(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Irrational Wrote: [/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually there are a couple of places that claim this from within the Bible.  By your rules of evidence.... what would you accept as evidence, that someone was an eyewitness?   Not just about the bible, but about anything?

Show me what you've got.

Not that I'm expecting anything from you. All I hear is claims that I won't accept evidence.

I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Jesster Wrote: Show me what you've got.

Not that I'm expecting anything from you. All I hear is claims that I won't accept evidence.

I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

Show

The

Evidence

(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Irrational Wrote: [/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context? Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Please...not the evolution thing again, RR. PLEASE. RocketSurgeon spent a lot of time with you on this, including providing you with educational material, and inviting you to PM him if you were interested in actually learning about the field of evolutionary biology. If you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject, that's your own personal issue. It does not concern the theory of evolution in any way.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

I'm not trying to refute any scientific claims here.... I think these are bad arguments and premises.  Do you think they make good arguments against science?  I don't, and I don't assume that because I haven't personally experienced something, that it is false.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:58 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm)Jesster Wrote: Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

I'm not trying to refute any scientific claims here.... I think these are bad arguments and premises.  Do you think they make good arguments against science?  I don't, and I don't assume that because I have personally experienced something, that it is false.

Read my last two posts. Show the evidence or step away from the podium.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Irrational Wrote: [/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Can you first be clear on what you mean by "data"? Just so we're on the same page. It seems to me that you were referring to scripture as the data, which is why I said something about testing "data" rather than following data (as LadyCamus points out correctly). And also, because I fell for a moment for your word play. In science, we make hypotheses about what can be observed and test those hypotheses. And the data is used to test those hypotheses out.

So now that that is out of the way, answering your first question:
No, but you don't presume it to be true either.

As for evolution, nah, don't feel like it.

(August 16, 2016 at 10:57 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Please...not the evolution thing again, RR.  PLEASE.  RocketSurgeon spent a lot of time with you on this, including providing you with educational material, and inviting you to PM him if you were interested in actually learning about the field of evolutionary biology.   If you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject, that's your own personal issue.  It does not concern the theory of evolution in any way.

However the premise that writings and claims do not count as evidence apply right? If so, then no one has met the burden of proof, in regards to evolution, and presenting evidence to believe in it.

I do know a fair bit, about many of the claims regarding evolutionary theory, and it's many variations. This is not about that....

(August 16, 2016 at 10:56 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

Show

The

Evidence

I've been laying out the case and the evidence in several threads, too bad you have me on ignore and waste your time and talents on easy competitors.

Oh well.