Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Star]

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

LOL are you being serious? Wow.

Whales descended from a mammal which lived on land. It was a long and gradual process, with much speciation, variation, and extinction along the way. Immediate ancestors of the first whales were already semi-aquatic themselves at that point. Immediate ancestors of today's whales are older primitive whales which are now extinct.

So no, a fox can't "turn" into a whale.

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Opening Post--I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

I love reading your opening post. Almost every religious post that I make is including this beating around the bush phrase. I am going to have to stop. Why did you pick 6000 years, I cannot figure that out. However to beat around the bush dates back to the 15th Century, in this phrase.

Butt as it hath be sayde full long agoo,
Some bete the bussh and some the byrdes take.

It's very meaning is in itself beating around the bush and was originally a first step towards the goal of achieving a successful shoot. I used to hunt a bit. Do you see my point that if we in fact had been beating around the bush we would have been proceeding with purpose towards a conclusion.

I assume and I may be incorrect that your use of the phrase here refers to people being evasive and proceeding with pursuits that are without real justification.

When we use the phrase in my area we accuse someone of the crime of being purposely evasive to the point of stealth and rudeness because they have something to hide. Clear up your sentence for me please. I feel that I can learn a lot from engaging with you but what I can repay you with eludes me.

Is it this? To prevaricate and avoid coming to the point.

Is it that people keep avoiding the dentist's chair with regard to bringing evidence for supernatural creatures.That's probably it and it would make the rest of the opening post logical?? Why 6000 years . That would be roughly when the Bible might have been written. Why did you choose this figure?

Did you beat around the bush with your list by avoiding aliens or was it just an oversight. Why is there no sci-fi like aliens or extra-terrestrials . I asked this earlier only to receive pleadings of rightful indignation from all quarters. It seemed to irk the scientific brotherhood in some way. I will not be making that mistake again, at least not today. Did you consider adding aliens to the list or was it your intention to close the list at the fictional and the Biblical . If that is the case then just say aliens are out and I have closure here. I would consider a statement that states there is a highly likely possibility of abiogenesis recurrence in the outer universe to be a belief in the supernatural. Do you want to do this on another thread? I do not want to clutter this one any more than I have already. I have made more reappearances than Colombo here, probably before your time.

[dianaiad]

.

That isn't what Dawkins said at all. He said that land animals can evolve back into animals that live entirely in the sea.. not that a fox can turn into a whale.

Do you always like misrepresenting things?

That is what I said.

• There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

There is a formal logical fallacy called: 'fallacy of the undistributed middle." It's actually one of the most recognizable fallacies, even if the folks running into it don't know what its name is. Here,
here, and here.



I think that, if any of the authors of the above articles had seen your statement:

A fox is a land animal.
A land animal turned into a whale, therefore
a fox can turn into a whale

..........they would throw out all their lovely examples and use yours.

[Provoker]

Everyone believes in something for which he has no evidence,

I agree. For example, if you twll me that your name is John, I'd believe you. I wouldn't require a drivers license, birth certificate, etc.

But if you were selling me a house, i wouldn't just blindly trust you. I'd require lots of proof that you own the property , that you are who you say you are, and that the property is as you represent it.

In general, for claims of no consequence (like your name) we do not set the burden of proof very high. But for claims of consequence, like when buying a house, we require lots of proof, unless we are gullible/credulous.

but those who believe in events which are naturally impossible, I would say that they are more gullible than faithful:-)

How do you determine whether something is "naturally impossible"? If you can imagine it in your head does that make it" possible"? Are flying leprechauns possible? Are married bachelors possible?

It is naturally impossible to break the natural laws of physics. If you believe someone who tells you that the natural laws of physics have been broken, or can be broken, then I would consider you to be gullible. There, wasn't that easy?

The faith of the bible, is not believing supernatural yarn which men have spun as a form of worship, by giving God the credit/glory for whatever takes place. The faith of the bible is believing in God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise that all nations will be blessed with everlasting world peace, brought about by a great nation of God's faithful, which has everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. Hey, it's not impossible, so it's worth believing:-)

Why do you believe the bible? Believing all the stories in the Bible as factual history seems highly consequential. Like buying a house, did you perform do diligence in analyzing whether the claims/stories were true or did you just blindly believe? How so?

