Lines of Evidence

[JacksBratt]

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

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.

All humans who have not reached an age at which they are capable of making decisions concerning their eternal life, go to heaven. You cannot be accused of something you cannot comprehend. This, for some, may be younger than others. Some, with mental issues, may never reach it.

 

[JacksBratt]

Whatever and whoever Jesus of Nazareth was,

If I ever was to think such a thing, I would not call myself a Christian.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

I understand, yet, my response was to a direct question between the other poster and me. Your response was out of the loop. Thus it makes no sense.

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

The Bible presents no "theory". It is a book of history. The so called "evidence" that is used to support the TOE is also used to back the Biblical historical accounts. People who are more educated than you or I, depending on which camp they reside, can use this to support either one.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

My, my. If that isn't a bullying attitude. It IS bullying when students and educated professionals are condescended, riticuled, discredited, harrased, and publically critisized for having any view other than the TOE.

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

This "evidence" is used by Creationists to dissprove the TOE. People much more educated than you and I. The "evidence" speaks for the one who uses it.

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

So, it's not true because you say it's not true?

As for coverups and scandles in the Smithsonian.... check this out for staters.

http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/canyon.txt

 

[Kylie]

The Bible presents no "theory". It is a book of history.

And yet, the history it presents often has little evidence from the real world and indeed is CONTRADICTED by evidence from the real world.

As a book of fact - any kind of fact, be it scientific, historical or otherwise - the Bible seems to leave much to be desired.

The so called "evidence" that is used to support the TOE is also used to back the Biblical historical accounts. People who are more educated than you or I, depending on which camp they reside, can use this to support either one.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support both evolution and the Bible.

Would you care to produce this evidence so that we may examine it?

 

[bhsmte]

I understand, yet, my response was to a direct question between the other poster and me. Your response was out of the loop. Thus it makes no sense.





The Bible presents no "theory". It is a book of history. The so called "evidence" that is used to support the TOE is also used to back the Biblical historical accounts. People who are more educated than you or I, depending on which camp they reside, can use this to support either one.

The bible is much more a book of theology, than it is a book of historical credibility. Even most biblical historians would agree on this.

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet, the history it presents often has little evidence from the real world and indeed is CONTRADICTED by evidence from the real world.

As a book of fact - any kind of fact, be it scientific, historical or otherwise - the Bible seems to leave much to be desired.

I think you may be surprised to find that they use the bible to guide them to find many discoveries. You need to do more research.
Bringing the Ancient World to Life – Biblical Archaeology Society

There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support both evolution and the Bible.

Please read.... It doesn't support both theories, both camps use it to back their respective theories.

 

[JacksBratt]

The bible is much more a book of theology, than it is a book of historical credibility. Even most biblical historians would agree on this.

I stand corrected.

 

[Kylie]

I think you may be surprised to find that they use the bible to guide them to find many discoveries. You need to do more research.
Bringing the Ancient World to Life – Biblical Archaeology Society

Far be it for me to claim that the Bible is inaccurate about all the things it mentions. I readily accept that the Bible does describe events and people who really existed.

But that doesn't mean it is accurate. The TV show MASH correctly states that there was a Korean War, yet we'd hardly consider it to be a valid source for it.

Please read.... It doesn't support both theories, both camps use it to back their respective theories.

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood.

Still, I'm curious as to what evidence there is that some people claim supports the Bible and yet others claim supports evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

All humans who have not reached an age at which they are capable of making decisions concerning their eternal life, go to heaven. You cannot be accused of something you cannot comprehend. This, for some, may be younger than others. Some, with mental issues, may never reach it.

So then, if any baby , not having reached the age of reason, were to be killed, that would be a good thing!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

So then, if any baby , not having reached the age of reason, were to be killed, that would be a good thing!

I'm sure there's a Hitch in there somewhere.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The bible is much more a book of theology, than it is a book of historical credibility. Even most biblical historians would agree on this.

I doubt it it was ever conceived that way. It's many different things, to many different people. It's got a ton of different sorts of literature in it, and it's far from any sort of systematized theology -- though there is some sort of correlation between the two testaments.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Someone has been telling you lies to keep you believing, very much like they do when they regularly find Noah's ark only for you to find out they haven't acctually found anything, you want to believe so they keep telling you lies to reinforce those beliefs, you are a victim of your beliefs, one day hopefully you will see it all for what it really is and come to your senses, you will be afraid for a while but in the end you will feel better for it.
Then they will tell you that you weren't a real Christian after all. We all live in hope for you.

If this was your experience, then get ready for your reboot.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All humans who have not reached an age at which they are capable of making decisions concerning their eternal life, go to heaven

Seems a good pro-abortion argument.

You cannot be accused of something you cannot comprehend.

Funny, since that is exactly what "the fall" is.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Seems a good pro-abortion argument.

What's the fun in life, if one doesn't get to go to the fairground and ride the BIG BOPPER?

Funny, since that is exactly what "the fall" is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4McEIQMn6w

 

[Zosimus]

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



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.



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?

And did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that Hitchen's Razor was right?

 

[[serious]]

And did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that Hitchen's Razor was right?

You missed my earlier post explaining it I guess:

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?

 

[Zosimus]

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?

Ahh but there are things you can assert without evidence.

I assert, for example, that it's not possible for an apple to be all green and all red at the same time. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

If John is taller than Mary and Mary is taller than Carlos, then John is taller than Carlos. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

Every effect has a cause and the cause precedes the effects temporally. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

I do not because these things are known a priori.

Hitchens, on the other hand, proclaimed that he could know a priori that a priori knowledge was impossible.

 

[Zosimus]

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

I wouldn't accept advice from someone who thinks that the word someone is a valid antecedent for the personal pronoun they.

 

[Zosimus]

You missed my earlier post explaining it I guess:

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?

Not an earlier post, but rather a later post.