The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Doubting Thomas]

Understood. That is why I gave creation as evidence.

And what evidence do you have that the universe was created? If you say the bible, you're just using circular reasoning.

[I am God]

I believe it to be far more likely things are created rather than they just happened.

More than likely only because it is in harmony with your religious view. Chemical reactions happen constantly and at random in nature. There is absolutely one happening as I type this. That's all life is... a chemical reaction. We are extremely close to proving that RNA can simply spring into being in the conditions of a pre-life Earth.

---

Do I have this right? Mutation is synonomous with chance.

I would say change not chance. Mutation equals change.

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

Those species that develop in a fashion that allows them to better survive will continue to survive. Their genetic information gets passed along. Those less capable of surviving often do not make it. Sometimes a species will simply branch in two different directions and then from there continue to evolve in two different directions. Much in the way we are related to apes. At one time we had a common ancestor. Some of us went one way... the others went another. Look at a squid and an octopus... certainly you can see they have similar characteristics.

[Bad Writer]

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".

Sure. I'm guessing that just means the atheist was either fed up with your interpretation of the Bible or he didn't know as much as he thought he did. It's definitely a cop-out remark, especially since it's way off the mark from what your were originally debating.

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.

Absolutely. If someone believes in god because they had a personal experience they believe to be metaphysical in nature, that's all fine and dandy as long as it remains just that: a personal experience.

I have some personal views of my own that I may not have evidence for, so that is exactly why I keep them to myself.

[Statler Waldorf]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

That's a claim without evidence. Oops.

[Bad Writer]

I would like to thank SW, our resident Christian Fundamentalist Apologist, for also reading this thread.

[Ryantology]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

That's a claim without evidence. Oops.

So is this. Oops.

[Statler Waldorf]

And what evidence do you have that the universe was created? If you say the bible, you're just using circular reasoning.

What evidence do you have that your senses are reliable? Do not appeal to your senses or else you’re using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that your memory is reliable? Do not appeal to memories or else you are using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that logic exists? Do not answer with a logical argument or else you are using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that your brain accurately perceives reality? Do not appeal with anything originating in your brain or else you are using circular reasoning.

You believe all of these are true and yet you cannot justify any of them without circular reasoning. How is it fair for you to do this but not fair for a Christian to rely upon the authority of scripture? Fair is fair.

---

I would like to thank SW, our resident Christian Fundamentalist Apologist, for also reading this thread.

I read it, a lot of assertions. No evidence.

---

That's a claim without evidence. Oops.

So is this. Oops.

So it that! Oops.

[Foxaèr]

I bet Waldorf Salad's mother beat him with the dumb stick a great deal.

[Statler Waldorf]

I bet Waldorf Salad's mother beat him with the dumb stick a great deal.

If I performed as badly as you all do in debate I’d be talking my opponents’ abilities up rather than down; but that is just me.

“The opposing team beat us 40-0 but they are so bad! They are just awful!”

[Minimalist]

and the good change survives to enter into another state of mutation

Poor phrasing there. There is no 'good' or 'bad,' in the process. Either a change is beneficial for the particular environment the organism finds itself in or it is not.

When our distant ancestors were climbing around in trees a mutation which allowed bi-pedalism would have done them little good. But once the trees die out do to climate change and they find themselves on a grassland such a change to bi-pedalism becomes useful in terms of increasing their field of vision. Same change. Useful in one instance and not useful in the other.

Oversimplified but there are creatards here so things have to be kept simple.