The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

The Bible would be evidence for Yahweh the same way the Lord of The Rings books are evidence for JRR Tolkien.

You're not very good at this game. The Bible would be evidence of people writing a religious text, not of there being a god. What, is the Quran evidence of Allah? Is the Book of Mormon evidence of there being those elusive Golden Plates? Intellectual honesty is needed here.

Besides, I never said you couldn't use the Bible as your evidence; I simply said that you shouldn't because, well, you and others that proceed in this manner will get laughed at. Oh, and it doesn't get you anywhere in trying to convince an atheist that there's a god.

We shouldn’t do it because it will get us laughed at?

Yes, you'll get laughed at because it's a silly tactic. See above (where I point out that the Bible is just evidence of men writing a religious text) for my reasoning. You are trying to convince us atheists that there is a god, are you not?

And that's a fallacy called argument from personal incredulity; he can't imagine it'd be any other way, so he presumes creation.

Where did he say that? He merely said he thought creation was more likely than a naturalistic explanation.

The bold says it all. The fallacy was correctly identified by Esquilax, and it still stands. You just like that he presumed creation instead of considering other possibilities or taking the honest route by saying, "I don't know enough to say anything for certain."

Stop. Read the bold in Esq's quote. If RNA can come to exist in any condition (we're talking countless variables), then it's proven.

Then what is proven?

That's a very fair and honest question. It proves that it's possible in natural conditions. Even if we don't know the original conditions of the earth when RNA first came about, we know that if there's another condition where it can, then the sky is the limit on a number of other possibilities.

It is different. Know why? Because we don't say that.

Actually Whateverist just did Toots (“please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist”). Whateverist asked him to prove a negative.

I can see why you would think that, but the claim that Whateverist was questioning was still a positive one. Orangebox positively claimed that he thinks it cannot spontaneously exist. If he's so certain of this, then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If I were to say, "I know there is no god," even though the assertion is about a negative, the claim is still positive, and I would be obliged to provide evidence of god's nonexistence or shut up.

---

What does the admittance or denial of a god have anything to do with studying or measuring these things?

I was told that denying God’s existence opened up the door to questioning all things;

---

can you point me to any well-known atheist thinkers who question any of the previously mentioned things?

A lot has been mentioned. Do you have anything specific that you need addressed? Also, who told you that denying the existence of god has anything to do with questioning all things? I'd imagine it wouldn't make a lick of difference if an atheist, a Catholic, or a Buddhist were doing science; if they performed honestly then I don't think there's anything to worry about.

...I am a Christian Theist. We live in a Universe created by a rational God who likewise created us. It makes sense for all of these things to be true in my conceptual scheme. Of course as an atheist he’s not allowed to appeal to my theistic conceptual scheme so he’s going to have to figure it out on his own.

Okay then. You're allowed to believe what you want. That's fine. Even in the face of insurmountable evidence, it is your prerogative to deny the facts and go about thinking the same way you always have. You're absolutely right that we can't appeal to your "theistic conceptual scheme" because we atheists love evidence. It's our figurative cross to bear.

I vote for the sufficiency of evidence in his argument. Anyone else agree?

You believe his circular reasoning was sufficient? It’s not surprising you are completely content when atheists use such reasoning but object (ironically in this very thread) when you think that theists are using such reasoning.

The only problem here is that you believe his reasoning was circular, but it's not surprising that you would try to find such a flaw, even if there was none to begin with. After all, we're sitting here on this thread trying to call Christians out on their own circular reasoning with the Bible. Are you sure the reason you're projecting your own insecurities isn't because you feel threatened by all this?

I believe it is the words of men.

So you claim, but your actions indicate otherwise.

...

The Bible says you know that it is the word of God. Am I going to believe it or you?

You can believe both, actually. I am honestly telling you that I don't believe the Bible to be the words of anything but men. Nothing in my words or actions should indicate otherwise (but I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to show me where I might have indicated it so that I can apologize for any such mistake).

At the same time, as the Bible is one of the things in this life that you hold to most dearly (or, if you'd rather, the words within it), you are at liberty to believe anything about it that you so desire. As you have interpreted it to mean that we already accept your god, neither I nor anyone else can take said belief away from you.

The only problem that I see is when you tell us this doctrine of yours as a knowledge claim instead of as an article of faith. You declare, "You already know the word to be true." Telling us that is going to make us a little mad because we don't feel that way, nor can we possibly, physically think that if we are indeed atheists. If you were to instead tell us, "I believe that you already know it to be true," our mutual understanding could be greatly enhanced. The former remark is meant to be incendiary, even if you don't think so (or do you?).

---

Not with regards to living beings, because we already have demonstrable, solid proof that such life evolved, which rather rattles the basis of the claim that every complex thing requires a creative agent.

---

That’s a non-sequitur; the complex system changing over time does not negate the need for a creative agent. Computer operating systems undergo mutative changes over time and yet they still require creative agents.

And that's a non-analogy. Seriously...computer operating systems? We have demonstrable proof that those were created.

You mean like this fellow?

You mean to tell me that if you want a transitional form you merely have an artist draw you a picture and then exclaim, “Voila!!!”?

Well here's an Oviraptor without feathers...Voila!

I hate to say it, but this one has got to be one of the most absurd, intellectually vapid replies that I have ever seen from you. However, I did notice that Lemon got back to you with photographic evidence of the fossils from whence these artists get their information. You can now shove your own picture up your arse.