"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

Jazer · Nov 7, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Correct so far. This was a population that did quite well for itself. However, the J2b3 haplotype does not indicate that the entire population was founded by a single male.

They have a mutation and that creates a marker. So we know that anyone with that mutation decended from what is now called the Cohan Gene or Marker. Right now they assume that Adam had this same mutation. Something new could be published at any time.

Wow, the mythology from a group of farmers and shepherds includes farmers and shepherds. Stunning.

Would you rather talk about the mythology of monkey and have a discussion about their written language and their ability to farm and herd animals to feed themselves. Perhaps you would like to show me the genetic mutation that makes man different from all the other apes. Evolution fails to answer questions and they fail to get the job done. Creationism can do what Science can not do. Answer questions and solve problems not just treat symptoms.

Again, we know no such thing. It is mythology.

Evolution is mythology. They Bible is truth. We go from Darwinism, to Neo Darwinism, to Post Neo Darwinism. The Bible just keeps right on being consistent and true.

IndieVisible · Nov 7, 2011

I always love threads like this that never prove any thing except there are different opinions, but our atheist friends are right about one thing so let's give them credit where credit is due, after all beyond this point they have no clue.

They are correct when they state there is no rational reason to believe in god. They are also correct there is no physical proof beyond a shadow of doubt, bravo! It does seem totally ridiculous to believe in some thing you can not see! Such wisdom! They are absolutely correct so far! No arguments on any of those points from me!

Yet amazingly any one who defies logic and rationality and takes that leap of faith and accepts God suddenly experiences things beyond words! Suddenly we see all the proof we need all around us! We are convinced there is a GOD and suddenly we can't get enough of God!

Now as crazy as this may seem, it is not limited to a small portion of the population, or level of education, or geographic region or even a portion of history. It has always been as long as we have recorded history to this very date! How can such a illogical, irrational, completely absurd belief based on no proofs whatsoever survive for so long and effect so many people from so many walks of life?!

That my friends is some thing we as believers totally understand, but our atheist friends may never grasp. Amazing no?! They have no idea what we have or see!

sandwiches · Nov 7, 2011

IndieVisible said:
I always love threads like this that never prove any thing except there are different opinions, but our atheist friends are right about one thing so let's give them credit where credit is due, after all beyond this point they have no clue.

They are correct when they state there is no rational reason to believe in god. They are also correct there is no physical proof beyond a shadow of doubt, bravo! It does seem totally ridiculous to believe in some thing you can not see! Such wisdom! They are absolutely correct so far! No arguments on any of those points from me!

Yet amazingly any one who defies logic and rationality and takes that leap of faith and accepts God suddenly experiences things beyond words! Suddenly we see all the proof we need all around us! We are convinced there is a GOD and suddenly we can't get enough of God!

As soon as you stop thinking logically and using reason to arrive at conclusions you can accept illogical and unreasonable conclusions. Imagine that! Who would've thunk it!

IndieVisible said:
Now as crazy as this may seem, it is not limited to a small portion of the population, or level of education, or geographic region or even a portion of history. It has always been as long as we have recorded history to this very date! How can such a illogical, irrational, completely absurd belief based on no proofs whatsoever survive for so long and effect so many people from so many walks of life?!

The same way people believed in the Mesopotamian religions for THOUSANDS of years before Christianity was even a twinkle in some cultist's eye. But NOW we KNOW Christianity is the real deal, amirite?

IndieVisible said:
That my friends is some thing we as believers totally understand, but our atheist friends may never grasp. Amazing no?! They have no idea what we have or see!

What's more amazing is that no one else you claim shares your irrationality sees the same thing. Oh wait... that's not amazing. That's completely expected when what you "see" is only in your imagination.

SkyWriting · Nov 7, 2011

Phred said:
Since AV likes the example so much, let's use it.

