See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[scalyblue]

Intended that science is not history, not that history isnt scientific. Will elaborate l8r

 

[justsomefnguy]

In my estimation, AronRa's integrity hasn't suffered one whit from this exchange. If anything, I respect him even more for his patience at dealing with such an inveterate liar as yourself dotoree.

When I stumbled upon the topic, my first reaction was 'well, this will be a whole lot of the same', and indeed you did not disappoint. You have covered nearly every fallacy, stereotype, error, misunderstanding, plain obstinence and outright mendacity I have come to expect in dealing with your kind for over 10 years. Even more impressive, despite the fact of the stated goals of the discussion, you managed to do all that in about 3 posts. Bravo sir.

If it had been your goal to intentionally provide an example of all the things that are wrong with creationists and creationists arguments, you could not have done better.

And as AronRa has stated that it was his goal to provide an example of just that, I can safely say that he his without a doubt the victor in this 30 page fracas, in my own humble opinion.

Not to belittle your part in all this, as you have taken care of that well enough.

good day

--
Astounding. You side with someone who has consistently straw manned other positions and think he is honest when he won't even let me define what my own views are and has gone back on his explicit words to have a debate. There is no intelligence in the above post. And I haven't hardly even touched the evidence and you're jumping to conclusions already...the irrationality is stunning.
Bryan

Oh, hey, thanks for responding to my post. Seems I forgot a few things, like a huge capacity for self-delusion, an inability for honest self-examination and the tendency to accuse others of one's own faults. But please, keep it up. This is turning out to be a complete examination of all of the faults to be found in those that attempt to defend creationism. The irony here is that you have yet to even really start to defend creationism. You are so concerned about what we think of your fatuous definitions and obviously absurd assumptions that you can't even get off the ground.

I tell you, the entertainment value here is well worth wading through page after page of whining and recalcitrant evasions.

again, I bid you good day.

 

[Prolescum]

His first post (which has been edited with a fourth 'update' yesterday 10th Nov) [...] Some of his 'proof' is available right there on the first page! It's also available here, just in case he gets the urge to edit that post a fifth time.

Lol twice in a couple of hours!

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[borrofburi]

I'll provide a more thorough response later but: one does not prove things in history. One doesn't even "prove" things in science; the realm of "proof" is something that only happens in mathematics.

Yes, I know that nothing is 100% proveable in history or science (but I've run across peer reviewed papers using the terms "proof" and "prove" at times in my part time job and when checking for other debates. It is simply wrong that this term is never used in history or science academic circles. It IS). We have been talking about proof beyond reasonable doubt, following the WEIGHT of evidence. THIS is the kind of proof I've been talking about AND you are talking about because you cannot prove evolution by your definition either. Semantics does not help us make progress.

OK, except that "reasonable doubt" is really the key. It changes depending on the claim, and what was once "proved" can be unproved by this metric. It's easy for my friend to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that he had a BLT at applebeas for lunch: all he has to do is say that's what he had because it's such a trivial claim. It's also easy for that to be disproven: I find out that he didn't even take a lunch break on the day in question.

Similarly it's fairly easy to "prove" that Romulus and Remus founded Rome: it's really a rather trivial claim so a single *weak* evidence for it (Livy's histories, in which he notes that it's a myth he heard) is good enough; there's not a lot of use in doubting it because it's so unimportant. What is *not* so easy to "prove" is that Romulus and Remus really did ride down a river in a basket, and that a wolf really did let them nurse on her, and that Romulus really did become a god. Why? Because there's a lot more reasons to doubt each of those claims, and particularly the last one is a lot less unimportant.

As I've noted before, my position is that compared to the absolutely insanely balls-to-the-wall absolutely extraordinary claim (probably the single most extraordinary claim I've ever heard) of the existence of a god or gods (and an after life, and that god keeps controlling me even after I die, and that such an extraordinary being cares a LOT about trivial things like what I eat and who I have sex with), the evidence is extremely paltry. And I'm not sure any historical evidence could "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" such an extraordinary claim (I really don't think you understand how extraordinary that claim really is); maybe if *all* of history (every single era, every single continent) pointed to the existence of a single god (or pantheon), but we already know it doesn't.

 

[dotoree]

His first post (which has been edited with a fourth 'update' yesterday 10th Nov) [...] Some of his 'proof' is available right there on the first page! It's also available here, just in case he gets the urge to edit that post a fifth time.

Lol twice in a couple of hours!

[centre]

[/centre]

YES, I DO edit some. That's my REAL life job and I do it here as well. There is absolutely NOTHING dishonest about it either. I've seen others do it too. If you would like me to put a little note saying "edited"...I"ll be happy to do that if it would make you happy. I DID say "update" on a couple...but many times I'm writing in breaks between classes and then think of something else I should have put in there and so edit it the next break. If I have a discussion with ONLY ONE person instead of 20...the edits will DRASTICALLY reduce.

