"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Subduction Zone]

And yet they took a chance and wrote it anyway ... then paid for it with their lives.

I wonder What prompted them to write it in the first place .. don't you?

Perhaps it was the Holy Ghost?

I asked for evidence of this and you gave none. You mentioned one source that was known to be bogus at the time of its writing and scholars are even more sure of that today.

You are still pushing the Myth of Persecution. The martyrdom of early Christians has been vastly overstated.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

WEAKLING!

I'm an atheist!

You're hilarious. I love it when Baptists tell agnostics not to be so religious.
.

Well if you are agnostic, what is your conceptual explanation for the great panoply of life that isn't evolution and isn't religious?

 

[Astrophile]

Yes! The Bible was inspired--not dictated. God is quoted by frail humans, but inspired does not mean dictated verbatim. I reject the Ipsa Verba doctrine. If God had written the Gospels, we would have only one version: the official one dictated by God himself; we have four!

So do you accept that there are scientific errors in the Bible? If so, can you give some examples?

 

[AV1611VET]

The martyrdom of early Christians has been vastly overstated.

LOL

We're talking about three men: Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- and you want to add who knows how many more into the equation; then say it has been vastly overstated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

We're talking about three men: Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- and you want to add who knows how many more into the equation; then say it has been vastly overstated.

Luke died of old age, in Boetia. Matthew may have been a martyr, though there are conflicting stories on this. Mark seems the most likely to have been a martyr. But once again you have given no evidence of the authorship of any of the gospels and historians claim that the actual author is anonymous.

ETA: And again, almost all religions have martyrs of this sort. It is evidence for nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Luke died of old age, in Boetia. Matthew may have been a martyr, though there are conflicting stories on this. Mark seems the most likely to have been a martyr.

Didn't you just do what you accused me of doing?

"Vastly overstating the martyrdom of early Christians"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you just do what you accused me of doing?

"Vastly overstating the martyrdom of early Christians"?

No, hardly. You had a list of three people. One was most probably a martyr. Another one who knows. The third, not at all.

I am not denying that there were some martyrs in the history of Christianity. The point is that there is nothing that amazing or convincing in their deaths. Once again, I can show you Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist martyrs. Does that meant that those religions are correct?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Paying for it with their lives doesn't make it true. It doesn't even mean they thought it was true.

You're wasting your time dealing with people who define "truth" in confirmed kills.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, hardly. You had a list of three people. One was most probably a martyr. Another one who knows. The third, not at all.

I am not denying that there were some martyrs in the history of Christianity. The point is that there is nothing that amazing or convincing in their deaths. Once again, I can show you Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist martyrs. Does that meant that those religions are correct?

SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.

And when I brought the conversation back to the Gospel writers, you now are trying to get me to agree with what you read on the topic, while disagreeing with what I read (i.e., Foxe's Book of Martyrs).

I'll say this nicely and politely:

Don't try to Sanballat me.

 

[RickG]

In other words, NO?

Actually geologist would not be incorrect, but since my studies included more than geology, therefore, climatology and oceanography as well, I prefer Earth Scientist. All three are interrelated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.

And when I brought the conversation back to the Gospel writers, you now are trying to get me to agree with what you read on the topic, while disagreeing with what I read (i.e., Foxe's Book of Martyrs).

I'll say this nicely and politely:

Don't try to Sanballat me.

You are relying on one disreputable source to support your claims. And no, I am not agreeing with you. Your logic is almost always wrong. Agreeing that there were a few martyrs is not agreeing that there were thousands of martyrs. Most martyrs are not even given a chance to renounce their faith. Most of the examples of actual Christian martyrs that I have seen were simply killed. You are the one that keeps trying to use martyrdom as some sort of indicator that your religion is correct. By that logic so are all of the other religions that I listed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

SZ, first you tried drowning my point in thousands of other martyrs.

What makes your martyrs better than everyone else's martyrs?

 

[Zosimus]

It's a fair question that Rick asked. You disagree with evolution and it has nothing to do with that logical fallacy nonsense. So if the TOE isn't sufficient to explain the biological diversity we see today then what explanation do YOU have? This isn't a case of "if you don't have a better explanation then the TOE must be correct". It's just a question on what explanation YOU have.

I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.

My claim, as always, has been that there is a logical gap between these two statements:

Premise 1: The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

You see, this is not a valid logical argument. Now that does not mean that valid logical arguments could not be constructed. For example, I could easily construct a valid logical argument, such as this one:

Premise 1: Initial life rose spontaneously once, and only once, without any supernatural intervention.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

Now THAT'S an argument that I could readily accept. However, in order to convince me of this argument, you would need to demonstrate convincingly not only that life arose spontaneously from non-life with no supernatural intervention, but also that this occurred once and only once.

However, most neo-Darwinist apologists quickly claim that abiogenesis is outside of the theory of Darwinism (neo or otherwise) or they change the subject.

So then I respond that since they cannot demonstrate any reason for me to believe Premise 1, that their argument is not compelling and that no one has any reason to believe in the theory of common descent in particular or neo-Darwinism in general.

That's when the logical fallacies and personal attacks usually come out.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes your martyrs better than everyone else's martyrs?

In the cases of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it solidifies the fact that they wrote the books that bear their names.

And for the record, even if they hadn't been martyred, qv my signature.

 

[crjmurray]

I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.

My claim, as always, has been that there is a logical gap between these two statements:

Premise 1: The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

You see, this is not a valid logical argument. Now that does not mean that valid logical arguments could not be constructed. For example, I could easily construct a valid logical argument, such as this one:

Premise 1: Initial life rose spontaneously once, and only once, without any supernatural intervention.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

Now THAT'S an argument that I could readily accept. However, in order to convince me of this argument, you would need to demonstrate convincingly not only that life arose spontaneously from non-life with no supernatural intervention, but also that this occurred once and only once.

However, most neo-Darwinist apologists quickly claim that abiogenesis is outside of the theory of Darwinism (neo or otherwise) or they change the subject.

So then I respond that since they cannot demonstrate any reason for me to believe Premise 1, that their argument is not compelling and that no one has any reason to believe in the theory of common descent in particular or neo-Darwinism in general.

That's when the logical fallacies and personal attacks usually come out.

So you don't have an explanation for biological diversity?

 

[Zosimus]

It's as if you don't even read my posts.

First, how do you explain the evidence of humans and chimps having the same exact mutation in the ψη-globin gene?

Second, do humans and guinea pigs have the same knockout mutation in their GLO genes? Here is what I said before:

" Due to the randomness of mutation, if the gene was knocked out independently in each lineage then we should see mutations at different positions. If the gene was knocked out once in a common ancestor, then we should see the same mutation at the same position. That is the test."

Can you apply this to the human and guinea pig GLO pseudogenes?

Dèjá Vu all over again.

You see, you are engaging in multiple logical fallacies. The most obvious one is the "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy. So that you can explain more clearly, let's take a commonly-employed fallacious argument that you WON'T agree with, then then compare it to your argument. Let's imagine that a Christian says, "If you cannot explain what caused the big bang, then you must accept my explanation (aka God did it.)" Now no self-respecting atheist will accept this argument, and will quickly cry "God of the Gaps logical fallacy," which is not a formal logical fallacy but rather a subset of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

Now that we have this example in mind, let's look at your argument (paraphrased): If you cannot explain what caused similarity between the human and chimp genome, then you must accept my explanation (aka evolution did it).

You see? It's really the same situation. I don't need to offer an alternate explanation to be skeptical of your conclusion any more than you need to offer an alternate explanation for the ultimate cause of the Big Bang in order to be skeptical of the "God did it" theory.

How similar are the chimp and human DNA genome? I have no idea, in fact, the only information I could find about it was at https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...olutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/ , a link you will almost surely reject because it is a Christian website, claiming that human and guinea pig DNA is 36 percent similar (in the deactivated region) whereas that of a chimp is 84 percent comparable to that of a human.

So my questions to you are the following:

1. Do you admit that you have engaged in the "evolution of the gaps" logical fallacy?
2. Do you have better numbers than those peddled on the answers in genesis website?
3. Why should I think that chimps and humans are closely related but that guinea pigs and humans are not?

 

[Zosimus]

So you don't have an explanation for biological diversity?

As you are reading this post, look just to the left where you will see my handle (Zosimus) then scan down to the word "Faith" and look slightly to the right where you will read: Agnostic.

Would it surprise you, therefore, to hear that I am agnostic about whether Darwinism is right vs. whether God created everything?

 

[Zosimus]

Well if you are agnostic, what is your conceptual explanation for the great panoply of life that isn't evolution and isn't religious?

I subscribe to epistemological nihilism. That means that I believe that nothing can be known, and that we shouldn't even try until a workable framework for knowing things can be constructed.

I would be interested in hearing your framework for gaining knowledge, however.

 

[bhsmte]

I subscribe to epistemological nihilism. That means that I believe that nothing can be known, and that we shouldn't even try until a workable framework for knowing things can be constructed.

I would be interested in hearing your framework for gaining knowledge, however.

Does this mean, you don't "know" anything?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have never said that I disagreed with evolution. Evolution, meaning the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, is not controversial.

My claim, as always, has been that there is a logical gap between these two statements:

Premise 1: The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

You see, this is not a valid logical argument. Now that does not mean that valid logical arguments could not be constructed. For example, I could easily construct a valid logical argument, such as this one:

Premise 1: Initial life rose spontaneously once, and only once, without any supernatural intervention.
Conclusion: Therefore, all living species share a common ancestor.

Now THAT'S an argument that I could readily accept. However, in order to convince me of this argument, you would need to demonstrate convincingly not only that life arose spontaneously from non-life with no supernatural intervention, but also that this occurred once and only once.

However, most neo-Darwinist apologists quickly claim that abiogenesis is outside of the theory of Darwinism (neo or otherwise) or they change the subject.

So then I respond that since they cannot demonstrate any reason for me to believe Premise 1, that their argument is not compelling and that no one has any reason to believe in the theory of common descent in particular or neo-Darwinism in general.

That's when the logical fallacies and personal attacks usually come out.

Common descent of all life is established by a) The common life based chemistry including DNA as the source of heredity, and b) the nested hierarchy of life, AKA the tree of life, that shows living things related in grander and grander groupings, making the grouping of all into the general catagory "life" the logical conclusion.