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

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #130]

It is/was implied.

That's your perception, of which I reject.

Do you have Christ?

I did. On an aside, when I said "Friend, I have everything right " it was a joke, not to be taken literally.

I understand what you said.

I don't think you do, but who am I to argue with your interpretation?

Non sequitur.

Call it what you will, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a possibility.

I need specifics, not generalizations.

Then you shouldn't read the bible I suspect

It says God will show himself to those who "earnestly" seeks him (Heb 11:6).

Which is a lie, based on those who have, for years, searched and found nothing.

I am in no position to determine who is seeking God "earnestly", and neither are you.

I am when it's me, so kindly speak only for yourself.

However, since we know that it is not God's will that anyone be left behind (2 Peter 2:9)

Well, we've already seen Heb 11:6 is a lie, we can suspect 2 Pety 2:9 is as well.
Beside that, it seems intellectually dishonest to say that what some dead man wrote about god is 'god's will'. It takes faith to believe that, as there's zero proof.
What we can see is that there are people who looked (or are still looking) and found nothing convincing, no matter what the bible says. Can you deny that?

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's your perception, of which I reject.

Reject away

I did. On an aside, when I said "Friend, I have everything right " it was a joke, not to be taken literally.

Joke or no joke, the question was relevant.

I don't think you do, but who am I to argue with your interpretation?

Nobody

Call it what you will, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a possibility.

Lets not disregard illogical arguments and try our best to make logical ones.

Then you shouldn't read the bible I suspect

Red herring.

Which is a lie, based on those who have, for years, searched and found nothing.

Well, it isnt a lie to those who searched for years and found something.

I am when it's me, so kindly speak only for yourself.

I am speaking for myself when I say "if you havent found God yet, then you havent earnestly sought him".

Well, we've already seen Heb 11:6 is a lie, we can suspect 2 Pety 2:9 is as well.

We who? Not I. Speak for yourself.

Beside that, it seems intellectually dishonest to say that what some dead man wrote about god is 'god's will'. It takes faith to believe that, as there's zero proof.

We place faith in lots of things of which we believe to be the truth.

What we can see is that there are people who looked (or are still looking) and found nothing convincing, no matter what the bible says. Can you deny that?

And there are people who've searched and found what they were looking for.

Back to "earnest" seekers, aren't we?

[brunumb]

I am speaking for myself when I say "if you havent found God yet, then you havent earnestly sought him".

Clearly brainwashing oneself is not as easy as having someone else doing it for them, particularly if they are not starting at a really young age.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I am speaking for myself when I say "if you havent found God yet, then you havent earnestly sought him".
...

And in speaking for yourself, you imply those who sought God with all their hearts and souls were not doing so "earnestly".

Which is really quite laughable, because by these debates we all are seeking this alleged "God".

Only don't it beat all, the best this omnipotent, omnicient god can do is to send us the very humans he considers so fallible, to tell us all "There he is!"

Instead of just signing up and opening up and OP, and saying, "They told ya so", we get the weak, indefensible, illogical, unconfirmable ramblings and negative accusations that are the hallmarks of Christian "apologetics".

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, ain't it? Just as we get apologetics excuses as to why God can't be proven (to a credible degree) despite all the appeals to the watchmaker, Cosmic origins and the Bible, we get excuses as to why God doesn't make it clear to everyone, collectively or individually, apart from getting a bunch of people together and whipping up a frenzy, which you can get at any rock concert, or the individual hard sell, like religions were rival energy suppliers.

It all seems these days that it isn't (as it used to be) pointing at all the evidence that proves God, but explaining away why it doesn't. But rather disproves it.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #182]

We place faith in lots of things of which we believe to be the truth.

We do. But we also place faith in wrong things, can we not?
Yes
Case in point: Heb 11:6 and Pety 2:9 as well as "...there are people who've searched and found what they were looking for."

Speak for yourself.

I did, which you seemed to have 'missed' in a quest to argue I can only surmise.

Back to "earnest" seekers, aren't we?

Are we?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

No, because again, the information on turtle heads was already there, but there was a mishap somewhere in the process.

It would be similar to, if I wanted to type the word "let", when I press the "T" key, that somehow there is a malfunction in the computer (key functions) to whereas instead of one "T", when I press the T key, it types a double T.

So, instead of typing "let", the word "lett" is produced. The information on the production of the letter T is still in there, isn't it?

Yup. In fact, it was there all along.

But depending on the sentence structure, you can still make out the context of what is being said.

"I ttried to gett intto tthe club witthoutt an i.d, but tthey wouldn'tt lett me."

Just like the sentence is kind of jacked up, but you can still get the gist of what is being said, if a turtle came out with two heads, as jacked up as it may be, you can still get the gist of what it is.

