Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

Here's another one: Your legs. If they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground; if they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent all the time.

You've made one of my points. Some of you only wish to fight with people and put them down no matter what they say. Your bad attitude edifies no one.

 

[Ophiolite]

In other words, you don't give a crap about facts. You're comfortable in your world belief system. That's fine if that is your choice...but further participation by you and your snarky remarks would only serve to derail the topic and conversation between those who wish to actually discuss it. So...get some popcorn and sit back and watch the fun.

Where on Earth did you get that from my statements? You asked for five sentences, I gave it to you in four. They were necessary summaries. Frankly I am astounded. I hope this wasn't somehow triggered by my pm to you. That was offered out of sincere concern.

The conclusions in my first sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by philosophers, theologians, sociologists, psychologists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

The conclusions in my second sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, philosophers and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

The conclusions in my third sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by chemists, biochemists, palaeontologists, biologists, geneticists, astrobiologists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts, especially since this is a comparatively new area of research and contains more than the usual areas of "unknown".

The conclusions in my fourth sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by chemists, biochemists, palaeontologists, botantists, zoologists, microbiologists, geneticists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

 

[Speedwell]

You've made one of my points. Some of you only wish to fight with people and put them down no matter what they say. Your bad attitude edifies no one.

Bad attitude? I was only trying to point out the weakness in your argument in a gentle, and hopefully humorous fashion. Look: we're both Christians, we're on the same page about that asyou said. I just dislike seeing fellow Christians use bad arguments. It makes us look stupid to people we might otherwise be able to evangelize.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, that wasn't copy pasted from a website. That was from my notes. That you know of these facts speaks a lot. And backs me up to their validity. Thank you.

Yeah, this info is out there. Factual. Verifiable, tested, and so forth.

Besides, what would it matter if it was copy/pasted? Facts are facts. The evidence is in. Mumbo Jumbo huh? Lol. Here's your facts buddy. Lol. Now go armchair quarterback me again

Copying and pasting material from other sources without proper attribution creates the impression it is your work. This is a combination of theft and lying. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal offense. I am less concerned about the illegality of it, more the immorality of it.

Even in an instance where you are simply presenting a summary of material, in your own words, it is prudent to acknowledge the original source. This is offered as well intentioned advice to help you avoid unwelcome accusations.

 

[Ophiolite]

Bad attitude? I was only trying to point out the weakness in your argument in a gentle, and hopefully humorous fashion. Look: we're both Christians, we're on the same page about that as you said. I just dislike seeing fellow Christians use bad arguments. It makes us look stupid to people we might otherwise be able to evangelize.

There is no significant chance that I could ever be "brought back into the fold", but I feel strongly that if someone rejects Christianity it should be for the "right" reasons. Unfortunately, I have no doubt some are turned away by the bizarre views and bad arguments used by some Christians. So, I wish you success in your ongoing, honest, balanced struggle to convince those to recognise their errors.

 

[Aman777]

It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

Wrong since I support what I post with the agreement of Scripture, Science and History. Faith plus fact equals God's Truth. Amen?

 

[Divide]

Where on Earth did you get that from my statements? You asked for five sentences, I gave it to you in four. They were necessary summaries. Frankly I am astounded. I hope this wasn't somehow triggered by my pm to you. That was offered out of sincere concern.

The conclusions in my first sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by philosophers, theologians, sociologists, psychologists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

The conclusions in my second sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, philosophers and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

The conclusions in my third sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by chemists, biochemists, palaeontologists, biologists, geneticists, astrobiologists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts, especially since this is a comparatively new area of research and contains more than the usual areas of "unknown".

The conclusions in my fourth sentence are based upon the facts collected, examined, analysed, synthesised and formed into hypotheses and theories, by chemists, biochemists, palaeontologists, botantists, zoologists, microbiologists, geneticists and the like. There is no room in one sentence to present those facts.

Hmmm. Maybe. Sorry if I misunderstood you. The PM had nothing to do with what I said. I'm just like anyone else Brother. I have good days and bad days, understand, misunderstand, and all like that. I see where you were just trying to answer my question, now. Lol. Sorry.

