Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[AV1611VET]

Almost seems like writing wasn’t a very good way to share such crucial information.

The problem isn't on the side of the writer; it is on the side of the reader.

Surely you have more reason to believe than that .

I do.

Habbakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.

Acts 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

How does Paul know?

It doesn't matter how He wrote it; there will always be those who take it wrong.

I agree. As such it's of little practical value.

 

[gaara4158]

The problem isn't on the side of the writer; it is on the side of the reader.

It doesn’t matter whose side it’s on, the fact that problems are possible exposes the problem with the medium itself.

And so you don’t have any more reason to believe the Bible is inspired by God than the mere fact that is says it is. Ok. Do you hold anything else to this low a standard?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does Paul know?

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, ( not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )

Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I agree. As such it's of little practical value.

Depends on what you're looking for.

 

[Jimmy D]

Depends on what you're looking for.

Too true!

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn’t matter whose side it’s on, the fact that problems are possible exposes the problem with the medium itself.

Try talking yourself out of a traffic ticket with that logic.

As the saying goes: Ignorance is no excuse of the law.

And so you don’t have any more reason to believe the Bible is inspired by God than the mere fact that is says it is.

Oh, I can think of a few:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12a Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Ok. Do you hold anything else to this low a standard?

Your comments.

 

[gaara4158]

Try talking yourself out of a traffic ticket with that logic.

As the saying goes: Ignorance is no excuse of the law.

The cop pulling me over doesn’t claim to be the creator of the universe conveying life-or-death information to me. Ambiguity is inherent in human communication. Apparently God is limited in this way as well. Apparently as the all-powerful creator of the universe he doesn’t have a better way to communicate than we, his fallen subjects, had in the Bronze Age.

 

[gaara4158]

Oh, I can think of a few:

Do you not understand that posting Bible verses as your source for verifying that the Bible is correct is fallacious?

 

[AV1611VET]

The cop pulling me over doesn’t claim to be the creator of the universe conveying life-or-death information to me.

And the one he is pulling over had better realize that there are no problems with the written media (the Law). The problem would be with the reader, not the writer.

Ambiguity is inherent in human communication.

STOP means "stop." YIELD means yield. 35 MPH means 35 mph.

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD means In the beginning, God.

Apparently God is limited in this way as well.

God used non-scientific methods.

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Science does not deal in "infallible proofs."

After all, science is myopic.

Apparently as the all-powerful creator of the universe he doesn’t have a better way to communicate than we, his fallen subjects, had in the Bronze Age.

He did alright with me. My wife. My church. Not to mention a billion others.

What's your problem? is science getting in the way? or perhaps your humanism? or both?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you not understand that posting Bible verses as your source for verifying that the Bible is correct is fallacious?

Yes.

 

[gaara4158]

What's your problem? is science getting in the way? or perhaps your humanism? or both?

My burden of proof isn’t as soft as yours. If I’m going to believe something, I need empirical evidence. Funny how all those who claim to have special revelations still manage to disagree with each other.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes.

Well now that I’ve explained it you are without excuse.

 

[Tayla]

Science has nothing to investigate -- literally nothing.

Materialistic science assumes materialism. You can never prove anything outside of materialism using science. In my opinion it is a waste of time discussing anything spiritual with materialists.

That said, I strongly reject creationism, and strongly support modern science. For example, that the first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia. And intelligent design is not even science; it is a phrase, or a sentence at best.

 

[Tayla]

A myth is simply a fact you choose to not believe.

What? Lots of ancient societies had myths. Myths are fiction, not fact.

 

[Tayla]

Anyone asking why there is no evidence for creation either doesn't understand creationism, doesn't understand evidence, or both.

Illogical. I understand creationism (and reject it) because of the scientific evidence against it. Besides, the Bible doesn't teach creation in six 24-hour days. We are still in day 7, and it's the same kind of day as day 6.

Merely claiming a miracle occurred is not evidence. Merely holding up an object (say, the earth, for example) and claiming God created it supernaturally is not evidence.

The only evidence applicable for creationist arguments is the Bible. But the word "firmament" means dome, meaning flat earth. So much for the Bible as evidence of creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I’m going to believe something, I need empirical evidence.

Then wait until Christmas [holidays] and go to church [edifices] and sing Christmas carols [songs] before you read the Christmas story [literature], if it's empirical evidence you want.

Funny how all those who claim to have special revelations still manage to disagree with each other.

If you're talking about Christians, at least they prioritized first and got saved.

Perhaps you'd like to join our Family and straighten us out, eh?

 

[Ophiolite]

And intelligent design is not even science; it is a phase, or a sentence at best.

I think you meant to say phrase, but I rather hope it is just a phase, one that will pass in time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well now that I’ve explained it you are without excuse.

I are with orders from headquarters not to listen to vain denials and to give answers of the hope that is within me primarily from the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Materialistic science assumes materialism.

Not to mention it is myopic.

You can never prove anything outside of materialism using science.

That's because science is myopic.

In my opinion it is a waste of time discussing anything spiritual with materialists.

We can sow seeds though, can't we?

That said, I strongly reject creationism, and strongly support modern science.

I'm just the opposite: I strongly accept creationism and strongly reject modern science if it disagrees with the Bible.

For example, that the first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia.

That's an example of why I reject modern science if it disagrees with the Bible.

And intelligent design is not even science; it is a phase, or a sentence at best.

Intelligent Design is a joke, a contradiction in terms, a lie of the devil, and various and sundry other predicate nouns.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for the Bible as evidence of creationism.

God did not create the universe with science.

He created it via a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is today.

If you're looking for evidence in Someone who spoke the universe into existence in 4004 BC, I submit you're looking for a set of car keys for a car that never existed.