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.