The third side of the abortion debate. The 'fetuses' that can now speak.

[Wildswanderer]

The very existence of abortion survivors proves that the pro abortion people are lying.

 

[SomeRandom]

The very existence of abortion survivors proves that the pro abortion people are lying.

Lying about what, specifically?

 

[nPeace]

We've already been discussing one such contradiction - the simultaneous beliefs that God is all powerful, wants human babies to live, wants to stay hidden from the world, could literally remain hidden and yet still save premature babies from death, and does not save premature babies from death. Believe all of those things, and you are in contradiction with your self.

I was trying to explain that you started wis assumptions or presumptions that are wrong, and you also created, or formed statements that are somewhat "loaded".
1. God is all powerful
2. God wants human babies to live is a broad and yet vague statement. God wants babies to live in peace, and so he made provisions for that, but God is not trying to keep babies alive.
3. God does not want to stay hidden from the world. Acts 17:26-28
4. See #2. God is not seeking to save babies from death in this world. He is seeking to save people spiritually, so that they can be saved from physical death, permanently.

Do you understand where your premises are wrong, and out of sync?

If they are at all honest about what it is possible to literally know, with surety, then yes.

No, I have no idea why that would be foolish.

I still don't have any idea why it is foolish to hold that people should maintain some amount of doubt about these things. I even realize the possibility that the reality I inhabit isn't the "true reality" - as in, that it could be a simulation, or I could be living the long dream sequence of some other being. Not that I believe either of those things to be even remotely "true" - all I am saying is that I even continually scrutinize the reality I am presented with, in order to make sure that it maintains consistency. Ever-ready to become skeptical of what I am being presented with if the need arises. To not maintain such small articles of "doubt" is foolish in my opinion. It makes one closed to possibilities. You accept a particular narrative, and you let that be "reality" for you... sometimes without question. That's dangerous, and will very often see you finding yourself in the wrong when the assumptions you are holding onto so fervently end up crumbling around you.

You don't think correctly at all about these sorts of ideas. Not at all. This exact thing you are setting forth as an example has literally happened time and time again in the past. Why else do you think people started recording things on written documents and storing them in mutually safe places like town halls, or community libraries? Why would they do that if it were "so obvious" who the deed(s) belonged to. So obvious that you could just laugh like a fool when anyone questioned you? You need to rethink on this subject. You are not at all even close to reality with this. Evidence ended up being required more often tan not... and so people made sure they created such evidence - the paper trails. You don't have this for God. In fact, you making this analogy, and thinking that there needn't be any evidence basically demonstrates that you have none, and think that's just fine.

A title deed is a legal deed or document constituting evidence of a right, especially to ownership of property.
What are you suggesting a person holding a title deed should doubt or question?

Once again, you're not thinking about this fully or clearly. You even state yourself that the existence of whatever is causing the observed effects actually causes those effects. Last I read, there was still some question as to what "it" is. As in, the effects are being seen, but no one has actually defined or found what exactly "dark matter" is. This is that hold-out of doubt I was talking about. And you have demonstrated its use very handily with this example. The scientists put a placeholder name of "dark matter" on this thing that is causing these observable effects. They don't know what it is, and are open to any changes that confirm or deny anything they currently hold as information on it. This isn't how your "faith" works at all. You aren't looking for, and you will not accept any new information.

Exactly.
Didn't you read what I wrote?
Though the reality may not be seen, the evidence can demonstrate that reality, and can be discerned or inferred.
Faith, however is based on solid evidence. There is no doubt, as is the case of Dark Matter and Gravity.
Would you like to know why there is no doubt?

Think back to the title deed. It is real.
The person who holds it, has the evidence of what it means.
Faith is the title deed of those who know God. Where does it come from? Galatians 5:22
It is not the possession of all people. (2 Thessalonians 3:2) Why? Look at the previous verses of Galatians 5. Galatians 5:19-21

I understand if that doesn't help you understand why there is no doubt when one has faith.
It is based on evidence, and provides a guarantee. It is from God.
New information is acquired regarding our understanding of scripture. That however, only builds and strengthens faith.
It does not create doubt.

Does that mean we don't question the Bible? No. We do, but not in the way people do who look for something to criticize. We look at it with a view to understanding or having the explanation for things read.
Why do we do that? We do so because the Bible has already proven itself.

Think of it this way. Imagine that you tried moving an object.
You tried everything, but it would not budge. You beat up on it. Everything you throw at it, failed to move it or dent it, or break it.
It proves itself to be immovable... solid.

The Bible proves itself in so many ways to be God's word, and not man's.
No doubt you disagree. You could try to prove me wrong.
I won't deal with that in this thread. So let me know if you are interested in doing that.