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".

It would just be a turtle with two heads, it isn't changing from a turtle to a non-turtle..is it.

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.

Which is pretty much the same thing I said, but ok.

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

Sure. It started off with no eyes...then, whether suddenly/gradually; "how about that, now we can see".

Voodoo.

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

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

So, lets see how generic "kinds" are...

If I told you that if you go into a pet store, and purchase any "kind" of snake that the store has to offer and give it to me...and once you accomplished this, I will pay you $10000000000.

Would you be concerned about how generic kinds are, or would you simply go into the store, buy a snake, give it to me, and collect the bread?

Kinds are simple...there are a feline kind, a canine kind, a snake kind, a bird kind.

Any 5 year old can tell you that.

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

That isn't science, my friend. That is religion.

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.

"...but that the birds have developed in such a way they think the tongue flicking out ain't so polite".

Religion^. That ain't what the science is telling you, that is what your religion (evolution) is telling you.

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.

Um, no. No one is disputing the fact that animals can't be broken down into sub-categories/groups.

I think "kinds" are synonymous with "genus".

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.

I agree.

So it is with "micro" evolution. Are we talking truly microscopic differences, or the difference twixt a daschund and a great Dane?

That is a great question, but I don't know how many original "kinds" of animals there were in the beginning.

There may have been various original "prototypes" of the same genus (in this case, canines) from where all of the other animals from within that genus derived from.

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).

Sure, which is why (if im not mistaken) a cheetah can't reproduce with a lion, but they are still clearly the same kind of animal, nevertheless.

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

You did? Oh, I'm sorry I missed it.

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

Cool. Let them duke it out.

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.

Oh naw, you are alright with me

My only point was; it never fails!!!

Ever.

[TRANSPONDER]

No doubt Joey K is working on a reply, Mr U R Venom, but just a couple of points.

No. Evolution does not say that a fish couldn't see and suddenly it had eyes. The evolutionary process from light sensitive blobs on the top of the head to light -trapping depressions like Octopus eyes to the ones that is common to land animals and birds (just another evolutionary link) is the evolutionary progression. And the same with the separate Insect eye from the early evo -experiments of Trilobites to the insects of the Carboniferous. To depict the evolutionary process as fish without eyes and suddenly they had them is as lacking in comprehension of evolution as the similar misunderstanding of 'a whirlwind in a junkyard'.

Oh sure., any 5 year old can tell a cat from a dog. But what about a dolphin, hey? 'Look dad..fish!' Yes? Looks like a fish but it isn't. What about an eel? 'Look dad, snake'. Snakes swim after all. No, it takes science to get all the kinds right. And it takes the Bible to classify a rodent as a bird because it can fly.

I see trying to validate 'kinds' as much as species as beside the point anyway. The evidence, fossil and morphological (there was even a fossil of a prehistoric toothed whale evolving baleen, I recall) of a land animal evolving into a whale, is just about undeniable. And once One speciation is proved in the evidence (which is good enough to stand up in a court of law just as forensic evidence at a crime scene), then all the others are validated, even if they aren't so well supported by the evidence.

This is the bottom line:
zThe evidence for micro evolution is accepted even by Creationists. The objections to 'macro' evolution (which is the same as micro but takes more time (1) are generally based on lack of understanding of evolution. Such as claiming a genetic barrier between species or the totally unrelated genetic problems of inter - species breeding.

The evidence for speciation (one 'kind' of animal evolving into another) is compelling to anyone willing to look. That validates also reptilian dinosaurs to birds (which evidence is also very strong), fish to amphibian (Tiktallik) and ape to human, (Australopithecus, notably).

I'd say that evolution is proven and Creationism has really nothing.

(1) some brilliant genius on my previous forum said that accepting 'micro' evolution but rejecting 'macro' was like accepting aircraft flights from Milwaukee to Pensacola, but denying that they could fly from Newark to Narita.

[JoeyKnothead]

Tag edits... Can't find the errors...Sorry , the post'll post...

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.

No, because again, the information on turtle heads was already there, but there was a mishap somewhere in the process.

Mishaps are what drives evolution.

On the other deal there, do this...

Hold up one finger. We'll call that "one".
Now hold up two fingers. We'll call that "two".

Now take a moment - all the time ya need - and notice how now you're aholding up twice as many fingers as before.

In every numeric or mathematics system I'm aware of, two is always more than one.

Your logic is as flawed as that injured finger I got. Luckily though, it's just the one.

It would be similar to, if I wanted to type the word "let", when I press the "T" key, that somehow there is a malfunction in the computer (key functions) to whereas instead of one "T", when I press the T key, it types a double T.

We can craft analogies to support any argument we wish, like...

