Good reason

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Good reason

Post #1

Post by 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
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: Good reason

Post #211

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 8:35 am 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 have read it, and it changes nothing. I am simply responding to you, using quotes from you.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm 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?
Yes, and rather than asking with good faith, you make up a strawman, guess what you interlocuter was probably going to say, then summarily try to stab that strawman to death. It's fun to watch, but hardly advancing the debate.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
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've yet to see you factually represent the ToE. If you were, we would not be having this conversation.

I'm all for you presenting the ToE as it actually is and then presenting counter arguments and evidence that show something is wrong. In fact, the entire field of evolutionary biology will thank you for fixing the theory to better match the actual data.

Science moves where the data shows, unlike your constant attempts to call it 'religion' which is unmoving.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
I suggest looking up the term 'steelmanning' and give that a try.
Fine..maybe I won't.
Of course you won't. I mean, why bother to actually understand your opponents position and try to have an honest debate. Apparently making up their position and defeating that is useful in some way.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
** 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.
I already granted, for the sake of argument, that a god might have done it. I agree, that is voodoo.

The point was, it doesn't matter how the wings got there, they provide a survival advantage. Are you now debating that? You seem to keep jumping all over the place to avoid being pinned down by what the ToE is actually saying.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
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.
How much clearer can we be? It is NOT a thinking process. Feel free to provide links to scientific papers that claim it is if you want to debate it further.

You feelings of what seems to be implied are irrelevant. Why do you not get that?

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Good reason

Post #212

Post by Bradskii »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm
Yeah, for some voodoo reason, scaley hands became feathered wings.
I can't believe you've never seen a chicken...

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Good reason

Post #213

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Bradskii wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:26 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:32 pm Yeah, for some voodoo reason, scaley hands became feathered wings.
I can't believe you've never seen a chicken...
Whatever ya do, don't mention bats. We'll be here forever.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Good reason

Post #214

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:58 am Until then, dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, turtles/turtles.
You keep flogging that as if it is significant. It is not. It is completely irrelevant as an argument. The theory of evolution is consistent with what you have said and does not say otherwise. Build a new strawman to attack or, better still, say something that is actually relevant and legitimate.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Good reason

Post #215

Post by TRANSPONDER »

There certainly seems to be a problem in the failure of our opponent to understand evolution -theory. It is not a conscious process but a natural adaptation to conditions. There's also appeal to incredulity 'I can't believe that scaley claws became feathered wings'.

Until Archaeopteryx, would anyone have suspected it? Maybe they would, as soon as they examined a bird's bone - structure which shows evidence of evolution from a claw. For that matter a bat shows that the wing is supported by an elongated first finger.

And we get the harping on 'dogs from dogs, cats from cats'. Indeed, but the effect of evolutionary change within a species is supported by evidence and has been from Darwin's time. Even Creationists accept that.
The denial is refusal to credit that, given time, these changes can mount up until the critter needs a new species -name. Did we see 'Oh, we just need a lot of time, let's all have a beer'.

Yes, it does need a lot of time, and the evidence is in morphology and the fossil record just how much time it took and denial of it should be dropped and then we could all have a beer together.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Good reason

Post #216

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

brunumb wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:39 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:58 am Until then, dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, turtles/turtles.
You keep flogging that as if it is significant. It is not. It is completely irrelevant as an argument. The theory of evolution is consistent with what you have said and does not say otherwise. Build a new strawman to attack or, better still, say something that is actually relevant and legitimate.
A reptile evolving to a bird is not consistent with a dog producing a dog..and if you think it is, then we simply disagree.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Good reason

Post #217

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:19 pm There certainly seems to be a problem in the failure of our opponent to understand evolution -theory.
If I dont understand evolution (your religion), then you don't understand my religion (Christianity).

Perhaps your refusal to accept Christianity is based upon your lack of understanding of it.

Yeah, thats it.
It is not a conscious process but a natural adaptation to conditions.
Sure, whatever is needed to get those wings, apparently.
There's also appeal to incredulity 'I can't believe that scaley claws became feathered wings'.
Yeah, kind of like "I can't believe a dead and rising Savior".
Until Archaeopteryx, would anyone have suspected it? Maybe they would, as soon as they examined a bird's bone - structure which shows evidence of evolution from a claw. For that matter a bat shows that the wing is supported by an elongated first finger.
Voodoo.
And we get the harping on 'dogs from dogs, cats from cats'. Indeed, but the effect of evolutionary change within a species is supported by evidence and has been from Darwin's time. Even Creationists accept that.
The denial is refusal to credit that, given time, these changes can mount up until the critter needs a new species -name. Did we see 'Oh, we just need a lot of time, let's all have a beer'.

Yes, it does need a lot of time, and the evidence is in morphology and the fossil record just how much time it took and denial of it should be dropped and then we could all have a beer together.
Drinks on me :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Good reason

Post #218

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:05 am A reptile evolving to a bird is not consistent with a dog producing a dog..and if you think it is, then we simply disagree.
The need to change evolving ( a process requiring a very large number of generations) into producing (q process requiring just one generation) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation. I'm sure the lurkers are fully aware of what is happening here and that is all that counts. You see, it's not about you, it's all about them. Is it any wonder that Christianity is in decline, except maybe in the under-educated parts of the world.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Good reason

Post #219

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:13 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:19 pm There certainly seems to be a problem in the failure of our opponent to understand evolution -theory.
If I dont understand evolution (your religion), then you don't understand my religion (Christianity).

Perhaps your refusal to accept Christianity is based upon your lack of understanding of it.

Yeah, thats it.
You are welcome to explain it, as I explain evolution.
It is not a conscious process but a natural adaptation to conditions.
Sure, whatever is needed to get those wings, apparently.
Evidently. Insects evolved to fly, dinosaurs evolved to fly, a mammal evolved to fly and other at least evolved gliding,and even fish had a crack at it. On the other hand, penguins adapted from flying to swimming. Whatever helps them to survive.
There's also appeal to incredulity 'I can't believe that scaley claws became feathered wings'.
Yeah, kind of like "I can't believe a dead and rising Savior".
I couldn't effectively deny it, if the evidence for it was reliable, but it isn't. The evidence for evolution however, is piling up decade by decade.
Until Archaeopteryx, would anyone have suspected it? Maybe they would, as soon as they examined a bird's bone - structure which shows evidence of evolution from a claw. For that matter a bat shows that the wing is supported by an elongated first finger.
Voodoo.
Dismissal.
And we get the harping on 'dogs from dogs, cats from cats'. Indeed, but the effect of evolutionary change within a species is supported by evidence and has been from Darwin's time. Even Creationists accept that.
The denial is refusal to credit that, given time, these changes can mount up until the critter needs a new species -name. Did we see 'Oh, we just need a lot of time, let's all have a beer'.

Yes, it does need a lot of time, and the evidence is in morphology and the fossil record just how much time it took and denial of it should be dropped and then we could all have a beer together.
Drinks on me :D
[/quote]

I buy the 2nd round O:)

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Good reason

Post #220

Post by Bradskii »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:05 am
A reptile evolving to a bird is not consistent with a dog producing a dog..and if you think it is, then we simply disagree.
You forgot about the chicken already?

Post Reply