Since you like calling up logical fallicies so much, how about this one: "No True Scotsman". Give me a break.

I have read it. It is not impressive in the least.

Nope. Too many assumptions put in play, and not enough awaiting observation and evidence to lead to the conclusions. The conclusions are already drawn, and people are only interested in looking for the pieces that fit the chosen narrative.

It has its uses, surely - but it is not 100% trustworthy and never will be. You know what is 100% trustworthy, however? Something like a manual on how to wire up electrical connections and components. One can write down facts about how the world around them will most definitely react when certain things are put in place or done according to a specific standard. It's reliable, reproducible, and can most certainly be infallible. History is not like this. Academia can be... but history? Not even close.

​

So how do you compare a work of fiction to a history book? Which one contains true and accurate information? Do pro-"Manifest Destiny" articles from America's written accounts of the past measure up to anti-"Manifest Destiny" articles? Or do they even measure up to neutral articles of recorded history that just attempt to relay the facts? Whose "facts" do we trust when there are differences? Were certain Native American tribe chiefs horrible, murderous war-bringers? Was it "all their fault" in the accounts that put it forth as such? Or do we believe the writings that tell that the bringers of war were actually the new settlers to America? Which one? And how do we know which is more accurate?

Good questions.
Just give your permission for me to quote you from this thread, so I don't get a warning from the mods, and I would have your words I can refer them to.

There may be some that are considered more reliable - but you literally cannot witness the past to corroborate the stories. And therein lies one key - comparing multiple sources of these types of accounts and seeing what "facts" stick. You think historians don't rely on that method of verification? You'd be crazy to say that they don't. And therein lies one of the biggest problems with "theism". Everyone who has an account about what exists "out there" with respect to deities or godly administration has a different story to tell. So many differences! Do you think a historian would be completely confident in a piece of history he writes down when he received 10 or more different stories as to what actually happened? Do you? Please be honest.

Your thinking is basically broken on many multiple levels, and I am easily and succinctly demonstrating this to you. I don't need to listen to you. You don't know what you are doing.

Are you serious?
I say we can witness the past, based on a primary and secondary source of evidence, and science.
If you think this is a problem, tell me how scientists witness the past, and how you corroborate their stories.

 

[nPeace]

But none of what you posted literally indicates that there is a designer, or what this designer is. You're doing nothing more than comparing things we know for sure had a designer (because we humans literally witnessed other humans design and craft them) and things that we don't know the origins of. That's what you are doing. The most one can say is "I don't know how life came to be". Or, at least, that's the honest thing to say. but you don't say that, do you?

Oh okay.
In that case scientists are wrong to make inferences. Is that okay with you?

Let me give you some examples.
What about the Molecular Clock, which requires assuming constant rates. What is that based on?

The molecular clock is a figurative term for a technique that uses the mutation rate of biomolecules to deduce the time in prehistory when two or more life forms diverged.

...and yes, they need to assume that's how it worked in the past, based on their present knowledge
the assumption of constant rates of evolution

...and inferences need to be made, because there is no direct evidence.
It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.

I recall reading that where there is no direct evidence of say a dinosaur, they can infer from droppings that a dino was around.
The droppings could have fell from the sky, right?
Because scientists are familiar with droppings coming from behinds, and having certain smells doesn't mean the droppings couldn't have come from somewhere else, right?
They should say they don't know where it came from right?

That is the angle your argument takes.

You do much more than that. You say "I know how life came to be. It had a designer, and it had a creator, and that creator is the God of Abraham". Right? Please show me where in your post that the specific "God of Abraham" is indicated in the evidence you have brought forth. Please. And after all that talk of how "Faith is the belief in things unseen" - you should be ashamed of yourself. Truly.
One does not need to get to specifying the creator / designer, yet.

That's what most people are trying to do, and I consider that commendable, becase they have not ignored the evidence.

For example, Anthony Flew - a staunch Atheist for most of his life... 50 years, accepted the evidence that indicate a creator.
He didn't ask who that creator was, but I am sure if he was a younger man, he would have.

I, as well as millions of others, have come to accept that that creator - God, is Jehovah, based on the evidence that the Bible is true, and God introduces himself to those who seek him, through its pages.

It's up to others to examine the facts for themselves.
Some are still searching. Some are finding. Some are misled. Some have given up the search. Some are like you.

Each person to their own gods, or path.
Each person will get an outcome - bad or good.
That's not my problem.
I do try to help though. So I share what I know with all who would listen.

