Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[gnostic]

You get it already with those graviton pixies.
The thing is that many conclusions in science concerning the past have come about because of the presumption of no supernatural. It screams evolution and nothing else because of that presumption. Even the definition of "life" and "consciousness" is made up with that presumption in mind.
Maybe the Cambrian explosion suggests more that science can say.

Do you even know what the Cambrian Explosion is?

I don’t think you even know, from this post of yours, nor in other posts.

Why bring up something that you don’t even understand?

Plus, it isn’t presumption when so many evidence support the theory.

Which again, only demonstrate your ignorance on the subject and your bias against Evolution, simply because it doesn’t fit in your limited world of Genesis.

Believing in Genesis is matter of personal choice and accepting this belief through faith, not through evidence.

Faith in belief, such as the belief in the existence of god, don’t require evidence, because things such as miracles cannot be tested in any way, hence the needs for faith.

Fortunately, Evolution don’t rely on your personal belief, nor on your preference.

Nothing in Evolution, or any other scientific fields in physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy, would your like or dislike, belief or disbelief. All natural sciences required to settle it status, are the evidence, not anyone’s belief or anyone’s personal preference.

The problems with preference (eg like or dislike), belief or faith, is that each of these are highly subjective, and often lead to biases.

In religion, art, literature or music, subjective can be plus, especially the last 3 (art, literature and music) because subjective mind is where creativity come into play.

The problem with god, miracles, supernatural, magic, is that none of these are testable, hence you would find observable evidence. Hence the concepts of divine or theology, or of supernatural and occult, they are considered unfalsifiable.

Oh, they have in the past and even in the present, some people have tried to test these, but it always shown to be inconclusive and so unreliable that often they concluded as unfalsifiable concepts, pseudoscience.

 

[Brian2]

Why should it?

I don't know why the Bible should be used in science. I did not suggest it should.

 

[Brian2]

You claimed that the actions of spiders and bees and the existence of DNA are evidence of a designer but you didn’t make the actual connection. You just declared it so.

The existence of DNA does not show a designer and does not show there was no designer, but the existence of DNA is evidence more for a designer than for no designer. It is what DNA is that is the evidence, it is a code, holding information and able to direct molecules to build a certain shaped body and parts for that body etc.
How this could have been set up naturally is unknown and so at the moment a designer is the best explanation.
And of course it is not just what it does but also the intricacy and size and awesomeness of it also suggests a designer to me.
I'm sure I said something about spiders and bees as suggesting intuitively a designer, creating and giving knowledge for the survival of animals.

 

[Brian2]

The Bible is filled with claims, rather than evidence. Evidence for Biblical claims would need to come from somewhere outside the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of documents from different times in history and from different authors. Evidence for Biblical claims therefore can come from inside the Bible.

You can base your own worldview on whatever you like.
If you want everyone else to believe it, you'll have to demonstrate that it's what you say it is.

I'm not saying that everyone should use the Bible for their worldview and I'm not saying that science should consider the Bible in scientific hypotheses.
I am saying that the evidence that science uses does not show that a designer does not exist and does not show that a life giver does not exist. And I am saying that science does not use all available evidence and the reason is no doubt because the available evidence is too diverse and no doubt some of it is just the opinion of some ancient humans.

Science deals with falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim.

OK

But again, the burden of proof is on those making the claim.
If someone claims that Bigfoot exists, it's not on anybody else to disprove it. Rather, the burden of proof is on person saying that there is a Bigfoot.

OK

Done the same thing? What do you mean?

By that I meant that sceptics, like science, have also seen holy books as having no evidence for God. You are missing the point of what science is and requires and can handle as opposed to humans and the evidence they can deal with when it comes to their searching for a God.
If you really do think that a potential God made of spirit can be discovered by science that deals with the physical only then that is fine by me. Silly but fine.

Then get out there and test it and demonstrate it's veracity.

A prophecy supposedly coming true doesn't prove that it came from any God(s). You'd still have to demonstrate that. There are a bunch of people who think that Nostradamus made some pretty accurate prophecies as well. Was he sent from God too?

The problem with these "prophecies" is that they're vague and require a great amount of mental and mathematical gymnastics in order to try and make them fit, long after they've been written down. Not to mention that the people who wrote the stories that fulfilled such prophecies had access to the writings where said prophecies were written down.

