The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Statler Waldorf]

In inductive reasoning, we reason from details to generalities. The path from 'the universe exists' to 'God made it' is not inducively valid.

Why not? You do not believe that we can inductively infer that specifically complex operating systems require creative agents?

And begging the question.

How so? The form is valid.

Please enlighten me as to which formal fallacy committed. It's only polite to specify.

Affirming the consequent. I was agreeing with you silly.

For the purposes of the example, it does not matter whether the premise is true, it matters whether the conclusion follows.

This is true; however I wanted to clarify so people do not think that Ken Ham is a felon.

But P1 WAS a mistake on my part, I was actually thinking of Kent Hovind, thanks for catching that. P2 is also false, thankfully!

I suspected that was who you were thinking of; I am glad you are not a felon.

[Bad Writer]

Barring my explanation at the start of this thread, where exactly is this missing evidence of mine, SW, or are you merely making an indignant assertion because we atheists get a little sleepy-eyed when you try to prove god with the Bible?

How do I point you to evidence you have not provided? You have done nothing to support your assertion that Christians are somehow disallowed from appealing to the authority of scripture. Merely asserting that they are does not do the job, I am sorry.

Oh, so I'm lacking evidence, but you don't know what evidence is needed for conviction? Some help you are; it sounds more like you just don't like that atheists don't accept claims of divinity that aren't in the form of empirical evidence. But since you asked nicely, simply put, the Bible is evidence for Yahweh the same way LOTR is evidence for Gandalf. If you don't accept that, then that's your own personal problem.

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.

Your first sentence here is called the argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy:

He did not commit that fallacy. He was merely saying that creation is a more likely explanation for what we observe. There is nothing logically fallacious about making such a probabilistic claim.

And that's a fallacy called argument from personal incredulity; he can't imagine it'd be any other way, so he presumes creation. If you're going to advocate for someone, make sure they're innocent before you pronounce them not guilty.

I understand, but to call the universe "creation" is to imply that it was created.

As is using the term creature, but it is used quite often in Biology.

Linguistic relics do not an argument make.

Because to prove RNA can spontaneously exist, all that need be done is to prove that RNA can spontaneously generate: no matter their knowledge of the initial conditions, if it's proven to have happened, then there's no more excuse to posit a god, merely because spontaneous generation seems impossible. It's not.

This is ridiculous. You’d first have to demonstrate that you know what the conditions were...

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. The exact conditions of our own planet at the time of the first RNA sequences will never be available for study, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Again, I repeat, it doesn't matter. Why do you think we say that it doesn't matter?

Likewise, when you get the chance, please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist.

This is no different than saying, “Well prove that God does not exist.” I imagine you have no difficulty seeing the problem with this when it is the theist who does it.

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

...science itself boldly assumes that God exists as well.

I truly wonder who is doing the assuming here.

Denying God leaves everything open to question.

…except apparently common descent, the age of the Earth, and anthropogenic climate change.

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

Assuming God allows you to get on with acting like you already know everything.

We do not know everything, but He who does has revealed many things to us.

And a fine specimen of this brand of thinking you are, SW. Thank you for showing us as much.

You made the claim that the thread's title was unsupported by evidence without supplying any of your own in support of that claim.

Read the thread. He never provides anything other than his own opinion to support his claim that Christians cannot appeal to the authority of scripture.

I did? Never? If I didn't, then there's nothing to be worried about. But if I did, then it totally makes sense why you would be so adamant in your position against this thread as you are now. Are you afraid that what I posted is going to take flight and infect the minds of those who never thought of the Bible as merely a claim? Newsflash! It wasn't originally my idea! In fact, so many atheists before me have stated just as much. Is that just a coincidence, or is it possible there's actually something of note in what they are saying?

Sure they are! You did not provide any actual evidence for believing any of the things above are true. Yet you believe that they are all true.

Do you not accept that any of the things he said were true? If not, then stop arguing, but if you do, then is it because he is using this circular logic you claim him to be, or is it because the evidence he has provided (and, indeed, evidence was definitely provided) was sufficient. I vote for the sufficiency of evidence in his argument. Anyone else agree?

Sure it is, everyone assumes the Bible is the word of God in one way or another.

I believe it is the words of men. What the fuck are you on about here? Doesn't your book that you hold to so dearly tell you that lying is bad? If you're going to misrepresent the countless individuals that give fuck all about the Bible and whether or not you claim it's the word of god, then you need to reread the forum rules.

It is just a sanctimonious pile of self serving BS that has caused pain, misery, suffering and death for 2000 years.

Now who is whining?

You are. Why? Because, based on this comment, you apparently don't like it when people state facts.

---

I will warn you that engaging SW in a discussion can lead to both sides spinning for countless posts, but more power to ya, all the same. The secret is that he considers himself the victor in any argument prior to reaching its conclusion, much like he considers god to be real before he has reached sufficient evidence. Good luck!

I am not the victor in every argument. You certainly have never gotten the best of me however.

Well, now you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thanks for justifying what I just said.

[Esquilax]

Why not? You do not believe that we can inductively infer that specifically complex operating systems require creative agents?

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.

[orangebox21]

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven. What is supposed to make science so reliable and considered "fact" is that it is built upon the scientific method: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." What is concerning is that modern day science seems to be accepting things that aren't scientific rather than modifying it's hypotheses. As Ksa articulated, given enough time, probabilities lend themselves to the point that probabilities become a realistic likelihood. So given the raw materials and enough time even chance would produce RNA or whatever the raw materials could produce. This is a statement of intuition, deduction, logic, or whatever word you choose to use, but it is not a statement of science; and as Esquilax so articulated intuition is not the ultimate authority of truth. Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.

Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin. In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life. Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life. Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.

If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.

[Esquilax]

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven.

Argument from ignorance: "I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible." And you can go talk to some scientists about why you're wrong, anyway.

Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin.

Yes, actually, it is where we need to begin, because it's something we can confirm to be true. If you want to add onto that something else, then you need to provide evidence for that claim, not just poke holes in the existing science.

In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life.

Argument from ignorance again, but also, what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not.

Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life.

This is probably quite an old hat question by now, but it's valid here: so what life created the creator of us that you're positing must exist?

Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.

And how is the admission that science doesn't know yet evidence for creation?

If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.

Then you need a hearing aid: as I've said before, lack of conclusive proof for abiogenesis is not evidence for creation. You're adding together negatives as if they'll somehow become positives. Meanwhile, all of the available evidence and data points to life arising through natural means, and none of it points to a creator. In fact, nobody has even managed to propose a test or hypothesis that could be used to demonstrate a creator, and so I find it incredibly interesting that you'll sit there and pontificate on science and why the rules of it disallow abiogenesis, yet you remain remarkably quiet on how those same rules would measure up around creationism.

If abiogenesis isn't scientific, apply your same logic to creation, and to what evidence there is for that, and see how that stacks up. Otherwise, you're just engaging in special pleading, demanding unique criteria for questions of natural generation of life, while requiring no criteria for the thing you already believe.

[WesOlsen]

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven. What is supposed to make science so reliable and considered "fact" is that it is built upon the scientific method: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." What is concerning is that modern day science seems to be accepting things that aren't scientific rather than modifying it's hypotheses. As Ksa articulated, given enough time, probabilities lend themselves to the point that probabilities become a realistic likelihood. . This is a statement of intuition, deduction, logic, or whatever word you choose to use, but it is not a statement of science; and as Esquilax so articulated intuition is not the ultimate authority of truth. Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.

Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin. In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life. Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life. Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.

If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.

We can test it if it makes predictions about current or future conditions. We can't test a dinosaur but we can predict that life from the Cambrian era in fossil form will fit certain parameters. Evolution CAN make predictions to varying degrees, which means we can test it.

So given the raw materials and enough time even chance would produce RNA or whatever the raw materials could produce

RNA/DNA research is still in its infancy, we've not been observing or sequencing things for millions of years, only a few decades. Just because something hasn't been done yet, does not been it can't be done ever.

ecause "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation

How old are stars? We can still see the light from them even though some may have died millions of years ago. Every atom in your body is as old as the universe itself.