Hold up one finger.
Now hold up two fingers.

See how they look like sausages.

So, instead of typing "let", the word "lett" is produced. The information on the production of the letter T is still in there, isn't it?
...snip...

You doubled the amount of t's in that wordular genome.

"I ttried to gett intto tthe club witthoutt an i.d, but tthey wouldn'tt lett me."
...snip...

With spelling like that, no wonder. I'm just funning, I see your point, but...

You've increased the amount of letters, thus the amount of wordular genetic material.

Just like the sentence is kind of jacked up, but you can still get the gist of what is being said, if a turtle came out with two heads, as jacked up as it may be, you can still get the gist of what it is.

Ah, but at some point you risk introducing all new sentences, thus all new critters as you keep adding to your sentencular genome.

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".

It would just be a turtle with two heads, it isn't changing from a turtle to a non-turtle..is it.

It'd be a turtle with twice as many heads as typical. Carrying that thought out, should this turtle reproduce and have a little two headed turtle baby, and that little two headed turtle baby got lucky at the prom, only didn't wear protection and had another little two headed turtle baby, and so on and so forth, eventually there'd be a speciation event, where two headed turtles thought they were better'n them lowly one headed turtles.

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.

Which is pretty much the same thing I said, but ok.

I guess I'd read ya wrong. My point is that speed in cheetah's was and is an ongoing genetic deal.

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

Sure. It started off with no eyes...then, whether suddenly/gradually; "how about that, now we can see".

The data suggests the ancestors of cheetahs had eyes, so your point here is moot.

Voodoo.

I don't doubt that science and voodoo looks a lot alike to folks who worship invisible, unprovable entities.

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

What I'm getting at is that cheetah's derive their incredible speed through their genes.

That didn't just wake up and decide to be the fastest animal four wheelers on the planet.

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

So, lets see how generic "kinds" are...
If I told you that if you go into a pet store, and purchase any "kind" of snake that the store has to offer and give it to me...and once you accomplished this, I will pay you $10000000000.
Would you be concerned about how generic kinds are, or would you simply go into the store, buy a snake, give it to me, and collect the bread?

I'd be concerned how come you've got all that money to spend on winning an internet debate, and ain't offering it to folks who could use it - no strings attached.

I'm firmly against the keeping of reptiles (and many other critters) outside of an educational or research setting, specifically because of the risks of new and novel diseases being loosed upon humanity.

Kinds are simple...there are a feline kind, a canine kind, a snake kind, a bird kind.
Any 5 year old can tell you that.

Many five year olds ain't had a science class.

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

That isn't science, my friend. That is religion.

That's scientists using useful terms to describe the different, as well similar, characters twixt critters.

That you consider using useful terms to describe those observed characters is a problem I can't fix for ya.

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.

"...but that the birds have developed in such a way they think the tongue flicking out ain't so polite".

Religion^. That ain't what the science is telling you, that is what your religion (evolution) is telling you.

Science is found in sound conclusions based on observer, coupled with experimentation and strong, rigorous peer review, and open to modification or correction.

Religion (in most cases) is based on the conclusion, "God did it", with no supporting observation, no supporting experimentation, and the only peer review involved is arguing "Naw, what they really meant."

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.

Um, no. No one is disputing the fact that animals can't be broken down into sub-categories/groups.

Then why all that fuss above?

I think "kinds" are synonymous with "genus".

You think it, or know it?

Where specifically in your religious training, or holy texts does it allow us to draw this conclusion?

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.

I agree.

Agreements can be good.

So it is with "micro" evolution. Are we talking truly microscopic differences, or the difference twixt a daschund and a great Dane?

That is a great question, but I don't know how many original "kinds" of animals there were in the beginning.

Which leads to the problem of what constitutes a kind, if we don't have all the kinds to examine.

There may have been various original "prototypes" of the same genus (in this case, canines) from where all of the other animals from within that genus derived from.

Where "prototypes" is indicative of evolutionary mechanisms working to "create" critters fit to niches.

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).

Sure, which is why (if im not mistaken) a cheetah can't reproduce with a lion, but they are still clearly the same kind of animal, nevertheless.

Indicating cheetah's are further genetically removed from lions, as tigers, where lions and tigers can produce viable offspring.

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

You did? Oh, I'm sorry I missed it.

More agreement.

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

Cool. Let them duke it out.

Yep, ya missed it.

... snip...
Oh naw, you are alright with me

My only point was; it never fails!!!

Ever.

It's kinda cause your arguments have been done to death and the ToE still stands as the most powerful explanation for the many and various species we find across the planet.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Sure, you have it all figured out, brunumb

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.

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.

"Over the course of millions of years..."

Time of the Gaps.