The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Lemonvariable72]

That’s the only find that seems to ever get used as supposed evidence. I personally do not have to discredit anything; the scientific literature on the subject has already done that. According to Lingham-Soliar’s article “The evolution of the feather: Sinosauropteryx, a colourful tail” published in 2011, the presence of the eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes organelles that produce such pigments were actually an optical illusion created by low image reproduction of the scanning electron micrograph. I realize you guys really want dinosaurs to have had feathers but the evidence to support such a notion is rather dubious at best.

If you bothered to read the damn link I posted, you'd realize that, that is not the only find all. Ffs even look at archaeopteryx

Or how how about Sciurumimus albersdoerferi

And here is Anchiornis huxleyi

Or Sinornithosaurus millenii

or Sinocalliopteryx gigas


It just happens to be that Sinosauropteryx is in the spotlight right now do to that debate.

[orangebox21]

What is an atheists standard for evidence/proof?

[Esquilax]

What is an atheists standard for evidence/proof?

Things that are demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and in proportion to the claim being proved.

Personally. I can't speak for everyone else, mind.

[Bad Wolf]

Wow, stat really got called out on the feather thing

[Bad Writer]

Wow, stat really got called out on the feather thing

That's not the only thing he gets called out on. You should hear him carry on about Noah's Ark.

[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.

[Lemonvariable72]

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

---

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.

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?

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?).

---

---

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 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.

Hell he mays as well tried to support the claim sauropods dragged their tails. In truth the discovery that many small and medium sized therapods had feathers is basically his lizard with bird features. It is a painfully obvious link between birds and dinosaurs. The fossil records tells us plainly how reptiles became mammals as well, and how dinosaurs became birds. In fact we have a whole family of creatures called synapsids that are transitional forms between mammals and reptiles. They are also called mammal like reptiles.

[orangebox21]

What is an atheists standard for evidence/proof?

Things that are demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and in proportion to the claim being proved.

Personally. I can't speak for everyone else, mind.

If you say you can only speak for yourself you imply that standards are relative, that they are not absolute. Do I have that correct? And if the standards for evidence/proof are relative how could a person prove anything to you? If you accept "relative" standards then you would have to accept anyone's proof/evidence so long as they fit within their own set of standards for evidence.

[Esquilax]

If you say you can only speak for yourself you imply that standards are relative, that they are not absolute. Do I have that correct? And if the standards for evidence/proof are relative how could a person prove anything to you? If you accept "relative" standards then you would have to accept anyone's proof/evidence so long as they fit within their own set of standards for evidence.

I'd suggest that the standards I'd given, things that are demonstrable and repeatable and so on, are absolute in that they're objectively verifiable, and objectively real: things that exist exist, and if you can show them to exist you've proved that they exist. Good job.

But the question you asked was, what is the atheist standard for proof or evidence, and that's ill-formed in some ways, because atheists are only unified in their acceptance of a single position: disbelief in god claims. Other than that, their standards can vary, but that's not an exclusively atheist thing, everyone does that; even among the religious, you have people accepting their religion on faith, and those who go looking for evidence first. Hell, there are christians who believe in alien abductions, and also those who don't because their standard for evidence is different enough to exclude those accounts from the category of believability. And that's ignoring the obvious differences between biblical literalists and those who take the less believable stories to just be metaphor. To say that atheists therefore have relative standards is to ignore the fact that everyone has an internalized standard of what's believable to them.

I'd say that the standards I gave are the minimum threshold for evidence: if something exists and you can demonstrate it, what's the problem? Where do the further questions come in? If something exists and is demonstrable, it would be crazier not to believe it's there, no?

Also, I take issue with your claim that accepting the idea that people bring their own standards of evidence to the table requires me to accept everyone's evidence as sufficient so long as it's sufficient to them: that doesn't follow at all. Why would you think that?

Edited to add: Oh, and when I say I only speak for myself, that's me being polite. I don't want to put words into anyone else's mouth. You didn't need to spin my polite invitation for anyone else to chime in with more into this whole thing about relative standards, that's just silly.

[là bạn điên]

The Bible is evidence of God in the same way that the Lord of the Rings is evidence of Sauron