YEC (was Heaven will be boring)

[Enoch2021]

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


Which Fallacy is in play here?

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......



The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.

Oh btw....

"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999

Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,


Please tell us HOW on Earth does:

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = ....................... Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG =.................... Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA =................................... STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.

This Game is OVER!!

So formally, "Scientifically"; Have it, Best Wishes (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 ) ...

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?


Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.

regards

[Enoch2021]

.

Those who've done their Homework know that the Authorized King James Version is the ONLY Standard.

According to whom? By what authority?

Is this speaking for all of Christendom (or pretending to) or just some of the tens of thousands of denominations / sect / cults / splinter groups?

Those who do their homework realize there there are MANY versions of the bible preferred by different Christian groups " and that there is not universal agreement within Christendom that any one of them is the "ONLY Standard."

The majority of the newer Translations are Demonstrably Corrupt.

I do not disagree " and question whether any translations or versions are incorrupt.

Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

Are those early bibles in use by modern Christians? Are most Christians fluent in Greek? If not, how do they know what is said in Greek bibles?

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.

Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information?

An astute reader would notice the word "detect" in my statement. Most of us realize that we cannot see air or ultraviolet light, for example, but we can detect them.

To the contrary, "gods" and their supposed actions cannot be shown to be detectable.

If biblicists wish to restrict consideration to only those things that can be seen by H. sapiens, what do they have to offer?

Biblical Faith is the exact opposite. You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith.

We'll be using the "Biblical" Definition if you don't mind.

I do not agree. In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book.

And is further DRIVEN HOME by: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Okay, let's start with the storied "resurrection." Then move on to animals conversing in human language, a star stopping over a given location, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", water magically turning into wine, and a few others.

Perhaps someone will do at Thessalonians directs " starting any time.

Is "proof" taken by religionists to mean "written in the bible" (by unidentified people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they wrote about)? If so, that may work in church but not in debate.

According to whom? By what authority?

According to me. Authority? Don't know about "Authority" but my personal research has led me to this "Rock Solid" conclusion.

Is this speaking for all of Christendom (or pretending to) or just some of the tens of thousands of denominations / sect / cults / splinter groups?

I speak for myself an no other(s).

I do not disagree " and question whether any translations or versions are incorrupt.

The AKJV is "The Standard".

ENOCH2021: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

Zzyzx: Are those early bibles in use by modern Christians?

Those are not "Bibles" sir, they are Codices from which "Modern Bibles" are derived.

Are most Christians fluent in Greek? If not, how do they know what is said in Greek bibles?

Don't have to be. If they want to check what the words mean in either Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, there are currently a number of Software Programs that do just that.

An astute reader would notice the word "detect" in my statement. Most of us realize that we cannot see air or ultraviolet light, for example, but we can detect them.

I noted it. But I felt the point should be made.

To the contrary, "gods" and their supposed actions cannot be shown to be detectable.

Factually Incorrect....I just posted "IT" again. INFORMATION/Software "INTELLIGENCE" is the Quintessential Attribute of "THE CREATOR". (There can only be "ONE" GOD...more than one is Logically Absurd).

I do not agree. In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book.

Factually Incorrect. The Holy Bible is a Historical Book. It is evaluated on the tenets of "Reliable Historical Documentation"...there isn't another BOOK/Parchment (or otherwise) on the Planet that comes within the Universal Zip Code of it's Reliability.

Okay, let's start with the storied "resurrection." Then move on to animals conversing in human language, a star stopping over a given location, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", water magically turning into wine, and a few others.

Firstly, didn't you just say: "In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book."
Pray Tell, How would I go about even attempting to answer any of your questions if you're going to dismiss it out of hand? Heads you Win Tails I Lose, eh? Must be rough!

Secondly, How on Earth can I Empirically "Prove" these? You gonna let me borrow your Time Machine? The Compelling Factor in the Matter is the Scientific Evidence of HIS EXISTENCE (SEE: Information/Software)....the Reliable Historical Documentation does the rest.

So you're saying that these Miracles defy "Natural" Explanation, right? Let me ask you something....If I raise a book over my head, did I just falsify the Law of Gravity or is it still "Intact"?

Perhaps someone will do at Thessalonians directs " starting any time.

I just posted it and posted it on the Thread with Arian where you and a number of other posters were asking for Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The CREATOR for 30 some pages. After I posted it....all there were and are: "Crickets"!

Is "proof" taken by religionists to mean "written in the bible" (by unidentified people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they wrote about)? If so, that may work in church but not in debate.

