There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

The bible is always true and has been for hundreds of years. Education and knowledge is subjected to errors and mistakes. We don't always teach the truth, just the best explanation as the truth. Knowledge can be, and is, corruptible. As are many who think they possess it. The Bible has never changed its mind or contradicted itself. Take a look at science for an example of that. You speak from ignorance and bias.

In my opinion, there's nothing admirable in not changing one's mind in the face of new information. Not doing so, imo, is ignorant and biased.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yet Carrol caught Craig quote mining and mispresenting Carrol's own book. It undermines one's arguments when you can not even quote your opponent's work correctly nor understand it. Craig fails on every level, which shows why his arguments are flawed. He does not understand what he is talking about.

You try an use logical fallacies to confuse the debate with, not that there is anything wrong in logical fallacies, if it relates to what is being said. Much of the time your interpretation of what is a logical fallacy and what is not is suspect or completely wrong. post hoc rationalization is generally used when in verbal debate or under questioning. It is coming to a conclusion before knowing what brought the conclusion into play. You used this inappropriately and dishonestly. If I may suggest, you have little room to condemn WLC when your path is not that straight. I shall be investigating every claim you make, from now on, of logical fallacies because I believe that you have relied upon my ignorance to them in order to win a point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it's Dawkins and his fanboys who have to explain it!
Here it is again, he's clearly saying wingless animals hurled themselves out of trees, and hopped up and down on the ground until they somehow sprouted wings.
Is he nuts?..

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees..
Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds..
Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees.
Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp113–4)

SkepticThinker has already answered this:

He makes the same point you missed when you misquoted his discussion about the evolution of the eye (the incomplete parts of the quote you provided are bolded):


“In any case, I introduced (gliding) flying fish as a prelude to the theory that true, flapping flight evolved not from tree gliders but from fast-running, ground-dwelling animals whose arms became freed from their normal role in running. Flying fish and flying squids, although they live in water, illustrate the principle that if a gliding animal can move sufficiently fast along the surface it can take off without the support of a tree or cliff. The principle might work for birds, because they evolved from two-legged dinosaurs (indeed, you could say that technically birds are dinosaurs), some of whom probably ran very fast along the ground, as ostriches do today. To pursue the analogy with flying fish for a moment, the two legs would play the role of the fish’s tail, propelling the animal forward very fast, while the arms play the role of fins, perhaps originally used for stabilizing or steering, and later growing aerofoil surfaces. There are some mammals such as kangaroos that propel themselves very fast on two legs, leaving their arms free to evolve in other directions. Our species seems to be the only mammal to use the two legs in the alternating, bird-like gait, but we are not very fast and we use our arms, not for flying but for carrying things and making things. All the fast-running, twolegged mammals use the kangaroo gait in which the two legs push together rather than alternately. This gait grows naturally out of the horizontal spine-flexing of a typical running quadruped such as a dog. (By analogy, whales and dolphins swim by bending the spine up-and-down, mammal style, whereas fish and crocodiles swim by bending it alternately to left and to right, following the ancient fish habit. Incidentally, we should wonder more than we do at the unsung heroes among the mammal-like reptiles who pioneered the up-and-down gait that we now admire in sprinting cheetahs and greyhounds. Vestiges of the ancient fish wriggle are perhaps still to be seen in tail-wagging dogs, especially when the movement spills over to the whole body in the squirming of a submissive dog.)

Among ground-dwelling mammals, kangaroos and their marsupial kind don’t have a monopoly of the ‘kangaroo gait’. My colleague Dr. Stephen Cobb was once lecturing to zoology students in the University of Nairobi and he told them that all wallabies are confined to Australia and New Guinea. ‘No Sir,’ a student protested. ‘I have seen one in Kenya.’ What the student had seen was undoubtedly one of these (Figure 4.5).