This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin

It means it's where it probably began. Again, we're discussing a wider framework of science. To suggest that believing RNA could self replicate or what not isn't a scientific claim is not true, a scientific theory attempt to utilise the existing scientific theoretical framework. Conditions are such now that more simple forms of life are often consumed by greater forms of life very quickly etc.

Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.

Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life

God isn't observable, measurable, testable and neither were the cranks who wrote the new testament. So why on earth would you latch on to that which has the least (read non) evidence going for it? This is age old gap plugging. "We don't know something (yet) so therefore god did it".

These links articulate the response to your pondering better than me:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html

[max-greece]

So now that we've cleared that up, do you get it?

Do I have this right? Mutation is synonomous with chance. So mutation (chance) occurs, then natural selection eliminates the harmful or unbeneficial chance and the good chance survives to enter into another state of mutation (chance) and this cycle occurs for millions of years (time). So if I say chance through natural selection and time is that an accurate definition?

Just to touch on a couple of things. There appears to be some confusion with regard to mutation so it might be better to think of it in terms of both mutation and natural variation of individuals within a species.

If you look at humanity, for example, we see a great deal of variation within and between populations. Some carry no particular obvious advantage, for example blue rather than brown eyes, whilst others, for example skin pigmentation carry developed benefit to climate.

In a given population with individual variations a certain trait can, under circumstances of environmental change provide benefit leading to an increased chance of breeding increasing the chances of a higher proportion of the next generation having that trait.

The chance element is, in the above examples, that an existing variation comes to carry benefit at a particular time in a particular environment.

With regard to the origins of life, which is outside of evolution and natural selection and referred to as abiogenesis the question at the moment is with regard to either self assembling RNA molecules or direct to self assembling DNA molecules the latter of which is currently considered to be the less likely.

We already know that long chain RNA molecules can be made to self assemble in the lab in solution (see http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/self-...ble-origin as an example of experiments happening a the moment). Note that this is being done in water with RNA.

This may, or may not be, abiogenesis as it actually happened but the point is not that. The point is that we do have a viable potential route for life to form without a controlling intelligence.

Ultimately whichever route you choose to follow is a personal decision but for me, to conclude a higher intelligence is really looking like the less likely option.

[Duck]

Yes, you are appealing to your senses in order to try and justify your belief that your senses are reliable. That is no different than a Christian using the Bible to justify his belief that the Bible is what it claims to be.

It is totally different. You cannot equate a book and your eyesight. They are not analogous in the slightest. And you can use your other senses to verify what your eyes are telling you. That would leave the only possible fault at your brain. The two are different.

And I operate under the assumption that scripture is the infallible word of God. Fair is fair.

No, again this is a false equality. You can easily operate without the assumption that God exists, as many billions of people do now, and have done in the past. You can certainly operate without believing the content of the bible, and well over half the world's population do so as we speak. You cannot do anything if your senses do not report reality. I go back to my previous; you will fall down stairs all the time and walk into things. Humans would never have got here without reliable senses. How would we find food? How do animals find food? Because our senses are reliable. There is a mountain, absolute mountain, of evidence that our senses are reliable and among them is the fact we are here and find food and water every day. How else do we find food other than through our senses?!?

We’re talking about your senses. If your senses were unreliable there would be no way to know that you were here, walking, and driving your car so that is still begging the question. This is no different than a Christian using the Old Testament to support the New Testament or the writings of Paul to support the writings of Peter.

Again, this is a false equality (and the first bit is complete shit). I think therefore I am, so I know I am here by virtue of the fact that I am thinking. If you are unwilling to grant the assumption that we exist, then neither does the bible (which you are relying on your senses to detect I might add) and it therefore cannot be the word of anyone or thing.

How do you know you read the textbook? Do you remember doing so? How do you know you took a test? Do you remember doing so? How do you know how many questions you got correct? Do you remember the number? Again, you are appealing to the reliability of your memory to justify your belief that your memory is reliable. It’s no different than saying that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God.

I know because I think about it. You are being totally absurd here. How do you know that you exist? I am NOT relying on memory. I am relying on a recording, namely what I write down. People with short-term memory loss write everthing down. A list on a bit of paper isn't memory. Again, false equality.