The moon.
Look up, it's there.
Of all the possible ways the moon could have gotten there, "goddidit" is not a reasonable choice.Why?Has it ever happened before? Has God ever done anything before? Have we seen, heard, or experienced anything that this being known as "God" has actually done? Can we equate it with putting a planetoid in orbit around the earth? Can we show how it was done? Can we test it? Replicate it? No. There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God". There is no reason to suspect that this is the case because we see no other moons put into orbit by "God". When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact. Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact. After all, I could be dreaming this entire universe. But, things are as factual as we can make them by supporting them with evidence. That's why mathematics can be proven. It isn't about the real world."God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence.

You picked a good one. Can we replicate it? No. So far no scientist has come up with a fairly logical explanation of how a small planet managed to get into orbit around the earth.

Why are there many theories? Because there is not ONE that fits all the facts well. Why did we stop going there? Because it gave us no answers. The moon turned out to be another huge scientific enigma. Even samples of the surface gave us "not Earth" ratio's of minerals, yet "kind of" like earth.

And lets not forget there ARE no other moons like it around any other planets. Its size and orbit are unique. And this ONE moon, in it's unique orbit, unique size, just happens to be orbiting this ONE planet with life. It also is responsible for keeping life going and (it's said) responsible for life ever starting. Without the moon humans might not have metal yet.

There are 1000's of factors that complicate the idea that the man is a natural result of rock baking in the sun.
The moon is one of the best.

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2011

Jazer said:
They have a mutation and that creates a marker. So we know that anyone with that mutation decended from what is now called the Cohan Gene or Marker.

They also have genes from ancestors that were not the carrier of this Y-chromosome marker, and those ancestors were contemporaries of that carrier. We are more than our Y-chromosome, you know.

Right now they assume that Adam had this same mutation.

Yes, we know. It is a faulty assumption, to say the least.

Perhaps you would like to show me the genetic mutation that makes man different from all the other apes.

Just pick out a monkey genome and compare it to the human genome. The differences are what make each species unique while the shared DNA is what makes them similar.

Evolution fails to answer questions and they fail to get the job done.

I just showed you how to answer that question.

Creationism can do what Science can not do. Answer questions and solve problems not just treat symptoms.

Making assumptions is not an answer:

"Right now they assume that Adam had this same mutation."--Jazer

Evolution is mythology.

It is an observed fact.

The Bible just keeps right on being consistent and true.

Evidence please.

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2011

SkyWriting said:
You picked a good one. Can we replicate it? No.

The scientific method does not require replication of the hypothesis. It only requires that the hypothesis be testable and falsifiable. Thus far, the models for the production of the Moon fit those criteria. Further evidence is needed to differentiate between the different models.

However, one fact sticks out the most. The chemical makeup of the Moon is very close to that of the Earth. Therefore, they had to have a common origin. Gravitational capture fails this test. This makes the collision models the best models to date because they pass the test of chemical makeup.

And lets not forget there ARE no other moons like it around any other planets. Its size and orbit are unique. And this ONE moon, in it's unique orbit, unique size, just happens to be orbiting this ONE planet with life. It also is responsible for keeping life going and (it's said) responsible for life ever starting. Without the moon humans might not have metal yet.

And? Are you arguing for a God of the Gaps or something?

Split Rock · Nov 8, 2011

Jazer said:
I do not see any ruins anywhere. How big was UR? How big was Jericho? How big was Babylon? If what they are saying is true, then those cities should have had a million people in them. Today we have cities with 30 million people.

You can go visit the ruins today. They are, however, in the Middle East. Can you see the Middle East from where you live? If not, why would you expect to see the ruins of these cities??

Split Rock · Nov 8, 2011

IndieVisible said:
Yet amazingly any one who defies logic and rationality and takes that leap of faith and accepts God suddenly experiences things beyond words! Suddenly we see all the proof we need all around us! We are convinced there is a GOD and suddenly we can't get enough of God!

What you are describing seems like self-delusion.

IndieVisible said:
Now as crazy as this may seem, it is not limited to a small portion of the population, or level of education, or geographic region or even a portion of history. It has always been as long as we have recorded history to this very date! How can such a illogical, irrational, completely absurd belief based on no proofs whatsoever survive for so long and effect so many people from so many walks of life?!

