Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Speedwell]

All of them. Scriptures are an introductory to God. They point the way.

Yes, that's true. But that doesn't explain your genre determination.

"Scriptures are an introductory to God; they point the way. Therefore, the Genesis stories must be 100% accurate literal history."

See what I mean? It's a non-sequiter.

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[gaara4158]

Do you agree or disagree? Do you agree that historical science is able to investigate what circumstances led to the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in 325?

Oz

I don't think it's necessary to draw a distinction between "observational" and "historical" science since they follow the exact same rules, but even your source acknowledges that historical events can be discovered through both types. In fact, your source is from an article critiquing an ID book marketed to public school teachers. I wonder if that was even the link you meant to post? In any case, the circumstances surrounding the Council of Nicaea in 325 are known largely through multiple corroborating historical records. Which one would you call that?

 

[gaara4158]

Well I may as well get to it and get to proving the scriptures like was wanted. The Bible is self validating. It's documented that it had different authors, and was written over a long period of time. So since it says that God declares the end from the beginning, we look in there and see that it is true.

I'll post the scripture written in the Old Testament, and the corresponding scripture where the prophecy was fulfilled. Which are documented too.

Hosea 11:1 (Written 700 BC) Matthew 2:14
Zechariah 11:12 (500 BC) Matthew 26:15
Psalm 22:18 (1410 BC) Luke 23:24
Isaiah 53:5 (700 BC) Matthew 27:26
Psalm 22:16 (1410 BC) Matthew 15:24
Psalm 34:20 (1410 BC) John 19:33
Isaiah 53:9 (700 BC) Mark 15:43

There's a few to get you started. Read them. It happened.

I hope this isn't the big evidence bomb you've been asking us to wait patiently for. It goes without saying how disingenuous it is to cite a prediction in one book coming true in another as evidence of fulfilled prophecy when the authors of the latter were undoubtedly familiar with the first. Even if we were to grant that these vague passages constitute prophecies and the events actually happened, that doesn't get you any closer to evidence for intelligent design, the subject of this thread. That's not even evidence for the supernatural. That's evidence that a vague prediction eventually came true in some sense. You've still got all your work ahead of you proving supernatural power as the cause. Once you do that, you then have to somehow connect it to ID. Honestly I don't know why you even brought this up, it seems like a very roundabout approach and I don't know how you're going to go about proving the critical assertions you're making.

 

[Aman777]

The chance of humans independently developing on another planet is so small that I would have to chalk it up to some intelligent force's intervention.

It's impossible since Humans are the descendants of Adam. As a child, I wanted to be an Indian, not knowing that one must be born an Indian. Only God and Adam/mankind know both good and evil. Gen 3:22 Animals are innocent since they are unable to Judge. It takes superior intelligence to have the ability to Judge.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's impossible since Humans are the descendants of Adam. As a child, I wanted to be an Indian, not knowing that one must be born an Indian. Only God and Adam/mankind know both good and evil. Gen 3:22 Animals are innocent since they are unable to Judge. It takes superior intelligence to have the ability to Judge.

Oh, even from your beliefs, it is possible that humans could be on planets aside from this one. After all, the bible could just be an account of the events relevant to this particular planet, and each planet that the deity you believe in placed humans on could have their own bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, even from your beliefs, it is possible that humans could be on planets aside from this one. After all, the bible could just be an account of the events relevant to this particular planet, and each planet that the deity you believe in placed humans on could have their own bible.

Have you been talking to the Mormons lately?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Have you been talking to the Mormons lately?

No, but I'm kinda shocked at the fact that I haven't seen any on here.

I know that you believe that it is well within the Christian god's power to make as many humans and populate as many planets with them as it wants. Thus, it is possible that it has, even though you personally don't believe the Christian god has done that or would do it.

 

[pitabread]

I realize that and it seems to me, that any other life forms that we encounter in our future are all going to be spiritual, (disguised) and demonic.

That seems a tad... extreme.

 

[OzSpen]

Since we already know how the human eye evolved we don't need to invoke some intelligent agency behind it.

See Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

Your evolutionary presuppositions dominate that comment.

Even Charles Darwin admitted the human eye could not have evolved by natural selection:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense (The Origin of Species 1859, p. 170, emp. added).​

See: God or Evolution? Look at the human eye & decide for yourself! part 2

I don't think you'll want to hear this, because of your atheistic perspective, but this is what God tells us about the creation of the eye: 'He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?' (Psalm 94:9, ESV).