I just demonstrated, easily, that you are inferring whatever you want to from the evidence you have posted. How else could you possibly come to the result of believing in the "God of Abraham" specifically, as the designer you so earnestly want to posit? How? Please show me where that makes any sense within the evidence you posted? Which, again, doesn't even serve as evidence of what you want to think it does - which I am also sure you have been told many, many multiple times. But you are obstinate, and won't listen to reason, obviously. You have nothing of worth in any of this stuff you are posting. It is all presumption and foolishness.

Does the above help?

I would not say you demonstrated anything, but if you want to believe that, you are certainly free to do so.

Evidence in creation and the evidence in the Bible has convinced me.
I am not here to convince you.
I'm answering your questions. At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want.

Isn't that how it is?

 

[nPeace]

I apologize. I literally did not see or pick up on the "to the atheists" bit, and thought you were having some kind of Freudian slip or something.

This makes absolutely no sense as you have written it. Maybe rephrase something?

If scientists literally said "What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist?" and then concluded "We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist." then they would be demonstrably deluded. The thing we call gravity (the force that pulls matter toward other congregations of matter) does demonstrably exist. I don't know what you are getting at here. Gravity (or again, what ended up being called "gravity" always existed... and any scientist worth his salt would realize this. It isn't like anyone put a name to "gravity" and then suddenly it existed. Not even close. Those who discovered what the phenomenon was about realized it existed before they had anything to say about it. It is craziness to assume otherwise. You're only doing so because you are working on some agenda. Please stop... it is entirely dishonest.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are not understanding. I won't voice my assessment as to why.

Sigh. One more time.
Do this for me okay.
Pretend you know nothing about gravity, okay? Pretend scientists know nothing of gravity, okay?
Is your mind there yet? Okay. Here we go.

If scientists went the route you took, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.

Take gravity. (Remember pretend we are at a time in history, where gravity is not discovered).

You said..
And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?

So, in other words, if scientists suggested 'What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist? (Remember, gravity is not discovered yet), We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist."

In a case like that, gravity did not exist.. until they discovered it.
Get it now?

Yup. You definitely are having trouble keeping up.

Who is "they"? And what part of The Bible are we talking about here? The whole thing? This is just strange. maybe you're being brief because of your computer problems, but you are not saying anything worthwhile here.

They - critics - discovered many times over, that what the Bible said was true. When they - critics - were sating there is no evidence for it.
That counts as evidence

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Skeptics have attacked the Biblical record using the argument from silence. The fact that for many Biblical characters, there is no mention of them outside of the Biblical record in the findings of archeology or ancient inscriptions or manuscripts, calls their historicity into question.

The argument goes that if such people really lived, one would expect to find some trace of them outside of sacred writings.

Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible
Currently there are more than 50.

My point is this.
The Bible records were kept - recorded on perishable materials. So that they could have been lost, and in many cases, archaeologists would not have dug where they did, and found what they did.
Furthermore, even after finding what they did, no one would know that the records had been kept.

However, the records were preserved through a process of copying and recopying and of course men and women God moved to act courageously, and thus scientists more than 30 centuries after can use those records to locate history, preserved in the earth. They could also verify the accounts in the Bible, by finding artifacts and events in history which were written about centuries earlier.

The fact that much of these records have been confirmed by outside sources, puts them in a good light to be considered as credible evidence, along with other facts.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Lying about what, specifically?

"Masses of cells"
" Fetuses"
" It's not a baby."

And yet these are babies born alive after attempted abortions.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Still people ought to keep in mind its still an act to prevent a human being from being born which has both a positive and a negative associated with it

Look, if I find someone in life, a foundation point of the relationship would be 'no kids.' I would want a rock solid agreement with my partner on that point.

so, the relationship I'd want wouldn't be about kids, it would be about having a partner to get through the general difficulties of life with. Still, maybe a mistake might occur in that. So now, people are saying I should not be allowed to make that hypothetical mistake.

 

[SomeRandom]

"Masses of cells"
" Fetuses"
" It's not a baby."

And yet these are babies born alive after attempted abortions.

Well let’s talk definitions.
All human beings, as all living beings, are made up of cells. They are the very building blocks of all organic matter. Which includes us, despite our sometimes dubious eating habits
To use such language to describe a fetus and indeed a born human, is actually accurate. Scientifically speaking.
“Fetus” is the agreed upon scientific definition of a specific stage of pregnancy. Before that terms used to describe the stages of a pregnancy are “embryo” and then “blastocyst.”

The term “Baby” is not recognised at such a stage of pregnancy, at least in terms of biology specifically, because the organism needs to be outside of the womb in order to qualify for the definition. From a scientific perspective.

Colloquially speaking the term “baby” might be used among friends and family for events and cards.
But our language is not as precise by default. That’s just how language works.
Doctors might use the term in deference to bedside manner, but they would not likely consider it a scientifically accurate term. It’s used more for emotionality, it is not actually used in the academic sense. At least not before birth.