This is true and it indicates that it is human nature to invent dieties and to believe in dieties.

IndieVisible said:
That my friends is some thing we as believers totally understand, but our atheist friends may never grasp. Amazing no?! They have no idea what we have or see!

I suppose I also have no idea what LSD users have seen either. How does that make what either you or they have seen, real?

Jazer · Nov 8, 2011

Split Rock said:
You can go visit the ruins today.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The claim has been made that there were many people living 6,000 years ago. Then where is the evidence that there were so many people alive? The ruins that we can visit today do not support the theory that there were large numbers of people alive back then. You do not get into millions of people until 2,000 years ago at the time of Christ.

Jazer · Nov 8, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Yes, we know. It is a faulty assumption, to say the least.

Nothing faulty about the assumption, it is based on rock solid science that there were not enough generations for mutations to have taken place. You can ignore the geneologys in the Bible if you want to live in error. But they are real historical people. All we can do is feel sorry for you if you do not see real living people.

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2011

Jazer said:
Nothing faulty about the assumption, it is based on rock solid science that there were not enough generations for mutations to have taken place.

Where did you show this?

Also, what allows you to assume that a mitochondrial MRCA is a mythical person in a religious text?

You can ignore the geneologys in the Bible if you want to live in error.

Why would I be in error? Evidence please.

But they are real historical people.

Evidence please. MRCA's are not it.

SkyWriting · Nov 8, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Evidence please. MRCA's are not it.

The you need to define what evidence you imagine you need. Written records are the standard for documenting historical persons.

Split Rock · Nov 8, 2011

Jazer said:
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The claim has been made that there were many people living 6,000 years ago. Then where is the evidence that there were so many people alive? The ruins that we can visit today do not support the theory that there were large numbers of people alive back then. You do not get into millions of people until 2,000 years ago at the time of Christ.

OK.. now I understand your point. According to Wikipedia:

"A dramatic population bottleneck is theorized for the period around 70,000 BC as a result of the Toba supervolcano eruption. After this time, and until the development of agriculture around the 11th millennium BC, it is estimated that the world population stabilized at about one million people whose subsistence entailed hunting and foraging, a lifestyle that by its nature ensured a low population density. The total world population probably never exceeded 15 million inhabitants before the invention of agriculture.[18] By contrast, it is estimated that more than 50-60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire (AD 300400).[19]"
World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first Summerian cities were built in the 4th millenium B.C. and housed tens of thousands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer\
Cities of the ancient Near East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2011

SkyWriting said:
The you need to define what evidence you imagine you need.

Evidence consistent with a single woman founding an entire population. Pointing to just one genetic marker doesn't do it. You need to show that the entire genome is consistent with a single founding couple. Jazer has yet to post that.

Added in edit: This is what I wrote in another thread on the same topic.

Exactly. To help drive this home, you can use your own family tree starting with your grandparents. Of your grandparents, which grandparent did you get your mitochondrial DNA from? That would be your maternal grandmother. Does this mean that your paternal grandmother is not one of your ancestors? Does this also mean that none of your DNA came from your paternal grandmother? Of course not. On average, as much of your DNA came from your paternal grandmother as it did from your maternal grandmother. Both grandmothers are your ancestors in equal parts except when it comes to mitochondrial DNA (which really doesn't have that much to do with what makes us human anyway).

The same applies to the y-chromosome and the contributions to your genome from both of your grandfathers. If you are a man, then your y-chromosome came from your paternal grandfather. Does this mean that your maternal grandfather is not one of your ancestors? Does this mean that your paternal grandfather did not contribute DNA to your genome? The answer is the same as above.

Written records are the standard for documenting historical persons.

Genesis is not a written record. It is a written mythology. Or do you think that finding a book written about Paul Bunyan is enough evidence for the existence of Paul Bunyan? What about Gilgamesh? Real person or not?

