(January 30, 2014 at 4:18 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: If you weren't there at creation, how do you know he was? You take him at his word for that, too, I suppose, on the basis of something else that you take his word for because you take his word for it that what you take his word for is something you can take his word for. Because you take his word for it.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "taking Him at His word." If God said He created it, then He was there when He did it.

(January 30, 2014 at 4:18 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: What you do is you take the word of the human authors of the Bible. Or, the word of voices you hear in your head that definitely can't be anything except God because you have the magical and completely fictional ability to know that your subjective experiences are messages from an external source that nobody else can detect and that this source is being truthful to you.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:19-21). I'll add that I don't use some "magical perception" or experience or "voices in my head" as an interpretation of truth. Such things cannot ultimately be trusted as truth. This is why we have the word.

(January 30, 2014 at 10:52 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: There is no chemical evolution, its just called abiogenesis. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and do not rely on one another.

Biological evolution certainly relies upon chemical evolution. Without chemical evolution there can be no biological evolution. They are a part of the same overall theory on origin. If you want to treat them separately you'll have to develop a new theory as to how the cell came into being. Empirically speaking you cannot presuppose a "cell" without explaining how it got there when speaking about origin.

(January 30, 2014 at 10:52 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: And i'm sure you have scrupulously studied every other religion in the world just to make sure.....

Do you have one for me to consider?

(January 30, 2014 at 10:52 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Faith is believing in something without evidence.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the belief of things unseen. From a philosophical perspective I don't think anyone could believe something with no evidence. I believe in the God of the Bible, but I have a bible.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:35 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: Gosh I love these idiots time and time again saying "you can't see evolution happening" or "you can't test it". Do you morons realise that if a scientific process takes an incredible amount of time, that there's no way of speeding up the said process to satisfy your stupidity?

Then it is not a scientific process but a process that takes place in your imagination. If you can't test it it's not scientific.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:35 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: We can't see the sun exploding or imploding but we still know that one day it will burn out.

This is a testable hypothesis. We can measure the sun currently and we can take those measurements to form certain predictions as to the sun's future. That's empirical. This is much different than measuring the sun today and drawing conclusions about it's origin.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:35 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: I can't watch a canyon form in real-time but we know that water and ice erosion can form such structures given sufficient amounts of time.

Also a testable hypothesis. Although showing that water and ice erosion can form a canyon does not prove that a specific canyon was formed from water and ice erosion.

(January 30, 2014 at 5:35 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: Evolution describes a slow and gradual process, of course you can't see monkeys turning in to humans in 10 minutes, because clearly you haven't read or understood evolution.

Or we've looked at the evidence, understood evolution, and rejected it based upon the evidence.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: But let's assume that you're right, for just a second: would you not therefore have to agree that the "biological evolution" component of evolution could be true independent of the other two, and has been scientifically verified to occur, regardless of the status of the others?

Only if you offer an explanation as to how the cell came into being or explain how given it is eternal time was created. No foundation, no proof. No beginning no ending.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Wow, I guess I have to be completely blunt, then: where's your proof that these people died?

The only way to prove someone existed is through a witness testimony and faith on the part of the hearer. If you won't accept this as proof it can't be proven to you. Still doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that you don't believe they did.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: My contention is that you can't call something a comprehensive explanation of a thing- in this case origins- if it only speaks to the most shallow possible details of it.

No one is arguing that the creation account is a comprehensive explanation of origins. You stated you don't believe it because it doesn't explain the how. I said the how isn't the justification of truth. How comprehensive the explanation is, is irrelevant.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Have you ever seen, say, dog breeds? Met your grandfather? You look different from him, yeah? That's evolution.

That's reproduction. So you propose that my looking different from my grandfather is scientific proof that millions of years ago humans evolved from apes?

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Here's a list of live, observed instances of evolution. And since "kind" has no definition beyond what's convenient for creationist morons, and is not an accepted scientific term...

These are examples of adaptation and adaptation is not proof of changes of species (kinds). Variation within a species yes, proof that millions of years ago apes became men no.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Now, all I have to do is wait for you to tell me that what I've provided you isn't one animal giving birth to another animal, so that we can all have confirmation of just how little you actually know about evolution, and can safely ignore you.

When you say apes evolved into men, how could this have happened apart from the reproductive process?

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, first of all, you can't prove nothing can't create something in all possible variations, and even if you could, you still believe nothing created god, so premise invalid there. And if you say he's eternal, same deal, so whatever.

It's impossible for nothing to create something. It is possible for something to be eternal and thus not created.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Second, you can't prove god exists, so there's no evidence he even claimed to have been there at the beginning of the universe, but even if you could prove he exists, he could be lying. You're likely to say god can't lie, to which I respond that he might have been lying when he claimed that, so premise invalid there.

You reject the evidence. Doesn't mean it's not there.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: Thirdly, I am now claiming, right here, that I was there at the beginning of creation and I didn't see god. Are you willing to take my word on that? No?