Fetus - Wikipedia
Embryo - Wikipedia
Blastocyst.

English is a very intense language. It’s even more intense when you’re using scientific definitions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well let’s talk definitions.
All human beings, as all living beings, are made up of cells. They are the very building blocks of all organic matter. Which includes us, despite our sometimes dubious eating habits
To use such language to describe a fetus and indeed a born human, is actually accurate. Scientifically speaking.
“Fetus” is the agreed upon scientific definition of a specific stage of pregnancy. Before that terms used to describe the stages of a pregnancy are “embryo” and then “blastocyst.”

The term “Baby” is not recognised at such a stage of pregnancy, at least in terms of biology specifically, because the organism needs to be outside of the womb in order to qualify for the definition. From a scientific perspective.

Colloquially speaking the term “baby” might be used among friends and family for events and cards.
But our language is not as precise by default. That’s just how language works.
Doctors might use the term in deference to bedside manner, but they would not likely consider it a scientifically accurate term. It’s used more for emotionality, it is not actually used in the academic sense. At least not before birth.

Fetus - Wikipedia
Embryo - Wikipedia
Blastocyst.

English is a very intense language. It’s even more intense when you’re using scientific definitions.

Lol, when you use such language to try and pretend he's not a baby you've already lost the argument. It's just dancing around the facts.
Changing the name doesn't change the facts...this is a human being worthy of respect and worthy to be allowed to live.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I was trying to explain that you started wis assumptions or presumptions that are wrong, and you also created, or formed statements that are somewhat "loaded".
1. God is all powerful
2. God wants human babies to live is a broad and yet vague statement. God wants babies to live in peace, and so he made provisions for that, but God is not trying to keep babies alive.
3. God does not want to stay hidden from the world. Acts 17:26-28
4. See #2. God is not seeking to save babies from death in this world. He is seeking to save people spiritually, so that they can be saved from physical death, permanently.

Do you understand where your premises are wrong, and out of sync?

Thank you for finally actually answering the question. This took long enough, honestly. And I am finding it hard to accept that you were "just on the cusp" of providing the answer, because this question, and series of assumptions by me trying to pull your take on this out of you was there from like post #1 of our conversation. Do you see what I mean? You had ample opportunity to answer, but you just kept replying with generalities and unrelated statements/claims.

So God is "not trying to keep babies alive", right? This definitely fits with observable reality, so good on you there for actually making your proposed model match better to reality than it could have. However, this then raises the question of why God is so unhappy about abortion. Can you explain this? If babies "spiritual salvation" is intact, such that when they die in birth they are simply rejoined with God, then what ends up being the ultimate problem? That the human who enacted the abortion chose to do so? That they could have allowed the baby to live (i.e. prevented the death of the baby) (perhaps - nothing is guaranteed obviously) by choosing not to have an abortion? What does God think of Himself each time he chooses not to prevent the death of a baby then? Do you see where I am going with this? Why is it okay for God to abstain from helping save babies lives when He is supposedly entirely capable, and yet we would chastise a human being for failing to prevent the death of a baby when they are able? This problem still exists no matter how you slice it. And it being okay for God to allow a baby to die when He could instead prevent this points to morality being entirely subjective. If God, as the subject, is exempt from moral prescriptions we would otherwise attribute to our fellow humans, then morality is subjective. Period.

A title deed is a legal deed or document constituting evidence of a right, especially to ownership of property.
What are you suggesting a person holding a title deed should doubt or question?

For all the complaints you had about me misrepresenting you or assuming to much, here you are doing the exact same thing. Who questions the deed holder? Themselves? Come on now, please do not be dense or feign ignorance. You are only prolonging the inevitable here, which is to admit that your thinking was fallacious on this point. Yes, the person holding the deed may make sure that documents are in order that serve as evidence that they are the deed holder (this literally happens all the time), but it is to ward off suspicions from others that they might not be the proper owner of the deed. YOU were the one who initially raised this scenario, and you admitted that others might come requesting proof of ownership! Now you don't seem to even understand that exact situation, or are confused as to how things might even play out with regard to someone requesting such evidence? Do you take me for a fool?

Exactly.
Didn't you read what I wrote?
Though the reality may not be seen, the evidence can demonstrate that reality, and can be discerned or inferred.
Faith, however is based on solid evidence. There is no doubt, as is the case of Dark Matter and Gravity.

Sorry... no. This is completely different from what you do with God. Like I said, the palceholder name of "Dark Matter" was given to whatever is causing the observed effects. PLACEHOLDER. Do you understand? As in "we don't know what this is" type of thing. With God, you most definitely do claim to know what it is, even though all you are observing are some effects that you are attributing to this thing you call "God". If God were being used as a placeholder for something you admitted you didn't know anything about and were only using the name of in order to give a name to the ultimate cause for the effects you are seeing, that would be closer to the "Dark Matter" situation. But you aren't! You claim to have a spiritual or personal connection to this thing called God, claim to know what it has done, what it has inspired to be written, and how it wants to communicate with the world. This is not an argument you can win. You are entirely ill-equipped. This much is demonstrated time and time again with these analogies that you seem to believe work in your favor, but which unequivocally do not, and never will.

Would you like to know why there is no doubt?

Yes, please. And it had better not be some form of the Watchmaker Analogy (which you have used at least once already).

Think back to the title deed. It is real.
The person who holds it, has the evidence of what it means.
Faith is the title deed of those who know God.

Please understand that this "deed" cannot literally be shared with or shown to anyone else. That is not possible. There is no copy at city hall, and you don't even hold a physical copy yourself. This isn't anywhere nearly as strong a piece of evidence as even a forgery of a deed, honestly!

 

[Bathos Logos]

Where does it come from? Galatians 5:22

Let's see...

Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Are you sure this is the correct passage? I don't see anything even remotely resembling a deed here, or evidence of anything, honestly. Are you trying to say that people who have "joy" or "peace" or "kindness" or "goodness", etc. are receiving this "fruit of the Spirit"? That those things existing at all serves as evidence that this "Spirit" is real just because The Bible says so? This has better be just a joke.

It is not the possession of all people. (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

Okay, having a look...

2 Thessalonians 3:2 - And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not everyone has faith.

Okay... yes... it is a factual statement that "not everyone has faith" - even though the theists very often try to claim that even the atheist "has faith" - which, apparently goes against the word of God that you have shared here! Isn't that funny? Once again... complete failure to remain consistent. Man... this stuff is just too amusing. And although it doesn't exactly say that everyone who doesn't have faith is wicked and evil, it sure strongly hints at this. And this is basically the M.O. of Christians of all stripes, right? Like saying that atheists deny the existence of God because they want to continue breaking his rules. So yes, some people are what we might mutually consider evil or wicked. Still waiting for the deed to show up here...

Why? Look at the previous verses of Galatians 5. Galatians 5:19-21

Right off the bat I have a problem with what you wrote here. You want me to look at something from "2 Thessalonians" right? And then immediately following you want me to clarify it by looking at what you call "the previous verses" in an entirely different book of The Bible! "Galatians". You see my issue with this? Isn't this a form of "cherry picking"? Didn't you explicitly admonish against that practice? You start in one chapter, and try to clarify what it is saying with something from an entirely different chapter, basically. But yeah... let's have a look, still looking for that deed...

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

Alright so a list of the stuff that is considered "sin" with respect to the God of The Bible. What does this serve as evidence for again? Do you honestly think that the fact that there are people who participate in some of these things indicates that the truth of all the things standing behind your "faith" are real/true? Seriously? It's so funny how I knew before I even looked up the passages you wanted me to look at that they were going to be mostly nonsensical, and barely related to one another. For some reason this is a very consistent theme with Christians quoting The Bible, I have found. There is very little attention paid to how much any of it actually makes sense or whether it specifically functions as what it is they are trying to provide evidence for. And this is mostly because The Bible does not contain very specific descriptions of many of the situations we might find ourselves in or provide many specific answers for many of the questions we might find ourselves asking. It just doesn't. So you have to point to vague, unrelated junk. You have no choice, and I get that. But this is just pathetic.

I understand if that doesn't help you understand why there is no doubt when one has faith.
It is based on evidence, and provides a guarantee. It is from God.
New information is acquired regarding our understanding of scripture. That however, only builds and strengthens faith.
It does not create doubt.

Again, no room for doubt is not a good place to be in by any means. It certainly isn't productive and doesn't allow much room for advancement of ideas.

Does that mean we don't question the Bible? No. We do, but not in the way people do who look for something to criticize. We look at it with a view to understanding or having the explanation for things read.
Why do we do that? We do so because the Bible has already proven itself.

From my perspective it has proven itself to be mostly irrelevant and so far behind the times it is incredible - as in, lacking any credit.

Think of it this way. Imagine that you tried moving an object.
You tried everything, but it would not budge. You beat up on it. Everything you throw at it, failed to move it or dent it, or break it.
It proves itself to be immovable... solid.