You know all to well I don't roll that way Z. The Majority of my points are based on Scientific Evidence....unless Specific Passages are queried and I have some familiarity/knowledge of the subject.

regards

[Zzyzx]

.

According to whom? By what authority?

According to me. Authority? Don't know about "Authority" but my personal research has led me to this "Rock Solid" conclusion.

In other words it is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Is this speaking for all of Christendom (or pretending to) or just some of the tens of thousands of denominations / sect / cults / splinter groups?

I speak for myself an no other(s).

Agreed. You claim that the "Authorized King James Version is the ONLY Standard" according to personal opinion (that is not shared by all of Christendom).

Are you a recognized authority or expert in the field?

I do not disagree " and question whether any translations or versions are incorrupt.

The AKJV is "The Standard".

According to your personal opinion. All of Christendom does not agree.

Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

Zzyzx: Are those early bibles in use by modern Christians?

Those are not "Bibles" sir, they are Codices from which "Modern Bibles" are derived.

The term codex (singular of codices) means "An ancient manuscript text in book form" (oxforddictionaries.com) as distinguished from scrolls.

Those documents ARE referred to bible texts "Codex Alexandrinus is one of the three earliest and most important manuscripts of the entire Bible in Greek, the others being Codex Sinaiticus, also in the British Library, and Codex Vaticanus in Rome. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredte ... xalex.html

Are most Christians fluent in Greek? If not, how do they know what is said in Greek bibles?

Don't have to be. If they want to check what the words mean in either Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, there are currently a number of Software Programs that do just that.

Do available software programs provide accurate translations and agree with one another?

Is there reason to consider such translator programs to be superior to expert human translation?

Can one assume that Christians reading their English language bibles know which words are incorrectly translated " and use translator software to find correct translations?

To the contrary, "gods" and their supposed actions cannot be shown to be detectable.

Factually Incorrect....I just posted "IT" again. INFORMATION/Software "INTELLIGENCE" is the Quintessential Attribute of "THE CREATOR". (There can only be "ONE" GOD...more than one is Logically Absurd).

Opinion noted.

I do not agree. In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book.

Factually Incorrect. The Holy Bible is a Historical Book. It is evaluated on the tenets of "Reliable Historical Documentation"...there isn't another BOOK/Parchment (or otherwise) on the Planet that comes within the Universal Zip Code of it's Reliability.

My statement is factually correct " as one who has read and understood C&A sub-forum guidelines should be aware "2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate. 4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."

Okay, let's start with the storied "resurrection." Then move on to animals conversing in human language, a star stopping over a given location, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", water magically turning into wine, and a few others.

Firstly, didn't you just say: "In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book."
Pray Tell, How would I go about even attempting to answer any of your questions if you're going to dismiss it out of hand? Heads you Win Tails I Lose, eh? Must be rough!

I do not "dismiss it out of hand" " instead ask for verification that bible tales are literally true and accurate. It would be very amateurish to attempt to use a book to prove itself true. "It must be true because it says it is" or "It must be true because it says so on two different pages" may work in church but not in debate.

Secondly, How on Earth can I Empirically "Prove" these?

You can't prove them by ANY means. So why would anyone insist they are true? Based on what " the story itself " religious fervor " gullibility? What?

The Compelling Factor in the Matter is the Scientific Evidence of HIS EXISTENCE

Opinion noted.

If I raise a book over my head, did I just falsify the Law of Gravity or is it still "Intact"?

If one raises a book overhead they demonstrate the presence of some means to overcome the effects of gravity. Airplanes do the same.

If one could raise a book without involving any counter-force (levitate it), that would appear to contradict what is known about gravity.

Perhaps someone will do at Thessalonians directs " starting any time.

I just posted it and posted it on the Thread with Arian where you and a number of other posters were asking for Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The CREATOR for 30 some pages. After I posted it....all there were and are: "Crickets"!

The lack of response may indicate that no one takes your post seriously.

Is "proof" taken by religionists to mean "written in the bible" (by unidentified people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they wrote about)? If so, that may seem compelling in church but not in debate.

You know all to well I don't roll that way Z.

That comment seems to assume that I notice or care about how you "roll." Invalid assumption. Personal characteristics of debaters are of no importance to me because I respond to ideas rather than personalities.

The Majority of my points are based on Scientific Evidence

Another poster makes the same claim. Many non-scientific people seem convinced that they possess scientific knowledge. Perhaps that comes from watching television?

