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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #208]

How much does Beethoven's Fifth Symphony weigh?

I'd typed a detailed response to the other points in this post yesterday, did a preview, then it completely vanished when I hit submit it and I can't be bothered to reproduce it all. But for the above comment, I assumed you were aware of this infamous experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

Unlike Beethoven's Fifth Symphony for which we have the score, there is no evidence that souls exist.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

"...a process requiring a very large number of generations..."

In other words..

"A couple hundred million years".

Time of the gaps, in a nut shell.

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.

Christianity in decline = more room in heaven for me

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are welcome to explain it, as I explain evolution.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and by accepting him as Lord and savior, your sins are forgiven and you are saved.

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.

Sure, according to the theory. I have a theory, too...which is that God created the heavens, the earth, the creatures, and mankind....all fully assembled.

No hundred million year process needed.

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.

I don't find the evidence for evolution to be reliable.

Dismissal.

You dismiss unreliable evidence, don't you? Well, so can I.

I buy the 2nd round

I got the tip

[We_Are_VENOM]

I have read it, and it changes nothing. I am simply responding to you, using quotes from you.

Yeah but make sure the quotes are in its proper perspective.

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.

Congratulations. Looks like you've solved the case, Columbo

I've yet to see you factually represent the ToE. If you were, we would not be having this conversation.

We are having this conversation because the good ole "you just don't understand evolution" bit is the typical go-to line by evolutionists, and they can't resist appealing to it.

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.

But it is a religion...look at you guys; defending the ToE just as any religious fanatic will defend his/her religion.

It is also a religion in the since that it explains absolute origins, just like religious folks tend to do.

You guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature, yet you accept by faith that these changes in fact occurred, and they conveniently occurred so long ago (hundreds of millions of years ago), that no one was around to witness the change...and to make matters worse, no one will be around to see the changes in the future.

All of that has the makings of a religion. You don't see the con/scam in all of this?

It is all a scam. Just like most religions. Not mines, of course.

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.

"You just don't understand evolution".

Never fails. Ever.

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.

The question is; why would birds have evolved wings in the first place? Second, sure, that is what the theory says. I don't believe it.

I do not believe in these happy coincidences in nature, nor am I buying the notion that nature even has such an ability to pull off these amazing stunts that you claim occur.

Flight did not develop. Flight was there from the very day that God created the birds..

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Gen 1:20).

Again, you shared with me your theory, and I shared with you mines.

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.

No one is denying that animals that can fly away from predators have an advantage over those that can't.

The contention is; how they came to get those cool features. You say it doesn't matter how the wings got there...and I say it does matter...because whole worldviews are shaped based upon that basis fundamental question.

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?

First off, I never said nor implied that it is a thinking process. As I keep stating, it is often times presented as if Mother Nature has a mind and is moving around intentionally causing this and that.

It is all about how the position is framed. I understand you guys are all gung ho about your religion, but lets not get carried away here.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are welcome to explain it, as I explain evolution.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and by accepting him as Lord and savior, your sins are forgiven and you are saved.

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.

Sure, according to the theory. I have a theory, too...which is that God created the heavens, the earth, the creatures, and mankind....all fully assembled.

No hundred million year process needed.

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.

I don't find the evidence for evolution to be reliable.

Dismissal.

You dismiss unreliable evidence, don't you? Well, so can I.

We rely on scientific evidence every day. The courts rely on forensic evidence all the time. You can deny it if you feel that you must.I don't expect believers to say 'Well, heck, I was getting it wrong'. As usual, I can only put the case out and let others decide who can substantiate their claims.

I would repeat what I have mentioned before: that this matter isn't germane to atheism per se, as, even if you could make a case that evolution was wrong, that wouldn't mean that 'God' was right, let alone which god. Though of course evolution undermines Genesis which doesn't hurt the atheist case, at all.

I buy the 2nd round

I got the tip

I pay the taxis.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have read it, and it changes nothing. I am simply responding to you, using quotes from you.