And this is an analogy to The Bible? how about that bit in there about slaves being beaten and not dying for a few days, and how the master should be let off because the slave "is his money"? You beat on that part at all? See how it holds up? Got excuses for that part that make it "not so bad"? Something about "indentured servitude" maybe? Or how The Bible has passages that indicate that it generally looks down on beatings? That's The Bible being contradictory, by the way - providing admonishment against anyone beating anyone else, and yet prescribing when a person is not to be punished for literally beating someone until they cannot survive. That's exactly what that all is. Exactly. You can't talk your way out of it... that's literally what is there, in the text. I can even quote scripture if you need me to!

The Bible proves itself in so many ways to be God's word, and not man's.
No doubt you disagree. You could try to prove me wrong.

I at least just provided evidence that it is contradictory and inconsistent, an that it condones certain abhorrent things. It does so, period. I don't like it. Not going to like it. Can't like it. My principles wouldn't allow it. I know you understand.

I won't deal with that in this thread. So let me know if you are interested in doing that.

Sure sure... like that other thread you were going to create, right? Don't patronize me.

Are you serious?
I say we can witness the past, based on a primary and secondary source of evidence, and science.
If you think this is a problem, tell me how scientists witness the past, and how you corroborate their stories.

Scientists don't "Witness the past" - what they can do, however, is assume that the governing mechanics of the universe have remained consistent, and therefore literally "roll back the clock" on various activities that the universe has been working at for millions to billions of years. They don't claim, as you do, to have 100% knowledge of what happened... which is why they report things in huge swaths of time within very great ranges of error. They know they can't literally look back. You don't know this, obviously, because you claim that historical sources are reality. You are in the wrong here.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Oh okay.
In that case scientists are wrong to make inferences. Is that okay with you?

No. How does this follow from what I said about not knowing how life came to be? What's going on here? Certain things are entirely observable - like the consistency of the pull of gravity, or radioactive decay, the precipitation cycle. And we come to realize that these things can be relied upon because they are happening due to the matter of the universe being forced to adhere to the forces in play. What does this have to do with claiming to know (or not know) how life began? That is a situation where observation cannot (or simply has not yet) be observed. What's wrong with claiming not to know the specific details of something you haven't been able to observe?

Let me give you some examples.
What about the Molecular Clock, which requires assuming constant rates. What is that based on?

The reliability of those rates, day in and day out. The really strange thing would be to conclude, instead, that the rates are not reliable or consistent when you have observed no reason to believe that they are not. As in - you wait until you have encountered a blip in the reliability before you declare that there is such a blip. Consistent observation of consistent activity leads one to ultimately rely on the consistency.

Besides all that - there has to be some fundamental layer beyond which we need provide no explanation in order for anything to exist at all. This is true even if God is real! That layer is literally "God" in that case - who you believe requires no explanation, right? Right?!

The molecular clock

is a figurative term for a technique that uses the mutation rate of biomolecules to deduce the time in prehistory when two or more life forms diverged.

And? Are they claiming exact knowledge in these cases? Are they using this to change people's lives, or claim that this knowledge does change people's lives? This is like an interesting hobby, and within it, the better they get at being accurate, the more likely they will be to be able to predict other things perhaps, or use the knowledge for some purpose. But there is very little at stake here, like I stated. This isn't going to matter too much one way or the other. Can you same for your religious prescriptions?

...and yes, they need to assume that's how it worked in the past, based on their present knowledge
the assumption of constant rates of evolution

And? Is this some form of "sin" is that it? This is just speculation at best, and the scientists involved would likely tell you as much! Can you say the same of your faith? That it is all just speculation? I highly doubt it. Again - who is being more honest? When these scientists present these ideas, they are more for the sake of appeasing curiosity, and, again, trying things out to see how accurate they can get, and whether or not they can match their findings using these types of techniques to actual findings from fields like archaeology. But they aren't, by any means, claiming that these findings are going to save the world, or that everyone needs to bow down before their brilliance and worship the gods of molecular clock rates.

...and inferences need to be made, because there is no direct evidence.

Observation of the consistency of particular values or rates of change, etc. That's what they're counting on. Nothing dastardly here in the slightest. Not like you are trying to make it out to be anyway.

It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence

Sure, sure. And when they come to my door, telling me I need to change the way I live based on their conclusions, or try and sway public opinion toward some particular legislation based on nothing more than what is written in their books, then I will have some issue with this. Until then... I just literally do not care. They have their hobbies, I have mine. No convergence there... sorry.

I recall reading that where there is no direct evidence of say a dinosaur, they can infer from droppings that a dino was around.
The droppings could have fell from the sky, right?

The fact that this doesn't happen in the observable world might have something to do with it. Or, at least, that creatures that do drop turds from the sky are those that are actually able to physically fly, and their poop is observably light and small, whereas those giant dino turds would need hauled around by something more resembling an airplane.

Because scientists are familiar with droppings coming from behinds, and having certain smells doesn't mean the droppings couldn't have come from somewhere else, right?
They should say they don't know where it came from right?

Ultimately they may actually admit that they aren't entirely sure. What they are presenting is their best guess, based on the activity we can observe in modern times, with respect to what else has been found from those times past. This isn't, at all, how you or your religion functions however. You people can't admit you might be wrong to save your own lives. Literally!

That is the angle your argument takes.

Yes... make your best guesses based on observable evidence. Make sure your model matches to the reality you experience, etc. ely on things that have been shown to have predictive power, and only accept as interesting possibilities those things that do not have such power, and are only the "best guesses" of someone else. You seem to think I put some huge amount of stock in science. I don't. I accept and utilize the things that match to reality and have predictive power. But things like where dino turds came from? I mean... are you even reading how ridiculous this seems right now? Dino turds. Why am I even talking about dino turds?

That's what most people are trying to do, and I consider that commendable, becase they have not ignored the evidence.

I'm sorry... you lost me. What is it most people are trying to do?

For example, Anthony Flew - a staunch Atheist for most of his life... 50 years, accepted the evidence that indicate a creator.
He didn't ask who that creator was, but I am sure if he was a younger man, he would have.

I can guarantee his evidence wasn't very strong. I've seen the types of things even "the best" theists have to offer are comprised of. It is weak. Super weak.

I, as well as millions of others, have come to accept that that creator - God, is Jehovah, based on the evidence that the Bible is true, and God introduces himself to those who seek him, through its pages.

So then the Earth was also flat as some point, right? Because millions to billions of people literally believed it as some point in the past? Is that how it works?

It's up to others to examine the facts for themselves.

Which I have done. They come up short for me every single time. Make what you will of that.

Some are still searching. Some are finding. Some are misled. Some have given up the search. Some are like you.

I am sure there are some like me. Not sure what this proves.

Each person to their own gods, or path.

But wait... doesn't The Bible literally state that there are people who lack faith? Remember?

Each person will get an outcome - bad or good.

You're talking about after they die, right? You can't even know this for sure... and I bet your evidence is super duper poor for this. Anything consistent you've observed to conclude this? Anything with predictive power you can offer?

That's not my problem.

Well, maybe not that one, but I have pointed out a slew of other ones you have. Maybe you should get to work on those? Just a thought.

I do try to help though. So I share what I know with all who would listen.

Is that what you were doing? Huh.

I would not say you demonstrated anything, but if you want to believe that, you are certainly free to do so.

I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise, honestly. You are most definitely stuck in your faith bubble. Have at it! Just be sure to leave me out of it.

At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want.

Well, this demonstrates that you are able to say some things that make sense.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are not understanding. I won't voice my assessment as to why.

Sigh. One more time.
Do this for me okay.
Pretend you know nothing about gravity, okay? Pretend scientists know nothing of gravity, okay?
Is your mind there yet? Okay. Here we go.

If scientists went the route you took, nothing today existed... until they discovered it.

Take gravity. (Remember pretend we are at a time in history, where gravity is not discovered).

You said..
And then, of course, what are the implications if God does not exist? What are the things we expect to see?

So, in other words, if scientists suggested 'What would we expect to see if gravity does not exist? (Remember, gravity is not discovered yet), We expect to see what we see today. Therefore, gravity does not exist."

In a case like that, gravity did not exist.. until they discovered it.
Get it now?

Yup. You definitely are having trouble keeping up.

I think I see where you are coming from now... and I didn't, at all mean that scientists literally believe that something doesn't exist until they encounter it. What I mean is that it makes no sense to make things up that you don't know whether or not it is even possible to encounter. You know... like you do with your "God" ideas. So, while gravity was always working, what was discovered on top of that was the constant rate at which it works relative to the sizes of the masses in question. So, even if someone believed the world was flat, for instance, they still understood that there was some force holding them to the Earth - even if they didn't understand how or why. So, what they didn't "make stuff up" about was the how or why. Or rather, they perhaps had their hypotheses, but they worked on falsifying or reifying those, in order to get to an accurate predictive model.

I literally can't care if I am "keeping up" with your inane blather, honestly. communicating with you is getting tedious, and you are very much more often found to be thinking incorrectly abolut things, or with a very myopic lens. Like you nearly demanding that I accept that "history is reality". You're wrong, and you are wrong about a great many things.

They - critics - discovered many times over, that what the Bible said was true. When they - critics - were sating there is no evidence for it.
That counts as evidence

I must have missed the memo on this one. Can you provide me the names and credentials of these "critics"?