 

[Divide]

Bad attitude? I was only trying to point out the weakness in your argument in a gentle, and hopefully humorous fashion. Look: we're both Christians, we're on the same page about that asyou said. I just dislike seeing fellow Christians use bad arguments. It makes us look stupid to people we might otherwise be able to evangelize.

It sounded like sarcasm to me. And I (we) were I thought trying to be serious. Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little today based on how often people seem to attack me for my views. Sorry Brother. I think I expected a little more from you (being a Christian) than you wrote. Sorry.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmmm. Maybe. Sorry if I misunderstood you. The PM had nothing to do with what I said. I'm just like anyone else Brother. I have good days and bad days, understand, misunderstand, and all like that. I see where you were just trying to answer my question, now. Lol. Sorry.

Thank you.

 

[Speedwell]

It sounded like sarcasm to me. And I (we) were I thought trying to be serious. Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little today based on how often people seem to attack me for my views. Sorry Brother. I think I expected a little more from you (being a Christian) than you wrote. Sorry.

No one is attacking you personally, but that "fine tuning" argument is a real clunker.

 

[Divide]

You know I was thinking about it, and I think I came up with something...

I've noticed something about the naysayer types. (I hesitate to say atheist types because of the misunderstanding the other day.) Men who are used to controlling, limiting, defining and defending all kinds of boundries...cage the spirit and cause fear--which is what controls their choices.
When they are free of that influence, they may seek the things of darkness but will tire of them and begin to seek the light. (which is why there's so many naysayer types on a Christian Board!). But without that freedom, they stay locked into tightly defined cells, caged by so many fears that they can't have an intimate relationship with God.

When they are set free, burned by the illusions and disappointments of darkness, they begin seeking the light and finding comfort there. (so they don't leave!). Then they make the decision to live in God's light, where there is wisdom, love and nurturing.

Fear will cause you to keep your distance, while love will cause you to surrender to God and receive all that He has to give you...in the secure knowledge that you are truly loved for who you are, right now in the present time. Not loved for your works or your intellect, but for your inner beauty. How could God fail to love you...the beautiful creatures that He made you to be? He can not. He will not. God's love calls out to you and draws you back to that Holy of Holies, forever more would you be united to Him in supreme bliss.

 

[Divide]

No one is attacking you personally, but that "fine tuning" argument is a real clunker.

Indeed Brother, indeed...

 

[Divide]

Copying and pasting material from other sources without proper attribution creates the impression it is your work. This is a combination of theft and lying. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal offense. I am less concerned about the illegality of it, more the immorality of it.

Even in an instance where you are simply presenting a summary of material, in your own words, it is prudent to acknowledge the original source. This is offered as well intentioned advice to help you avoid unwelcome accusations.

No, no this isn't my work. It's from my notes from listening to others speak. It has been awhile, so I don't remember what the source was . There are different people putting out the same information. And I listen to quite a few of them.

Are you kidding? I can't do work like this, lol. I didn't go to college, I picked up a wrench instead, lol. I should have gone to college. I'm the smart kid out of the bunch, highest IQ, all that. But more money faster seemed like the way to go at the time. I made a probable mistake, because had I gone to college...I'd be a paper shuffler right now making big bucks.

I should take better notes and acknowledge the source in my notes also...but I don't. I know where that came from...until a year or two later, lol.

 

[Ophiolite]

You know I was thinking about it, and I think I came up with something...

I've noticed something about the naysayer types. (I hesitate to say atheist types because of the misunderstanding the other day.) Men who are used to controlling, limiting, defining and defending all kinds of boundries...cage the spirit and cause fear--which is what controls their choices.
When they are free of that influence, they may seek the things of darkness but will tire of them and begin to seek the light. (which is why there's so many naysayer types on a Christian Board!). But without that freedom, they stay locked into tightly defined cells, caged by so many fears that they can't have an intimate relationship with God.

When they are set free, burned by the illusions and disappointments of darkness, they begin seeking the light and finding comfort there. (so they don't leave!). Then they make the decision to live in God's light, where there is wisdom, love and nurturing.

Fear will cause you to keep your distance, while love will cause you to surrender to God and receive all that He has to give you...in the secure knowledge that you are truly loved for who you are, right now in the present time. Not loved for your works or your intellect, but for your inner beauty. How could God fail to love you...the beautiful creatures that He made you to be? He can not. He will not. God's love calls out to you and draws you back to that Holy of Holies, forever more would you be united to Him in supreme bliss.

