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

[benchwarmer]

Just jumping in to point out the obvious straw manning going on here:

So why did birds need to fly? Let me guess, to escape predation? So why don't all of the other prey animals evolve wings then?

And then the fact that evolutionists make it seem as if nature is a thinking process...do you think evolution could care less about whether an animal gets eaten or not? No, it doesn't.

You make it seem as if evolution thinks "man, these wingless birds are taking a beating out in the wild, lets go ahead and have them evolve wings so they can better escape predators".

Of course, this is where you say "but that isn't what I am saying"....well, that is what you seem to be implying.

Instead of making up a position (and admitting in the same breath they probably aren't actually saying that), why not clarify what your interlocutors are ACTUALLY saying first?

You've been involved in evolution debates before on this site so there is no excuse for misrepresenting either the actual science or your debate opponents. Yet here you are, doing it again.

I suggest looking up the term 'steelmanning' and give that a try.



** some answers to your questions

1) Birds don't NEED to fly. You guessed wrong. Flight developed and those that developed it (for whatever reason - gee maybe even the god of wings did that) now enjoy a survival advantage over other lifeforms that can't fly. Those that survive and reproduce determine the makeup of following generations.

2) Those that understand evolution do NOT claim it is a thinking process. If you feel it is implied, you are wrong.

In short, maybe clarify first, then debate the actual position.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

Well, I hold the view that the Bible is true..so therefore..

1. God will reward those who earnestly seek him (Heb 11:6).

2. God did not reward you.

3. Therefore, you did not earnestly seek him.

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

Really? I really couldn't tell. It seems more like you guys are using these debates to strengthen your ever-so-strong disbelief.

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!"

Not at all. The Bible is clear that...

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom 1:20)

Sure, God has people of whom he sends to work on behalf of his kingdom, but the Bible is clear that before apologists open our mouths, you should already have an understanding of his existence, based on the nature of the world itself....and that you are without excuse if you don't.

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".

LOL.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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."

Or, case in point: macroevolution.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Instead of making up a position (and admitting in the same breath they probably aren't actually saying that), why not clarify what your interlocutors are ACTUALLY saying first?

You've been involved in evolution debates before on this site so there is no excuse for misrepresenting either the actual science or your debate opponents. Yet here you are, doing it again.

I suggest looking up the term 'steelmanning' and give that a try.

At some point I think it's legit to wonder if some folks are capable of escaping that creationism bubble long enough to even understand, much less learn the opposing position.

1) Birds don't NEED to fly. You guessed wrong. Flight developed and those that developed it (for whatever reason - gee maybe even the god of wings did that) now enjoy a survival advantage over other lifeforms that can't fly. Those that survive and reproduce determine the makeup of following generations.

Ostrich, kiwi, penguin, who'm I missing.

2) Those that understand evolution do NOT claim it is a thinking process. If you feel it is implied, you are wrong.

Such are the hazards in using useful terms like "selection" and such.

In short, maybe clarify first, then debate the actual position.

The certainty of being right can impede one's progress.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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'.

Voodoo science.

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.

Animal classification can get quite subjective. If someone decides to classify fish as any aquatic animal that spends all its life in the water, then to that person, a dolphin is a fish.

However, the origin of the animal itself is a different subject.

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 to me, the existence of God 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.

Voodoo science.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

Well, I hold the view that the Bible is true..so therefore..
1. God will reward those who earnestly seek him (Heb 11:6).

I challenge you to show you speak truth.

2. God did not reward you.

Kinda hard to reward someone when ya ain't there to do it.

3. Therefore, you did not earnestly seek him.

I earnestly rejected the god claims of those who're entirely incapable of showing they speak truth.

Did you earnestly seek Santa Claus?
Did you earnestly seek the Tooth Fairy?
Did you earnestly seek the Easter Bunny?
Did you earnestly seek the Wizard of Oz?
Did you earnestly seek Mother Goose?

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

Really? I really couldn't tell. It seems more like you guys are using these debates to strengthen your ever-so-strong disbelief.

Projectors will project.

I seek to ensure those who observe these debates see just how utter and profound is the theists' inability to show their god claims are truth.

My mind ain't so set in stone that when a theist can show their god claims are truth, that I wouldn't adjust my thinking accordingly.

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!"

Not at all. The Bible is clear that...

I remind all, in this section of the site the bible ain't considered authoritative .

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom 1:20)

I challenge you to show you speak truth.

Sure, God has people of whom he sends to work on behalf of his kingdom, but the Bible is clear that before apologists open our mouths, you should already have an understanding of his existence, based on the nature of the world itself....and that you are without excuse if you don't.

I challenge you to show this god of yours gives him the first tinkers dang regarding this matter.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

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".

LOL.

Agreed. I find it quite laughable when theists can only preach, and are incapable of showing they speak truth.

Then wanna debate.

What god is so proud he'd hafta threaten and cajole folks, instead of just convincing em?

The god that is purely the product of a person incapable of putting truth to their claims, that god.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Mishaps are what drives evolution.

Sure. Because according to your religion (evolution), things get better with death. Death is a good thing, apparently.

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.

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.

I guess they are evolving.

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

You catch on quick

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.

I'm just educating those who need to be educated. No charge for the lesson.

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

Well, as far as I can tell, no new sentences can be structured.

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.

Joey...pay attention...because this is important...the key point to all of this "two headed turtle" stuff is simple..

Do you know what it is?

It is STILL A TURTLE. It isn't changing to a non-turtle.

And who knows, maybe in a hundred million years the world will be crawling with two-headed turtles, but they will all be turtles.

Now, if one of the heads is a turtle, and the other head is that of a (small) bird, THEN you will have my attention.

Until then, dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, turtles/turtles.

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

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

I was speaking in general. Organisms didn't start off with eyes, did they?

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

Yeah, and...

1 Corin 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing".

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.

Tell me something I don't know.

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.

Oh, you couldn't use the money?

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.

Gotcha.

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

Well, I had a science class, and I can tell the difference.

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.

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."

And who are the peers? Those that already believe in the hocus pocus, correct? That is like preaching to the choir.

Then why all that fuss above?

Because I see no evidence that birds can, in any reasonable case, be classified as reptiles...or vice versa.

You think it, or know it?

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

Well based on what I see with my own two eyes in nature, which is supplemented by what the Bible says (kinds), kinds seem to match the classification of the biological term of genus.

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

For the third time; kind = genus.

You keep trying to push the "kinds is a vague term" narrative, I see.

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

Well, there lies the contention.

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

Okkk.

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]

Perfect example of unadulterated incredulity.

Or, a perfect example of refusing to believe something based on the lack of evidence supporting it.

Kind of the same thing you do with supernaturalism, is it not?

Why bypass that? Simple nerve systems organized into ganglia which organized into ever more complex brains (leaving out a great deal of detail of course). Human brains are the result of a whole of lot of evolutionary development, starting with simple worm brains.

So basically, simple nerve systems evolved into more complex brains over the course of a couple hundred million years or so.

Again, "Time of the gaps".

There was a long thread here some time ago on mental images and what they are, how they are produced, etc. People in the camp of "concsiousness is an emergent property of a brain" (the camp I'm in) see this as nothing but a perception created by the interactions of the various functioning items with a brain (neurons, memory, etc.). Vision is a perception created by the visual cortex operating on electrical signals from the optic nerve, which originate when light enters the lens of the eye, lands on the retina and is ultimately converted into electrical signals.

So basically, nature created a human computer...a mindless, blind process created a supercomputer (humans) with consciousness, and vision.

No, not buying it. You don't get that much complexity from a system of high entropy. I am in the "God did it" camp.

Sound is a similar perception created from pressure waves that enter the ear canal and ultimately are converted to electrical signals that the brain processes to produce the perception of sound. You can close your eyes and imagine an apple, and "see" one, because you know what an apple is and you've seen one before.

So now you have a chicken and egg problem. What came first, the brain for imagining, or the eyes for vision to make the imagining possible?

What came first, the stomach or the appetite?

What came first, the blood, or the veins?

Your theory is plagued with problems, doc.

If I ask you to image a rolangabyte what mental image do you get? Probably none, because I just made up that word. When you recall an event of the past and "see" images related to it, these come from memory where they are stored (or partially stored and reconstructed via additional stored information ... in a crude analogy to a compressed image file). There is no need to invoke divine activity to explain consciousness even if we don't know all the mechanistic details of how it works yet.

Your road to "there is no need to invoke divine activity" wasn't traveled from a "I can rule out divine activity" standpoint.

My car's pistons can't move down the road by themselves, the axles can't move down the road by themselves, but when the pistons are assembled into an engine with all of its other parts, and the axles are connected to wheels, and a transmission is connected to the engine and the axles via the appropriate mechanisms, and the car is completed, it can move down the road. Nothing about the individual components can function like a car itself, yet when assembled into a proper system the whole thing can do what the parts can't.

Trying to figure out how/why you are comparing automobile mechanics (intelligent design) to what you claim to not be intelligently designed (brains/consciousness).

False equivalency.

The brain is a very complex biological system made of many parts that work together to create consciousness, thoughts, etc. I don't see what is so unbelievable about that scenario.

All you can show is that there is a correlation between the mind and the brain, what you haven't shown is that one created the other.

Does my "soul" weigh 21 grams?

How much does Beethoven's Fifth Symphony weigh?

A huge amount of time (billions of years) passed between a "Big Bang" event and the formation of our solar system. Life may have originated elsewhere before Earth came along, but just considering life on Earth the mechanism of the Big Bang, or however the universe first came into existence, is irrelevant. We know our solar system formed some 4.6 billion years ago, and life appeared on this planet within roughly the first billion years. Any Big Bang event was billions of years in the past as far as life originating here.

Time of the Gaps

The same reason not every animal developed tusks, or venom (had to throw that one in), or scales, or 8 arms. Lots of animals can fly (birds, a mammal called a bat, insects, those giant roaches called Palmetto Bugs) and they can do it with just 2 wings (modern birds), 4 wings (dragonflys), and there are pseudo-flyers like flying squirrels and flying fish who take advantage of the ability to glide for some distance to escape predators (fish) or to get to another tree (squirrels) whether escaping a predator, or not.

But you talk as if evolution knows what it is doing...if you give wings to birds, give it to every animal.

Of course it doesn't. But if an animal has a mutation or combination of them that creates a beneficial change that helps it outsurvive and outreproduce others in its population, then it will create more offspring with those modifications and the beneficial changes will spread and can become fixed in the population as a "standard feature", simple because they are beneficial in terms of survival and therefore reproduction. There is no thinking involved ... the driving force is natural selection. If flying was not beneficial, it would have died out and never became a feature.

Ask rabbits would flying be beneficial. I bet they wouldn't mind.

[JoeyKnothead]

Mishaps are what drives evolution.

Sure. Because according to your religion (evolution), things get better with death. Death is a good thing, apparently.

That's the most ill-informed idea regarding evolutionary theory I've ever encountered in my life.

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.

I don't doubt this example eludes you.

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.

I guess they are evolving.

My point is, analogies can be constructed in ways that support our own aims.

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

You catch on quick

So then, we've settled the issue that doubling the data doubles the information.

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.

I'm just educating those who need to be educated. No charge for the lesson.

I don't see you offering anything but ignorance regarding the ToE.

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

Well, as far as I can tell, no new sentences can be structured.

Your inabilities are scattered throughout this thread.

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.

Joey...pay attention...because this is important...the key point to all of this "two headed turtle" stuff is simple..

Yet you struggle to understand that two is greater than one.

Do you know what it is?

It is STILL A TURTLE. It isn't changing to a non-turtle.

And who knows, maybe in a hundred million years the world will be crawling with two-headed turtles, but they will all be turtles.

By that time the ToE predicts speciation will have occurred.

Now, if one of the heads is a turtle, and the other head is that of a (small) bird, THEN you will have my attention.

I'm aware you struggle to maintain attention, as evidenced by your failure to understand that a two headed turtle is the result of an increase in information, not from birds.

Until then, dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, turtles/turtles.

Until such time that sufficient pressures create entirely new and unique genres, orders, Suborders, etc.

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

Your approval means nothing here.

The fact of the matter is that cheetahs are seen to have derived characters from previous forms, along with new and unique characters.

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

I was speaking in general. Organisms didn't start off with eyes, did they?

Humans don't start of with eyes, what's your point?

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

Yeah, and...
1 Corin 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing".

More empty threats.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches!

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.

Tell me something I don't know.

A lot.

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.

Oh, you couldn't use the money?

I did well in my day, coupled with a substantial medical insurance claim, and enjoy the freedoms of retirement. My biggest worry is the pretty thing making me do chores.

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.

Gotcha.

I hope you'll help spread the message.

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

Well, I had a science class, and I can tell the difference.

"A".

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.

I don't doubt that bit there has ya confused.

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."

And who are the peers? Those that already believe in the hocus pocus, correct? That is like preaching to the choir.

I don't doubt the theist, believing in hokum, considers all beliefs to be the same.

Then why all that fuss above?

Because I see no evidence that birds can, in any reasonable case, be classified as reptiles...or vice versa.

We're all aware of your limitations in this regard.

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

Well based on what I see with my own two eyes in nature, which is supplemented by what the Bible says (kinds), kinds seem to match the classification of the biological term of genus.

So then, you have nothing for us to consider beyond personal attestation and a book this section of the site doesn't consider authoritative .

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

For the third time; kind = genus.

Kind is spelled kind.

Genus is spelled genus.

You keep trying to push the "kinds is a vague term" narrative, I see.

Because it's so often used by those who push their religious " narrative", where I seek to ensure folks have an understanding of the science behind evolutionary theory, and the classifications involved in the study of biology.

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

Well, there lies the contention.

There's only contention when creationists refuse to accept sound scientific principles.

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

Okkk.

Your inability to refute the argument is noted.

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.

Might as well smile, ya can't present a cogent counter.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Instead of making up a position (and admitting in the same breath they probably aren't actually saying that), why not clarify what your interlocutors are ACTUALLY saying first?

Instead of chiming in and jumping in mid-conversation, how about going a page or two back and reading the correspondence so that when you chime in, you are more informed about the conversation in question.

I clearly stated that there was a certain implication that was given, which allowed me to say what i said....you do know what an implication is, correct?

You've been involved in evolution debates before on this site so there is no excuse for misrepresenting either the actual science or your debate opponents. Yet here you are, doing it again.

No, because you see, the great thing about the ToE is; it is flawed enough on its own merit, so I don't need to misrepresent or distort the facts to make my case stronger, I can simply tell the truth about it and leave it at that.

I suggest looking up the term 'steelmanning' and give that a try.

Fine..maybe I won't.

** some answers to your questions

1) Birds don't NEED to fly. You guessed wrong. Flight developed and those that developed it (for whatever reason - gee maybe even the god of wings did that) now enjoy a survival advantage over other lifeforms that can't fly. Those that survive and reproduce determine the makeup of following generations.

Yeah, for some voodoo reason, scaley hands became feathered wings.

Man, you evolutionists give folks of religious faiths a run for their money. LOL.

Or perhaps maybe I need to see whether the creators of the Transformers franchise got the idea from the ToE.

Clearly there is a connection.

2) Those that understand evolution do NOT claim it is a thinking process. If you feel it is implied, you are wrong.

In short, maybe clarify first, then debate the actual position.

Then proponents of the theory should frame their postion better.