The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[WesOlsen]

Mark 16:9-20 is not original and therefore is not inspired. Nice try though.

and

God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy

Last time I checked the bible was penned by a bunch of scribes commissioned by Jewish tribal elders, and a bunch of Jesus cheerleaders. I didn't realise god authored the whole thing. Either way, it's not objective history.

Archaeopteryx is considered by most to be a type of bird based on phylogenic comparisons and not a feathered dinosaur.

No, it's an early bird that is considered by most to be a transitional species between feathered dinosaurs and early birds.

Feduccia cautions against using such fossils as evidence for feathered dinosaurs in his article, “Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence” published in the Journal of Morphology. He points out that all of these fossils come from a similar region of China known for fossil hoaxes. The fossils are never authenticated by any Western scientists so accepting them upon face value is not wise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia_deserti - Here's some western scientists knocking around in Mongolia with a feathered dinosaur

Hardly. It’s just shocking how little evidence you will accept when it supposedly supports something you want to be true. I am not sure why it’s surprising, I should know better by now.

Waldorf, are we to take it that you value evidence despite your wildy inconsistent standards? A piece of religious propaganda (which most historians view with rational skepticism) constitutes direct evidence of authorship from god himself, for you.

The Bible would be evidence of people writing a religious text, not of there being a god.

Why?

Pen to paper (ink to parchment?) there are no known examples of any other written works coming in to being unless directly penned by human hands on to a suitable surface. If you've found some evidence to the contrary then by all means feel free to share it with us.

What, is the Quran evidence of Allah?

Is the Book of Mormon evidence of there being those elusive Golden Plates?

Nope because it is self-contradictory.

Can you just remind us all who was present at the tomb of Jesus when it was found empty, and whether or not a giant flying and talking cross came whizzing out of the tomb?

That’s still a fallacious appeal to consequence. As long as I am right I do not care what the consequences are.

Just as well you're not right then

How does doing something in the laboratory prove it can happen outside of the laboratory?

If you can replicate natural conditions in a laboratory setting then it's not incorrect to posit that such a reaction could take place outside of the artifical lab setting. Even if you can't replicate entirely the predicted natural conditions, you can show that a process can take place given certain conditions which means that they may be able to take place under other conditions as well. A chemistry/physics framework is handy for predicting such potential. It's a far more developed theoretical framework than your god of the gaps theory, which can't be replicated, tested, measured or limited under any conditions, laboratory or otherwise.

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.

Atheists really do live by faith.

No comparison whatsoever, certainty in a number of given variables conforming to a certain pattern given the correct environment and sufficient time is not faith, it's a statistical likelihood, especially when we can accurately whittle the number of known ingredients down quite well. This in no way compares to faith in a deity which is based on completely insufficient evidence, no theoretical framework and no mathematics. If christians could even agree on any number of variables you could try making a start, but as it is you can't even reach your own consensus. You know nothing about RNA.

Yes, and that’s you. He is not claiming that RNA can spontaneously generate, that is all yours.

There is more evidence for RNA forming under natural conditions, as stated above, than there is for an ill-defined deity creating matter where there was formerly no matter. Scientistis are constantly meeting their burden to progress and demonstrate. Christians on the other hand..........

Insurmountable evidence? You have evidence that God does not exist? I am not even sure how that is possible. Please present said evidence.

We have evidence that a great number of processes take place in spite of god, not because of him, this at least cuts a magic god finger out of many equations if nothing else....

Appealing to your senses to justify the reliability of your senses is not circular? Appealing to your memory in order to justify the reliability of your memory is not circular? I think you need to learn your terms.

Urgh, we've already gone over this one, different senses can corroborate an experience, external agents can also corrorborate an experience. If you want to transcend Solopsism entirely and posit that not even your own mind is certain, then this is all fine and dandy, but it completely whipes out anything you claim to be true, because the same rules would apply to your brain. In fact, given the content of your retorts, i'd say there is serious concern that your brain is indeed not functioning particularly well.

By assuming there are regularities in nature that will continue into the future; more precisely by claiming that we can reason from specific instances to general claims. This would not be possible without the God of scripture existing and yet you seem to believe this is possible.

What?

If someone who knows everything and who cannot lie tells you something then it’s not faith, it’s knowledge.

Something that you severely lack

I did not declare that, scripture did. There’s no reason to get upset, if you know I am wrong that is. I am just not going to disbelief scripture based upon what a couple atheists tell me. It’d be like if your dad told you never to play cards with gypsies because they’ll deceive you and you go and play cards with them because they told you that your dad was wrong. Seems rather foolish.

which scripture? They're all full of contradictions and ridiculous claims. Scripture was penned by humans.

Are you really going to argue that if we did not have such proof we’d have to conclude that Windows 8 is the result of natural processes or the expansion from a singularity 13.7 Billion years ago? Seriously?
I’ve never met the creator(s) of Windows 8 and yet I can infer that they exist from the product they created.

Oh god not this one again. We can infer that a computer program is written because we are saturated with external evidence for such processes. We are familiar with microsoft, we may even know someone who programs computers personally (a real personal relationship). If we're going to liken computer code to human code then these are not reasonable comparisons. DNA is not language because it does not follow a power law, it is cypher. There is no reason to suspect a human was programmed because we cannot witness the programming process, replicate it, modify it etc. Comparing Visual basic or C++ with human design is like comparing a goldfish to a turd.

Which I easily refuted. Not only this, but not a single one of those fossils allegedly proving dinosaurs had feathers were of an Oviraptor so my point still stands. An artist drawing feathers on a dinosaur proves nothing. If you think that it does then you are even worse off than I thought.

The presence (or lack of) of beta-Keratin helps when feathers are concerned. Besides what's wrong with an artist drawing a picture? It's just like a human writing some words, in a desert, for the purpose of consolidating tribal power..........idiot.

On the contrary, you’d have to claim that since some artists draw them with their tails that way.

Artists drawing, artists writing letters............all bollocks right?

What! How? This is one of the worst non-sequiturs I have ever seen on here. If organisms possessing homologous structures from two other groups of organisms proves the first organism is a transitional form then you’ve got some serious problems!

“It is a painfully obvious link between Mammals and Birds.”

It's a more rational proposition, especially when married with techniques from other branches of science (radiometric dating etc), than filling gaps with a magic man in the sky. Collossal LOL.

How unoriginal. God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy.

Sorry I have to keep coming back to this one. You have no consistent standards of evidence. This is beyond humiliating.