No, what I put there is NOT intended to be proof. It's reasons why we shouldn't be biased in favor of our own deaths and non-existence and injustice and things like that. A couple of the links do have a bit of evidence..but that's not really intended to be proof or evidence. That should be clear by what I wrote there.
Bryan

 

[Prolescum]

YES, I DO edit some. That's my REAL life job and I do it here as well.

Six times? Two after my post today?

There is absolutely NOTHING dishonest about it either. I've seen others do it too. If you would like me to put a little note saying "edited"...I"ll be happy to do that if it would make you happy. I DID say "update" on a couple...but many times I'm writing in breaks between classes and then think of something else I should have put in there and so edit it the next break. If I have a discussion with ONLY ONE person instead of 20...the edits will DRASTICALLY reduce.

I sincerely doubt that. Why are you continually editing your very first post? I already know, but please, elucidate for the audience. Remember, it is your honesty and integrity at stake.

No, what I put there is NOT intended to be proof.

So were you lying when you stated:

Here's a bit of proof of that I've had time to put together even though I'm extremely busy and there's quite a bit more than this.

Bear in mind my grasp of English is pretty well refined.

It's reasons why we shouldn't be biased in favor of our own deaths and non-existence and injustice and things like that.

lol

A couple of the links do have a bit of evidence..but that's not really intended to be proof or evidence. That should be clear by what I wrote there.
Bryan

You mean you didn't intend that your post would be construed as proof despite writing that it was proof, and then stated that there's quite a bit more than this?

Your petard is ready, sir.

 

[dotoree]

OK, except that "reasonable doubt" is really the key. It changes depending on the claim, and what was once "proved" can be unproved by this metric. It's easy for my friend to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that he had a BLT at applebeas for lunch: all he has to do is say that's what he had because it's such a trivial claim. It's also easy for that to be disproven: I find out that he didn't even take a lunch break on the day in question.

Similarly it's fairly easy to "prove" that Romulus and Remus founded Rome: it's really a rather trivial claim so a single *weak* evidence for it (Livy's histories, in which he notes that it's a myth he heard) is good enough; there's not a lot of use in doubting it because it's so unimportant. What is *not* so easy to "prove" is that Romulus and Remus really did ride down a river in a basket, and that a wolf really did let them nurse on her, and that Romulus really did become a god. Why? Because there's a lot more reasons to doubt each of those claims, and particularly the last one is a lot less unimportant.

As I've noted before, my position is that compared to the absolutely insanely balls-to-the-wall absolutely extraordinary claim (probably the single most extraordinary claim I've ever heard) of the existence of a god or gods (and an after life, and that god keeps controlling me even after I die, and that such an extraordinary being cares a LOT about trivial things like what I eat and who I have sex with), the evidence is extremely paltry. And I'm not sure any historical evidence could "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" such an extraordinary claim (I really don't think you understand how extraordinary that claim really is); maybe if *all* of history (every single era, every single continent) pointed to the existence of a single god (or pantheon), but we already know it doesn't.

--
As Inferno says, history is one aspect of science and very well developed. They have many ways to test credibility and accuracy over centuries and 1000s of years. There are different levels of credibility depending on how many witnesses saw it, whether all were biased towards one view, whether they said they saw something the disagrees completely with their prior opinion, hostile witnesses, and a number of other factors. I have videos myself on how individual witnesses can make mistakes and I've discussed this topic in classes about witness accuracy. But, when you have several sources on both the Hittite and Egyptian side talking about a massive battle between the two and listing details about where they took place and troop movements that coincide, you can be extremely certain that that at a minimum a battle DID take place and that many other details are accurate and historians do precisely this (Btw, secular people used to criticize the Bible for talking about the Hittites since there was no evidence. But, in this case like 1000s of others, the skeptics were wrong and the Bible correct. Now the History Channel has programs detailing the rise and fall of their empire). You'll find some differences in some details for sure...such as the Egyptian side minimizing their losses, etc. But, historians have found a lot of ways to check and cross check these things to be quite sure of what is accurate and credible. This actually deals with one of the reasons the Bible is a credible source without peer in the ancient world. Many histories were written by historians serving the King. If the king didn't like the way it was written...well...off with the historians head...so it was not that common for histories to contain critiques of the kings of the time. But, the Bible is filled with such criticisms of it's kings and it's most famous heroes. They are written down in graphic detail in many cases in ways that no king would EVER have allowed if he had been in control of writing the history. This is one reason why in case after case after case, many expert historians, some former atheists and skeptics, have said that the Bible's credibility is without comparison in the ancient world.

If you insist on dismissing the historical method and quite a few things you have, then you'll have to amputate huge sections of our history books. This is VERY serious since as one famous quote goes, "Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child." If you do not learn the lessons of history, you can easily be doomed to repeat them.

As explained before, if you demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, that is an explicit double standard that prejudices people against facts...including some radically important facts. It is violating foundational ways that science and history are always done since it sets up an apriori bias against views that are in your opinion extraordinary. In my opinion, God's existence is the most reasonable thing imaginable compared to the alternatives. We have billions of cases of life coming from intelligence. NOT EVEN a SINGLE CELL has come into existence from non-life...let alone anything more complex. THAT is BY FAR the most extraordinary claim imaginable. We don't have direct evidence of either one happening. But, we have billions of cases of similar types of events happening in biogenesis and NO examples of similar type things happening for abiogenesis. Biogenesis IS ordinary and a creation event is just another kind of biogenesis. It IS explicitly, life from God...another form of life.

We also know that in history when people are biased against extraordinary claims to the establishments of those times, it has caused them to reject truths about existence of different types of creatures (pandas, Komodo dragons and many others as I linked to before) and cost millions of lives.

1 MILLION SAILORS DIED DUE TO REJECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Between 1600 and 1800 over 1 million sailors in the British navy died from a disease called scurvy. Doctors and scientists had no idea why. But, in 1535, the answer had been found and written down. French explorer Jacques Cartier's ships were frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River. Scurvy began to kill some of the sailors. There were 110 sailors and 25 had already died. Many others were very sick and going to die. But then a friendly Indian showed them a cure: tree bark and needles of the white pine - both rich in vitamin C. These were stirred into a drink for the sailors and all the sailors immediately recovered. Cartier reported this to the doctors and scientists back in Europe. But, they laughed at the ignorant Indians and didn't study this natural solution at all. Only about 200 years later did scientists realize that scurvy was caused by a vitamin C deficiency. The Indians natural remedy was a perfect solution. But, because the scientists and doctors were too proud and couldn't imagine the extraordinary claim that indigenous Indians might know more than they did, over 1 million sailors died of scurvy even after the cure had been found.

Truth is a life and death matter in many cases and it could not be more foolish or dangerous to reject astounding claims or demand higher evidence of them than for anything else. This is one reason why I actually prefer the idea of following the weight of evidence to following things ONLY after they are beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt depends a lot on your education and prejudice level...the weight of evidence is far less biased. I'm interested in the best life NOW...and being skeptical has often prevented that.

CONSISTENT STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIAL for the fastest progress in life saving truths. This is extremely true in the area of God's existence as well. It concerns life for eternity and to reject the evidence or demand extraordinary evidence is unjust, unfair, a double standard and basically boils down to a death wish...which has absolutely nothing rational about it. The evidence for the Bible IS actually far and above any comparable alternative worldview both in historical evidence and scientific evidence. Here's just one video with many references detailing a tiny bit of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlxNWAsSOk

Why is God concerned about your eating habits and sex life? Because he wants you to have the most pleasure in this life. I've given you the link to the Blue Zones research and you can go more indepth on their homepage and there's a book on this as well. Scientists are extremely concerned about eating habits since it directly affects health. In this case, following the Bible's health habits directly causes 10+ years extra life than the average. THAT ALONE is extremely extraordinary evidence, Nobel prize winning evidence...but it's just one piece of 100s and 1000s.

I have MUCH research on sex as well, much from secular sources, showing that those who keep sex within marriage enjoy it far more, have deeper bonding and of course if sex was kept within marriage, millions of people would not have died from just the one disease AIDS let alone all the other diseases.

Those who require extraordinary evidence before following God's principles on diet and sex will be losing about 10+ years due to wrong diets if not more and possibly many decades more if they mess around sexually in dangerous ways. God is the God of LIFE and his desire is for the best quality of life on THIS earth as well as the next. Just like parents and teachers and scientists who want the best for people, God also wishes the best and in many practical areas, the Bible has been 1000s of years ahead of it's time and even now still is in some areas ahead of science and probably in some areas that we don't realize yet as well.

God's primary concern is your eternal life. But, a VERY close second is that you have the longest and the highest quality of life on THIS planet and 1000s of pieces of scientific research are backing that fact up. Pascal could not have been more right when he said that you cannot lose as a Christian. You get the best life here on earth AND you get a solid chance at living forever.

Unfortunately, as has been typical throughout history, even the religious establishment has sometimes doubted truths of God and instead followed conventional human wisdom. This pride has killed literally millions as well as being responsible for killing Jesus and prophets. When I preach in my church, I do NOT EVER tell people to just believe me. I tell them and like it when they challenge me and we look at the evidence. My dad's a pastor. I don't just believe what he says....I've challenged him many times and differ in certain areas. It's absolute MYTH that Christianity stays the same and doesn't progress and that you just have to believe what the pastors say. If you've grown up that way or think that's what genuine CHristanity is, I'm sorry, but that's a myth. All through the Bible the main job of the prophets was to challenge the establishment and criticize it.

Again, I am NOT saying that any church is perfect. I do NOT claim that my own denomination is perfect (one of the best things I like about my church actually is our position that truth is progressing and always advancing and that we do NOT know all of it and should continue to be open to new truths, esp. practical ones). My denomination is the closest I know to the Bible...but it is through God that we are saved, not any church and I must keep my mind open to science, to logic, to evidence from history and from the Bible and insights from God if I want to make more progress like many in the past have done.

All the best to you all no matter how much we differ,
Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Hey mods, if my opponent still dares to engage me, move us to private debate forum -where the option to edit our comments will be disabled twenty minutes after each post. But please don't hold us to the rule of having to post every day, because we simply can't do that..

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=89462#p89462

Can you please detail to me, in 200 words or less, how a post that says "there would be no point in making this a formal debate" is a commitment to a formal debate?

Easy. Your quote was at the beginning and was NOT a commitment to debate. At that time there was a commitment to discussing the evidence (which also hasn't happened due to Aronra straw manning my views). AFTER that, he wrote the red part above where he says "MOVE US TO A PRIVATE DEBATE FORUM". It's pretty clear he didn't want a debate where we have to respond in depth every day at the beginning. He doesn't have time for that and neither can I. This is why he clarified this above...saying let us go and have a debate...but don't hold us to the rule of posting every day since we can't do that due to many other responsibilities. Your quote is from old history and the above one in red was made LONG AFTER your quote and shows that Aronra explicitly invited me to a debate between him and I. It could not be clearer.

This is a matter of historical record . Aronra may not like it, but it's there in clear print that cannot be denied.
Bryan

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wow, another dishonest defense of creationism. What a shocker!

Man, if someone showed me a single honest creationist, it would be like seeing a unicorn.

 

[dotoree]

I sincerely doubt that. Why are you continually editing your very first post? I already know, but please, elucidate for the audience. Remember, it is your honesty and integrity at stake.
--
Why did I edit the first post? Simple.
1) Many people don't want to read through 30 pages of attacks and arguments, etc.. I thought I'd let them know how to contact me so they don't have to wade through all the mess. This way they can save time and get something concise...I was thinking it would help them not waste time, something that is absolutely essential for me. I literally run my life in seconds many times, trying not to waste any if possible. And probably a bit to tell people why they won't find much evidence in the 30 pages but to contact me (hopefully I'll soon be done with a small book of this evidence, but there too I will deal with the philosophical biases first).
2) I did NOT claim that it was evidence. I explicitly state "If you want to know solid evidence for creation science, just go to send a message to "dotoree" on youtube and I will do my best to get back to you as soon as possible with a huge amount of evidence. But, below I want to share briefly why should you look at the evidence for both sides." I said TWICE to contact me at youtube for evidence and I also said that the below was only reasons you should consider the evidence, NOT that it WAS evidence. The health link and the aish link could be considered evidence...but except for those 2, it was mostly dealing with philosophical reasons why we should not be biased in favor of atheism.

No, what I put there is NOT intended to be proof.

So were you lying when you stated:

Here's a bit of proof of that I've had time to put together even though I'm extremely busy and there's quite a bit more than this.

--
A) That sentence is between the health one and the AISH one which are evidences for sure even though the purpose of this section is not really to list the evidence (it barely touches it).
B) But, thanks for catching that...I copied that part from another file and didn't realize it said that. It's now corrected with an "EDIT" mark and YOUR name...Thanks . I am sometimes quickly copying from files I have written and putting short parts together here..since I don't think you guys want a 1000 page dump . I would LOVE to have hours every day to write and check things all perfectly. I simply don't have that time. If I didn't have to work at a university, elementary school, hospital, tutoring, plus work leading a church (which includes counseling, speaking, making advertisements for a campaign we're doing (do you want to see the flyers? I can show them to you) and other things), PLUS try to answer questions 20 people here AND other places...and helping a girl who almost committed suicide, I could be a LOT more accurate...probably I'm trying to take on too much...many people around me tell me that...you don't have to by sympathetic...doesn't matter...but there is only so much one person can do and I've gotten 3-5 hours of sleep a night for most of the past week due to the above. But, thanks again for catching that and anything else in the future.

Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Wow, another dishonest defense of creationism. What a shocker!
Man, if someone showed me a single honest creationist, it would be like seeing a unicorn.

--
There HAS BEEN ALMOST NO DEFENSE...can you not read anything accurately? But, within a couple days, that will start..at least by next week, either with Aronra or Inferno.
Bryan

 

[dotoree]

Borrofburi,
I have answered Aronra's major and minor posts in depth as you suggested. If you know of any I did not respond to that are really important...please point them out to me and I'll get to them..there is one short one I need to respond to still..but except for that I don't know of any I haven't responded to.
Bryan

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There HAS BEEN ALMOST NO DEFENSE...can you not read anything accurately? But, within a couple days, that will start..at least by next week, either with Aronra or Inferno.
Bryan

That's the most dishonest part of it. You've written a short novel's worth of posts here, and you could have squeezed in ALL of your defense somewhere in there. If your defense is as devastating as you claim, you would have ignored everything else, and just posted it. Once you posted your defense, everyone would have had no choice but to deal with it and debunk it if they could.

You didn't do that. By the volume of your posting, you've done everything EXCEPT the defense of creationism, and to what point? You've claimed to have multiple jobs, no free time, and evidence to knock our socks off, yet you post like you're unemployed and have nothing but free time, and have avoided the very thing you claim to be here for.

Honest people present their case and let it stand or fall on its own merits. Dishonest people make 30 pages of excuses why they won't present their case... and then eventually leave after having a temper tantrum about how unfair everything was, and then run back to their fellow creationists claiming victory because they managed to avoid ever presenting a case at all.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Hell, nothing stopped you from posting your idiotic "the Bible is a medical book" claims. Why not give us the rest of your nonsense so we can be done with you?

 

[dotoree]

Even the little evidence that I DID post which IS VERY solid has been falsely maligned and misunderstood by several here. The Bible's health benefits are indisputable if you look at the Blue Zones research site (and there are 300 other peer reviewed studies as well on this) and understand what helps Adventists be the longest living people in the world, or at a minimum in the top 4 groups.

Unfortunately, you have major biases and are using principles that are nowhere else used in science or history to check what is evidence. Since you are rejecting things that academia accepts as evidence out of hand and apriori, you can't recognize it honestly for what it is. This is not all your fault....but it IS reality. There is no difference between trying to tell teapartiers any good points about Obama or socialism and telling you good points about the Bible. You have apriori biases that blind you to what is evidence and when you add straw man definitions to that...and a flood of other misrepresentations...there's just no point in proceeding.

This evidence JUST on the health topic has been studied and reported by MANY secular research foundations media sources including Blue Zones, National Geographic, ABC News, CNN, numerous smaller research studies (Blue Zones is a meta study I think), National Institute of Health and others. RIGHT NOW, because of these results that Christians who follow Bible health principles live 10+years longer than the average (3 of the 4 blue zones groups are Christian groups), the National Cancer Institute is now funding a new study on the longest lived group in America, the Adventists. You can read about it on wikipedia if you wish and many other places. Search for "Adventist Health Studies 2". You guys reject what national science foundations are intensely interested in. That speaks volumes about your incredible bias and the sad thing is that the one who will be hurt most by your bias is YOU...since truth has enormous advantages and benefits for those who follow it.
Bryan

 

[masterjedijared]

Since he's ignored every call for his evidence I've been seeing this as one of the following (perhaps a mix):

1: He has no evidence
2: His evidence is weak and he knows it
3: His evidence is weak and he doesn't even know why

because if there's ANY convincing evidence for creation events it would be so strong that it could speak for itself. It wouldn't need an overly verbose English teacher to defend.

Every time he ignores a call for his evidence this suspicion is compounded (at least in me).

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Intended that science is not history, not that history isnt scientific. Will elaborate l8r

Well, I don't want to derail the thread too much, but as a Historian myself I thought I'd wheigh in.

History is scientific in the sense that it expect you to ignore a priori assumptions, follow the evidence, dismiss that which is refuted (or at least think less-probable that which is discredited), and so on. Similarly nothing is ever truely 'known' in history, just well-evidenced or otherwise; and since most historical data concerns real events, it is always at least potentially falsifiable in that these events might be shown to have not occured as understood.

That said, in my experience, the compairison between the two is often a dishonest attempt to discredit science. It is well understood by historians that what we are working with is very often a collection of imperfect sources, filled with biases some of which we cannot even identify much less acomidate for; that our field is plagued by anachronousity, and - more than any other brach of acidemia - subject to the whims of political pressure.

A historian can have no where near the confidence of a scientist of, for instance, special relativity. Who, while admitting all the while that SR is imperfect, will none the less always make accurate predictions within 'x' parameters. And such a statement is demonstrable and not open to debate.