Both Darwin and God agree that the evolutionary creation of the eye is 'absurd' (Darwin) and that God 'formed the eye' and He's the creator who sees - even your atheism in action.

In fact, God doesn't believe in atheists. See 'Atheism destroyed with one scientific question' (from Atheist Delusion).

Oz

 

[Speedwell]

Your evolutionary presuppositions dominate that comment.

Even Charles Darwin admitted the human eye could not have evolved by natural selection:

​

False. Take a look at the rest of that passage:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Your quote-mine has let you down.

 

[OzSpen]

Here on this forum.

In this thread. Not one creationist or IDs advocate has presented anything that can be considered as evidence.

Yes, i am sure that this happens.

So, you've got nothing but platitudes and assertions - like all the other attempts.

So far, I see you accepting your kind of evidence, but rejecting this evidence:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved (Romans 1:18-27 NLT, emphasis added).​

That's why God doesn't believe in evidence. He has provided you with evidence of his existence and of His divine attributes. But you and others who reject that evidence, do it by 'suppress[ing] the truth by their wickedness'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think it's necessary to draw a distinction between "observational" and "historical" science since they follow the exact same rules, but even your source acknowledges that historical events can be discovered through both types. In fact, your source is from an article critiquing an ID book marketed to public school teachers. I wonder if that was even the link you meant to post? In any case, the circumstances surrounding the Council of Nicaea in 325 are known largely through multiple corroborating historical records. Which one would you call that?

Historical science CANNOT be discovered by repeatable, empirical experiments. That's why historical science and empirical science MUST be differentiated.

The Council of Nicaea information is obtained through historical science, which cannot be repeated in the present time.

Oz

 

[Speedwell]

So far, I see you accepting your kind of evidence, but rejecting this evidence:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved (Romans 1:18-27 NLT, emphasis added).​

That's why God doesn't believe in evidence. He has provided you with evidence of his existence and of His divine attributes. But you and others who reject that evidence, do it by 'suppress[ing] the truth by their wickedness'.

Oz

This discussion is not about theism vs. atheism. It's about a Protestant minority and their interpretation of scripture vs. everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

 

[OzSpen]

​

False. Take a look at the rest of that passage:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Your quote-mine has let you down.

You haven't dealt with the quote I gave from Darwin.

 

[OzSpen]

This discussion is not about theism vs. atheism. It's about a Protestant minority and their interpretation of scripture vs. everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

The OP deals with 'Why no evidence for creation/ID?'

Others and I have provided evidence but you don't accept it because of your fixation with evolutionary creation and change.

See Darwin's arguments against God. This topic does have to deal with atheism vs theism because atheism needs evolution as the mechanism of creation - that's to exclude any divine power of God in creating all things in the beginning.

A letter was found recently that was written by Charles Darwin in 1880. It read:

Dear Sir,

I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Yours faithfully

Ch. Darwin (source)​

So Darwin did not believe in Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Oz

 

[Speedwell]

You haven't dealt with the quote I gave from Darwin.

I gave you the rest of the Darwin quote which your source chose to conceal, which shows that he did not consider the evolution of the eye impossible. Cherry picking a quote like that to reverse the author's intended meaning is called "quote-mining" and is very bad form indeed.

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[Speedwell]

The OP deals with 'Why no evidence for creation/ID?'

Others and I have provided evidence but you don't accept it because of your fixation with evolutionary creation and change.

That's right. And our unwillingness to accept the content of an ancient Hebrew text as scientific evidence. But the existence of God is not at issue. Some of us believe in God, some not.

 

[OzSpen]

That's right. And our unwillingness to accept the content of an ancient Hebrew text as scientific evidence. But the existence of God is not at issue. Some of us believe in God, some not.

That's because you are denigrating the significance of historical evidence from a reliable source - the Old Testament.

The late Kenneth Kitchen, an egyptologist, investigated the historical reliability of the OT and concluded very differently to you. See:

Professor Kenneth A Kitchen was a British Bible scholar, Ancient Near Eastern historian, and Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, England.

He was no dilbo in using historical research to determine the reliability of the OT. He repudiates your view of 'unwillingness to accept the content of an ancient Hebrew text as scientific evidence'. The Hebrew OT has an excellent pedigree in historical scientific investigation, which Prof Kitchen investigated and documented.

Seems as though you have a blockage with regard to how to discover reliable sources with ancient documents. I wonder what methodology you would use to garner the reliability or otherwise of Plato's or Socrates' writings.

Oz