This animal, the so-called springhaas or spring hare, is neither a hare nor a kangaroo but a rodent. Like kangaroos, it hops to increase its speed when fleeing from predators. Other rodents like the jumping jerboa do the same. But piped mammals don’t seem to have taken the next step and evolved the power of flight. The only true flying mammals are bats, and their wing membrane incorporates the back legs as well as the arms. It is hard to see how such a leg-encumbering wing could have evolved by the fast-running route. The same is true of pterosaurs. My guess is that both bats and pterosaurs evolved flight by gliding downwards from trees or cliffs. Their ancestors, at one stage, might have looked a little like colugos.

Birds could be another matter. Their story is different anyway, centred around that wondrous device, the feather. Feathers are modified reptilian scales. It is possible that they originally evolved for a different purpose for which they are still very important, heat insulation. At all events, they are made of a horny material which is capable of forming light, flat, flexible yet stiff flight surfaces. Bird wings are very unlike the saggy skin flaps of bats and pterosaurs. The ancestors of birds therefore were capable of forming a proper wing which didn’t have to be stretched between bones. It was enough to have a bony arm at the front. The stiffness of the feathers themselves took care of the rest. The back legs could be left free to run. Far from being awkward and clumsy on the ground like bats and, presumably, pterosaurs, birds can use their legs for running, jumping, perching, climbing, prey-catching and fighting. Parrots even use their feet like human hands. Meanwhile the front limbs get on with the business of flying.

Here’s one guess at how flying got started in birds. The hypothetical ancestor, which we can imagine as a small, agile dinosaur, runs fast after insects, leaping in the air with its powerful hind legs and snapping at the prey. Insects had evolved into the air long before. A flying insect is perfectly capable of taking evasive action, and the leaping predator would benefit from skill in mid-course correction. To some extent you can see cats doing this today. It seems difficult because, since you are in the air, there is nothing solid to push against. The trick is to shift your centre of gravity. You can do this by moving bits or yourself relative to other bits. You could move your head or tail, but the obvious bits to move are the arms. Now, once the arms are being moved for this purpose, they become more effective at it if they develop surfaces to catch the air. It has also been suggested that the feathers on the arms originally developed as a kind of net for catching insects. This is not so far-fetched as it sounds, for some bats use their wings in this way. But, according to this theory, the most important use of the arms was for steerage and control. Some calculations suggest that the most appropriate arm movements for controlling pitching and rolling in a leap would actually resemble rudimentary flapping movements.

The running, jumping and mid-course correction theory when compared with the tree-gliding theory, reverses the order of things. On the tree-gliding theory, the original role of the proto-wings was to provide lift. Only later were they used for control, and then finally flapping. On the jumping for insects theory, control came first, and only later were the arms with their surfaces commandeered to provide lift. The beauty of this theory is that the same nervous circuits as were used to control the centre of gravity in the jumping ancestor would, rather effortlessly, have lent themselves to controlling the flight surfaces later in the evolutionary story. Perhaps birds began flying by leaping off the ground, while bats began by gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees. The debate continues.”
-Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbablepp. 122-126

Taking a few sentences out of context in order to paint an inaccurate picture of a person's position is an exercise in dishonesty.

 

[outhouse]

The bible is always true and has been for hundreds of years. .

It factually is not.


Nor is it something you can substantiate


It is embarrassing theist know so little about their own book :slap:

 

[outhouse]

The Bible has never changed its mind or contradicted itself

.

You are factually wrong again.


it does so in many places.

Luke states baby jesus a no go to ah duh Egypt

Matthew say a he go to duh Egypt

 

[Shuttlecraft]

(Dawkins quote)-..A flying insect is perfectly capable of taking evasive action, and the leaping predator would benefit from skill in mid-course correction. To some extent you can see cats doing this today...

I don't see cats sprouting wings..

 

[outhouse]

You cannot even do that here.

You have been laughably refuted over and over since you started this thread.


You just choose to keep embarrassing yourself.

