a bigger problem than the origins of cosmic stuff.

(1) I think the Genesis - time line is creation of Earth, sun and universe 8,000 B.C . Flood 4,000 BC. Which gives about 1,000 years before Egypt and Sumer start civilisation about 3,o00- 2500 BC.

[TRANSPONDER]

Had to pick this one up.

We are Venom.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...

But that is what we see time and time again. They do Not understand evolution -theory and they don't seem to Want to understand it even when it is explained to them. They prefer their 'dogs from cats', genetic barrier to speciation and 'no transitionals' nonsense.

It doesn't help the Creationist case to wink and chuckle and hint at false accusation when it is painfully clear that the accusation is is only too true,.

[benchwarmer]

It doesn't help the Creationist case to wink and chuckle and hint at false accusation when it is painfully clear that the accusation is is only too true,.

Agreed. We see the same rodeo time and again. A creationist lays out a nice strawman and is confused when it's pointed out that it is indeed a strawman. No amount of links to actual science seems to dissuade them.

It would be nice if the strawman was at least updated every now and then.