Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Kylie]

You are avoiding answering the question. It’s a yes or no question. Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

It depends on who you ask - much like asking whether creationism is true. I would say it is not possible for creationism to be true, you would argue the exact opposite. If someone came and asked us, they'd get different answers from each of us.

It's an analogy. If there were such nice neat easy answers, then it wouldn't be a very good analogy, would it?

 

[Kylie]

That’s not what I said. I said that the fact that God created wasn’t an assumption.

So then if your belief doesn't lead you to conclude it is a fact, then perhaps you have some valid scientific evidence to show that it is a fact? Can you present this evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Reality does conform to God’s word.

When Genesis says that that the Earth was around before the sun was, that contradicts reality. When Genesis says that there were trees before animals, that contradicts reality. When Genesis says that Jacob's goats are born striped because their parents looked at striped poles when they mated, that contradicts reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

When Genesis says that that the Earth was around before the sun was, that contradicts reality.

No, it doesn't.

Today's written history contradicts what the Bible says; and you can't go back in time to say otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also bear in mind that I've seen Muslims claim that there is evidence that the Koran is divinely inspired as well, so the Bible is hardly unique in that regard.

Do you believe the Koran is divinely inspired? if not, okay if I don't either?

Note: I will, however, admit that I think the Koran was spiritually inspired, but not divinely inspired.

 

[BobRyan]

My point was that in such a case, we can prove that the claim is true without having to bring in the original source as part of the evidence.

If you mean "the autograph" then that is correct.

but if you mean that someone or something can make statements and then be tested to see if those statements are true or not... without actually looking at those statements... then I don't follow your logic.

 

[BobRyan]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers.

1. That is circular reasoning because how did all those atheists and agnostics become "believers" in the Bible if the only way to get there was as you say "to already be a believer"?

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

Point taken. But I've found that the arguments that are used in those cases are mostly emotional arguments, they have very little actual evidence.
.

I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic that said they decided to forget all that and just start believing the Bible is true because someone who believes the bible cried or was emotional. I have never seen any atheist give that as their reason for their switch to full-on faith in the Word of God.

Are you seeing them do that a lot ? From your response it would appear that this is all you see them doing in that regard.

 

[BobRyan]

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

Also bear in mind that I've seen Muslims claim that there is evidence that the Koran is divinely inspired as well, so the Bible is hardly unique in that regard.

1. One would assume that all major religions claim their holy book is inspired by some divine being. isn't that the whole point?

2. I don't know of any book other than the bible that predicted thousands of years of human history in advance.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not prepared to believe that very many people have come to Christ because "prophecy proves the Bible." To begin with, Christians who believe that kind of thing are a small minority of Christians as a whole. How does it work? You prove that the Bible is "true" by OT prophecies so then you have to believe the Gospels are true and if the Gospels are true then you have to believe in Jesus?

Well hmmm lets see..

=================================
Christianity Today seems like a good place to start.

2015

Adventists: Can Ben Carson's Church Stay Separatist?

"In 2014, for the 10th year in a row, more than 1 million people became Adventists, hitting a record 18.1 million members. Adventism is now the fifth-largest Christian communion worldwide, after Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and the Assemblies of God."

===============================
And then there is USA TODAY -

2011

Adventists' back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church - USATODAY.com
" Adventists' back-to-basics faith is fastest growing U.S. church"
"Newly released data show Seventh-day Adventism growing by 2.5% in North America, a rapid clip for this part of the world, where Southern Baptists and mainline denominations, as well as other church groups are declining. Adventists are even growing 75% faster than Mormons (1.4 percent), who prioritize numeric growth.

For observers outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the growth rate in North America is perplexing."
=============================

So how are they doing that?? well they do it using the very method you say in your post that you can't imagine being used.. to do that very thing. -- They start by showing that the proven predictions of the Bible - prove that the Bible is inspired by God.

 

[Kylie]

No, it doesn't.

Today's written history contradicts what the Bible says; and you can't go back in time to say otherwise.

No, evidence from reality contradicts what the Bible says.

And it's pretty hard to conclude that reality is wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

Many folks here would argue that "in reality a bacteria will not turn into a horse no matter how much time and chance you give it". And of course "observations in nature" of 50,000 generations of bacteria prove that what they are arguing in that regard --- is science fact.

An interesting "detail" given that in less than 50,000 generations humans supposedly evolved from primates.

 

[Kylie]

Do you believe the Koran is divinely inspired? if not, okay if I don't either?

Note: I will, however, admit that I think the Koran was spiritually inspired, but not divinely inspired.

The difference is that I don't believe either of them is divinely inspired. Hence my logic is consistent. You, on the other hand, pick and choose based on what you want to believe. You accept one yet discard another simply because you want to. Reality is not determined by what any person wants.

 

[Kylie]

If you mean "the autograph" then that is correct.

but if you mean that someone or something can make statements and then be tested to see if those statements are true or not... without actually looking at those statements... then I don't follow your logic.

I have been quite clear.

If a source makes a claim, then we do not need to present that source as evidence that the source is correct. We just go and investigate reality.

If the source is correct, then the evidence from reality will show that the claim is true, and we can use that evidence to demonstrate it without having to hold up the source as evidence.

If the source is incorrect, then we should disregard the claim anyway.

In either case, the source of the original claim is not required to demonstrate the claim's validity.

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that I don't believe either of them is divinely inspired. Hence my logic is consistent. You, on the other hand, pick and choose based on what you want to believe. You accept one yet discard another simply because you want to. Reality is not determined by what any person wants.

Did you see my story about the Leprechaun in the forest?

If so, you should understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Kylie]

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

Oh, don't get me started on prophecy.

There are prophecies that are only "true" because someone went in and wrote the prophecies AFTER the events that are said to have fulfilled the prophecy. There are prophecies that are only true because someone went in and wrote a story that claimed that the prophecy was fulfilled, but the events that fulfilled it never occured. There are prophecies that are only true because they were originally written in such vague language that they could be twisted so as to say that a particular event fulfilled them.

I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic that said they decided to forget all that and just start believing the Bible is true because someone who believes the bible cried or was emotional. I have never seen any atheist give that as their reason for their switch to full-on faith in the Word of God.

Do you think that's all an emotional argument is? An emotional argument is one that doesn't appeal to logic/reason. Any argument from incredulity is an emotional argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a source makes a claim, then we do not need to present that source as evidence that the source is correct. We just go and investigate reality.

If the source is correct, then the evidence from reality will show that the claim is true, and we can use that evidence to demonstrate it without having to hold up the source as evidence.

Jesus walked on water.

Investigate that.

 

[Kylie]

2. The Bible does contain evidence that it is inspired, and can be accessed by one who is willing to measure objective reality as was shown earlier in the case of the devout atheist evolutionist, professor of biology -- that became a believer a creationist because of the reality of Bible predictions proven to be true.

Yes, your unsupported claims about some unnamed person changing their mind are certainly more than enough evidence for me to conclude that all of science is wrong!

1. One would assume that all major religions claim their holy book is inspired by some divine being. isn't that the whole point?

yes it is. So if you can discount all those other holy texts, why can't I discount the Bible for exactly the same reason?

2. I don't know of any book other than the bible that predicted thousands of years of human history in advance.

Yeah, okay.

 

[Hammster]

It depends on who you ask - much like asking whether creationism is true. I would say it is not possible for creationism to be true, you would argue the exact opposite. If someone came and asked us, they'd get different answers from each of us.

It's an analogy. If there were such nice neat easy answers, then it wouldn't be a very good analogy, would it?

It doesn’t depend on who you ask. The balls were on the table and there was a note. Is it possible that the note is true?

 

[Hammster]

So then if your belief doesn't lead you to conclude it is a fact, then perhaps you have some valid scientific evidence to show that it is a fact? Can you present this evidence?

The Bible concludes that it’s a fact. My belief has nothing to do with it.

 

[Kylie]

Many folks here would argue that "in reality a bacteria will not turn into a horse no matter how much time and chance you give it". And of course "observations in nature" of 50,000 generations of bacteria prove that what they are arguing in that regard --- is science fact.

An interesting "detail" given that in less than 50,000 generations humans supposedly evolved from primates.

The difference between a bacterium and a horse is a lot bigger than the difference between humans and the most recent common ancestor with chimps.

And that's despite the fact that Humans are still primates.