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE

Skeptics have attacked the Biblical record using the argument from silence. The fact that for many Biblical characters, there is no mention of them outside of the Biblical record in the findings of archeology or ancient inscriptions or manuscripts, calls their historicity into question.

The argument goes that if such people really lived, one would expect to find some trace of them outside of sacred writings.

Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible
Currently there are more than 50.

My point is this.
The Bible records were kept - recorded on perishable materials. So that they could have been lost, and in many cases, archaeologists would not have dug where they did, and found what they did.
Furthermore, even after finding what they did, no one would know that the records had been kept.

However, the records were preserved through a process of copying and recopying and of course men and women God moved to act courageously, and thus scientists more than 30 centuries after can use those records to locate history, preserved in the earth. They could also verify the accounts in the Bible, by finding artifacts and events in history which were written about centuries earlier.

The fact that much of these records have been confirmed by outside sources, puts them in a good light to be considered as credible evidence, along with other facts.

Credible evidence of what though? They serve as evidence of what people believed, sure. Evidence that Christianity is a thing, sure. That Jesus existed? Perhaps. That Jesus performed actual miracles? Eh... not so much. That all of the stories in what was composed to be "The Bible" are factual representations of actual events? Hardly.

 

[SomeRandom]

Lol, when you use such language to try and pretend he's not a baby you've already lost the argument. It's just dancing around the facts.
Changing the name doesn't change the facts...this is a human being worthy of respect and worthy to be allowed to live.

No where did I indicate that such definitions used implied a denial of if being a baby. Or rather a potential baby. Just that according to the agreed upon scientific definitions, the organism needs to be born in order to qualify for the term. The term “baby” is an example of emotional language, it is not recognised as scientifically accurate before birth. Complain to biologists, not me, I didn’t come up with the definitions.

Science is neutral. It can appear cold, but it needs to remove emotionality in order for actual accuracy.

Also just fyi, an appeal to emotion is literally a logical fallacy.
Using emotional language, like “baby” in reference to abortion debates is an example of such an appeal.
One needs to avoid such language and argue their position logically.
Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

 

[Wildswanderer]

Using emotional language, like “baby”

Nothing emotional about it, just fact. If he can be born and survive, he's a baby.

 

[SomeRandom]

Nothing emotional about it, just fact. If he can be born and survive, he's a baby.

He’s a fetus until birth. That is a scientifically agreed upon fact.
“Baby” is used in a colloquial sense before birth, but it is not academically accurate in that context. That is a fact.
The term baby conjures up images of a healthy cute baby human that humans feel an innate instinctive need to protect. That’s why it’s considered an emotional appeal to use such a term in a debate about abortion. Because such images conjured aren’t actually that accurate in terms of human development.
Like I said, the English language tends to be very precise. Even more so when we deal with scientific definitions.
Don’t complain to me, complain to the biologists

 

[Wildswanderer]

He’s a fetus until birth. That is a scientifically agreed upon fact.
“Baby” is used in a colloquial sense before birth, but it is not academically accurate in that context. That is a fact.
Like I said, the English language tends to be very precise. Even more so when we deal with scientific definitions.
Don’t complain to me, complain to the biologists

Again you are just arguing about the meaning of words. This is exactly what I mean. It's merely to distract from the killing of a human child.

It's like seeing a person about to stab a child and you say: " that knife isn't technically a weapon, so it's no problem. ".

 

[SomeRandom]

Again you are just arguing about the meaning of words. This is exactly what I mean. It's merely to distract from the killing of a human child.

And appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy. If your position is a strong one, you could easily argue it without using terms such as “baby.”

It's like seeing a person about to stab a child and you say: " that knife isn't technically a weapon, so it's no problem. ".

No to be snarky but a knife is actually defined as a weapon, depending on the context. Just fyi. You do know that words can actually have multiple meanings in the English language, right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No to be snarky but a knife is actually defined as a weapon, depending on the context. Just fyi. You do know that words can actually have multiple meanings in the English language, right?

Who cares? You are still arguing about the meaning of words instead of addressing a human life being taken. It's absurd.

 

[SomeRandom]

Who cares? You are still arguing about the meaning of words instead of addressing a human life being taken. It's absurd.

No I’m addressing why such language is used in debates such as this.
I have not once indicated that I personally perceive a fetus to not be human life, as you put it.
But words matter. Indeed the intent of the words we use matter and I know it’s a subject that stirs great emotions in us all. But debate etiquette does indeed require not relying on emotions.
I fail at that myself.
Just pointing out the reason of the language used. You accused one side of lying.
But as their claims hold up to scrutiny, I can’t see where the lie is supposed to be