And for that I am the Heart of Envy.

 

[scalyblue]

As Inferno says, history is one aspect of science and very well developed. They have many ways to test credibility and accuracy over centuries and 1000s of years. There are different levels of credibility depending on how many witnesses saw it, whether all were biased towards one view, whether they said they saw something the disagrees completely with their prior opinion, hostile witnesses, and a number of other factors. I have videos myself on how individual witnesses can make mistakes and I've discussed this topic in classes about witness accuracy. But, when you have several sources on both the Hittite and Egyptian side talking about a massive battle between the two and listing details about where they took place and troop movements that coincide, you can be extremely certain that that at a minimum a battle DID take place and that many other details are accurate and historians do precisely this (Btw, secular people used to criticize the Bible for talking about the Hittites since there was no evidence. But, in this case like 1000s of others, the skeptics were wrong and the Bible correct. Now the History Channel has programs detailing the rise and fall of their empire). You'll find some differences in some details for sure...such as the Egyptian side minimizing their losses, etc. But, historians have found a lot of ways to check and cross check these things to be quite sure of what is accurate and credible. This actually deals with one of the reasons the Bible is a credible source without peer in the ancient world. Many histories were written by historians serving the King. If the king didn't like the way it was written...well...off with the historians head...so it was not that common for histories to contain critiques of the kings of the time. But, the Bible is filled with such criticisms of it's kings and it's most famous heroes. They are written down in graphic detail in many cases in ways that no king would EVER have allowed if he had been in control of writing the history. This is one reason why in case after case after case, many expert historians, some former atheists and skeptics, have said that the Bible's credibility is without comparison in the ancient world.

Really?
Soooooo, the bible is critical of kings, therefore god exists?
That's not a proof. That's not even an argument.
Next

If you insist on dismissing the historical method and quite a few things you have, then you'll have to amputate huge sections of our history books. This is VERY serious since as one famous quote goes, "Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child." If you do not learn the lessons of history, you can easily be doomed to repeat them.

Physical evidence trumps historical evidence ten times out of ten, you do know. Requiring verification of historical evidence using physical evidence would not amputate huge sections of history books.

As explained before, if you demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, that is an explicit double standard that prejudices people against facts...including some radically important facts. It is violating foundational ways that science and history are always done since it sets up an apriori bias against views that are in your opinion extraordinary. In my opinion, Zeus's existence is the most reasonable thing imaginable compared to the alternatives. We have billions of cases of life coming from intelligence. NOT EVEN a SINGLE CELL has come into existence from non-life...let alone anything more complex. THAT is BY FAR the most extraordinary claim imaginable. We don't have direct evidence of either one happening. But, we have billions of cases of similar types of events happening in biogenesis and NO examples of similar type things happening for abiogenesis. Biogenesis IS ordinary and a creation event is just another kind of biogenesis. It IS explicitly, life from Zeus...another form of life.

So, organisms reproduce, therefore god exists?
How does this explain the phylogenetic trees, the geologic column, the molecular chain, or...wait wait WHAT?

You're defining Zeus as another form of life, here.
Quantify that definition.

We also know that in history when people are biased against extraordinary claims to the establishments of those times, it has caused them to reject truths about existence of different types of creatures (pandas, Komodo dragons and many others as I linked to before) and cost millions of lives.

1 MILLION SAILORS DIED DUE TO REJECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Between 1600 and 1800 over 1 million sailors in the British navy died from a disease called scurvy. Doctors and scientists had no idea why. But, in 1535, the answer had been found and written down. French explorer Jacques Cartier's ships were frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River. Scurvy began to kill some of the sailors. There were 110 sailors and 25 had already died. Many others were very sick and going to die. But then a friendly Indian showed them a cure: tree bark and needles of the white pine - both rich in vitamin C. These were stirred into a drink for the sailors and all the sailors immediately recovered. Cartier reported this to the doctors and scientists back in Europe. But, they laughed at the ignorant Indians and didn't study this natural solution at all. Only about 200 years later did scientists realize that scurvy was caused by a vitamin C deficiency. The Indians natural remedy was a perfect solution. But, because the scientists and doctors were too proud and couldn't imagine the extraordinary claim that indigenous Indians might know more than they did, over 1 million sailors died of scurvy even after the cure had been found.

Irrelevant.
Here's the problem with this story.

First thing's first, most native americans find the term "indians" pejorative. Don't use it.

Citation is needed on "scientists laughed" and "Doctors pride"

Also, how is a tea made from the fresh needles of the eastern white cedar indigenous to north america a solution of ANY sort of problem for sailors at sea? You can't preserve the needles, they weren't aware of what property of the needles rendered the cure, and it wouldn't have been a useful solution anyway. "Hey, you have scurvey, okay, take a six month voyage to north america to eat some pine needles...oh wait, you died en voyage BECAUSE YOU HAD SCURVY. Too bad!"

