The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Jacob(smooth)]

But again, what's written in the bible is just the claim, not the proof. It's just a book. I could say that I believe that everything in the book The Grapes of Wrath literally happened, and when you ask me for evidence that Tom Joad existed I point to the book as evidence.

That's where the special pleading comes in. It isn't just a book, it's THE book! Why? Because the assholes say so.

What does the fox say?

[Upside Down Dog]

I've lately seen a rash of theists here, old and new alike, that when confronted with the question, "Do you have evidence for the existence of your god?" that proceed to quote biblical scripture as the source of their conviction. This is not a strange thing, as these particular theists called Christians more often than not perceive this text to be full of accounts that were directly-inspired by divine means, or tell the tale of historical events relating to their particular religious history. Taking such a stance is, in actuality, a non-answer to the question posed above.

The Bible is a book of divine claims, telling of a god (or gods, in some interpretations) that has yet to be proven to exist. Since evidence must be demonstrated to be true before it can be taken as fact, the Bible falls short in satisfying any demands of proof, as it can in no way be proven that the men who wrote were actually under any divine influence.

I know my request to theists to stop appealing to the Bible as evidence of a god (or gods) will fall on many deaf ears, but I feel this phenomenon has gotten a little out of hand as of late and really needed to be addressed. Thank you for taking a moment to read this, especially if you are a Christian member of this forum.

I hear you.

And I never use the Bible as an authority if it's not mutually considered so; however, if when debating an atheist and scripture is used to bolster an atheist's claim, I will call them out on that. It works both ways. Or, I will consider the box to be open and the Bible used as evidence as it has been relented as an authority in some sense.

But, to be honest, arguing the existence of God is moot on either end. In order to prove existence, verifiable, empirical evidence that can be tested and retested has to be present.

The belief in God is based on faith and is metaphysical which is in direct contention with empirical evidence and physical evidence; however, on the flip side, He cannot also be disproved under the same set of rules.

So, you get a debate that can't go anywhere... it's a futile attempt on both sides to try and find different examples of empirical evidence to prove something that can't be proved. It's a constant battle of trying to make empirical evidence do something it can never do.

[orangebox21]

I will define evolution as chance through time.

Okay - so now we know that you don't know what evolution means.

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Perhaps I was oversimplifiying evolution. But the concept of chance through time is how I was taught. Your quote is "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." No where in your quote are the words "natural selection". It does say that: "evolution proceeds by random chance" (and it "proceeds" through time). I think we can all agree that evolution is said to have taken time and that it happened through chance. Would "chance through time and natural selection" be a better definition? I think either way to respond to the op my "outside of scripture" evidence is creation.

[Crossless2.0]

Okay - so now we know that you don't know what evolution means.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Perhaps I was oversimplifiying evolution. But the concept of chance through time is how I was taught. Your quote is "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." No where in your quote are the words "natural selection". It does say that: "evolution proceeds by random chance" (and it "proceeds" through time). I think we can all agree that evolution is said to have taken time and that it happened through chance. Would "chance through time and natural selection" be a better definition? I think either way to respond to the op my "outside of scripture" evidence is creation.

Mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Whoever taught you about evolution did a poor job.

[Minimalist]

Okay - so now we know that you don't know what evolution means.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Perhaps I was oversimplifiying evolution. But the concept of chance through time is how I was taught. Your quote is "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." No where in your quote are the words "natural selection". It does say that: "evolution proceeds by random chance" (and it "proceeds" through time). I think we can all agree that evolution is said to have taken time and that it happened through chance. Would "chance through time and natural selection" be a better definition? I think either way to respond to the op my "outside of scripture" evidence is creation.

Okay....so now we know that in addition to knowing jack shit about evolution your are blind as well.

The term "natural selection" appears 3 times in that short quote. I have gone back and bolded them for you.

[Tonus]

Mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Whoever taught you about evolution did a poor job.

That is how I was "taught" evolution by the JWs. My impression of the theory of evolution for a long time was that a mutation would appear (like a fully formed eyeball) and simply be carried over to each successive generation until you eventually had a new organism. So a lizard would be born with a beak, and successive generations would be born with beaks until there was one that was born with feathers, and they'd have beaks and feathers until one was born with its arms shaped into wings... and so on.

You can understand why such a person would wonder "why aren't there any transitional forms in the fossil record?" I think that many of them are waiting for the discovery of a fossil lizard with a beak, and of a fossil lizard with a beak and feathers, and so on. They cannot envision a scenario where evolution would occur aside from that. The "croco-duck" thing is a perfect example of that. There is this belief that evolution entails massive, wholesale changes on an unimaginable scale (such as a duck being born with a crocodile's head, or vice-versa) and that without those "transitional forms" evolution is simply bad science that shows just how desperate secular scientists are.

It's not that we believed that this could actually happen! On the contrary, it seemed as preposterous to us as it should to you. And we wondered how it was possible that people fell for such obvious silliness. The only possible explanation was that the desire to reject god simply overrode any sense of reasonableness. In other words, SATAN.

And then I learned how evolution really worked and... D'OH!!!

[Simon Moon]

If the bible 'claims' that if you do A, B, C and you will find 'X' the finding of 'X' (for over 2000 years) is then proof the bible is accurate.

If one were to closly follow the A, B, C, instructions and find nothing then the bible would have been discarded long before now.

Except when one does try the A, B, C instructions, and it doesn't lead to X, Christians will invariably claim, "You weren't sincere", or "you have to keep trying until it does" or, some other convenient excuse.

It is almost as if your god appears to be nonexistent.

What's really insincere about these alleged instructions, is that there have been many Christians (starting with Paul) that did not need to use these instruction to 'find god'. 'God' has found people all on his own.

Why don't I deserve to have a 'road to Damascus' experience?

[Crossless2.0]

Mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Whoever taught you about evolution did a poor job.

That is how I was "taught" evolution by the JWs. My impression of the theory of evolution for a long time was that a mutation would appear (like a fully formed eyeball) and simply be carried over to each successive generation until you eventually had a new organism. So a lizard would be born with a beak, and successive generations would be born with beaks until there was one that was born with feathers, and they'd have beaks and feathers until one was born with its arms shaped into wings... and so on.

You can understand why such a person would wonder "why aren't there any transitional forms in the fossil record?" I think that many of them are waiting for the discovery of a fossil lizard with a beak, and of a fossil lizard with a beak and feathers, and so on. They cannot envision a scenario where evolution would occur aside from that. The "croco-duck" thing is a perfect example of that. There is this belief that evolution entails massive, wholesale changes on an unimaginable scale (such as a duck being born with a crocodile's head, or vice-versa) and that without those "transitional forms" evolution is simply bad science that shows just how desperate secular scientists are.

It's not that we believed that this could actually happen! On the contrary, it seemed as preposterous to us as it should to you. And we wondered how it was possible that people fell for such obvious silliness. The only possible explanation was that the desire to reject god simply overrode any sense of reasonableness. In other words, SATAN.

And then I learned how evolution really worked and... D'OH!!!

Over the years I've had a depressing number of conversations with people who thought evolution was just as you described it as having been taught to you. My response to this nonsense has always been, "You're right. That's preposterous, and I don't believe it any more than you do. Fortunately, that's not what the theory states . . ."

I'd like to report that my success rate in setting the record straight has been 100%, but I can't. Some people refuse to let go of what their parents or pastors "taught" them and are afraid that if they accept the findings of biologists their faith will suffer.

Happily, there have been a few over the years who listened. When they grasp the elegance of the explanation, it's like a light suddenly goes on behind their eyes.

It's just so damned sad and infuriating that our schools do such a poor job of teaching the theory, assuming they even touch it in the first place. My 10th grade biology teacher avoided the chapter on evolution like the plague. When asked why during a private moment, he admitted that he wanted to avoid the inevitable blowback from fundie students and their parents. I've despised him a little ever since.

[orangebox21]

Sorry Minimalist I was refering to the what was in quotation marks at the top of what you wrote not to the entire passage. I thought the following passage was your commentary on the original quote.

[Simon Moon]

Biblical Christians believe the Bible to be truth. So when asked what the truth is, as you have stated, we use scripture.

How do you know the Bible is the truth?

The other reason (speaking for myself) I do this is because when I quote the Bible I am speaking upon the authority of His Word. If I were to give you my own thoughts and perspectives I come upon my own authority. If you are looking for something outside of scripture to prove the inherrancy of scripture (or a proof that God exists) one still has to look to scripture to discuss it.

How do you know the Bible is 'his word'?

It is provably errant.

That being said from a non-biblical theist perspective (and not using scripture) I would say that creation (namely the earth and all the plants, animals, people, etc) is my evidence for the existence of God.

Existence is evidence for existence. If you want to claim there was a creator involved, you have to provide demonstrable evidence.

I realize atheists reject creation because it speaks to a creator and they don't believe in one.

Atheists reject creation because there is insufficient evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim. The same reason we don't believe in the existence of gods.

So the natural question then arises: Where did we come from?

We as humans came from more ancient lifeforms. This can be demonstrated by mountains of evidence.

But even if we did not have an answer, that does not offer a shred of evidence that a god was involved.

You are appealing to fallacy of argument from ignorance. In effect what you are doing is putting your own ignorance on a pedestal and labeling it 'God'.

If we were created then we believe in a creator. If we don't believe in a creator we look for another explanation.

Please provide evidence that we were created.

You seem a little confused with the scientific method in general. Scientists do not start from the position that a god does not exist, then try to come up with an explanation to explain the existence of humans or the universe without a creator. They go where the evidence takes them.

My evidence through creation is that God has given the creation as an evidence/witness for Himself.

Some of us care whether our beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. The single best way to test whether a claim is true or not is by using demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound argument.

How would you go about testing to see of your claims are true or not? How would your methods be different or be the same as testing whether Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism are true?