You realise that there is a very effective counter argument regarding fear and Christian belief. I am unable to present it in more detail as I think to do so would infringe the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules.

 

[Speedwell]

You know I was thinking about it, and I think I came up with something...

I've noticed something about the naysayer types. (I hesitate to say atheist types because of the misunderstanding the other day.) Men who are used to controlling, limiting, defining and defending all kinds of boundries...cage the spirit and cause fear--which is what controls their choices.
When they are free of that influence, they may seek the things of darkness but will tire of them and begin to seek the light. (which is why there's so many naysayer types on a Christian Board!). But without that freedom, they stay locked into tightly defined cells, caged by so many fears that they can't have an intimate relationship with God.

When they are set free, burned by the illusions and disappointments of darkness, they begin seeking the light and finding comfort there. (so they don't leave!). Then they make the decision to live in God's light, where there is wisdom, love and nurturing.

Fear will cause you to keep your distance, while love will cause you to surrender to God and receive all that He has to give you...in the secure knowledge that you are truly loved for who you are, right now in the present time. Not loved for your works or your intellect, but for your inner beauty. How could God fail to love you...the beautiful creatures that He made you to be? He can not. He will not. God's love calls out to you and draws you back to that Holy of Holies, forever more would you be united to Him in supreme bliss.

Except that none of this is about God, it's about the Bible and how you read it, as compared to how others read it. Atheists think it's just an old book. Non-creationist Christians think it's the word of God but read it differently than you do, and for the most part always have. You seem to want to make this into a theist vs. atheist discussion, but that misses the point entirely.

 

[gaara4158]

No, no this isn't my work. It's from my notes from listening to others speak. It has been awhile, so I don't remember what the source was . There are different people putting out the same information. And I listen to quite a few of them.

Are you kidding? I can't do work like this, lol. I didn't go to college, I picked up a wrench instead, lol. I should have gone to college. I'm the smart kid out of the bunch, highest IQ, all that. But more money faster seemed like the way to go at the time. I made a probable mistake, because had I gone to college...I'd be a paper shuffler right now making big bucks.

I should take better notes and acknowledge the source in my notes also...but I don't. I know where that came from...until a year or two later, lol.

1. You can still go to college.

2. College isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t mean your education should ever stop. Strive to learn something new every day, and don’t shy away from admitting when you were wrong.

3. Your fine tuning argument is fatally flawed in a number of ways. First, of course we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that permits our existence. It would be far more astounding if we found ourselves in a universe that didn’t.
Second, the fine tuning in the universe doesn’t mean that life couldn’t exist under any other conditions. That would only prohibit life as we know it. Who knows what other forms life could take under different laws of physics?
Third, even if we can’t explain the fine tuning of the universe, that’s not evidence for creationism! That’s an unsolved mystery and as I said before, you don’t get to plug in your favorite fantasy to solve the mysteries of the universe. God of the gaps fallacy much?

 

[Astrophile]

Now I understand that, that may not be fair, so I began asking for 5 sentences which summarize their respective beliefs, so that I can try to address them properly. Not a lot of response to that I notice...crickets, lol. So it seems not many are secure enough in their beliefs to summarize it to someone who says they have proof that the earth was created by a designer and that God is real.

There is probably no God. The universe and everything in it probably came into existence by natural processes. Even if there is a God, there can be no compelling evidence for His, Her or Its existence. The belief in a supernatural creation and in detectable intelligent design is based on wishful thinking and ignorance of the scientific evidence. This is the fifth sentence.

 

[Astrophile]

The earth screams designer in it's delicate balance of ratios of...many things. For the earth to have happened by "chance" is absurd. In constructing a mathematical model of what we believe we know about the universe, there are hundreds of delicate ratios that, if altered the slightest, would render life impossible. Some as little as 10 to the 55th power!

For instance,
Earth's distance from the Sun. If closer, it would be too warm to maintain a stable water cycle.
If further, it would be too cold to have a water cycle.

Surface Gravity: Stronger, and the atmosphere would be too much ammonia & methane.
Weaker, then the atmosphere would lose too much water.