Yeah but make sure the quotes are in its proper perspective.

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.

Congratulations. Looks like you've solved the case, Columbo

I've yet to see you factually represent the ToE. If you were, we would not be having this conversation.

We are having this conversation because the good ole "you just don't understand evolution" bit is the typical go-to line by evolutionists, and they can't resist appealing to it.

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.

But it is a religion...look at you guys; defending the ToE just as any religious fanatic will defend his/her religion.

It is also a religion in the since that it explains absolute origins, just like religious folks tend to do.

You guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature, yet you accept by faith that these changes in fact occurred, and they conveniently occurred so long ago (hundreds of millions of years ago), that no one was around to witness the change...and to make matters worse, no one will be around to see the changes in the future.

All of that has the makings of a religion. You don't see the con/scam in all of this?

It is all a scam. Just like most religions. Not mines, of course.

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.

"You just don't understand evolution".

Never fails. Ever.

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.

The question is; why would birds have evolved wings in the first place? Second, sure, that is what the theory says. I don't believe it.

I do not believe in these happy coincidences in nature, nor am I buying the notion that nature even has such an ability to pull off these amazing stunts that you claim occur.

Flight did not develop. Flight was there from the very day that God created the birds..

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Gen 1:20).

Again, you shared with me your theory, and I shared with you mines.

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.

No one is denying that animals that can fly away from predators have an advantage over those that can't.

The contention is; how they came to get those cool features. You say it doesn't matter how the wings got there...and I say it does matter...because whole worldviews are shaped based upon that basis fundamental question.

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?

First off, I never said nor implied that it is a thinking process. As I keep stating, it is often times presented as if Mother Nature has a mind and is moving around intentionally causing this and that.

It is all about how the position is framed. I understand you guys are all gung ho about your religion, but lets not get carried away here.

We understand that you have been presenting a Faith -based denialist position. The fact is that you don't understand evolution and won't even when we explain. For example, nobody decides that evolution has to work towards a particular end, Small (micro) advantages pile up and the advantage is pushed to its' limit.

The evidence shows that process takes time, and how much time. The evidence shows that it happens. to equate science, based on verified evidence, with religion, based on a case which is losing verified evidence (or at least gaps for God) all the time, is to take two different methods of processing data and pretend they are the same.

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and by accepting him as Lord and savior, your sins are forgiven and you are saved.

Surely you've been on this site long enough to realize truth can't be put to that claim.

Sure, according to the theory. I have a theory, too...which is that God created the heavens, the earth, the creatures, and mankind....all fully assembled.

No hundred million year process needed.

Please present confirmatory data to support this contention, but keep in mind, this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative .

I don't find the evidence for evolution to be reliable.

Plenty fair. Do you maybe have a better explanation for the data?

You dismiss unreliable evidence, don't you? Well, so can I.

The risk here is in the observer thinking we've got us a faulty ability to understand the data, and concludings therefrom.

I buy the 2nd round

I got the tip

I buy the third round, get that happy high, and buy the next eight, flirt with the waitress, who's boyfriend is the bartender, get in a fight history indicates I lose, end up spending the night in jail yet again, til pretty thing bonds me out, and the only thing I can do to get her to leave me be is to eat me a plate of them dang little green peas. I'm never drinking with y'all ever again these next few days while pretty thing's mad

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #224]

But it is a religion...look at you guys; defending the ToE just as any religious fanatic will defend his/her religion.

It is also a religion in the since that it explains absolute origins, just like religious folks tend to do.

You guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature, yet you accept by faith that these changes in fact occurred, and they conveniently occurred so long ago (hundreds of millions of years ago), that no one was around to witness the change...and to make matters worse, no one will be around to see the changes in the future.