So even if I were a european scientist presented with a cure for scurvey that is really only practicalif you're sailing on the st. lawrence river, IT ISNT A VERY USEFUL CURE FOR SCURVY NOW IS IT?

And, fwiw, less than a hundred years after cartier's voyage, richard hawkins, an ADMIRAL advocated drinking citrus juices to prevent scurvy. So your two hundred year figure is bullshit.

Here's one last problem, though. They didnt' know why drinking citrus or eating pine needles cured scurvy. It just worked, and they left it at that. Not very scientific.

Truth is a life and death matter in many cases and it could not be more foolish or dangerous to reject astounding claims or demand higher evidence of them than for anything else. This is one reason why I actually prefer the idea of following the weight of evidence to following things ONLY after they are beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt depends a lot on your education and prejudice level...the weight of evidence is far less biased. I'm interested in the best life NOW...and being skeptical has often prevented that.

You aren't skeptical when it comes to your own ideas. You don't follow the weight of evidence when it comes to your own ideas. Practice what you preach.

CONSISTENT STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIAL for the fastest progress in life saving truths. This is extremely true in the area of Zeus's existence as well. It concerns life for eternity and to reject the evidence or demand extraordinary evidence is unjust, unfair, a double standard and basically boils down to a death wish...which has absolutely nothing rational about it. The evidence for the Bible IS actually far and above any comparable alternative worldview both in historical evidence and scientific evidence. Here's just one video with many references detailing a tiny bit of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlxNWAsSOk

This assertion is worthless without citation.

Demonstrate life without eternity
Demonstrate Zeus's existence
Demonstrate life saving truths.
Demonstrate death wishes.

Aw, without the bible, humans won't live for eternity? What a shame, doesn't that just punch a hole in your hopes and dreams. Too bad they're all unfalsifiable claims.

Why is Zeus concerned about your eating habits and sex life? Because he wants you to have the most pleasure in this life. I've given you the link to the Blue Zones research and you can go more indepth on their homepage and there's a book on this as well. Scientists are extremely concerned about eating habits since it directly affects health. In this case, following the Bible's health habits directly causes 10+ years extra life than the average. THAT ALONE is extremely extraordinary evidence, Nobel prize winning evidence...but it's just one piece of 100s and 1000s.

Correlation is not causation.

Demonstrate how any health benefits attributed to the bible couldn't have been discovered by the people writing the bible, and placed there without knowing the reason for them. Demonstrate that all health advice in the bible is healthful, becuase last time I checked the bible doesn't allow me to eat lobster, shrimp, or clams.

I have MUCH research on sex as well, much from secular sources, showing that those who keep sex within marriage enjoy it far more, have deeper bonding and of course if sex was kept within marriage, millions of people would not have died from just the one disease AIDS let alone all the other diseases.

AIDS doesn't care if you're married to the person you're fucking. Also, what about all of the people who got AIDS from drug use, they're not being punished for enjoying sex. What about cultures which don't observe marriage?

Hm, a monogamous relationship forces you to know your partner better, therefore Zeus exists? Nah, next.

Those who require extraordinary evidence before following Zeus's principles on diet and sex will be losing about 10+ years due to wrong diets if not more and possibly many decades more if they mess around sexually in dangerous ways. Zeus is the Zeus of LIFE and his desire is for the best quality of life on THIS earth as well as the next. Just like parents and teachers and scientists who want the best for people, Zeus also wishes the best and in many practical areas, the Bible has been 1000s of years ahead of it's time and even now still is in some areas ahead of science and probably in some areas that we don't realize yet as well.

Citation needed.

And I thiiiiiink medical science has just a bit of a one up on Zeus in terms of longevity.

Zeus's primary concern is your eternal life. But, a VERY close second is that you have the longest and the highest quality of life on THIS planet and 1000s of pieces of scientific research are backing that fact up. Pascal could not have been more right when he said that you cannot lose as a Christian. You get the best life here on earth AND you get a solid chance at living forever.

You say thousands a lot. Do you know what thousands mean?

What about the islamic? The shintoists? The buddhists? The hindus?

Unfortunately, as has been typical throughout history, even the religious establishment has sometimes doubted truths of Zeus and instead followed conventional human wisdom. This pride has killed literally millions as well as being responsible for killing Jesus and prophets. When I preach in my church, I do NOT EVER tell people to just believe me. I tell them and like it when they challenge me and we look at the evidence. My dad's a pastor. I don't just believe what he says....I've challenged him many times and differ in certain areas. It's absolute MYTH that Christianity stays the same and doesn't progress and that you just have to believe what the pastors say. If you've grown up that way or think that's what genuine CHristanity is, I'm sorry, but that's a myth. All through the Bible the main job of the prophets was to challenge the establishment and criticize it.

