The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

Perhaps I was oversimplifiying evolution. But the concept of chance through time is how I was taught. Your quote is "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." No where in your quote are the words "natural selection". It does say that: "evolution proceeds by random chance" (and it "proceeds" through time). I think we can all agree that evolution is said to have taken time and that it happened through chance. Would "chance through time and natural selection" be a better definition? I think either way to respond to the op my "outside of scripture" evidence is creation.

So, the mutations that fuel evolution are random, in that there's nothing to guide their appearance in organisms or anything like that, but once they're actually present in a creature, that animal is exposed to a number of defined, real conditions, both in the environment and in relation to the physical form of the organism itself. There's no chance involved from that point; each change is scaffolded by the ones that came before, in terms of success or failure. Any given mutation may be random, but whether or not it aids the organism involved is not.

But I'm also interested in this claim you made that your evidence beyond the scriptures is creation: you don't feel compelled to demonstrate that there is a creation before you say that?

[Ksa]

^ I know most scriptures by heart and they all got in common the fact that they only describe the visible event horizon. These humans who wrote these scriptures, were utmost lucky that there was only one Sun, which allowed for night-time, and allowed them to see the stars. If there were 2 Suns, so that when one Sun sets the other one rises, these humans could not have seen the stars so their event horizon would have been limited to the sky and the clouds! Imagine that.

Whenever the scriptures attempt to describe anything else but the event horizon, they fail so miserably that the generations after wish it was never written down! Like the Muslims try to fix the sentence "God created the Earth in 6 days" by "God created the Earth in 6 periods" so they attempt to rescue the Qur'an by cheap means. It is a total mess, I don't wish on my worst enemy that he believe in a scripture all his life for it to be proven wrong in the end.

[Upside Down Dog]

You're not just saying that to get brownie points, are you?

lol no. It's a legitimate problem in the realm of debate.

In what way is atheist X using the Bible? If he's using it to wipe his ass, and you throw more passages at him, he's just going to use those new verses to collect the dingleberries.

Okay, all kidding aside, if there's a debate going on about how a particular verse or passage, by all means, unload with other supporting passages or counter argumentative passages. But at that point you have to admit that the argument isn't about proving god's existence, but about who's dick is bigger when quoting scripture. Am I right?

Nail on the head.

Often times, though, what I see if the atheist will say something about a verse and how that contradicts with something else and how do I reconcile it?

I'll then show them other verses, differing theology, and my reconciliation, and then the whole "the Bible is false" thing gets thrown in my face.

At that point, I'm just like "wtf whatever".

In some sense, but not the sense that's related to the OP. I feel you've been meaning to get that burden off your shoulder, and now that it's off, we can continue with the issue at hand here.

I don't care one wit if you use the Bible when arguing Bible claims. When arguing something that involves presuppositions, then we have a problem.

I think you understand what I'm saying. See above for clarification.

You're not related to our new, cool Xtian here, JacobSmooth, are you, because most theists (that I know) won't admit something like this. You're absolutely right in saying this, and I appreciate it, as I'm sure many of the atheists here do. We're not out to disprove god claims because that's not our burden to bear. I hope you tell your friends exactly that when they speak out of turn regarding what they think atheists are out to do.

lol, I've been around for awhile. I'm one of the TTA admins and have been posting there for over 2 years.

I've grown to understand and even love the atheist forums... but it has nothing to do with atheism and theism... it has everything to do with people. A person is a person. Their religion or lack there of doesn't define them. There are atheist and theist angels and there are atheist and theist jackasses... why? Because of humanity.

Anyway, about the other thing... it's the only honest approach to the subject. Anyone who says that God is physical and can be proved/disproved empirically is deluded. You can say it all day, but it's still a Penrose Triangle.

[Ksa]

^ If today I write a paper and I include the sentence "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I get 0% mark for plagiarism and get kicked out of my program. I plagiarize whom? Not the Bible, but Greek texts, and I get the mention on the paper "you didn't even copy paste it right! It's God"s" with an "s" not God!"

Job 10:10 - Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese?

Milk and curdled cheese comes from? Aristotle's book On the Generation of Animals.

