When your actual presupposition is that some specific 'scripture' is the only reliable source of 'truth', rather than a broader examination of reality, both at first hand where possible, and from a wide range of other sources for things you can't personally check, and for fresh ideas that haven't personally occurred to you, you have really lost the plot.

AiN's arguments are actually a series of logical fallacies, rather than logical arguments, as I recently pointed out - without response. It obviously wasn't my turn...

Bob, all you say is blah blah blah. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. I repeat I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. Do you mean to tell me that at the highest complex “level”, it’s “operation” is not determined by the immediate level below it? And that level’s operation is not determined by the immediate level below it? That that levels operation is not determined by the immediate level below it?...(Skipping a million or more of the same statement until&hellip That the individual atom’s operation is not determined by the subatomic level and so forth?

So concede that it’s possible for things non physical to exist or that it’s possible for some forms of matter & energy to exist that do not adhere to the laws of physics or chemistry. Otherwise my arguments are not straw man (not that they were to begin with or that they will be if you concede J).

Bob, maybe you need to read up on what the logical fallacy of composition is. Look at some of the examples provided and see that my objection is no where as ridiculous as the actual fallacies. And another thing Bob, did you just conveniently reword my objection to try to fit it into your desperate attempt of again dodging it? Don’t forget that I have at least one of you admitting that human choice is illusion not to mention many material atheist who hold somewhat to this view of determinism (human behavior being 100% predictable if all the antecedent factors are known). Let me give some examples of actual fallacies committed that I’ve found or were given:

Example 1:

·        Atoms are not visible to the naked eye

·        Humans are made up of atoms

·        Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

Example 2:

This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.

You are a desperate man Bob, Instead of owning up to it, you’ve tried so hard to avoid it, making your fellow atheists by association commit the fallacy that you’re accusing me of committing when they’re simply being logical.

The only problem with them confessing it (conceding to this conclusion) is that they don’t recognize the problematic situation this places them under: everything they do is involuntary. They’re not “rational”, “logical”, “scientific”, “brave & fearless”, “intelligent”, etc because they chose to be, rather they’re all those things involuntary (involuntarily determined to be). Similarly all the things theists are accused of being, i.e. “irrational”, “illogical”, “unscientific”, “cowardly & fearful”, “delusional”, etc are not so because we had some say in the matter (involuntarily determined as well). This discussion we’re engaged in, the side of the debate you’re on, or the side of the debate I’m on is not voluntary (rather involuntarily determined). Ultimately it’s the determined outcome of the first chemical/physical reaction that occurred a “long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away”.

You know you haven’t proven this. I mean to use scientific methods to prove the supernatural would prove that it’s not supernatural. You’ve simply made a claim without any scientific proof. To be fair, I would have to ask you how life even evolved from the non living from a materialist perspective. Don’t forget to provide scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc.

I hope that I didn’t state it like that Bob. I’ve simply showed that your presupposition that the universe is solely physical is wrong given what we do as human beings. No matter how you explain it, complexity of composition (when all you have is matter) doesn’t give rise to self-awareness and “freedom” (many determinist materialist Atheists would agree).

Not any supernaturalism claim out there is logical or rational also.

Looking at morality:

It’s meaningless in Hinduism when the traditionalist Hindu would argue that ultimately there are no true distinctions between good and evil.

To the Buddhist (also the materialist Atheist), right and wrong are completely arbitrary.

For Atheism, logically speaking, might makes right (those who can or are on the side that can enforce it), not to mention to the fact that it’s always changing. In the past, slavery was okay, today it isn’t. In the past homosexuality was taboo, then allowed, then banned again, and now allowed once more. To argue that homosexuality for example is not immoral would be meaningless. On top of this, you have the involuntary thing against you which makes it right from the start meaningless.

In your wildest dreams desperado.

*sigh*

I hate coming back to this discussion repeatedly after I said I was leaving; I'll probably just end up even more frustrated, but I can't stop looking at it. It's like a bad car accident.

Of course, now that this thread has gone on longer, I think I have a better grasp of exactly what your problems with atheism are. So, let me try again.

We'd have to clarify what you mean by voluntary and involuntary in the context of determinism, but sure. I am nothing but atoms, if that's what you were looking for. In fact, almost everything that you've charged to be meaningless in atheism so far, rationality, morality, etc. really is meaningless from the Christian perspective, in that it holds no cosmic significance. Yep, so:

- The concept of morality is a human abstraction. So, you might ask, what makes my morality better than, say, Hitler's, on a cosmic level? Well, the answer is....(drumroll!!!)....nothing!

- Everything, to our knowledge, is determined by natural processes. Does that make my actions involuntary? If so, then, okay, my actions are involuntary. So now, you're probably thinking, since our discussion is 'meaningless,' why don't I leave? Well, if it's really meaningless, then it doesn't matter either way, right, so, why can't I stay? Ah, but then why do I choose to stay even though it's meaningless? Well, because I want to stay.

By 'observably verifiable,' you don't mean directly observed, do you?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/chemical_evolution

I don't believe in free will either. I don't see why complexity can't produce self-awareness though.

First, you say 'might makes right.' Then, you say it's meaningless. Isn't that inconsistent?

But, anyways, yeah, it's all meaningless in the cosmic sense. So, what's your argument?

If Ain can't feel the comfort of absolute morality and eternal belonging in a perfect universe, his feelings will be crushed?

 Till next time, I remain, forever, that guy in the hat.

Not quite yet Michael. I wish everyone else would stop commenting. If they can hold their peace until I respond. When they keep jumping in, I have an obligation to answer their objections.

It will take a while by the way.

No.

I already said, "If so, then, okay, my actions are involuntary."

No.

Um, no...

Uuuuhhh, no.

I know.

In that sense, you're correct.

They don't.

There is no evidence that morality as more than some kind of abstraction actually exists, and humans are the only living things that talk about morality. So, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that it's a human concept.

Oh, we do. We judge it based on culture, psychology, etc.

But, it's my impression that to Christians such as yourself, all talk of morality below the cosmic level is meaningless, so I'm trying to explain my perspective on morality in a way that would make the most sense to you.

I don't want to.

That depends on what the laws are. The two main reasons would, of course, be:

1) The punishment.

2) I agree with the law, so I'm not going to break it.

That depends on what you mean by that question. Maybe you meant it in sort of a pragmatic sense, in which case the ones who determine what is lawful would be those in power or with authority. Or, perhaps, they get to decide because they are wise or they follow the conscience of most of the population. 

I don't think any human has any more a monopoly on morality than any other human.

If I disagree with them, sure. That's how it works with religion too anyways, except it's more of an interaction between in-out-groups as opposed to individuals. 

There tends to be confusion with these terms too. I guess the best way to clarify would be to paste what I wrote in another thread.

"I choose to be moral because I want to be moral. That's really all there is to it. I don't like stealing. I enjoy helping people. Etc.

As for what I define as "moral," I now consider myself a moral pluralist. I don't think there are any perfect ethical systems; instead, we have to mix them up to determine the best course of action in any specific situation. Also, there is no inherent morality or any morality independent of humanity or any Platonic forms representing good or evil. However, there are many moral sentiments that are pretty much universal in our species. Some good starting points for a preferable morality would be:

- The Golden Rule.

- People might not necessarily want you to do to them what you want them to do to you. Hence, if you are unsure, ask first."

Well, of course not. I hope I don't have to live that long.

You have to clearly define "kind." Otherwise, you'll just have a beautiful shifting goalpost.

That's rather ambiguous. What's more complex?

Is one more base pair considered more complex? If so, then voila!

Devolve is a silly term.

Natural selection simply selects for the organisms that are best fit to the survive in the specific environment. It's hard to say what is better or worse.

You're going to have to do more than just make the assertion to convince anyone on this forum.

I guess I'm just closed-minded then, because I still can't figure out why my position is foolish.

Why should I? That's not what I want. I don't want to impose my views on others. 

I'll take freedom of expression over censoring those that disagree with me any day of the week.

 It Speaks!

I already explained to you why the 'we haven't seen it' argument is patently retarded. No living person ever saw the Battle of Hastings, does this mean it didn't happen? No living person ever saw the eruption of Vesuvius, should we doubt that too?

Or the example I used, do you need to have video evidence of a murder in order to pronounce a verdict, or is forensic evidence such as DNA testing and fingerprint analysis enough?

True, we can't be 100% certain it happened the way we think it happened, but then again, we don't need to be. 99.999% certain is quite good enough, hell, we don't even need to be that certain, so long as the available evidence does not contradict the explanation, and the explanation itself explains the available evidence, it is rational to accept it as truth.

Now I will ask you, since you love the 'you weren't there' claim so much;
Were you there? No? Then how do you know? Okay, lets look at which side the collected evidence supports;

Frankly, we do have evidence, bucketloads of it. Furthermore, the Human Genome has been completely mapped out, and so have several primate genomes in our ancestry, and they fit exactly with evolutionary theory. This Genetic Testing is the exact same that is used in Paternity Tests and Murder Cases. If you want to declare this wrong as well, you better be prepared to get rid of those too.

Or, you could just ignore all of the evidence like you have been doing up until this point. At this point I am really just repeating myself.

Now then, what evidence, remember, evidence that you have observed, do you have of your creation story?

As for the tree, I might call it bad, but bad has more definitions than simply dealing with morality. As for the man casting the stone, Immoral is a word applied to people who do things I don't like. Why they did that is of little consequence to me, therefore I don't see how it is irrational to call someone who does wrong immoral as that fits perfectly with the definition of Immoral, which never speaks of 'choice', merely of action.  

Regardless, I still can feel hatred towards it, as it has damaged my house, something which I don't like. Even if these are merely chemical reactions that are built solely upon the preceeding reactions and thus completely out of my control, this does not negate the fact that I still experience the emotions. Likewise, just because the tree or man is not in control of its actions does not mean I cannot get angry at it.

However deterministic the Universe may be in absolute terms, for humans a sort of 'Free Will' effectively exists because we can never have all of the variables necessary to predict a sentient beings behavior, a point I have already made which you have ignored.

Ultimately, I consider it damaging to my house, why they did it is of little consequence to me. I'm still going to try to stop it. Immoral and Moral are just words constructed to describe actions committed by sentient beings as we observe them. Were a man to break into my house, I would call him immoral and try to stop him. Were a tree to break into my house, I would likely call it something profane, and get me an axe.

However this completely dodges my point. I thought you were saying that a deterministic universe negates purpose, not morality, or fault. It must get tiring carrying those goal posts back and forth.

I will ask again, how does a deterministic universe negate purpose?
I will ask again, how does a deterministic universe negate Morality?

If someone is driving too close to me and I need to slam on my brakes, and they rear end me, it doesn't matter why they were driving so close to me. They still have to pay for my repairs.

You still haven't proven that Free Will existws.

@butterbattle:

Because living in a universe that exists purely to be wiped out in some galactic cosmic struggle between a being that is supposedly omnipotent so shouldn't even need to fight and his former minion who somehow chose to commit a sudden but innevitable betrayal despite never being endowed with free will* and who draws all of his power solely from his creator who is now his enemy makes life so much more meaningful.
NOTE: I'm not saying you believe this butterbattle.

Funny thing is our actions can have cosmic significance, if we survive long enough to become a truly space-faring species. Even if we can't, Chaos theory gives us some influence, however minor.

Other than that, fair enough, I just wanted to throw that point into the arena.

*I have never been given a satisfactory answer as to whether or not Lucifer or any other angels were givel free will.

Now if you excuse me, I have a Galaxy to Build.

So ( saying this while I'm drunk).... can I gloat cos AiN hasn't answered?

Excuse my drunk spelling

1)  I really should stop sitting down at the computer when I'm drunk.

2)  No.  I'm not answering any of your questions until you address the topics that you raised.  I have answered your questions on radiometric dating.  Do you accept those answers, thus accepting that your argument that the "presuppositions" of radiometric dating are shaky is a false one?

Until we tie off the original conversation I refuse to let you shift the goalposts and start using this thread (which was on evolution) to go over the tired "but where do morals come from?" schtick.

Define obligated.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

None, except your conscience. Of course, realistically, there is always a chance that you will be caught.

I think it's wrong.

Huh? Well, if you're implying what obligation do we have to do these things on an inherent/universal cosmic level, the answer is undoubtedly that there is no sufficient obligation. We've been through this before.

I will...can you point me again to where you explained it? just tell me which page of this thread.

so i suppose you're going to continue holding on to your religious dogma in the face of the lingering problem of your pseudo scientific claim. I've already posted the problem with radiometric dating and the other forms of "proof" you use to validate evolution; that in the end, you have no way of verifying the accuracy of the method over any number of years past recorded history (forget about billions of years); that in the end evolution can be nothing more than a philosophical view/theory and that it's not scientific (it's claims direct or indirect are philosophical not scientific). I see you haven't addressed that obvious fact. Please continue to hold on to it with religious fervor.

I wasn't aware that recorded history extended back 100,000 years. News to me

If I took the bet, you would win. Like I said, you cannot verify that it's accurate even 15,000 years back how are you going to tell us if something is billions of years old? What would I be refuting? That his math was incorrect? Or that all the variables that he considered aren't considered in the calculations (or whatever)?

I'll ask again, did he go back in time and see the formation of the material in question and recorded the date and then compared it with the results of the methods used by evolutionists to verify it's accuracy?

I'll be sure to read over it and respond back.

First of all, don't try to mislead any of your readers with your awful comparison. You're comparing apples and oranges. If your referring to forensic science, the methods used in forensic science have been tested and verified. Everything we need to verify the methods are accessible to us. This is real science.

Regarding the historical battle, its plausible that the battle never happened and it was some big conspiracy executed by all the parties said to be involved in the battle. But aside from that, again different category here. We have the writings of historians who lived in that day who either witnessed it firsthand, knew someone who witnessed it firsthand, or knew someone who knew someone who witnessed it firsthand, other literary works to cross reference, and don't forget that people were there to at least witness that time in history. It's RECORDED history. I mean do we even have anything in writing in the past that records the observation of some kind of living thing evolving into a different kind of living thing?

Radiometric dating is employed for dating things. To verify the accuracy of a dating method you would actually need to KNOW the date of the thing being dated which we have no way of actually knowing (please build the delorean to prove me wrong); otherwise you're just guessing; even if it is an educated guess. The dates in question are beyond recorded history. This is pseudo science.

Whatever floats your boat.

You know I'm not usually one for non-scientific, "folksy" statements, but my dad always told me that if I ended up shouting at the guy across the table from me I'd probably lost the argument.  That being said, I'll adress the points you tried to make before you started being huffy.

Ok, I'm going to condense my post about isochron methods into a series of bullet points to help out the hard-of-thinking:

• Isochron dating makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.
• Data points only sit on a straight line if the assumption that all materials involved formed a common pool of matter is true.
• The gradient of that line will increase with time due to the nature of radioactive decay
• That gradient will tell us the point at which the materials formed.
• The technique suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
• This has been confirmed by testing a slew of radioative materils, none of which are required to give the same value for the age of the earth unless that value is true.

This is a fact.  You don't need a time machine to see that this is true.  It is tested and proven by materials we have today.  And before you hide behind the "But... but... but.... the pastor says that we don't know what happened a gajillion years ago" argument need I remind you that scientists have tried to alter the conditions of radiactive decay using pressure and temperature - the two things most likely to alter the rate of a chemical process - and, in the case of the rocks we use for dating, they found no significant changes.  FYI no significant changes means a shift of 1 million years in 140 million.  It's not a big deal before you get your panties in a twist.  We have absolutely no good reason to assume that the mechanism nor the rates of radiactive decay have changed in the past 10, 100, 1000, 1 million or 1 billion years.  I highly suggest you look at the Talk Origins articles I linked to as well as the materials that Sinphanius has directed you to.

Bold faced assertions are fun!  Can I try?  yes they are.

But we have observable data.  The stratiography, taxonomy and phylogeny (supported by modern molecular genetics) of all creatures we have ever studied all agree with each other on the shape of the "tree of life".  This is an observable fact and one which would only be true had an evolutionary process occured.

For the record the shortcomings of a theory don't make it wrong.  Hell a paper is going to be published soon that aruges that orang-utans are our closest living relatives, not chimpanzees.  It's controversial and many people don't agree with this view, but the paper will still be published as a dissenting view and is open to scrutiny.  That's how honest science works.  So you can cram your suppression of truth line up your ass.

Way to go on calling us bigots.  We're discussing evolution here, what does that have to do with religious bigotry?

Wrong.   Speciation is speciation.  The types of changes that allow bacteria to develop the ability to digest nylon are the same types of changes that allowed cats and dogs to evolved from the original carnivorae and that allowed us and monkeys to evolved from a common ancestor.  This is one of the biggest mistakes of the creationism movement.  There's this false suggestion of two different types of speciation when that's blatantly untrue.  The mechanism that has been suggested for the evolution of humans from a primate ancestor is a mechanism we see in action today.  It's observable and testable.  Tell me AiN, what is unscientific about this?

And it has been verified that domestic cats are related to wild cats, don't be a dick.  Phylogeny and taxonomy - both accepted sciences supported by molecular biology - make that link very well.

No strikes - no ouchy!  Yeah!

I refer you above on radiometric dating.  The assumption isn't philosophical, it's physical and can be tested.

And now you're sounding desperate, I suppose that explains why you then went into "CAPSLOCK FURY".  The fossil record proves that life has gradually got more complicated over time.  End of story.  If you disagree with this conclusion then please provide a reasonable explanation, and evidence, for how the fossils came to lie in the stratic pattern we observe without it being a process inherent to time.

Since you love time machines so much I'm going to follow what has already been implied in this thread but set it more as a direct challenge to you.  I'm going to list two scenarios for you, one realistic one phrased childishly, and I would like to to answer the questions that follow both.

 1)  A man has been found murdered in the street.  Forensic analysis and molecular biology have identified the method of his execution - right down to what direction he was hit from and the violence of the blows - and have also positively identified his killer with only a 1 in a million shot that the DNA belongs to someone else.

• How do we know the police have the correct man or that the murder took place as described?  No-one saw the attack.  The accused claims an evil djin commited the murder and planted evidence.  As no-one was there the police cannot scientifically verify the claim of evil spirits.  Can they still prosecute?  They're basing their conclusions on scientific evidence which doesn't let anyone see what actually happend but points heavily toward the accused having comitted murder.  Is this fair?

2)  The Bible says that jesus walked on water.  It says he was crucified and rose from the dead

• Where you there?  Did you see it?  Do you have a time machine to prove it to me?  People still argue over Elvis's favourite burger recipe and the JFk assassination which happend less than 50 years ago.  We know stories change.  How do you know that the jesus story hasn't changed over 2000 years?  How do you know the claims made by an old book are verifiable.  How do you know it wasn't made up?  Can you scientifically verify all this?
• Provide me with scientific evidence or your time machine and I'll listen.

Furthermore, since you seem to have such a cosmic stiffy for recorded history, it should be noted that we have recorded history extending well beyond the supposed 'date of creation' as determined by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland in the 17th Century, as outlined Here.

@MichaelMcF: I already suggested that series to him, he refused to watch it. I also suggested potholer54's wonderful 'Made Easy' Youtube Series which, like the FFoC adresses all of his concenrs. He won't watch them, just as, by his own admission, he won't read anything we give to him.

The two series effectively kill any possible argument for creationism, as the Made Easy Series effectively says why we are right while the FFoC Series deals with why creationism is dead wrong about everything. Sprinkle a little "Why do People Laugh at Creationists" by Thunderf00t on for seasoning, and let simmer for 20 minutes and you have got yourself one fine meal.

P.S. My boat is floated by a mixture of Helium with trace amounts of Hydrogen thrown in because everything is better with fire.
 

PPS - AiN, I'd ask you to look for a thread in the Atheist vs Theist forum that I'll title "AiN and other Theists..."

It's clear to me that you're not even properly reading the points I've addressed, which is disappointing because in the first page of this topic it looked like you were genuinely open to discourse.  I shall carry on regardless.

Christ-on-a-fucking-pogo-stick.  Do you even have basic comprehension skills?  The isochron dating method is simply a mathematical tool.  It makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.  The only assumption is that the matter formed at the same time.  A creationist could take this assumption from Genesis and say "Well God created all the matter at the same time" and get the straight line that an isochron plot predicts.  At that point the tool works for a scientist and a creationist.  It's the same tool and, from two similar assumptions, it would appear to work.   But the creationist would still arrive at the same answers as the scientist.  There's nothing about the method that assumes age.  There's nothing about the method that requires it to arrive at billions of years.  For all Patterson knew the only straight line he could have got would have been rocks dating the earth to 6,000 years.  There's nothing about the method dependent on the bias of the observer.  It can't be affected by bias!  The only thing the method can do is return an independent number.

Of course the rocks won't stay perfect over billions of years.  Contaminants may get on or isotopes may escape through whatever process.  Do you know what that does to the data in our sample set?  It creates an error.  Hence why you'll never find a scientist saying the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years exactly.  The actual answer comes in at 4.54 billion years +/- 0.04 billion.

Again this is an independent number.  It is not affected by bias.  For fuck sake man, different radioactive materials give the same age.  There's no reason for them to do this.  There's no way you can manipulate this with bias.  The only way that several different techniques give the same number is if that number is true.

Christ, surely you're above this - God created the world 6,000 years ago but made it look 13.9 billion years old?  creating light in transit and everything?  To quote Bill Hicks "I'm a prankster God, I'm killing me!".  What purpose would this serve?  Plus it doesn't mention that in the Bible, it's clutching at straws.

If you want to go down that route:  I'm God.  I created the Universe at 00:53, June 23rd 2009.  Everything before it that you think you've experienced is an implanted memory and I've decided to make the universe look older that the couple of minutes it actually is.  Explain to me why this is not true.

OK.  The anatomic, physiological and molecular biological trees suggest that all life, not all kinds, but all life is related.  I'll take evolution out the equation.  That's the evidence you have.  Please explain the apparent relationship between all living things.  Please interpret the evidence.  Back up your claim with sound logic.

Your caps lock writing didn't address anything.  You shouted that evolution was a religion, made the same baseless assertions that have already been addressed and once again tried to move the conversation towards the concept of determinism in the universe in a bid to step away from the actual discussion.

And you sir are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist.  Seriously?  Atheists hold all the power?  So George Bush was High Chief atheist was he?

And in this one statement you prove the vast depth of your lack of understanding of speciation and science in general.  Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that  a dog should give birth to something nothing like a dog.  creatures just formed into different kinds of creatures.  The next creature to evolve from us will be "still a human" just as we are "still apes" who are "still primates" who are "still eukaryotes".

The bacteria were not engineered in a lab, they were found on trash dumps if memory serves me correctly.  This is a recent species.  It wasn't just stumbled upon.

Yet another bold assertion.  This is not interpreting facts to fit a theory.  Even if we ignore the obvious similarities between domestic cats and lions, or dogs and foxes, DNA evidence clearly shows the animals are related.  Are you prepared to deny this fact?  If you are then you must deny that DNA evidence can work in paternity tests, or that it can trace hereditary diseases.  Are you bold enough to make these claims?

Plus I'm pretty sure to the trained eye it's a piece of piss to tell a Rembrandt from a Picasso.

Pressure, Temperature and a shift in the isotope ratio.  All have been accounted for.  Tell me dear AiN, what else would affect the perceived decay rate of a radioactive material?  Bear in mind that this single thing must affect all the ratios of radioactive material in the solar system, if not the universe,

So what are the layers then?  Explain stratification with a credible hypothesis.

Only because you failed to understand it.  Forensic science cannot tell you exactly what happened in the past.  It is incapable of witnessing previous events.  But it can solve murders up to 50 years old.  How?  Because the techniques and principles used build up a plausible framework that point towards the most likely scenario.

All other science does the same.  We can't say exactly what happened because we weren't there.  We can paint the best picture though.  Which leads us to...

This is rich coming from man who has so far come back with the same response to any comment on radiometric dating and resorted to unleashing CAPSLOCK FURY at the end of a post.

This is brilliant.  Aside from the Bible we have secular sources, and here's all the bits of the Bible that back it up?  FYI you're supposed to put your secular sources in the middle there.  It makes your argument... what's the word?... credible.

So why mention it? If the Bible doesn't prove anything... then why keep bringing it up?  Why mention the revelation of Moses if it doesn't mean anything?

Well fuck me with a shitty stick.  A book tied to a religion that was held up by a succession of Empires and held as the authority in the land for hundreds of years of human existence has lots of copies?  Really?

So it's credible because it contains less errors than other ancient manuscripts?  The facts that it was enforcedly popular (having to stick to canon) and any error in it takes away from the perfect word of God doesn't affect the credibility?

Certainly it's remarkable.  But what does that have to do with the veracity of the book?  Doesn't it indicate more that people went to great lengths to preserve it?  Again that says nothing for the veracity of it, just that people thought it was important.

Wow.  The men responsible for leading the religion quoted their own holy book?  What are the odds?
 

Yet, you've still not cited a secular source.  Read this article on the historical Jesus.  Please explain why none of the historians listed ever spoke about him.  Bear in mind these are papers not from 150 AD, but covering the years and regions of Jesus supposed life.

I can discredit the rest of their writings and maintain what I know to be true.  Why?  Because other things I've read have independent agreement.  They are things I can observe and test.  They are things that have been tested.  Many times over.

Would you please stop repeating the "You weren't there" argument, you're beginning to sound like some sort of Vietnam vet.  You don't have an unbroken chain.  You've got a book, with no independent corroboration, with several other books arguing against it, that you can only find 150 years after the events it claims to describe.  How is this an unbroken chain.

In closing:

• I'll throw your claim back at you, expanding on the comment I made about DNA earlier.  If you reject the science behind evolutionary theory, you reject all molecular biology for the past 50+ years, you reject pharmacological science, you reject the study of heredity, you reject the DNA evidences of familial lineage, and almost every other important advance that has helped shape our understanding of medicine and biology.
• You didn't see any of the events described in the bible and you've only got that book with no independent verification to go on.  How do you know that's what happened?  How do you know the Koran isn't true?  Apply your own standards to your own arguments and see how far you go.