No, you just tell them that if you don't believe me you won't live forever.

What about all of the stuff from the bible that they just threw out?

Again, I am NOT saying that any church is perfect. I do NOT claim that my own denomination is perfect (one of the best things I like about my church actually is our position that truth is progressing and always advancing and that we do NOT know all of it and should continue to be open to new truths, esp. practical ones). My denomination is the closest I know to the Bible...but it is through Zeus that we are saved, not any church and I must keep my mind open to science, to logic, to evidence from history and from the Bible and insights from Zeus if I want to make more progress like many in the past have done.

All the best to you all no matter how much we differ,
Bryan

Your mind is not open to science, or logic.

Evidence from history is not weighty enough to support the claims you make.

There were no proofs made in this post. None.

I'm still waiting for that case statement. It seems that you're all over the place with your topics, you're tossing out red herrings left and right hoping that missing refutation of a single one will validate your entire argument.

I'm still waiting for that case statement.
One sentence.

 

[masterjedijared]

Even the little evidence that I DID post which IS VERY solid and the Bible's health are indisputable if you look at the Blue Zones research site and understand what helps Adventists be the longest living people in the world, or at a minimum in the top 4 groups (depending upon which expert you listen to)...has been falsely maligned and misunderstood by you guys because you don't have the foundational philosophy correct to be able to grasp the evidence and recognize it honestly for what it is. This is not your fault....but it IS reality. There is no difference between trying to tell teapartiers any good points about Obama or socialism and telling you good points about the Bible. You have apriori biases that blind you to what is evidence and when you add straw man definitions to that...and a flood of other misrepresentations...there's just no point in proceeding. This evidence JUST on the health topic has been reported by MANY secular media sources including Blue Zones, National Geographic, numerous smaller research studies (Blue Zones is a meta study I think), ABC news, National Institute of Health and others. RIGHT NOW, because of these results that Christians who follow Bible health principles live 10+years longer than the average (3 of the 4 blue zones groups are Christian groups), the National Cancer Institute is now funding a new study on the longest lived group in America, the Adventists. You can read about it on wikipedia if you wish and many other places. Search for "Adventist Health Studies 2". You guys reject what national science foundations are intensely interested in. That speaks volumes about your incredible bias and the sad thing is that the one who will be hurt most by your bias is YOU...since truth has enormous advantages and benefits for those who follow it.
Bryan

Sorry, Dotoree, but a basic health plan in an ancient book is not even remotely indicative of creation events. It's not indicative of anything except that a basic health plan is effective. You need to present something that when observed it screams "SUPERNATURAL DEITY!" to anyone who looks at it. Essentially, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[scalyblue]

Even the little evidence that I DID post which IS VERY solid has been falsely maligned and misunderstood by several here. The Bible's health benefits are indisputable if you look at the Blue Zones research site (and there are 300 other peer reviewed studies as well on this) and understand what helps Adventists be the longest living people in the world, or at a minimum in the top 4 groups.

Correlation is NOT Causation.

Unfortunately, you have major biases and are using principles that are nowhere else used in science or history to check what is evidence. Since you are rejecting things that academia accepts as evidence out of hand and apriori, you can't recognize it honestly for what it is. This is not all your fault....but it IS reality. There is no difference between trying to tell teapartiers any good points about Obama or socialism and telling you good points about the Bible. You have apriori biases that blind you to what is evidence and when you add straw man definitions to that...and a flood of other misrepresentations...there's just no point in proceeding.

You are the only one here who is not being objective. You don't seem to know what a priori means.

This evidence JUST on the health topic has been studied and reported by MANY secular research foundations media sources including Blue Zones, National Geographic, ABC News, CNN, numerous smaller research studies (Blue Zones is a meta study I think), National Institute of Health and others. RIGHT NOW, because of these results that Christians who follow Bible health principles live 10+years longer than the average (3 of the 4 blue zones groups are Christian groups), the National Cancer Institute is now funding a new study on the longest lived group in America, the Adventists. You can read about it on wikipedia if you wish and many other places. Search for "Adventist Health Studies 2". You guys reject what national science foundations are intensely interested in. That speaks volumes about your incredible bias and the sad thing is that the one who will be hurt most by your bias is YOU...since truth has enormous advantages and benefits for those who follow it.
Bryan

Correlation is NOT causation. Using *YOUR* logic I can say that the 2004 hurricanes were sent to punish the voters of bush.