 

[Shad]

You try an use logical fallacies to confuse the debate with, not that there is anything wrong in logical fallacies, if it relates to what is being said. Much of the time your interpretation of what is a logical fallacy and what is not is suspect or completely wrong. post hoc rationalization is generally used when in verbal debate or under questioning. It is coming to a conclusion before knowing what brought the conclusion into play. You used this inappropriately and dishonestly. If I may suggest, you have little room to condemn WLC when your path is not that straight. I shall be investigating every claim you make, from now on, of logical fallacies because I believe that you have relied upon my ignorance to them in order to win a point.

Logical fallacies show an error in one's thought processes and arguments. There are many problems when one uses fallacies. Their arguments do not prove the conclusions. Premises are made in error or are errors to begin with. Primarily it shows a break down in logical arguments. Post hoc rationalization is taking "dust' and reinterpreting it to fit modern science. Its post hoc, after the fact. Rationalization, an excuse or defensive flow of thought. I have ponted out fallacies in KSA, your own arguments, conclusions and random comments. This seems to bug you. Perhaps instead of complaining about it you should fix your errors or learn how to spot your errors.

 

[Serenity7855]

In my opinion, there's nothing admirable in not changing one's mind in the face of new information. Not doing so, imo, is ignorant and biased.

That is fine, so the retort to "Where do atheists get their 'truth' from, considering they don't have a central reference book of their own? Cannot be Education and Knowledge for your defence as they are not always true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see cats sprouting wings..

Thank you for demonstrating that you need to keep reading.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is fine, so the retort that the equivalent source to "Where do atheists get their 'truth' from, considering they don't have a central reference book of their own? Education and knowledge cannot be used in your defence as they are not always true.

What?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is fine, so the retort that the equivalent source to "Where do atheists get their 'truth' from, considering they don't have a central reference book of their own? Education and knowledge cannot be used in your defence as they are not always true.

Wait, what??

Are you seriously saying that education and knowledge cannot be used as a source of truth because "they are not always true"? Are you serious?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Atheists say the bible is full of contradictions, then in their next breath they say it's been edited over the centuries to tidy it up!
Make up your minds guys. huh?..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheists say the bible is full of contradictions, then in their next breath they say it's been edited over the centuries to tidy it up!
Make up your minds guys. huh?..

You need some new material.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheists say the bible is full of contradictions, then in their next breath they say it's been edited over the centuries to tidy it up!
Make up your minds guys. huh?..

So you're saying the fact that something is edited must mean it cannot contain contradictions? You realize those two things are not exclusive, right? The Bible can be heavily edited and altered over time and still be full of contradictions. BOTH are facts that are damning to the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

But why should anybody want to edit the bible anyway?
MOTIVE is where atheist arguments always fall flat like Dawk's wingless creatures hurling themselves out of trees and splatting on the ground..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But why should anybody want to edit the bible anyway?

Gee, why would anyone want to alter an extremely influential book that is believed by many to be the inerrant and unaltered word of God and followed slavishly by huge numbers of people who are completely devoted to its message and demands? It's a total mystery!

 

[SkepticThinker]

But why should anybody want to edit the bible anyway?
MOTIVE is where atheist arguments always fall flat like Dawk's wingless creatures hurling themselves out of trees and splatting on the ground..

Taking a few sentences out of context in order to paint an inaccurate picture of a person's position is an exercise in dishonesty.

.....

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys, guys, Dawkins says the eye has been wired up "back to front", yet even though biologists have pointed out that we'd all be blind if it was wired up the way he suggests, he's letting his statement stand (as far as I know).
Isn't he being a teeny bit dishonest?

http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guys, guys, Dawkins says the eye has been wired up "back to front", yet even though biologists have pointed out that we'd all be blind if it was wired up the way he suggests, he's letting his statement stand (as far as I know).
Isn't that being a teeny bit dishonest?

Sources, please.