GuGuGaGa! CURDLED MILK AND CURDLE CHEEZE YEEE!! GAGAGU.

[orangebox21]

Sorry Minimalist I was refering to the what was in quotation marks at the top of what you wrote not to the entire passage. I thought the following passage was your commentary on the original quote.

So now that we've cleared that up, do you get it?

Do I have this right? Mutation is synonomous with chance. So mutation (chance) occurs, then natural selection eliminates the harmful or unbeneficial chance and the good chance survives to enter into another state of mutation (chance) and this cycle occurs for millions of years (time). So if I say chance through natural selection and time is that an accurate definition?

[Duck]

If the bible 'claims' that if you do A, B, C and you will find 'X' the finding of 'X' (for over 2000 years) is then proof the bible is accurate.

If one were to closly follow the A, B, C, instructions and find nothing then the bible would have been discarded long before now.

OK, this is some of the faultiest logic it is possible to advance. Take this analogy. I claim that if you wipe your ass with silk before you go training, you will run faster. If you run faster then LO! I have proved that using silk to wipe your as speeds you up!

This, of course, is utter shite. If you do X and then Y happens this does not mean that X causes Y. If you applied this to the world then people would start thinking that not going to Church last Sunday caused an earthquake.... oh wait a minute......

If you want to prove that your A, B and C causes X then you need to conduct a study. I would suggest a double blind experiment, with a large number of subjects(people taking part), over a long time-scale. Until you have done this, it has been peer reviewed and subjected to a rigorous standard of evidence I will happily grant you your claim. And as a result I would probably become a Christian just like you!

in other news, there have been purple flying pigs spotted chasing the translucent unicorn to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Minimalist]

Drippy always imagines that he finds "x."

[orangebox21]

Perhaps I was oversimplifiying evolution. But the concept of chance through time is how I was taught. Your quote is "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." No where in your quote are the words "natural selection". It does say that: "evolution proceeds by random chance" (and it "proceeds" through time). I think we can all agree that evolution is said to have taken time and that it happened through chance. Would "chance through time and natural selection" be a better definition? I think either way to respond to the op my "outside of scripture" evidence is creation.

So, the mutations that fuel evolution are random, in that there's nothing to guide their appearance in organisms or anything like that, but once they're actually present in a creature, that animal is exposed to a number of defined, real conditions, both in the environment and in relation to the physical form of the organism itself. There's no chance involved from that point; each change is scaffolded by the ones that came before, in terms of success or failure. Any given mutation may be random, but whether or not it aids the organism involved is not.

But I'm also interested in this claim you made that your evidence beyond the scriptures is creation: you don't feel compelled to demonstrate that there is a creation before you say that?

I'm defining creation, as Simon Moon commented on, as existence. I called it creation instead. The earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, plants, etc. Everything we "percieve" through our senses. I pruposed that existence (creation) points intuitively to an intelligent designer. I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened. Simon Moon propsed that "existance is evidence of existance", that there cannot be any further deductions, conclusions, or intuitions to be drawn from that observation.

[Minimalist]

99.999999999999999999999 etc of the universe is hostile to life. That's some fucking intelligent "designer" you have there.

[Duck]

I'm defining creation, as Simon Moon commented on, as existence. I called it creation instead. The earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, plants, etc. Everything we "percieve" through our senses. I pruposed that existence (creation) points intuitively to an intelligent designer. I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened. Simon Moon propsed that "existance is evidence of existance", that there cannot be any further deductions, conclusions, or intuitions to be drawn from that observation.

Why do you think it more likely that it was all designed by something? The something that did the designing would have to be enormously complex, capable, and have massive massive resources (at least as much 'stuff' as there is in the universe as the thing had to make it all).

We have nice, neat, natural and simple explanations for how all the things we see around us, from a blade of grass to a supernova, formed. This natural explanation is far more parsimonious that a hugely complex creator thing. (the creator thing begs the question - where did it come from and what designed it? If our universe is too complex and requires a designer, the designer will need a designer and you are no further forward)

The natural explanation is simple, verified by observation, predicts things we see every day and requires no ultra-being. It is more likely to be true and frankly a much better explanation.