One should not assume that a book is true before he reads it, and he should not believe "naturally impossible" things recorded in the book. If one wants to know if there is anything worthwhile in the bible, he will make an honest attempt to "rightly divide" scripture. For instance: Anyone who has spent some time with very religious people, knows that it is almost a natural law that they will introduce God at every possible place in any story they tell. It is a natural form of worship to give God the credit/glory for every last thing which takes place. If one reads the bible with that in mind, he might just find a very reasonable, continuous, story which is not only believable, but important. There is another factor to consider also, and that is that the Roman Emperor Contantine, had an easily provable vested interest in changing the goal of the church. He did that by legislating a set of pagan doctrines onto the church in the 4th century. The pagan orthodoxy the church was forced to accept, required the making of more doctrines to tie the pagan doctrines to scipture. With no continuity to use as context, churchmen made doctrines for which there could be no agreement, and the church became divided into thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations.
There is a very clear, reasonable, continuous, and very believable story flowing through scripture, and those who are willing to stop listening to the lying priesthood and start thinking for themselves, will find it by rightly dividing scripture.

[no evidence no belief]

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Everybody feast your eyes on the mother of all logical fallacies: the category error. Savor this moment because such succinctly put essence of complete nonsense is very hard to find.

This is what you're saying:

1) A land mammal once turned into a whale
2) A fox is a land mammal
3) Therefore a fox can turn into a whale

That's the same as saying this:

1) George Washington was born in Europe
2) Norway is in Europe
3) Therefore Washington was born in Norway

or

1) Christopher Columbus crossed the atlantic on a man-made transportation device
2) A bicycle is a man-made transportation device
3) Therefore Columbus crossed the atlantic on a bicycle

or

1) Bill O'Reilly can be seen on TV
2) MSNBC is a TV channel
3) Therefore Bill O'Reilly works at MSNBC

or

1) Organic apple pie is made entirely of naturally occurring ingredients
2) Goat's scrotum is a naturally occurring ingredient
3) Apple pie is made of goat scrotum

or

1) The word "hat" contains a vowel
2) the letter "o" is a vowel
3) The word "hat" contains the letter "o"

or

1) If you subtract 1 from any odd number (positive integer) you get an even number
2) 18 is an even number
3) If you subtract 1 from any odd number you get 18

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this statement, man, it truly made my day.

[no evidence no belief]

.

That isn't what Dawkins said at all. He said that land animals can evolve back into animals that live entirely in the sea.. not that a fox can turn into a whale.

Do you always like misrepresenting things?

That is what I said.

• There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

There is a formal logical fallacy called: 'fallacy of the undistributed middle." It's actually one of the most recognizable fallacies, even if the folks running into it don't know what its name is. Here,
here, and here.



I think that, if any of the authors of the above articles had seen your statement:

A fox is a land animal.
A land animal turned into a whale, therefore
a fox can turn into a whale

..........they would throw out all their lovely examples and use yours.

Hey Diana, I'm glad you noticed too this magnificent gem of utter absurdity. Is it called a fallacy of undistributed middle? I thought it was called a "category error". Anyway, let's bask in this moment, because something so egregiously nonsensical doesn't happen that often. We should cherish it.

[dianaiad]

Oh my the idea that I know the origin of the universe and you don't just irritates you doesn't it? Just because you don't know doesn't mean that others do not. You are not the be all and end all of knowledge my dear Peter. As for the "god did it"....you brought up that nonsense first so you will have to explain what you mean.

Moderator Warning


Personal comments such as the above are not acceptable. Address the content of the post, not the author of it.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[no evidence no belief]

re no evidence no belief Opening Post--I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

I love reading your opening post. Almost every religious post that I make is including this beating around the bush phrase. I am going to have to stop. Why did you pick 6000 years, I cannot figure that out. However to beat around the bush dates back to the 15th Century, in this phrase.

Butt as it hath be sayde full long agoo,
Some bete the bussh and some the byrdes take.

It's very meaning is in itself beating around the bush and was originally a first step towards the goal of achieving a successful shoot. I used to hunt a bit. Do you see my point that if we in fact had been beating around the bush we would have been proceeding with purpose towards a conclusion.

I assume and I may be incorrect that your use of the phrase here refers to people being evasive and proceeding with pursuits that are without real justification.

When we use the phrase in my area we accuse someone of the crime of being purposely evasive to the point of stealth and rudeness because they have something to hide. Clear up your sentence for me please. I feel that I can learn a lot from engaging with you but what I can repay you with eludes me.

Is it this? To prevaricate and avoid coming to the point.

Is it that people keep avoiding the dentist's chair with regard to bringing evidence for supernatural creatures.That's probably it and it would make the rest of the opening post logical?? Why 6000 years . That would be roughly when the Bible might have been written. Why did you choose this figure?