You’re trying to give a logical argument as to why you use logic? Circularity again. We accept the Bible’s axioms.

No, and I'm getting tired of writing the words false equality. The axioms underlying logic are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the bible. They contain principles, not claims. Such as the principle of non-contradiction. Perhaps you should do some reading, maybe try and understand the subject (sorry, this is not covered in the Bible.)

How do you know that you have not done any of these things? Circularity again.

NO YOU MORON. I am still alive, ipso facto I have not died in a car crash. I am getting really tired of this now.

I appear to reliably interact with my surrounding and perceiving them accurately would seem to be a necessary condition.

How do you know that you accurately interact with your surroundings? You perceive that you do? Circularity again.

Sure they are! You did not provide any actual evidence for believing any of the things above are true. Yet you believe that they are all true.

I have provided evidence, it just doesn't fit with your view of the world so you ignored it.

As is using your senses to justify the reliability of your senses, using your memory to justify the reliability of your memory, making logical arguments to justify your use of logic, appealing to your perception of reality in order to justify the reliability of your ability to perceive reality. Why is it okay for you to use circular reasoning but not for the Christian to?

OK, one more time. Using touch to verify your vision is not circular. Using a written list to verify memory is not circular. These things are in no way analogous to believing a book of crazy shit.

Sure it is, everyone assumes the Bible is the word of God in one way or another.

WHAT???? I don't and HOW THE HELL COULD YOU KNOW IF THIS WAS TRUE???? This is a wild claim even by your standards.

No, when I used the term fair I meant in a rational sense. If you are allowing yourself to engage in something (i.e. circular reasoning) that you do not allow the other side to engage in then you are committing the fallacy of special pleading. I was operating under the assumption that you valued rationality.

I have demonstrated that I am not using circular reasoning. You are displaying a lack of logic, reasonableness and factual basis.

Sure it does, it is the ultimate authority of all people.

Authority of all people? What does that even mean?

You have yet to provide any. [reason to believe in our senses]

I have, you have just ignored it (and ignored the fact that your arguments about the bible RELY TOTALLY UPON THE SENSES)

Sure there is, reality only makes sense if we do so. (question:There is no justification to attach authority to scripture.)

No, scripture makes no sense in the reality we live in.

It is just a sanctimonious pile of self serving BS that has caused pain, misery, suffering and death for 2000 years.

Now who is whining?

Not whining, just disappointed that morons like you continue to have the ability to shape the future of humanity, even in a little way. How many more gay men (or other such 'abominations' according to you) will suffer, how many people will die because of your barbarism?

[Mister Agenda]

In inductive reasoning, we reason from details to generalities. The path from 'the universe exists' to 'God made it' is not inducively valid.

Why not? You do not believe that we can inductively infer that specifically complex operating systems require creative agents?

We could, if there were no examples of specifically complex operating systems that don't require creative agents, but our disagreement is that biologists think we have such examples and you don't. However, my point was more along the lines of having only one example of a universe whose origin we don't fully understand, in induction, if we had many universes made by creative agents, we could induce that this one is, too.

How so? The form is valid.

It's an informal fallacy. The form is valid, but the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. And it reminds me of this:

If I am rich, I am Bill Gates.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

Which doesn't seem right, does it?

Affirming the consequent. I was agreeing with you silly.

My bad, thanks for clarifying.

This is true; however I wanted to clarify so people do not think that Ken Ham is a felon.

And you were right to do so, thanks again.

I suspected that was who you were thinking of; I am glad you are not a felon.

That makes at least two of us!

---

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven.

And if it is, how will that affect your opinions on biological evolution vs. creationism?

[Minimalist]

So now that we've cleared that up, do you get it?

Do I have this right? Mutation is synonomous with chance. So mutation (chance) occurs, then natural selection eliminates the harmful or unbeneficial chance and the good chance survives to enter into another state of mutation (chance) and this cycle occurs for millions of years (time). So if I say chance through natural selection and time is that an accurate definition?

I think you are still hung up on the "chance" idea and that is because you are still trying to shoehorn your god in there but you are getting closer.

Try reading Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth." His explanations of evolution are far superior to mine.