SkyWriting · Nov 8, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Genesis is not a written record. It is a written mythology. Or do you think that finding a book written about Paul Bunyan is enough evidence for the existence of Paul Bunyan? What about Gilgamesh? Real person or not?

I'll be glad to look over your data on that. Few people doubt the historical context of the scriptures, even if they deny any supernatural events.

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2011

SkyWriting said:
I'll be glad to look over your data on that. Few people doubt the historical context of the scriptures, even if they deny any supernatural events.

Adam and Eve are part of the supernatural events. They are part of the creation mythology of the culture that produced the Bible. Here are the "historical figures" from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

SparkNotes: The Epic of Gilgamesh: Character List

How many of those do you consider to be real historical people? We find ruins consistent with the places mentioned in the epic, so this means that all of these gods and heroes were real people, right?

cupid dave · Nov 9, 2011

Jazer said:
Nothing faulty about the assumption, it is based on rock solid science that there were not enough generations for mutations to have taken place. You can ignore the geneologys in the Bible if you want to live in error. But they are real historical people. All we can do is feel sorry for you if you do not see real living people.

Actually, science supports a new look that we have roots back millions of years.

The analogy used in the genealogy, which refers to men living inordinately long lives, like to age 950, is a clue that we are really reading about hundreds of thousands of years.

We specifically read in the genealogy that the names refer to a "kind" of mankind, a species in our language of today.

And we also read that these names are what is called eponyms, or title or notions for a whole peoples or tribal like group.

Split Rock · Nov 9, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Adam and Eve are part of the supernatural events. They are part of the creation mythology of the culture that produced the Bible. Here are the "historical figures" from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

SparkNotes: The Epic of Gilgamesh: Character List

How many of those do you consider to be real historical people? We find ruins consistent with the places mentioned in the epic, so this means that all of these gods and heroes were real people, right?

I just wanted to point out that the first sentence of the Enûma Eli, "When on high.." pwns everything in the bible.

Phred · Nov 9, 2011

Jazer said:
I can not prove anything

Right.

and you can not prove anything.

You want what I can prove to mean more than it does.

Fine with me because you have failed to show that the Bible is not or can not be true.

Can the Bible be true? No. Humanity did not start from just one couple. That has been proven.

Just remember the dates line up 6,000 years ago.
Also the location lines up in the Middle East.
We call this a match. Adam was a farmer.
Science confirms this as the start of farming.

No. Science does not confirm your story as having anything to do with the start of farming. The two are not related by any evidence. We call this a story that you've managed to pretend is relevant.

Adam had two sons, one was a farmer, the other was a herder.
Cain killed Able, and went to another place to live after that.
What part of the spread of farming and herding do you not see?

I'm sorry, I've yet to see any evidence that Adam existed, that he had any sons or daughters and that they had any professions. And the story has the kid's name as Abel. Not Able.

We know that Cain built a city in the land of Nod.

We don't "know" this. It's in a story. There is no evidence that a person named "Cain" actually even existed. Nor is there any evidence that this Cain fellow did anything such as building a "city".

This is the beginning of Civilization. The first city was Jericho.
We read a lot of stories about the city of Jericho in the Bible.

And yet, Jericho isn't the oldest city in the world.

Phred · Nov 9, 2011

Jazer said:
The burden of proof is on you. If you can not falsify my premise you lose.
At least that is what Sheldon says and we all know he has a Phd.

I don't care who says it. We don't judge the validity of a claim by whether or not I can falsify it. We judge the validity of a claim by whether or not you can offer evidence to support it and then we look at whether or not I can come up with a better explanation for that evidence.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Period! Otherwise we end up with everything that can't be falsified being accepted as true. Do you accept Zeus as true? Fairies? You can't prove they don't exist.

See the horrible flaw in your thinking?

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

The Librarian

Contributor

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Contributor

The Librarian

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

The Librarian

Contributor

cupid dave

Guest

Conflation of Blathers

Junior Mint

Junior Mint

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency