Lines of Evidence

JacksBratt · Dec 29, 2014

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
What about the Garden of Eden?

What about it. Do you not think that it was literal and was lost in the flood?

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
I think the story telling device, might not have been as literal as one might want it to be. Perhaps looking at it a different way, might yield a very different meaning. I'll let it rest, as I don't really have a view about that.

That's fine, if you think the Bible is a "story" telling device. If it is, then, is Christ real, or a story?

JacksBratt · Dec 29, 2014

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
Why should you want to do that? The Bible isn't the topic of this thread -- it's simply about gathering the LINES OF EVIDENCE for EVOLUTION.
Should you wish to start a thread of you own, where you challenge the evidence with alternate scientific theories, then I suggest you go right on ahead with that.

That response was directly to someone (TLK Valentine ) who asked me who I was trying to convince. Not to you or anybody else.

JacksBratt · Dec 29, 2014

TLK Valentine said:
So, you're convinced that the TOE is a form of bullying?

That "modern thinking" is a lie?

That the Bible, the inspired word of God to man, needs you to defend it from the likes of... us? Really?

Be nice if we believed that too, wouldn't it?

Is it that hard to understand. I don't think the TOE is a form of bullying. I think that the masses that believe it and control the secular education and scientific community will bully anyone who speaks out against it.

Modern thinking is full of lies. Corrupt governments, corrupt universities, corrupt churches, police forces.... it's not that hard to see. Lots of people in lots of occupations are told what to think or told to button it up or else.

The scandles inside the smithsonian are very real and all to maintain the lie.

If people like me don't defend the Bible then who will. How did that go? In order for evil to succeed all that needs to happen is for good people to do nothing.

It doesn't need you to believe it in order for it to be true.

JacksBratt · Dec 29, 2014

MissRowy said:
Yes thats the Bible.....And I object to your claims about the general public being deceived about abortion on demand. I for one don't support abortion except in cases of life endangerment and rape, and I am sure there are a lot of other Christians who probably feel the same way as I do.

I am sorry MissRowy, but I must dissagree. As far as I am concerned, even in the case of rape, the child is a human being and should not be condemmed to death for a sin it didn't commit. It was concieved and is is a human life. It should be allowed to live, laugh, love and have a life where it can make it's own decisions.

I don't know of many cases, with modern medicine where the case of life endangerment would be a factor.

lasthero · Dec 30, 2014

The scandles inside the smithsonian are very real and all to maintain the lie

What scandals in the Smithsonian Institute?

Gracchus · Dec 30, 2014

JacksBratt said:
I am sorry MissRowy, but I must dissagree. As far as I am concerned, even in the case of rape, the child is a human being and should not be condemmed to death for a sin it didn't commit.

But God would condemn it to hell for original sin, which it didn't commit?

It was concieved and is is a human life. It should be allowed to live, laugh, love and have a life where it can make it's own decisions.

Or if God would let it into heaven, would it not be better off there, than with a parent who didn't want it? Christians all claim to want to go to heaven, but they don[t want to go just yet. That is faith that couldn't move a mustard seed.

If you don't want an abortion don't get one. But you will please let God deal with the infants, mothers, and medical personnel involved without your self-righteous interference.

I don't know of many cases, with modern medicine where the case of life endangerment would be a factor.

You don't know!

It still happens, although not as often in the past. Maybe there are only a few thousand cases a year? It doesn't mean anything to you, of course, but for the people it does happen to, it is a very big deal.

lewiscalledhimmaster · Dec 30, 2014

JacksBratt said:
What about it. Do you not think that it was literal and was lost in the flood?

Please try to keep up. If it existed, it was only the setting for it. Historical fiction at best.
The flood is another story which has it's own symbolic associations.

JacksBratt said:
That's fine, if you think the Bible is a "story" telling device. If it is, then, is Christ real, or a story?

I'd say that some of it, employs such -- but there are other writings i.e. the Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes which do not. However the tale of Job is definitely a story telling device, a long poem -- perhaps a better source for what might have transpired before the Big Bang.

Our primary source for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is the NT, plus certain well known secular historical writings -- yet it is not dependent upon sacred texts, for such beings simply are. To debate the existence of Christ / Messiah, is to argue outside the frame of history -- who he was (his divinity/deity) isn't really open for debate here (and hasn't done much good for those who got their nickers in a bunch trying to do it).

Whatever and whoever Jesus of Nazareth was, is certainly something that one can find splashed all over the pages of the New Testament (as well as some parallels, drawn by it's writers - editors etc. in the OT) -- Even other sacred texts, seem to hint at someone coming -- but it's more than likely something which is revealed personally -- I think again that whatever the New Testament has given us, it's probably a fine blend of history and fiction -- and anyone who's made that study, will probably nod in agreement.

Now to the matter at hand.

Lines of Evidence : Fossil Evidence

lewiscalledhimmaster · Dec 30, 2014

JacksBratt said:
That response was directly to someone (TLK Valentine ) who asked me who I was trying to convince. Not to you or anybody else.

As this is a public forum, and I am the thread starter -- I can and shall reply to anyone who posts here, as they have been quite happy to do so me, yourself included.

JacksBratt said:
If people like me don't defend the Bible then who will.

If the Bible presents alternative scientific theories, then you have a case -- other than that, you are simply wasting our time here.

Back to the subject at hand: Lines of Evidence : Fossil Evidence

TLK Valentine · Dec 30, 2014

JacksBratt said:
Is it that hard to understand. I don't think the TOE is a form of bullying. I think that the masses that believe it and control the secular education and scientific community will bully anyone who speaks out against it.

It's not bullying, it's a challenge: put up or shut up.

The theory of evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it -- you want to take it down, you need to take it all down.

Can you?

Modern thinking is full of lies. Corrupt governments, corrupt universities, corrupt churches, police forces.... it's not that hard to see. Lots of people in lots of occupations are told what to think or told to button it up or else.

And your alternative is a paragon of absolute truth and incorruptibility, is that it?

Glass houses, my friend. Complain if you have a better idea; don't complain for the sake of complaining.

The scandles inside the smithsonian are very real and all to maintain the lie.

Scandals such as...?

If people like me don't defend the Bible then who will. How did that go? In order for evil to succeed all that needs to happen is for good people to do nothing.

So find a good person and tell them to get to work.

It doesn't need you to believe it in order for it to be true.

No, but as it's not true, it's a moot point.

Zosimus · Dec 30, 2014

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
Now to this little point of yours:

Lines of Evidence

Yeah, you're confused all right. Let me help you out by a mock conversation that perhaps will make it clear.

Hitchens: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!
Zosimus: Really? So you are claiming that evidence is required to make claims.
Hitchens: Absolutely!
Zosimus: So what evidence do you have to back up the claim you just made?
Hitchens: What claim?
Zosimus: You just claimed that evidence is required to make claims. What evidence do you have to back that claim up?
Hitchens: Uhm....well, nothing.
Zosimus: Then, using your own rule, I dismiss your claim for lack of evidence.
Hitchens: You can't do that!
Zosimus: Why not?
Hitchens: Because... well, just because.
Zosimus: Not good enough.

TLK Valentine · Dec 30, 2014

Zosimus said:
Yeah, you're confused all right. Let me help you out by a mock conversation that perhaps will make it clear.

How about you help us out with a real conversation? Outsmarting Christopher Hitchens in your own imagination doesn't really advance the discussion much.

lasthero · Dec 30, 2014

I'm used to strawmen argumentation on this forum, but it's rarely that blatant.

TLK Valentine · Dec 30, 2014

lasthero said:
I'm used to strawmen argumentation on this forum, but it's rarely that blatant.

I've seen dialogues in Chick tracts with more depth.

TLK Valentine · Dec 30, 2014

Fancy123 said:
Hitchens wasn't making a claim he was stating a fact.

More of a maxim than a fact.

Zosimus · Dec 30, 2014

TLK Valentine said:
How about you help us out with a real conversation? Outsmarting Christopher Hitchens in your own imagination doesn't really advance the discussion much.

Hitchens razor says that anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is what we call a self-refuting idea. Here's another example that might be more appealing to atheists:

Believer: All truth is contained in the Bible!
Zosimus: Does it say that in the Bible?
Beleiver: No.
Zosimus: Then it's not true.

This is a subset of Proof by Contradiction wherein you start by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove and then show that it leads to inescapable contradictions.

This is how we know, for example, that the square root of 2 is an irrational number or that there is a non-finite number of primes.

Of course Darwinists are generally more concerned with evidence than with logic. Except, of course, when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims. Suddenly evidence is not required. Isn't it convenient?

Zosimus · Dec 30, 2014

Fancy123 said:
Hitchens wasn't making a claim he was stating a fact.

Hitchens was plagerizing the Latin phrase "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

Hitchens assertion that anything that has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, does not provide evidence to prove its own validity. Accordingly his own statement is dismissible within the rules of his own assertion.

TLK Valentine · Dec 30, 2014

Zosimus said:
Hitchens razor says that anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is what we call a self-refuting idea.

And I'm sure that you can make imaginary Hitchens stamp his feet in frustration every single time.

Here's another example that might be more appealing to atheists:

Believer: All truth is contained in the Bible!
Zosimus: Does it say that in the Bible?
Beleiver: No.
Zosimus: Then it's not true.

This is a subset of Proof by Contradiction wherein you start by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove and then show that it leads to inescapable contradictions.

And herein lies the flaw in your reasoning -- you're assuming that Biblical literalists and other religious thinkers restrict themselves to logic.

You see, such folk not only believe in an All-powerful God who can create and navigate contradictions effortlessly, but keep such a God on a tight leash, ready to use Him as necessary. Such use, of course, is not subject to refutation or questioning of any kind.

In your example above, All a believer has to say is:

Believer: The Holy Spirit revealed to me that all truth is contained in the Bible!

...and that ends the discussion right there.

Of course Darwinists are generally more concerned with evidence than with logic. Except, of course, when they are asked to provide evidence for their claims. Suddenly evidence is not required. Isn't it convenient?

Actually, it's a falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to acknowledge its existence or not.

The real question is what conclusions do we draw from the gathered evidence? Do we use logic, or do we let God off the leash?

[serious] · Dec 30, 2014

Zosimus said:
Hitchens was plagerizing the Latin phrase "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

Hitchens assertion that anything that has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, does not provide evidence to prove its own validity. Accordingly his own statement is dismissible within the rules of his own assertion.

Not at all. Everything boils down to postulates. From an agreed on set of postulates, additional items can be discerned. For example, let's say my friend and I look up at the sky. I see a bird and say, "hey look, a bird is up there." My friend turns to me and says, "there is no bird up there"

Now, in trying to convince him, I make several unstated assumptions:
1. What we see is real
2. The bird is visible to him
3. We are both using the term bird to refer to the same thing.

I point at the bird again and say, "well what's that?"

Let's look at 3 possible responses:
1. "Oh, that is a bird" (I've convinced him of my opinion)
2. "no, that's a bat. Look at the wings" (He's convinced me of his position)
3. "I'm just a butterfly dreaming I'm a man" (Fundamental postulates are not shared. It is no use continuing the conversation)

The idea that asserting things without evidence is an unconvincing argument strategy is a pretty fundamental postulate.

But let's use your own approach:
There exists two possibilities:
1. In an argument, a challenged premise can be asserted without evidence
2. In an argument, a challenged premise cannot be asserted without evidence.

You have asserted the first position. If you are right, then that is sufficient. However, if you are right, I can equally validly assert the second position. Thus, that chain of logic leads to a paradox.

"But wait!" you say, "if you assert the second, and I challenge that position by asserting the first, we are once again trapped in a paradox!" Let's assume so. Now either of us challenging the other results in a paradox. Thus, we must agree to operate using one or the other.

Now we have a choice.

Is it more productive to debate with evidence or without?

lewiscalledhimmaster · Dec 30, 2014

Zosimus said:
Let me help you

bhsmte · Dec 30, 2014

lewiscalledhimmaster said:

I wouldn't accept help from someone who claimed they couldn't test their smoke alarm, to see if it works.

Lines of Evidence

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Newbie

Senior Veteran

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

I've already read the books you want burned.

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

I've already read the books you want burned.

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

georgemacdonald.info

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency