|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 00:29:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Coelacanth
You wouldn't need to demonstrate an entire organ evolving, only a mutation that could lead to one and how more would compliment such.
|
Earlier we were talking about fish and lung. How is it so inconcievable that a gas bladder of a fish cannot develope into a functional lung?
The purpose of the gas bladder is to control boyancy, and the lung for respiration. Two completely different functions, yet it's not hard at all go from gas bladder to lung by making microscopic changes. There are two ways a fish fills up it's bladder, one of them being swallowing air from the surface. And it can lower the volume in the bladder by allowing gas (oxygen) to be taken up in the bloodstream to be "exhaled" through the gills.
|
The gas bladder to lung idea was abandoned last I heard.
They new idea is that they came from a common ancestor, not one from the other.
Evidence doesn't stand for itself?
| Let's keep it simple. Who actually wrote the four gospels? When? What is it about their character that made them trustworthy? |
Who? When? What?
Prophets, A While Back, Unwavering Determination under Persecution is one of them
| How do testimonials, strong or weak, constsitute evidence? |
How does people telling you what happened constitute, knowing what happened to them?
Because when they tell yo what happened you tend to learn what happened to them.
I thought the concept was simple, but over time I've found atheist unable to comprehend a lot of things.
You can support something happened by establishing the genuinity and trustworthiness of a testimony of it, but alike speculations they don't prove out right that it did happen. Therefore it is viable proof.
| Were the books in their original form written by men? Who were they again? |
No they were written by spiders...
Of course they were written by human beings, and they were prophets (allegedly).
| Your claim is still just your opinion. In what way does that satisfy the request for evidence? |
No... are books of god. Even (especially) if you believe god doesn't exist, because then God would just be a figment of human imagination that that's what these books are of.
So regardless of what you want to believe they are books of God.
| Some also believe that they simply co-opted stories and tradition that predate their recording in the various books of the bible. |
Yes, fabricated and/or lies. Thats what I said.
May atheists assume that. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/31/2007 00:39:26 |
 |
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 00:30:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Coelacanth
...Trusted testimony, the words of Moses, Christ, Mormon and Mohamed...
...Bible, Torah, Koran...
|
I see where we're going.
Somehow Coelacanth seems to fish for Personal Testemony (or more likely hearsay) to stand on equal footing with physical evidence in the formulation of a scientific theory.
This could be fun. 
Let me give you a suggestion, Coelacanth (and Bill also). When someone asks you about one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method, repeatability, you can simply say that no matter how many times you read Rome 10:9, it always say the same. How's that for repeatability?
|
repeatability?
Why would god's word be correctable? |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 03:44:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Earlier we were talking about fish and lung. How is it so inconcievable that a gas bladder of a fish cannot develope into a functional lung? |
Other way around. The lung function is primitive and the buoyancy function derived. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 10/31/2007 03:48:16 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 04:41:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Earlier we were talking about fish and lung. How is it so inconcievable that a gas bladder of a fish cannot develope into a functional lung? |
Other way around. The lung function is primitive and the buoyancy function derived.
|
Dang! Beat me to it!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 06:24:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Evidence doesn't stand for itself?
|
What you have provided in support of your assertion does not constsitute evidence. All we are asking for is evidence that will satisfy the indepent observer.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
| Let's keep it simple. Who actually wrote the four gospels? When? What is it about their character that made them trustworthy? |
Who? When? What?
Prophets, A While Back, Unwavering Determination under Persecution is one of them
|
So you can tell me nothing about who the authors were and when they recorded their stories. And what you offer as a character trait is mere speculation, a feel good Sunday School lesson.
Unless you have something more that you would like to add, I will assume that the authors were anonymous of unknown character and motivation. And that you still consider them "more than trustworthy". In a skeptics forum I'd say that this makes your opinion suspect at best.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
| How do testimonials, strong or weak, constsitute evidence? |
How does people telling you what happened constitute, knowing what happened to them?
Because when they tell you what happened you tend to learn what happened to them.
I thought the concept was simple, but over time I've found atheist unable to comprehend a lot of things.
|
But the primary focus of the new testament authors is to tell stories related to an individual who they never met. So at best, what was recorded, is a second hand account of stories about an individual by mostly anonymous authors.
I have found christians unable to comprehend that skeptics are fairly consistent in the approach to evaluating the merits of any assertion.
You can support something happened by establishing the genuinity and trustworthiness of a testimony of it, but alike speculations they don't prove out right that it did happen. Therefore it is viable proof.
|
The problem is that you have yet to establish the trustworthiness of the men who recorded these stories. I am willing to change my mind regarding their trustworthiness, but you need to provided something a little more compelling.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
| Your claim is still just your opinion. In what way does that satisfy the request for evidence? |
No... are books of god. Even (especially) if you believe god doesn't exist, because then God would just be a figment of human imagination that that's what these books are of.
So regardless of what you want to believe they are books of God.
|
If there is the possibility that the contents of these books could be the product of human imagination. Don't you believe that closer scrutiny is in order? That it is reasonable to do so? That these books are about a god and that there is no reason to believe that they were devinely inspired?
Originally posted by Coelacanth
| Some also believe that they simply co-opted stories and tradition that predate their recording in the various books of the bible. |
Yes, fabricated and/or lies. Thats what I said.
May atheists assume that.
|
I do not consider co-opting stories and traditions to be fabrication or lies. More of an appeasement or enticement to attract others.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 08:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Ah, so we've come down to the admission of faith, after all.
I do wonder: why is the Bible right but not the Vedas? Or the Koran? Or the Iliad? Or the Book of Shadows? What makes the Bible so special other than it's wildly popular?
(personally, if I had to pick a pantheon, I'd go with Greek. Much more interesting.) |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