You must a lot of this for a living. Tell me about some published works in which isochron dating was used on known aged rocks (within say 2 thousand years or even a little more). Make sure the rock sample is rock that we know the age of, say from volcanic eruption or something like that (some historically known catastrophic event) and walk me through the process step by step. Don't think this is tedious or a waste of time. Anyone can say I'm a geologist by profession and the methods we use are reliable just trust me; or tell me generally what goes on without disclosing any of the problems or steps that are never known by the general public. (Tell me how the sample is selected, how it's prepared, etc you don't have to go into great detail of each step, only make sure you disclose each step).

The reason I'm asking for this is because (1) every date you provide me is always beyond the scope of recorded human experience (2) the process is generally explained, I don't know the full story. For all I know you can get a reading on some sample that you have a idea of it's age and get a wide range of dates and pick the the one that comes close to the target date and discard the rest as variant readings.

I've already given you my reason, it paints a big picture of the universe and my experience makes sense in light of it. If I were to judge your claims in the same way, it would be those two lines you gave me. Not much to work with and insignificant to my life.

The relationship between them is they are created by the one true living God; he made the world uniform and orderly to be discoverable and to be manipulated; he made it operate "naturally" living creatures have blood, blood is a major theme in man's salvation. The blood of animals was used as analogy of man's atoning blood (only man's blood can atone for another man's shed blood, because the physical life is in the blood). We're made in his image. As he is creative, so we are creative. Like he made feline looking creatures and dog like looking creatures, so also artists go through several stages of their careers, Picasso's earlier work is nothing like his later work but within each group, they are similar yet distinct.

Our DNA determines our physical structures, so to find similar DNA between members of the cat family doesn't have to be explained by evolution. You have to because that's what you believe in. It's part of your metaphysics whether you admit to it or not. Every bit of experience will be interpreted in this light.

You should be logical and answer my questions on morality. butterbattle has, why do you avoid it? I want to hear it from you and then I'll respond to both of you regarding atheist morals and knowledge.

As for Bush. I don't recall mentioning anything about government. He's not a scientist or in the public school system is he?

It's kind of like how churches get corrupted. The ones that deny the Bible's teachings sneak in, fill in all the influential roles and start changing policies and reforming views making them anti-Biblical

so when did the single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism and eventually evolved into an insect and next into a lizard, and then a bird, and so on until humans appeared? Like I said your speciation can't prove evolution.

So as far as you know that particular bacteria might have always been able to digest nylon, right?

It wouldn't matter, because I can't go back into time to prove it and certainly can't bring about a world wide flood caused by continual rains, and geological upheavals and spewing forth of ground water for us to observe it's effects.

But are you saying that evolution is at best a credible hypothesis that can't be tested?

50 years versus 1 billion years and more...didn't I say that. In the last 50 years people have been around right, the accused is still around, etc?

Funny, you asked how I knew that the miracles were performed. I told you by faith just like you believe that miracle of evolution is true. You asked me how I know that the Bible wasn't altered within 2000 year span; I told you we have manuscript copies that date back to 125 A.D. less than 100 years and over the span of 2000 years the content hasn't changed.

Also the Bible being the Bible doesn't disqualify it from being reliable. I've told you that archeology is the Bible's best friend (although I don't believe it was intended to be) in verifying the historical data to be accurate. The miracles you don't believe because you didn't witness them; but like I said at least someone claimed to witness them and claimed that multitudes of people witnessed it also. Who's claimed to witness the evolution of some living thing or travel back in time? Who's experienced the evolution that takes billions of years? Let's start there please for evolution to be scientific.

Now I didn't say it means nothing and doesn't prove anything. It ought to mean something important to all humans. Because the worldview that it produces can logically account for the universe and human experience. Philosophically it's logical and perfect, while evolution and all competing worldviews are not. It means that there is no excuse to reject God so that he will be just when sends people to hell.

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also wouldn't it have been more beneficial for living things to continue to reproduce asexually/replicate for maximal survival, why male and female from the evolutionist perspective?

You don't comprehend well what you read do you Michael? You certainly don't remember questions you ask either.

You asked for how I knew that no changes were made to the Bible over 2000 years. The many copies was to show you that the likelihood of that many copies over a span of about a thousand years would normally amount to errors galore but the Bible is almost entirely exempt from that (no substantial change to content).

Next time remember what you asked.

I wrote this just in case you wanted to say something about the books of the New Testament Canon.

aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

How convenient of him to arbitrarily call them "forged" and "disputed passages". He doesn't like that they exist and don't fit with what he thinks is a bullet proof argument to his point so the reason that they exist must be because it's forged or ambiguous.

Only three people in his group of historians would've been contemporaries of Jesus and the rest were born after.

I don't know why these people would not have written about him. I don't see how this proves anything.

However the only concern to me is of one of the three who were his contemporary but never met him before his ascension, The nerve of the author of this article to claim that St. Paul and the other New Testament Writers that When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus’ life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history."

He also gives this ridiculous interpretation of (Gal. 1:11-12, 1:15-16) saying that Jesus only spoke "in a revelation" and not in "flesh and blood"...it was a subjective experience in the mind of the believer....

Where does it say HE ONLY and NOT IN? If he had read event the first chapter, he would know that Paul was making the point that there is only one Gospel and this Gospel was not fabricated by mere men but was the very revelation of God and give himself much more credibility than the men who were preaching another message, he tells them that the Gospel he preached to them was not received by hearing from other men but from the Lord himself (Like the Apostles and disciples before him who were taught directly by Jesus); The Gospel he preached was the real Gospel! This guy lacks any reading comprehension skills. (Either that or he'll lie to give his point credibility)

From Gal. 1:13-2:14 these accounts fit in with the accounts in Acts. Luke wrote Acts. He began Acts with:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach ²until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 

Now what could that former book be??? The Gospel according to Luke.

In opening of Luke we read:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Obviously the same author.

I bring this up because in Gospel of Luke (which was first of the two, the destruction of the temple is predicted). During around chapter 20, Luke is now with Paul he speaks in the first person (I, us, we, etc), the book ends with Paul in prison (having not died yet). Paul dies before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now if by the time Acts was finished the destruction of Jerusalem had not occurred yet and Luke's Gospel came before Acts, then Luke's Gospel was before 70A.D. and the prediction of it's destruction was exactly that a prediction/prophesy.

Some of this I just wanted to write down (excuse me if it appears I went out of subject).

The life and ministry of Jesus is circulating according to Luke's opening in his Gospel through word if not by writing:

Luke 1:1-3 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

In 1 Cor. 15 Paul writes:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

 ³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance^[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Peter,^[b] and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 ⁹For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

All these events are found recorded in the Gospels and Acts.

In Philippians 2:5-8 Paul writes:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
 ⁶Who, being in very nature^[a] God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
 ⁷but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature^[b] of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
 ⁸And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!

In 1 Peter 2:21-25 Peter writes:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
 ²²"He committed no sin,
      and no deceit was found in his mouth."^{[e] 23}When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. ²⁴He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. ²⁵For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

(He died an innocent man, his conduct towards his accusers and scoffers)

In 2 Peter 1:16-18 Peter writes:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."^{[a] 18}We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(this is known as the mount of Transfiguration in the Gospels)

In the Gospels, Jesus taught them as if they were "babes", after the Holy Spirit they new the truth that Jesus taught them, so they taught in their epistles as men who knew the truth as Acts 4:13 reports, "when they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

They were Apostles and given the keys to the Kingdom. Whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and what they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. In a sense they spoke with authority so why would they need to quote Jesus word for word? Instead we read that they taught the things they learned from him without quoting him directly.

That article is a joke, purposefully misleading or bad scholarship. You take the pick.

Quit claiming that you've provided verified proof of evolution and I won't have to.

Bob already posed this to me while back and I'll answer you as I answered him that rejecting evolution doesn't reject all the above. No one who practices any of the above has to believe in evolution. You create this false dichotomy but provided no evidence to back it up. You really are desperate dude.

I've answered your second objection (you use unscholarly and prejudiced sources to back up your point) providing you the proof texts, speaking about the worldview of Christianity and how it can logically account for human experience and all the rest. I believe the miracles by faith as I've said before. Those who witnessed it first hand observed them.

As for the Koran/Muslims, I guess they'll have to reconcile their claims about Jews and Christians being people of the book but at the same time their enemies (contradiction), that Jesus was a prophet yet his teachings contradict the Koran and vice versa (many and huge contradictions). That man was created from a clot. Conflicting accounts of the saints that both share however the Bible was first in those accounts at least a thousand years.

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years or so. And your methods are telling us trust us as far as one billion years or even 50,000 years (that's still a stretch)?

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years so to verify the accuracy of radiometric/isochron dating, the evolution of one kind of living thing to another kind of living thing.

Please answer the first thing I asked in this Post.