[FarWanderer]

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

[ttruscott]

Hebrews 11:1

New International Version
hope

New Living Translation
hope

English Standard Version
hoped

New American Standard Bible
hoped

King James Bible
hoped

Holman Christian Standard Bible
hoped .

International Standard Version
hope

NET Bible
hope

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
hope,

etc etc etc

That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything. Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence.

Hope is real even if unproven because once it is proven it is no more hope so if you have any hopes for anything in your life, you have faith in the unproven. I never said our hope was the evidence of anything - you made that up - I said that just because our faith is unproven, it is not blind as it is based upon evidence we accept.

The evidence a Christian accepts as reliable is 1. the bible itself, 2. the life of Christ, 3. the witness of others, 4. the character changes of the reborn life and 5. the indwelling Holy Spirit....not our faith, not our belief, your straw dog with no teeth.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Hope is real even if unproven because once it is proven it is no more hope so if you have any hopes for anything in your life, you have faith in the unproven.

Is hope a reliable means of bringing about positive effects?

Some of us prefer to make positive things happen in life rather than hoping that good things will happen (perhaps through supernatural influence).

I never said our hope was the evidence of anything - you made that up - I said that just because our faith is unproven, it is not blind as it is based upon evidence we accept.

Okay. "Evidence we accept" is a key phrase. Some are willing to accept nearly anything as "evidence" while others are more restrictive regarding what to accept as basis for decisions.

The evidence a Christian accepts as reliable is

Thank you for identifying what at least some Christians accept as reliable

1. the bible itself,

How does one rationally / intelligently decide that the bible is reliable? Are they aware that it is composed of opinions and unverifiable stories written by anonymous people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they describe?

These debates and personal communication with many Christians leads me to think that many or most are NOT at all well informed about the contents OR the origin of the bible. In fact, it is not uncommon for Non-Christians to demonstrate greater understanding of both than their Christian counterparts.

Why is that?

2. the life of Christ,

Are believers aware that all that is known of the life of Jesus was written by those unidentified people who may or may not have been truthful and accurate and who may or may not have had reliable information?

3. the witness of others,

Are testimonials (witnessing) known to be reliable? Since testimonials are presented for widely varying and often contradictory positions, how can one rationally / intelligently decide which to accept as reliable?

4. the character changes of the reborn life and

Character changes occur with widely varying influences " some positive, some negative, some neutral. If one attributes changes to the influence of fairies, for example, is that assurance that it is true?

5. the indwelling Holy Spirit....not our faith, not our belief,

Some choose to base their decisions on a "feeling" that an invisible, undetectable supernatural entity "dwells within" them. However, that cannot be shown to be anything other than imagination and/or emotion. Does that constitute reliable?

your straw dog with no teeth.

Kindly identify exactly what you characterize as my "straw dog."

[Enoch2021]

.

According to whom? By what authority?

According to me. Authority? Don't know about "Authority" but my personal research has led me to this "Rock Solid" conclusion.

In other words it is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Is this speaking for all of Christendom (or pretending to) or just some of the tens of thousands of denominations / sect / cults / splinter groups?

I speak for myself an no other(s).

Agreed. You claim that the "Authorized King James Version is the ONLY Standard" according to personal opinion (that is not shared by all of Christendom).

Are you a recognized authority or expert in the field?

I do not disagree " and question whether any translations or versions are incorrupt.

The AKJV is "The Standard".

According to your personal opinion. All of Christendom does not agree.

Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus.

Zzyzx: Are those early bibles in use by modern Christians?

Those are not "Bibles" sir, they are Codices from which "Modern Bibles" are derived.

The term codex (singular of codices) means "An ancient manuscript text in book form" (oxforddictionaries.com) as distinguished from scrolls.

Those documents ARE referred to bible texts "Codex Alexandrinus is one of the three earliest and most important manuscripts of the entire Bible in Greek, the others being Codex Sinaiticus, also in the British Library, and Codex Vaticanus in Rome. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredte ... xalex.html

Are most Christians fluent in Greek? If not, how do they know what is said in Greek bibles?

Don't have to be. If they want to check what the words mean in either Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, there are currently a number of Software Programs that do just that.

Do available software programs provide accurate translations and agree with one another?

Is there reason to consider such translator programs to be superior to expert human translation?

Can one assume that Christians reading their English language bibles know which words are incorrectly translated " and use translator software to find correct translations?

To the contrary, "gods" and their supposed actions cannot be shown to be detectable.

Factually Incorrect....I just posted "IT" again. INFORMATION/Software "INTELLIGENCE" is the Quintessential Attribute of "THE CREATOR". (There can only be "ONE" GOD...more than one is Logically Absurd).

Opinion noted.

I do not agree. In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book.

Factually Incorrect. The Holy Bible is a Historical Book. It is evaluated on the tenets of "Reliable Historical Documentation"...there isn't another BOOK/Parchment (or otherwise) on the Planet that comes within the Universal Zip Code of it's Reliability.

My statement is factually correct " as one who has read and understood C&A sub-forum guidelines should be aware "2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate. 4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."

Okay, let's start with the storied "resurrection." Then move on to animals conversing in human language, a star stopping over a given location, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", water magically turning into wine, and a few others.

Firstly, didn't you just say: "In these debates the bible is regarded as no more authoritative than any other book."
Pray Tell, How would I go about even attempting to answer any of your questions if you're going to dismiss it out of hand? Heads you Win Tails I Lose, eh? Must be rough!

I do not "dismiss it out of hand" " instead ask for verification that bible tales are literally true and accurate. It would be very amateurish to attempt to use a book to prove itself true. "It must be true because it says it is" or "It must be true because it says so on two different pages" may work in church but not in debate.

Secondly, How on Earth can I Empirically "Prove" these?

You can't prove them by ANY means. So why would anyone insist they are true? Based on what " the story itself " religious fervor " gullibility? What?

The Compelling Factor in the Matter is the Scientific Evidence of HIS EXISTENCE

Opinion noted.

If I raise a book over my head, did I just falsify the Law of Gravity or is it still "Intact"?

If one raises a book overhead they demonstrate the presence of some means to overcome the effects of gravity. Airplanes do the same.

If one could raise a book without involving any counter-force (levitate it), that would appear to contradict what is known about gravity.

Perhaps someone will do at Thessalonians directs " starting any time.

I just posted it and posted it on the Thread with Arian where you and a number of other posters were asking for Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The CREATOR for 30 some pages. After I posted it....all there were and are: "Crickets"!

The lack of response may indicate that no one takes your post seriously.

Is "proof" taken by religionists to mean "written in the bible" (by unidentified people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they wrote about)? If so, that may seem compelling in church but not in debate.

You know all to well I don't roll that way Z.

That comment seems to assume that I notice or care about how you "roll." Invalid assumption. Personal characteristics of debaters are of no importance to me because I respond to ideas rather than personalities.

The Majority of my points are based on Scientific Evidence

Another poster makes the same claim. Many non-scientific people seem convinced that they possess scientific knowledge. Perhaps that comes from watching television?

In other words it is nothing more than a personal opinion. All of Christendom does not agree.

Well no, I have researched the issue in quite some depth.... so it's more than "Opinion"; as in, I can support it.
Well we in "Christendom" realize Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. We go for more "SUBSTANCE".

Are you a recognized authority or expert in the field?

Recognized by who?

Those documents ARE referred to bible texts "Codex Alexandrinus is one of the three earliest and most important manuscripts of the entire Bible in Greek, the others being Codex Sinaiticus, also in the British Library, and Codex Vaticanus in Rome.

So, just because they're "claimed" as the "Oldest" doesn't mean Jack Squat when it comes to accuracy/reliability; In Fact, that's a Fallacy....Appeal to Age:

Appeal to Age (Fallacy)--- when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html

Thanks for listing the 3 Blind Mice again...after I posted them. Can you tell me who found Codex Siniaticus...and where?

The term codex (singular of codices) means "An ancient manuscript text in book form" (oxforddictionaries.com) as distinguished from scrolls.

Astonishing. So now you won't call them "Bibles".

Is there reason to consider such translator programs to be superior to expert human translation?

Well there are nuances to Languages and other issues: (Translation/Transliteration), WORDS changing meaning over time, et al; so, it's a "Check's and Balances" sorta motif.

My statement is factually correct " as one who has read and understood C&A sub-forum guidelines should be aware "2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

I don't use it as a "Sole Source".

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."

Can you give a for instance....?

The Bible is Supported "all by itself" as Reliable Historical Documentation so a change in rules may be in order.

I do not "dismiss it out of hand" " instead ask for verification that bible tales are literally true and accurate.

Yes, you do...you more or less said it. What type of "VERIFICATION" passes the Threshold?

You can't prove them by ANY means. So why would anyone insist they are true? Based on what " the story itself " religious fervor " gullibility? What?

Yep, The Heads You Win.... Tails I Lose?