Did you beat around the bush with your list by avoiding aliens or was it just an oversight. Why is there no sci-fi like aliens or extra-terrestrials . I asked this earlier only to receive pleadings of rightful indignation from all quarters. It seemed to irk the scientific brotherhood in some way. I will not be making that mistake again, at least not today. Did you consider adding aliens to the list or was it your intention to close the list at the fictional and the Biblical . If that is the case then just say aliens are out and I have closure here. I would consider a statement that states there is a highly likely possibility of abiogenesis recurrence in the outer universe to be a belief in the supernatural. Do you want to do this on another thread? I do not want to clutter this one any more than I have already. I have made more reappearances than Colombo here, probably before your time.

Very briefly: There is no evidence whatsoever of contact between us and alien species. To hold belief that such contact took place is not necessarily a supernatural belief, but nonetheless an unjustified one, to which I would respond with the same requests for evidence as I do for religious claims.

Now, with regards to the notion that abiogenesis may have occurred in other places in the universe, we have no direct evidence whatsoever, and therefore we can only speculate based on tangential evidence. None of this is what I believe, this is just what I speculate:

FACT: There are hundreds of billions of hundreds of billions of stars in the universe

REASONABLE ASSUMPTION BASED ON SOME EMPIRICAL DATA: A significant minority of these stars may have planets orbiting them which may resemble the characteristics of Earth as far as presence of water, temperature, stable orbit, etc are concerned. Even if only one in 1000 stars had such a planet, we'd be talking about tens of billions of billions of earth like planets in the universe

EDUCATED GUESS: Even if abiogenesis only happens on one planet out of every 10 billion, there would be about a billion planets in the universe with life on it.

CONCLUSION: There is no direct evidence whatsoever, but based on a statistical evaluation of the known data, it is not unreasonable to speculate that it's likely for life to exist on planets other than earth.

If they put a gun to my head and said "guess whether there is life on any other planet in the universe. If you guess wrong, I'll shoot you", I'd guess that there is. But if evidence emerged demonstrating that there in fact cannot be life on any planet other than earth, I would not be too difficult to persuade.

[no evidence no belief]

.

To say that foxes can transform into whales is as absurd as saying that Spanish can evolve into Japanese. It cannot.

Again you are wrong. Spanish is not evolving into Japanese in any significant way, but there is no reason why it can't.
However, Spanish is evolving into English in many parts of the world. The same could happen to Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanglish

Spanish is not evolving into English. Spanish and English are being combined. This particular process is possible in languages, but NOT in evolutionary biology. For two different species to randomly evolve into having compatible genetic codes to the degree that they could interbreed is utterly impossible.

Maybe not completely impossible, but if you had started writing the number representing the probability of this happening when dinosaurs were around, you'd still be writing zeros today. 0.00000000000 (millions of years of writing zeros)00000001%

[no evidence no belief]

there is more evidence for precise intelligent design than accidental

The notion that the complexity of life arose accidentally or randomly is absurd. Of course that's not what happened. You are definitely winning this argument that you're having against yourself. But that's not an argument you're having against any evolutionary biologist. That's because no evolutionary biologist would EVER say that evolution is random/accidental.

I can't stress this enough: Evolution is not random. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. EvOlUtIoN Is NoT rAnDoM. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM

Do you understand?

When you say that "Intelligent design is more likely than random accident" it's as though you were saying 'The earth being flat is more likely than the earth being the shape of a 1950s telephone". NOBODY IS SAYING the earth is the shape of a 1950s telephone, and nobody is saying the complexity of life arose randomly or by accident. The earth is a globe, and the complexity of life arose through cumulative processes over billions of years through natural selection guided by the survival of the fittest.

Please stop arguing against imaginary opponents who say evolution is random, and start arguing against actual proponents of evolution - WHO SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

You are absolutely wrong. If there was or is no Intelligence designing or guiding this natural selection then it is indeed RANDOM. It is indeed chance. It is indeed blind-luck. So which is it? Oh wait a minute I get it...these molecules just decided one day to get together in just the precise manner in order to become a simple living cell....is that it?

You are confusing the origin of life (abiogenesis) - the way in which primordial replicating material came into existence, with evolution by natural selection, which is the process by which these primordial lifeforms increased exponentially in complexity and variety.

Abiogenesis does seem to be guided by nothing more than blind luck, which is not unreasonable to assume given the antropic principle (given enough opportunities, even unlikely things will eventually happen). Evolution on the other hand is NOT guided by chance, but by cumulative processes propelled by survival of the fittest.

Oh, why do I bother....