Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[gaara4158]

The University of Queensland is a top flight university and I learned the difference between historical science and experimental science at that uni.

You blame me for being 'a bad student'. Why couldn't it be that you are parading a view of historical science that is contrary to the definition of such science?

View attachment 213336

Because you won’t answer my question: are you trying to argue that because history is investigated largely in the field rather than the lab that it is somehow invalid?

 

[gaara4158]

because it bears upon the real truths of life.
You know this deep down inside.

Or because if creationists accept its validity they have to accept evolution.

 

[Aman777]

The 1,000 year reign of Christ begins tomorrow.

The thousand year reign of Christ happens at the end of the present 6th Day/Age and before the 7th Day. God rests from ALL of His work of Creating tomorrow because His creation has been finished (Heb-brought to perfection). God will NOT rest/cease until the following prophecy is fulfilled:

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL the host of them.

When God's creation has been brought to perfection and ALL the host (Christians) have also been brought to perfection, God will rest/cease creating people in Christ Spiritually and Eternally. No one else will be born again and the 7th Day, which is ETERNITY, signals the end of God's Creation of the perfect Heaven. Amen?

 

[OzSpen]

Because you won’t answer my question: are you trying to argue that because history is investigated largely in the field rather than the lab that it is somehow invalid?

I am answering your question in my previous posts but you don't seem to be listening.

Examining facts from the past (known as historical science) does not use the same methodology as experimental science which uses repeatable experiments in the present time.

For example, to determine if the drug Warfarin that I take daily is suitable for thinning my blood, it was determined by repeatable experimentation for the development of the drug and for its effect for people with chronic heart disease like mine.

This has the beneficial effect that blood will not clot on my 2 artificial heart valves and send a clot to the brain to cause a possible stroke.

Methodologies are different for examining past events (historical science) and for experimental science in the present.

For my PhD dissertation, I tested hypotheses dealing with past events (historical science) in contrast with the repeatability methodology of experimental/empirical science. See: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models

Oz

 

[HitchSlap]

The thousand year reign of Christ happens at the end of the present 6th Day/Age and before the 7th Day. God rests from ALL of His work of Creating tomorrow because His creation has been finished (Heb-brought to perfection). God will NOT rest/cease until the following prophecy is fulfilled:

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL the host of them.

When God's creation has been brought to perfection and ALL the host (Christians) have also been brought to perfection, God will rest/cease creating people in Christ Spiritually and Eternally. No one else will be born again and the 7th Day, which is ETERNITY, signals the end of God's Creation of the perfect Heaven. Amen?

Exactly. And it starts tomorrow.

Amen?

 

[Astrophile]

I am answering your question in my previous posts but you don't seem to be listening.

Examining facts from the past (known as historical science) does not use the same methodology as experimental science which uses repeatable experiments in the present time.

For example, to determine if the drug Warfarin that I take daily is suitable for thinning my blood, it was determined by repeatable experimentation for the development of the drug and for its effect for people with chronic heart disease like mine.

This has the beneficial effect that blood will not clot on my 2 artificial heart valves and send a clot to the brain to cause a possible stroke.

Methodologies are different for examining past events (historical science) and for experimental science in the present.

For my PhD dissertation, I tested hypotheses dealing with past events (historical science) in contrast with the repeatability methodology of experimental/empirical science. See: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models

Oz

Perhaps you would like to look at this record of the eruptive history of Mount St Helens before 1980 - http://www.mountsthelens.com/files/Mt-St-Helens-Pre-1980-Eruptive-History . Do you think that it is possible for geologists to determine the number, ages and order of eruptions without historical records by studying the physical evidence of the lavas and pyroclastics ejected by the volcano, or do you think that all conclusions drawn from this physical evidence, without written records, are mere suppositions that ought to be rejected?

Another example; do you think that the conclusion drawn by scientists that Meteor Crater, Arizona actually was formed by the impact of an iron meteorite is valid, or do you think that because there are no written eye-witness accounts of the impact this conclusion ought to be rejected?

 

[gaara4158]

I am answering your question in my previous posts but you don't seem to be listening.

Examining facts from the past (known as historical science) does not use the same methodology as experimental science which uses repeatable experiments in the present time.

For example, to determine if the drug Warfarin that I take daily is suitable for thinning my blood, it was determined by repeatable experimentation for the development of the drug and for its effect for people with chronic heart disease like mine.

This has the beneficial effect that blood will not clot on my 2 artificial heart valves and send a clot to the brain to cause a possible stroke.

Methodologies are different for examining past events (historical science) and for experimental science in the present.