1. As I've already shown you, if you dismiss the Bible...most of recorded Ancient History goes with it.
2. I've already provided Scientific Evidence of HIS Existence. you're "Whistlin Past the Graveyard" with this.

If one raises a book overhead they demonstrate the presence of some means to overcome the effects of gravity. Airplanes do the same.

There you have it.

The lack of response may indicate that no one takes your post seriously.

rotflol, yea you bet they don't.

Many non-scientific people seem convinced that they possess scientific knowledge. Perhaps that comes from watching television?

I'm sure they do.

regards

[Enoch2021]

That would be a fallacy of false equivalence, not equivocation.

Say What? It's not even close...."You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith."

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.

Au Contraire, I beg to differ....

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

Which Zzyzx could not possibly have done, being as the only use of the word "faith" in his premises was him quoting the bible.

Say What?

Love, He said this (Zzyzx): "Thus, faith is belief without evidence. Hope is not evidence. Belief is not evidence."

The Bible Says This... (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Can you Compare and Contrast the two and show the differences....?

Ok, then there's no fallacy and, given your definition, the answer whether you can see information is "yes".

Can you show us some?

So you're claiming they are interchangeable, that DNA is software. So again, yes, you can see software.

No, Dr. Craig Ventor PhD Genetics (NIH, Celera Genomics) is claiming they're Interchangeable.

Well you can see DNA...the Physical Molecule. You can't see "Software" Love.

Practical Exercise: Please Liberate the FINV Function of Excel by investigating and extracting it from your Computer. Put it in a Jar and Paint it Red, take a picture and post it here.

And/Or, Please show us where (or the Instructions for) on DNA Proper: aminoacyl tRNA synthetase....?

Thanks

[ttruscott]

.

Hope is real even if unproven because once it is proven it is no more hope so if you have any hopes for anything in your life, you have faith in the unproven.

Is hope a reliable means of bringing about positive effects?

Who starts a project if they have absolutely no hope it will end well?

1. the bible itself,

How does one rationally / intelligently decide that the bible is reliable? Are they aware that it is composed of opinions and unverifiable stories written by anonymous people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they describe?

The Bible is evidence. The experience of that evidence starts as something bigger than ourselves, even if it is "unverifiable stories written by anonymous people", there is a depth and continuity to the stories that other books don't have. The wow factor catches the attention of many people who start to take spirituality serious after that.

But the real importance of this book is found in the witness of the Holy Spirit who claims it is His book and it says what He wants it to say.

In fact, it is not uncommon for Non-Christians to demonstrate greater understanding of both than their Christian counterparts.

Why is that?

I'm sorry I cannot answer because I have no experience of this claim being true though I hear it a lot from non-believers who are often riding a straw horse, not Christian doctrine at all.

2. the life of Christ,

Are believers aware that all that is known of the life of Jesus was written by those unidentified people who may or may not have been truthful and accurate and who may or may not have had reliable information?

Unknown to the non-believer is the witness of the Hoy Spirit within us about the truth of His life and its meaning. That is, I and others, found GOD first then decided about Christ. You are not denying that the life of Christ was a pivotal event in the human world?

3. the witness of others,

Are testimonials (witnessing) known to be reliable? Since testimonials are presented for widely varying and often contradictory positions, how can one rationally / intelligently decide which to accept as reliable?

When they coincide with my own spiritual experiences I find them to be quite reliable. Much more reliable than the so called scientific (no experiments, no replication, no falsification) squabbles based upon a math only 1% may understand, for instance.

4. the character changes of the reborn life and

Character changes occur with widely varying influences " some positive, some negative, some neutral. If one attributes changes to the influence of fairies, for example, is that assurance that it is true?

If fairies had a religious history, a book and a Messiah, who knows? Of course changes come from many places in the human psyche but mine came from the conflict between me and a spiritual force who destroyed me so I could be built back up. <shrug> The context was purely Christian so how can I deny it and suddenly attribute it to anything else, fairies included?

5. the indwelling Holy Spirit....not our faith, not our belief,

Some choose to base their decisions on a "feeling" that an invisible, undetectable supernatural entity "dwells within" them. However, that cannot be shown to be anything other than imagination and/or emotion. Does that constitute reliable?

My beginning experiences were not the same as the middle experiences which were less than the last ten years...which have proven out to me to have been highly reliable as a definition of reality and only getting stronger, not weaker since the late 70s.

your straw dog with no teeth.

Kindly identify exactly what you characterize as my "straw dog."