I have in the past tried to show that some OBEs in NDEs do show the existence of life and consciousness outside the body. It seems that this is not the case unless I first show that spirit exists.
Prophecies in the Bible are plainly from God and many have come true. But that claim is something that a sceptic quickly falls on and makes up reasons why that is not necessarily so, as you have done.
That's fine and you can do that, but the prophecies and fulfilments are there and they are still evidence even if many people reject them and so science cannot say that God did not do it when it rejects evidence that it cannot deal with.
Science "says" it deals with falsifiable claims but as far as I can see there are unfalsifiable claims that science has accepted, or if science has not fully accepted them, sceptics certainly have and so only accept science to a point and then jump onto the religious faith bandwagon, except it is anti religious faith bandwagon.

I've asked you for several pages now to provide this evidence. Why haven't you yet?
Who is suppressing this evidence that you still haven't provided?

It is people in the sciences imo who would rather endorse the evidence for the Bible not being history than the evidence for it being history.

It's not evidence in favour of your claim either.

At best (being very generous), it's inconclusive.

OK

You've mentioned this before, but ignore the fact that there are a ton of fictional books that mention places and people that actually exist, but that doesn't automatically make the story true, right?

Like, if I read a Spiderman comic, I'll see references to New York City and the Empire State Building, and the President of the United States, etc. but that doesn't mean Spiderman is real too, right?

If most scholars don't agree with you, I'd say that's something to at least think about. After all, they're the experts in their field(s).

That bit about comic fiction is silly Sceptic rhetoric.
It is not as if there aren't other experts in their field who disagree. It is just that, as I said, truth seems to be a majority opinion in some sciences. I believe some experts and you believe the majority. A clear case of some illogical fallacy imo. You can tell me which one if you like. It's too late here and I need to go to bed.

How is that circular reasoning?

When you go to spiritual books with the naturalistic methodology, the presumption that the spiritual is not true then in the case of the Bible (and no doubt other books) the writing of prophecy is put after the events which fulfilled the prophecies.
That means the majority of modern historians want to have dates of writing and so authors whom they can say did not even know what they were talking about with the history in the writings.
Circular reasoning.
Presume not Godly input and end up "proving" no Godly input because of that presumption.

We can tell what has been plagiarized, in some cases. There are also common themes that human beings have told and written about for as long as we've existed on earth, apparently.
That doesn't mean there is a God or that a worldwide flood occurred for which there is no scientific evidence.

There is evidence of localised but heavy flooding in the ANE and in other parts of the world at around the same time. (and I'm not talking about one flood that covered the whole earth over the tops of the tallest mountains) The evidence is not lacking. The willingness to see similarities in stories as pointing to the truth of the flooding is what is lacking. It seems to be another case of naturalistic methodology being applied to spiritual writings to show they are false. (maybe that is not the purpose but it is the result and sceptics like yourself do not seem to see the circular reasoning involved.
Science is science and in a sense it cannot help what it does but really can it be said to be true when it contains such presumptions.
That is something for each person to consider but the problem is that not each person thinks about it, they just accept the science without knowing the presumptions.
Maybe that is a logical fallacy of believing authority.

 

[gnostic]

Evidence for Biblical claims therefore can come from inside the Bible.

You don’t even realize that this is classic example of circular reasoning plus confirmation bias.

A claim cannot be evidence of itself.

The evidence has to be outside and independent of the claim.

I know that you haven’t been member here from long, but you have been posting quite a lot in a short time, because you nearly posted 5000 messages.

So since you have been posting frequently, you should have learned a thing or too, as to what are considered evidence and what evidence...but it quite clear you refused to learn from your errors.

Whether you are doing science or doing history, you can only verify things from evidence or from outside sources (in the case with history) that are independent of the claim.

So if you want to use the Bible to make some claims of it being “scientific” or being “historical”, then you cannot use the Bible to verify itself.

To give you an example, the 1st century BCE Roman general, Julius Caesar, have written two memoirs concerning his campaigns in Gaul, Germany and Britain (Commentarii de Bello Gallico), and in the civil with his enemies (Commentarii de Bello Civili).

The memoirs cannot verify themselves. You must either verify his writings from other sources, preferably by Caesar contemporaries (Cicero, Cato, Aulus Hirtius, official public archives, etc), or verify his writings from archaeological evidence (eg colonies established in his times, building programme that have survived etc) or physical evidence (eg minted coins commemorating his achievements or victories).

Hopefully this time, you will understand what evidence are, and how they can verify writings.

 

[YoursTrue]

The existence of DNA does not show a designer and does not show there was no designer, but the existence of DNA is evidence more for a designer than for no designer. It is what DNA is that is the evidence, it is a code, holding information and able to direct molecules to build a certain shaped body and parts for that body etc.
How this could have been set up naturally is unknown and so at the moment a designer is the best explanation.
And of course it is not just what it does but also the intricacy and size and awesomeness of it also suggests a designer to me.
I'm sure I said something about spiders and bees as suggesting intuitively a designer, creating and giving knowledge for the survival of animals.

I saw a woman with a sweet looking child who has Downs syndrome. I saw another woman with 2 children and she was pregnant. It's just not going to get better...as Jesus said, pity those with child in the last days. Right now I'm seeing children may make some people happy, like pets.

 

[ppp]

I saw a woman with a sweet looking child who has Downs syndrome. I saw another woman with 2 children and she was pregnant. It's just not going to get better...as Jesus said, pity those with child in the last days. Right now I'm seeing children may make some people happy, like pets.

What a jerk.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible is a collection of documents from different times in history and from different authors. Evidence for Biblical claims therefore can come from inside the Bible.



I'm not saying that everyone should use the Bible for their worldview and I'm not saying that science should consider the Bible in scientific hypotheses.
I am saying that the evidence that science uses does not show that a designer does not exist and does not show that a life giver does not exist. And I am saying that science does not use all available evidence and the reason is no doubt because the available evidence is too diverse and no doubt some of it is just the opinion of some ancient humans.



OK



OK



By that I meant that sceptics, like science, have also seen holy books as having no evidence for God. You are missing the point of what science is and requires and can handle as opposed to humans and the evidence they can deal with when it comes to their searching for a God.
If you really do think that a potential God made of spirit can be discovered by science that deals with the physical only then that is fine by me. Silly but fine.



I have in the past tried to show that some OBEs in NDEs do show the existence of life and consciousness outside the body. It seems that this is not the case unless I first show that spirit exists.
Prophecies in the Bible are plainly from God and many have come true. But that claim is something that a sceptic quickly falls on and makes up reasons why that is not necessarily so, as you have done.
That's fine and you can do that, but the prophecies and fulfilments are there and they are still evidence even if many people reject them and so science cannot say that God did not do it when it rejects evidence that it cannot deal with.
Science "says" it deals with falsifiable claims but as far as I can see there are unfalsifiable claims that science has accepted, or if science has not fully accepted them, sceptics certainly have and so only accept science to a point and then jump onto the religious faith bandwagon, except it is anti religious faith bandwagon.



It is people in the sciences imo who would rather endorse the evidence for the Bible not being history than the evidence for it being history.



OK



That bit about comic fiction is silly Sceptic rhetoric.
It is not as if there aren't other experts in their field who disagree. It is just that, as I said, truth seems to be a majority opinion in some sciences. I believe some experts and you believe the majority. A clear case of some illogical fallacy imo. You can tell me which one if you like. It's too late here and I need to go to bed.



When you go to spiritual books with the naturalistic methodology, the presumption that the spiritual is not true then in the case of the Bible (and no doubt other books) the writing of prophecy is put after the events which fulfilled the prophecies.
That means the majority of modern historians want to have dates of writing and so authors whom they can say did not even know what they were talking about with the history in the writings.
Circular reasoning.
Presume not Godly input and end up "proving" no Godly input because of that presumption.



There is evidence of localised but heavy flooding in the ANE and in other parts of the world at around the same time. (and I'm not talking about one flood that covered the whole earth over the tops of the tallest mountains) The evidence is not lacking. The willingness to see similarities in stories as pointing to the truth of the flooding is what is lacking. It seems to be another case of naturalistic methodology being applied to spiritual writings to show they are false. (maybe that is not the purpose but it is the result and sceptics like yourself do not seem to see the circular reasoning involved.
Science is science and in a sense it cannot help what it does but really can it be said to be true when it contains such presumptions.
That is something for each person to consider but the problem is that not each person thinks about it, they just accept the science without knowing the presumptions.
Maybe that is a logical fallacy of believing authority.

The "world view" of some who read the Bible is that they place their view on what Jesus said in Matthew 24 & 25 about the "last days..."

 

[YoursTrue]

What a jerk.

I felt sorry for the mother. But...life is life and people want to have children, no matter.

 

[ppp]

I felt sorry for the mother. But...life is life and people want to have children, no matter.

I meant Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

I meant Jesus.

Well anyway, you could figure it's always evoluition --

 

[ppp]

Well anyway, you could figure it's always evoluition --

Heh. Evolution doesn't care.

 

[YoursTrue]

Heh. Evolution doesn't care.

Are you sure that science agrees with you? What I find interesting is the friendships that can form between animals that would normally be considered as "natural" enemies. Yet in 2010 the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. was suicide. So would you say that's evolution also?

 

[YoursTrue]

Heh. Evolution doesn't care.

Are you sure? Why do "evolved people" care sometimes? It's not part of evolution?

 

[ppp]

Are you sure? Why do "evolved people" care sometimes? It's not part of evolution?

What is not part of evolution? Caring? Why would you think that? Are you under the impression that evolution is all about ripping each others throats out or some similar creationist circle-...um, echo chamber?

 

[ppp]

Are you sure that science agrees with you? What I find interesting is the friendships that can form between animals that would normally be considered as "natural" enemies. Yet in 2010 the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. was suicide. So would you say that's evolution also?

What on Earth do you think evolution is? You could ask those exact same questions about sandstorms, and they would make no more sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

What on Earth do you think evolution is? You could ask those exact same questions about sandstorms, and they would make no more sense.

Wouldn't you feel sorry for a pregnant woman trying to escape from dire poverty risking her life and the life of her unborn plus perhaps children she may be traveling with to go in a rickety boat from one poverty stricken country trying to get to better life? Many have been drowned and killed doing that. By the way, speaking of feeling sorry for someone like that, would you say that feeling of sorrow is evolved? Yes, I definitely think the question is noteworthy re: life and evolution if that's what you believe in.

 

[YoursTrue]

What on Earth do you think evolution is? You could ask those exact same questions about sandstorms, and they would make no more sense.

Well, wouldn't you feel sorry for someone caught in a sandstorm? How about warning them if you knew a sandstorm was coming threatening their lives and wellbeing plus their children's. Did feelings of concern and sorrow evolve? But then again, many are happy when they have a child to look at and see them smile, etc. Makes them feel good. Then again there is usually not a real good feeling when a child commits suicide. Evolution? Yes, I do think it's a very important question for those who believe in evolution to think about.

 

[ppp]

Wouldn't you feel sorry for a pregnant woman trying to escape from dire poverty risking her life and the life of her unborn plus perhaps children she may be traveling with to go in a rickety boat from one poverty stricken country trying to get to better life? Many have been drowned and killed doing that. By the way, speaking of feeling sorry for someone like that, would you say that feeling of sorrow is evolved? Yes, I definitely think the question is noteworthy re: life and evolution if that's what you believe in.

I asked what do you think evolution is. Asking me questions is not a response. If you are willing to show some honest reciprocity, I am willing to answer your questions. Otherwise, it is not worth my while. You can see this for the candor that it is and answer my question, or you can get offended. Or you can just disappear. In any case, I will have my answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

I asked what do you think evolution is. Asking me questions is not a response. If you are willing to show some honest reciprocity, I am willing to answer your questions. Otherwise, it is not worth my while. You can see this for the candor that it is and answer my question, or you can get offended. Or you can just disappear. In any case, I will have my answer.

Why ask what I think evolution is.?? Don't you know? It's basic. Perhaps you haven't been reading my posts. Why would you need to know what I think evolution is? The definition is there in science books, the internet, wikipedia, encyclopedias, etc. I no longer get into detail about evolution because most people know what it is. So the question is not really what is evolution, but rather do scientists and you believe that feelings of sorrow and compassion came about as a result of -- evolution. Anyway, have a good night.