This really does sum up your view and confirm that you completely misunderstand what ToE is or how it works. ToE does NOT explain absolute origins (of life). In fact it says nothing whatsoever about how life first came to be on this planet (and certainly says nothing about how the universe came into existence). Your response to this point is usually that life could not evolve according to ToE if it didn't have an initial cause to begin with, which is perfectly correct, but ToE does not explain that cause and never has. It starts only after that event happened (by whatever means, gods included). The two are unrelated.

And what do you mean by "you guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature"? We "see" it by the fossil record which does, in fact exist. It is real, you can go to museums and universities and other places and see fossils of all kinds dating back to well before dinosaurs existed, and (crucially) we can date most of them to accuracies that are useful and constrained. The scientific process is to examine this fossil evidence as a whole and try to piece it all together, and this has been going on for a very long time now. It paints a definite picture that is consistent with ToE and forms a good part of the basis for it, along with tremendous support from the genetics work of the last 4-5 decades.

But you dismiss all of this and make the claim that this evidence doesn't exist and ToE is based purely on faith like a religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evidence for ToE is not restricted to the tiny time frame of a human lifetime so that a single human can witness it happening (as you seem to suggest, although this does happen with fast reproducers like bacteria and viruses). Are you claiming that the entire fossil record is faked, or doesn't actually exist? It is our window into the past and it is very real evidence for ToE.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #224]

But it is a religion...look at you guys; defending the ToE just as any religious fanatic will defend his/her religion.

It is also a religion in the since that it explains absolute origins, just like religious folks tend to do.

You guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature, yet you accept by faith that these changes in fact occurred, and they conveniently occurred so long ago (hundreds of millions of years ago), that no one was around to witness the change...and to make matters worse, no one will be around to see the changes in the future.

This really does sum up your view and confirm that you completely misunderstand what ToE is or how it works. ToE does NOT explain absolute origins (of life). In fact it says nothing whatsoever about how life first came to be on this planet (and certainly says nothing about how the universe came into existence). Your response to this point is usually that life could not evolve according to ToE if it didn't have an initial cause to begin with, which is perfectly correct, but ToE does not explain that cause and never has. It starts only after that event happened (by whatever means, gods included). The two are unrelated.

And what do you mean by "you guys never saw any macro-level (reptile to bird) type of changes in nature"? We "see" it by the fossil record which does, in fact exist. It is real, you can go to museums and universities and other places and see fossils of all kinds dating back to well before dinosaurs existed, and (crucially) we can date most of them to accuracies that are useful and constrained. The scientific process is to examine this fossil evidence as a whole and try to piece it all together, and this has been going on for a very long time now. It paints a definite picture that is consistent with ToE and forms a good part of the basis for it, along with tremendous support from the genetics work of the last 4-5 decades.

But you dismiss all of this and make the claim that this evidence doesn't exist and ToE is based purely on faith like a religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evidence for ToE is not restricted to the tiny time frame of a human lifetime so that a single human can witness it happening (as you seem to suggest, although this does happen with fast reproducers like bacteria and viruses). Are you claiming that the entire fossil record is faked, or doesn't actually exist? It is our window into the past and it is very real evidence for ToE.

I don't know y'all, I'm conflicted here. I think fairness indicates DrNoGods oughta wear a heavier weight glove, that DrNoGods comments don't cause undue misery on the ponents. Maybe tie one side the brain hind the back? Something, anything that'll prevent such a slaughter.

Otherwise, boy howdy.

Right or wrong, the ToE has been shown, repeatedly, to be the most compelling, fact based answer to the "problem" of species. It doesn't rely on unproven extra-special-fancy-how-do-ya-gods to do "the trick". The ToE is, today, the best explanation for the data, the voluminous volume of voluminous data, we currently possess.

[brunumb]

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.

"...a process requiring a very large number of generations..."

In other words..

"A couple hundred million years".

Time of the gaps, in a nut shell.

Builder: "It will take 10 months to build your house".
WAV: "No way. Time of the gaps. I expect to move in tomorrow".

Some people struggle to deal with reality.