The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.").

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.

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?

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

You are wrong in just about every way possible: first of all, evolution describes, solely, genetic change over successive generations. This is a confirmed, demonstrable fact; organisms change over time. We don't require an explanation of the origins of life, nor "eternal time," for that to be true and confirmed, because evolution doesn't rely upon those things. It only relies upon genes in populations changing over generations; god could have created that first cell, and the universe, and everything else, but evolution still occurs.

The contention you've made is roughly the same as if you denied gravity because we don't have an explanation for the beginning of the universe; it's a total non-sequitur.

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.

Um... no. Have you heard of anthropology and history, before?

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.

It's relevant to me: as it stands, the explanation doesn't sound like the kind of thing an all knowing creator would give, it sounds like the bare bones assessment a bunch of bronze age tribes would give if they had no idea what's actually happening.

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?

Yes: evolution describes variation in genes over successive generations. That you look different from your grandfather is down to the fact that you aren't a precise clone of him; his genes changed en route to becoming you. We can trace back that lineage through genetics and cladistics back to our apelike ancestors. Just look at human chromosome two, as it's the smoking gun in this case; this is a chromosome that humans have that is the result of two fused ape chromosomes and this is simply confirmed.

What you're essentially saying here is that change in genes occur, but that those little changes can never accumulate to the point that they would seem like big changes, and that's just absurd.

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.

I warned you about using the term kind, as kind still has no scientific definition. I'm not going to entertain any contention you make using that word.

So, you acknowledge that species change over time: can you detail the mechanism that would cause those small changes to stay within species lines and not cross them? Or are you just making things up?

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

Very slowly! Example: if you breed an animal, let's say a dog, for certain traits, and you could live for millions of years to see it happen, generation for generation. Over time, you'll never see one dog give birth to anything other than a dog, but progressively, that line of dogs begins to develop stronger hind legs, and a spinal setup more conducive to standing on two legs. Keep going, and eventually those dogs have developed the ability to stand on two legs for periods of time. Keep going, and now they're bred to be fully bipedal, with all the requisite physiological properties that would need.

Would you say that, at the end of the process, this bipedal canine with a radically different body shape, spinal column and so on, is the same dog as the one you started with, millions of years ago?

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

Bare assertions aren't arguments.

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

Bare assertions aren't evidence, and an old book claiming god was there at the beginning of the universe isn't a standard of evidence you should be accepting because then you'd be bound to accept the same claim as it's made in all religions.

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

Ah, so it's special pleading and a presupposition that what you already believe i right. Gotcha.

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.

We have empirical scientific data that shows that abiogenesis is possible. Have you not bothered researching this before you decided it was wrong?

I have now given you three such examples.

You gave me analogies made in passing in other science sources, not papers about the things you claim are real.

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?

Yes, actually; you understand that these things are constructed using a language, right? And that occasionally such language will not contain the appropriate purely scientific word necessary?

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.

Sorry, you're just wrong here: you could be exactly right that your god created all matter, and the chemicals on the earth, even life itself, and that wouldn't change the fact that biological evolution, genetic change over time, still occurs.

[Ryantology]

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?

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.

[orangebox21]

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.

You are wrong in just about every way possible: first of all, evolution describes, solely, genetic change over successive generations. This is a confirmed, demonstrable fact; organisms change over time. We don't require an explanation of the origins of life, nor "eternal time," for that to be true and confirmed, because evolution doesn't rely upon those things. It only relies upon genes in populations changing over generations; god could have created that first cell, and the universe, and everything else, but evolution still occurs.

I think the confusion is over the definition which is what I'm driving at. While I don't like the term in this situation, if you define evolution as variation within a species then I agree evolution occurs. (my contention is that this definition proposes that changes in eye color are considered evolution, is this really evolution?) If you define evolution as variation within a species directly resulting in a new species (ape to man) then no that is not demonstrable fact. Because then you're using changes in eye color (for example) as proof that a single cell organism over millions of years evolved into a human.

The contention you've made is roughly the same as if you denied gravity because we don't have an explanation for the beginning of the universe; it's a total non-sequitur.

As noted above. The question is about origin. If you claimed that all matter came into being through gravity then yes you would need to explain where gravity came from.

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.

Um... no. Have you heard of anthropology and history, before?

Anthropology and history are testimonies and you believe the accounts. There's no way to prove the accounts were documented in truth. One could always argue "people lie" or "witness testimony is unreliable", etc. You have to trust (have faith) in man's collective authority.

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.

It's relevant to me: as it stands, the explanation doesn't sound like the kind of thing an all knowing creator would give, it sounds like the bare bones assessment a bunch of bronze age tribes would give if they had no idea what's actually happening.

Sure, it may be relevant to you, but it's irrelevant to the argument.

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?

Yes: evolution describes variation in genes over successive generations. That you look different from your grandfather is down to the fact that you aren't a precise clone of him; his genes changed en route to becoming you. We can trace back that lineage through genetics and cladistics back to our apelike ancestors. Just look at human chromosome two, as it's the smoking gun in this case; this is a chromosome that humans have that is the result of two fused ape chromosomes and this is simply confirmed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ome-fusion

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.

So, you acknowledge that species change over time: can you detail the mechanism that would cause those small changes to stay within species lines and not cross them? Or are you just making things up?

"Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ecies-kind)

So I would say the mechanism that causes small changes to stay within the species is natural selection.

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

Very slowly! Example: if you breed an animal, let's say a dog, for certain traits, and you could live for millions of years to see it happen, generation for generation. Over time, you'll never see one dog give birth to anything other than a dog, but progressively, that line of dogs begins to develop stronger hind legs, and a spinal setup more conducive to standing on two legs. Keep going, and eventually those dogs have developed the ability to stand on two legs for periods of time. Keep going, and now they're bred to be fully bipedal, with all the requisite physiological properties that would need.

Would you say that, at the end of the process, this bipedal canine with a radically different body shape, spinal column and so on, is the same dog as the one you started with, millions of years ago?

No I would not. But your response proves my point. As soon as the canine started walking on 2 legs it would no longer be considered of the canine species and at that specific generation you would see a canine giving birth to a non-canine.

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

Bare assertions aren't arguments.

The law of conservation of matter is not a bare assertion. It's scientific law.

When did God say to you that he created anything?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

And how do you know he's not lying?

God cannot deny Himself. How can you know He is lying?

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.

I'll need a little more than assertion and negative bias that the Bible is a bunch of borrowed myths. Which parts are myths and where are they borrowed from?

[Esquilax]

I think the confusion is over the definition which is what I'm driving at. While I don't like the term in this situation, if you define evolution as variation within a species then I agree evolution occurs. (my contention is that this definition proposes that changes in eye color are considered evolution, is this really evolution?)

Of course a change in eye color is evolution, as evolution just means genetic change over time; that change can be- in fact, is most often- very small, but those little drips and drabs of physiological change build up, as we observe them doing in human beings. It's a slow drift, but this is the way old species become new species.

If you define evolution as variation within a species directly resulting in a new species (ape to man) then no that is not demonstrable fact. Because then you're using changes in eye color (for example) as proof that a single cell organism over millions of years evolved into a human.

Phew, I'm glad you just said that's not a demonstrable fact, I was worried you were actually going to try demonstrating it.

Again, unless you can detail a mechanism by which those small genetic changes would suddenly stop happening before they became noticeably physiologically different, then I'm going to pay attention to the vast wealth of cladistic, fossil, genetic and observable experimental data that says that new species do evolve that way. You do understand we've seen new species evolve in a lab, right? Like, actually watched it happen?

As noted above. The question is about origin. If you claimed that all matter came into being through gravity then yes you would need to explain where gravity came from.

So you're questioning abiogenesis, and yet talking about evolution. That's the problem. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, then let's do it; we've got experimental data that points toward that conclusion, but I'm not as attached to that theory as to evolution, since it's not so... immediately demonstrable as evolution is.

Anthropology and history are testimonies and you believe the accounts. There's no way to prove the accounts were documented in truth. One could always argue "people lie" or "witness testimony is unreliable", etc. You have to trust (have faith) in man's collective authority.

Yeah, in some respects. The difference is corroboration and the nature of the claims, Box: the other claims of history have a much larger wealth of cross-corroboration than biblical claims, and the claims themselves are less... magical. And the magical claims we do find, we disregard; nobody takes all of the omens and such in old Roman texts seriously, for example. And yet you're asking for a special case exemption for the bible, a historical text that makes far more fantastical claims, that are far less supported.

Sure, it may be relevant to you, but it's irrelevant to the argument.

So keep on running from the point, that's fine. It speaks volumes about the level of information you're capable of bringing to bear on it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ome-fusion

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

I never get tired of reminding you idiots that this is also on the AiG website. Does that seem like a non biased source that wouldn't disregard actual science, to you?

"Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution."

Well, leaving aside the quote from AiG I gave above, which pretty much invalidates everything they say from the get go, organisms don't just "trade genes," you silly person. Have you heard of a thing called "mutation?" You know, the process by which spontaneous changes to genes occur? The... the driving force of evolution, even in micro-evolution?

You really, really shit the bed on this one.

So I would say the mechanism that causes small changes to stay within the species is natural selection.

Natural selection selects out harmful traits, and selects for beneficial ones. Those traits, given rise by mutation, do not encounter the problem that your idiot creation frauds claim they do.

No I would not. But your response proves my point. As soon as the canine started walking on 2 legs it would no longer be considered of the canine species and at that specific generation you would see a canine giving birth to a non-canine.

Except that there wouldn't be a specific, obvious generation where that occurs, since all the changes are small and flow into one another when looked at on the evolutionary time scale. It's a gradual change, not a series of sudden jerks forward.

The law of conservation of matter is not a bare assertion. It's scientific law.

Yes, and it only applies if you can demonstrate that A: the universe is a closed system not affected by the outside and B: that laws present inside a temporal universe remain true in a non-temporal exterior. If you can't demonstrate B, then your entire claim here is a fallacy of composition.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

[Bad Writer]

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[shep]

good thread the bible is not evidence but another claim

[Minimalist]

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

[Bad Writer]

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

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