Fatih is blind because it has no evidentiary value.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

In other words it is nothing more than a personal opinion. All of Christendom does not agree.

Well no, I have researched the issue in quite some depth.... so it's more than "Opinion";

When one researches and forms an opinion it is . . . an opinion

as in, I can support it.

Okay, go ahead and support your opinion that the KJV is THE STANDARD in Christendom

Can you tell me who found Codex Siniaticus...and where?

Do you lack such information " or Is this a pop quiz?

In 1844 German scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf found some of the world's oldest existing biblical parchments in the monastery's library"but they were tantalizingly incomplete.
He made two more trips to St. Catherine's, and on the second, in 1859, he brokered a deal to acquire the Codex Sinaiticus for Tsar Alexander II of Russia. In 1933 the Soviet government sold the codex to the British Museum, where much of it remains.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... ne_15.html

One really should do their own research.

Recognized by who?

Anyone other than yourself " any organization " any publisher?

The term codex (singular of codices) means "An ancient manuscript text in book form" (oxforddictionaries.com) as distinguished from scrolls.

Astonishing. So now you won't call them "Bibles".

Correction: I will continue to refer to them as bibles " which is in keeping with much of Christendom " even though it does not meet with your approval.

Codex simply means in book form rather than scroll. Thus, the term can be applied to any writing of that era or other that in presented as a book. It is often prudent to learn the definitions of words.

Is there reason to consider such translator programs to be superior to expert human translation?

Well there are nuances to Languages and other issues: (Translation/Transliteration), WORDS changing meaning over time, et al; so, it's a "Check's and Balances" sorta motif.

Thus, automated translators may not be a very accurate means for Christians to determine what Greek bibles or documents mean. It seemed as though someone made a point of claiming that they could. Who was that?

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."

Can you give a for instance....?

Does "no more authoritative than any other book need further explanation? Is this a request for examples of other books? Visiting a library will provide thousands of examples of other books.

The Bible is Supported "all by itself" as Reliable Historical Documentation

That may work in church but not in debate. "It is true because it says it is " or because I think so" is an example of a logical fallacy.
Many who are indoctrinated or taught that the bible is "sacred" seem to have difficulty accepting that others do not share their opinion (and become indignant or hostile when their claims and stories are not accepted as truthful and accurate).

so a change in rules may be in order.

Changes can be suggested to Otseng, site owner and administrator, Christian, seasoned debater. Let us know how it works out.

I do not doubt that bible believers would prefer that their religion-promotion literature was regarded as authoritative or proof of truth. That policy applies in Holy Huddle and Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums (as well as in church) " but not in Christianity and Apologetics sub-forum where we debate without giving a handicap (special treatment) to adherents of any religious belief system, ideology, or theistic position.

Those who are unable to debate effectively without being given the handicap of having their preferred literature being regarded as "truth" are acknowledging that their position does not hold up in the real world.

I do not "dismiss it out of hand" " instead ask for verification that bible tales are literally true and accurate.

Yes, you do...you more or less said it.

Thank you for telling me what I think.

What type of "VERIFICATION" passes the Threshold?

I do not accept as verification opinions, conjectures, testimonials, tales, fables, myths.

Something more substantial might include multiple disconnected eyewitness reports describing such things as many "saints" arising from their graves at the time Jesus is said to have done so, and appearing among people " or the Earth stopping rotation ("sun stood still"), or animals conversing in human language.

Multiple disconnected eyewitness reports may not be compelling verification, but would be a good start.

One way to think about it would be to consider what verification you would accept in order to believe a claim that one of the thousands of other proposed gods walked on water or calmed storms by command or was born to a virgin or came back from the dead.

What would it take to convince you those claims were true? Would "He said so" or "I think so" or "I have a book that says so" be sufficient?

You can't prove them by ANY means. So why would anyone insist they are true? Based on what " the story itself " religious fervor " gullibility? What?

Yep, The Heads You Win.... Tails I Lose?
1. As I've already shown you, if you dismiss the Bible...most of recorded Ancient History goes with it.

Repeating a mistake does not make it right. There is a great deal of recorded ancient history outside the bible.

2. I've already provided Scientific Evidence of HIS Existence. you're "Whistlin Past the Graveyard" with this.

Personal opinion does not constitute scientific evidence.

If one raises a book overhead they demonstrate the presence of some means to overcome the effects of gravity. Airplanes do the same.

There you have it.

Have what?

Does lifting a book prove the existence of a creator? Is that the "scientific" evidence being presented?