Thickness of the Earth's crust:
If thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
If thinner, Volcanic & tectonic activity would be too great.

Earth's Rotation period (24 hour days):
If longer, then diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If shorter, then atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

Axial Tilt of the Earth:
If greater, surface temps would be too great.
If less, surface temps would be too great.

The Albedo of the Earth. (Reflectivity):
If greater, then a runaway ice age would develop.
If less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

Earth's Magnetic Field:
If stronger, then electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
If weaker, then we'd have inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

First, most of the stars in the Galaxy probably have planets, so the Earth is only one among trillions. With so many planets, it is likely that some of them, merely by chance, would have suitable conditions for the development of life. Also, why did God create all the planets that that are unsuitable for life?

Some of your assertions are inaccurate, over-simplified, or irrelevant. For example, in a hydrogen-free atmosphere, even with higher surface gravity, ammonia and methane would probably be oxidised to nitrogen and carbon dioxide, with hydrogen escaping into space.

Mars has almost the same rotation period and axial tilt as the Earth but it is not suitable for advanced life. Venus has the longest rotation period of any of the planets, but there is hardly any temperature difference between the day and night hemispheres.

Venus has a larger albedo than the Earth, but it does not have a runaway ice age; Mars has a smaller albedo than the Earth, but it does not have a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus has no magnetic field, but it has the densest atmosphere of any of the terrestrial planets. Also, terrestrial life has been able to survive geomagnetic reversals, when the magnetic field has decreased to zero.

There are two other points. There would be more reason to believe in a miraculous creation of life on the Earth if terrestrial conditions were not suitable for life. The fact that conditions are suitable for life suggests that it developed by natural processes. Second, if the Earth was designed to be suitable for life, why do creationists insist that life cannot have originated from non-life and that present-day living things cannot have evolved naturally from more primitive organisms?

 

[Astrophile]

Fear will cause you to keep your distance, while love will cause you to surrender to God and receive all that He has to give you...in the secure knowledge that you are truly loved for who you are, right now in the present time. Not loved for your works or your intellect, but for your inner beauty. How could God fail to love you...the beautiful creatures that He made you to be? He can not. He will not. God's love calls out to you and draws you back to that Holy of Holies, forever more would you be united to Him in supreme bliss.

Matthew 7:23. Matthew 22:13-14. Matthew 25:41. Mark 9:43-48
'this is a damnable doctrine' (Charles Darwin).

 

[Divide]

1. You can still go to college.

2. College isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t mean your education should ever stop. Strive to learn something new every day, and don’t shy away from admitting when you were wrong.

3. Your fine tuning argument is fatally flawed in a number of ways. First, of course we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that permits our existence. It would be far more astounding if we found ourselves in a universe that didn’t.
Second, the fine tuning in the universe doesn’t mean that life couldn’t exist under any other conditions. That would only prohibit life as we know it. Who knows what other forms life could take under different laws of physics?
Third, even if we can’t explain the fine tuning of the universe, that’s not evidence for creationism! That’s an unsolved mystery and as I said before, you don’t get to plug in your favorite fantasy to solve the mysteries of the universe. God of the gaps fallacy much?

1. I know

2. My education hasn't stopped.

3. I can't agree with you here. First off, there's more planets without like than with life, so we can't expect to have fallen into a chance universe that permits us to live.
Yeah, but we're talking about human life here.
It's evidence for intelligent design. That someone (something) put a lot of crful thought into the design for creation of it, and maintains it.

You can't just keep calling it a fantasy or an unsolved mystery because even science is learning more every day. Mysteries are being solved, and they are pointing towards ID.

The statistical probability that this all happened by chance grows larger everyday. There is too much fine tuning, and we haven't discussed a lot of it yet. Have you ever heard of Borels law? It states that at or above the level of 10-50th power can be considered absurd to have happened randomly.
The formula for linear arrangements is N=n!/(p! X q! X r!) SO how many elements have to come together to make life possible here? I don't know, a lot. Lwt me just rob a figure from a somewhat unrelated subject/equation for an example.

A simple binary string of 347 elements.
P(random chance)=2-347th = 2.8669 X 10-104th

Way above the point of absurdity which is 10-50th. Go ahead and check my math.