If your word was not a contradiction to His word I would be happy to question you about it.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:38 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's the basis of your initial argument: you presented a problem with abiogenesis, as though your inability to see around it means it can't have happened. If that wasn't what you meant, then you would have had no reason to post that problem with abiogenesis as proof of creation in the first place.

If you claim empirical science as your standard for proof and abiogenesis does not fit within that standard, that is not an argument from ignorance, it means it's time for a new theory. I can certainly imagine how it (abiogenesis) could be possible, but that's faith and I already have that.

(February 8, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:32 am)orangebox21 Wrote: For the sake of this discussion life would be the moment in the evolutionary process when chemical evolution (abiogenesis) became biological evolution. This is however different than the origin of life.

That seems to be precisely the definition of the origin of life.

Only with the presupposition of a cell. How did the cell get there? The explanation is incomplete.

(February 8, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:32 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Hydrolysis doesn't require free oxygen. Amino acids would not form in water because the moment they did hydrolysis would occur and the amino acid bonds would break.

No, amino acids are not broken down by water. Proteins will break down into constituent amino acids by hydrolysis.

Yes amino acids are broken down by water through the process of hydrolysis. Proteins breaking down into constituent amino acids by hydrolysis would also end the biological evolutionary process.

(February 8, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:32 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Need a little clarification. Some here are suggesting that life began in water. You are suggesting water was created from life.

No, you seem not to understand what 'molecular oxygen' means. It is free oxygen as O2 and O3, not the oxygen atom in water.

There was no free oxygen before there was life, either in the atmosphere or dissolved in water.

Got it. Misread what you wrote. You wrote that molecular oxygen is a product of life, not water is a product of life. Thanks.

(February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Ah, no: what I said was that the content of that specific video doesn't say what you think it says, so if you brought me a mainstream report that says what that specific video says, you'd be wrong. I asked for a specific kind of proof, and you gave me something else that, even if it was in the correct format, does not show what you've been claiming. That's not the same thing as rejecting all proof, just rejecting insufficient proof.

What I initially said:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:32 am)orangebox21 Wrote: To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

that prompted you to say:

(February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, you made all that up. Literally, you invented every word of that, and I challenge you to find a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook that even refers to stellar evolution as a necessary component of evolution as a whole, or even mentions it as a part of evolution.

is basically the same thing that was said...

in the Krauss video (although I admit crudely)...

and what Virginia Trimble said in her preface ("The basic scheme has not changed much in the 15-year span over which these pieces were first written. It leads from a hot, dense early universe, to galaxies that form stars where nuclear reactions transform the simpler, lighter elements into the heavier ones needed by chemically -based life, on to planets whose stable environments permit energy from stars to interact with molecules of gradually increasing complexity, and finally to self-replicating (living) molecules, intelligence, and the ability to modify the home planet almost beyond recognition.").

(February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: As I said, if you're going to posit something as a field of science, then what I want is a mainstream, peer reviewed work from an actual scientist that refers to it as being such. That's actually an absurdly low barrier of evidence to begin with.

I have now given you three such examples.

(February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: You're aware the word has a non-scientific meaning too, right? If I wrote a book titled "the evolution of car designs," does that mean I'm implying that cars evolve and that this is science, or rather that they change over successive generations?

And if you used that book in your graduate level Astronomy class I would be concerned.
So you propose that the term "stellar evolution" in a graduate level science course is using a non-scientific definition of the word evolution?

(February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Your finding usages of the word "evolution" in these things doesn't exactly answer any of the questions I posed, namely the more important last one; if we accept your concept here as true, would you not then have to admit that biological evolution is a confirmed fact, and is in no way hindered by the other kinds?

Biological evolution relies upon the organic material produced by the chemicals produced by stellar evolution. So unless another theory of cellular origin is proposed, biological evolution cannot be divorced from chemical and stellar evolution, nor can it be proved without it.

(February 13, 2014 at 2:19 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "taking Him at His word." If God said He created it, then He was there when He did it.

When did God say to you that he created anything? And how do you know he's not lying?

Quote:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:19-21). I'll add that I don't use some "magical perception" or experience or "voices in my head" as an interpretation of truth. Such things cannot ultimately be trusted as truth. This is why we have the word.

I don't rely on magic or experience or voices in my head. That would be crazy. I rely on a book which collects a bunch of borrowed myths, which I know is accurate because it says it is.

Orangebox implied a belief that Evolution is a theory on the origins of life: Lends more credence that AiG is his one and only resource on science.

Sorry it took so long, Stat. I enjoy replying to your walls of text so much, that I needed some time off in order to come down from my Waldorf high. Seriously though, I realize you hold no hard feelings as you would be the first to acknowledge how life can make it difficult to devote time to an internet forums sometimes, seeing as you were detained for some time recently as well. Let's get back to it, shall we?

(January 15, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Then my objections were warranted.

Your objections were childish, as are your beliefs. Belief in god: evidence is necessary. Belief in Santa: evidence is necessary.

Equivocating two things that can just as false as one another is just an unfortunate reality for you, since you wish God is real. You wish it so bad, that you start with that very premise, it would seem. You box up and packed the Bible so nice and neat, that anything outside of it that doesn't conform, you justify it or find a way to where your god can magically "poof" things into some appearance of order.

You say it yourself on many occasions: you start with the premise of god, and we start with the premise of evidence. We arrive at two very different conclusions. Why should we take your conclusion at face value? I feel like that would make anyone dishonest to go down that particular rabbit hole.

SW Wrote:Are you saying that you are not a naturalist or materialist? You believe the supernatural and the immaterial exists? Really?

This feels like a loaded question. Isn't it true that naturalists dogmatically reject anything they can't prove by some natural means? I can't say that that's what defines me. I trust everything that's proven naturally, but I can't say that there's no such thing as the supernatural either, but I also feel like that would be something impossible to prove. (I mean, proving the supernatural via the natural seems rather silly, after all.)

I think the same holds true for materialism, I would wager.

Now, what I think you get all uppity about is that you DO believe wholeheartedly in the Supernatural, and you have this notion that it somehow changes the natural laws of the universe (those laws that we assume have always been around, and that we predict will continue to work in the future). Not only does this seem highly implausible as well as an ad hoc explanation for why your Bible doesn't seem to fit with that which is established as reality, but it seems like a really desperate way to view the world. If you can trust natural laws, then you can predict the future (in a way), and you can delve deep into the past (as far as those laws allow us).

Is it true that you merely trust in the here and now, but feel like things could change according to the whims of your god? Can you prove that he has accomplished such changes in the past, not using the Bible as your evidence?

SW Wrote:How can belief in God not be evidenced as fact? Merely asserting that does not make it so. You’re welcome.

A moment of awesomeness from you. Are you sure you haven't been trolling us this entire time with this Christian fundamentalism and apologetics of yours?

SW Wrote:You mean there is no evidence that you accept for God right?

I think stating something like that would not only be outrageous on my part (a claim for which I could never produce evidence), but wholeheartedly dishonest. If I've ever led you to believe I was a strong atheist, then I apologize.

I think sufficient evidence would be for this god (or any other god) to make themselves known. A supernatural event could be making something occur (turning straw into gold, hehe) without any mechanism in place for which this could happen, i.e. willing it to happen/magic. Miracles such as the ones Jesus purportedly performed in the Bible are probably another good example. I especially think raising Lazarus from the dead, if true, would be a pretty good example of godhood to some degree.

But, Stat, do you really consider these miracles to be supernatural? Perhaps they are not (if they are real) and are really quite basic and natural to these godlike beings. Isn't "Supernatural" just a term that we historically have applied to those things for which we don't yet understand? Perhaps the bending of space and time is natural on a completely different level? Maybe you can verify for us how you feel about this.

SW Wrote:It’s not a very bold claim at all, the overwhelming majority of people agree with this claim making it rather ordinary.

Common claim =/= ordinary claim.

SW Wrote:You keep assuming I am going to accept your self-serving standards of evidence.

My bar just isn't set as low as others' when it comes to accepting certain claims.

SW Wrote:This is committing a category error between a metaphysical immaterial claim and a material claim. For some reason you seem to be laboring under the misconception that all claims are proven or supported in the same manner.

Quite right. Metaphysical can't be supported by the physical. Why do you support it the metaphysical then, in that case? There's no way to prove your claims, if this is what you believe.

SW Wrote:

Quote: There is definitely a certain kind of profundity, for instance, if I pointed out the similarity between Mormons believing in the Angel Moroni visits to Joseph Smith Jr. and the claims made by so-called alien abductees.

I am not following you here.

I think my sentence structure came out a bit strange. It looks like I was trying to compare something between different types of claims, both of which could indeed cannot be proven, even though one is of a metaphysical nature and the other involves something quite physical. The account of Joseph Smith Jr. is rife with claims of divine visits and miracles, and the stories of alien abductees are all about UFOs, aliens, and intrusive experimentation (very physical occurrences). All are based on testimony, yet none are corroborated by evidence. If Joseph Smith was indeed given Golden Plates by an angel, the first step would have been to present said plates. If abductees were indeed taken by extraterrestrials, then the first step would be for these aliens to make themselves known to a larger group of people and leave better evidence than just simple testimony.

The writings of the Bible are also testimony. The men who wrote the book claim they saw something, and then they wrote it down. How do we know that this is what happened? The first step would be for Yahweh to make it known to us nowadays that all this has indeed transpired. The angel Moroni who visited Joseph Smith needs to come back and show us his Golden Plates. The aliens need to meet with our world leaders.

good thread the bible is not evidence but another claim

The bible is multiple claims and none of them have any substance.

(February 23, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The bible is multiple claims and none of them have any substance.

Yes they do, and they're all the consistency of cow manure.