For my PhD dissertation, I tested hypotheses dealing with past events (historical science) in contrast with the repeatability methodology of experimental/empirical science. See: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models

Oz

There’s a difference between the methodologies you use to investigate facts of nature and facts of history, sure. But they both adhere to the same standards of evidence. It’s just the type of evidence that differs between the two. One is direct observation of an event, the other is observation of evidence left by an event. If that’s all you have to say, great. We agree. I was under the impression you had a point beyond that.

 

[OzSpen]

There’s a difference between the methodologies you use to investigate facts of nature and facts of history, sure. But they both adhere to the same standards of evidence. It’s just the type of evidence that differs between the two. One is direct observation of an event, the other is observation of evidence left by an event. If that’s all you have to say, great. We agree. I was under the impression you had a point beyond that.

gaara,

At last you state it and agree with it. I don't know why you would think I'd have a point beyond this when I was simply trying to help you understand the difference between historical science and experimental science.

Now you agree with that distinction.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Perhaps you would like to look at this record of the eruptive history of Mount St Helens before 1980 - http://www.mountsthelens.com/files/Mt-St-Helens-Pre-1980-Eruptive-History . Do you think that it is possible for geologists to determine the number, ages and order of eruptions without historical records by studying the physical evidence of the lavas and pyroclastics ejected by the volcano, or do you think that all conclusions drawn from this physical evidence, without written records, are mere suppositions that ought to be rejected?

Another example; do you think that the conclusion drawn by scientists that Meteor Crater, Arizona actually was formed by the impact of an iron meteorite is valid, or do you think that because there are no written eye-witness accounts of the impact this conclusion ought to be rejected?

That is not dealing with the OP: 'Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?'

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


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.

tas,

See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

Be aware that there is opposition by some Christians to ID. See:
Baylor Prof. Under Pressure for Supporting Intelligent Design

Oz

 

[Divide]

The thousand year reign of Christ happens at the end of the present 6th Day/Age and before the 7th Day. God rests from ALL of His work of Creating tomorrow because His creation has been finished (Heb-brought to perfection). God will NOT rest/cease until the following prophecy is fulfilled:

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL the host of them.

When God's creation has been brought to perfection and ALL the host (Christians) have also been brought to perfection, God will rest/cease creating people in Christ Spiritually and Eternally. No one else will be born again and the 7th Day, which is ETERNITY, signals the end of God's Creation of the perfect Heaven. Amen?

Amen Brother, but I think you have your dates wrong. I'm pretty sure that we're early in the morning of the 7th day. Since creation.

So it's the Sabbath already, but! Jesus Himself said who wouldn't go into a pit to rescue their sheep on a Sabbath? The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So what else did Jesus do on the Sabbath? Let's take a look...

Luke 4:15-17
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,.../

Aha! His custom is to go into the Temple on the Sabbath to teach...Interesting. We are the temple now Brother. You're prime for a visitation you know...me too. I'm hearing it more and more in testimonies from people, Jesus walked in...

...into the temple to teach. Knowledge will be increased in the last days. It's happening right now.

 

[pitabread]

See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

There isn't any on that site. It's just links to other sites/references, and it's all the usual ID suspects (Dembski, Meyer, etc).

 

[gaara4158]

gaara,

At last you state it and agree with it. I don't know why you would think I'd have a point beyond this when I was simply trying to help you understand the difference between historical science and experimental science.

Now you agree with that distinction.

Oz

Well, you’ve been arguing as a creationist and the only reason creationists ever bring that up is to argue that historical science isn’t really science. I only said the distinction is moot because in terms of validity, it is. The same principles are applied in both, it’s just answering different questions. If you agree it’s science then I don’t know why you harp on it so much. And I’d like to see the historical science pointing to ID.

 

[HitchSlap]

tas,

See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

Be aware that there is opposition by some Christians to ID. See:
Baylor Prof. Under Pressure for Supporting Intelligent Design

Oz

‘ID is creationism in a cheap tux.’

 

[OzSpen]

There isn't any on that site. It's just links to other sites/references, and it's all the usual ID suspects (Dembski, Meyer, etc).

Why repeat the evidence that others have provided?

As an agnostic, are you open to ALL of the evidence and that includes direct creation by God ex nihilo (Gen 1:1)?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Well, you’ve been arguing as a creationist and the only reason creationists ever bring that up is to argue that historical science isn’t really science. I only said the distinction is moot because in terms of validity, it is. The same principles are applied in both, it’s just answering different questions. If you agree it’s science then I don’t know why you harp on it so much. And I’d like to see the historical science pointing to ID.

My PhD dissertation had NOTHING to do with creationism. I had to deal with methodology and historical science.

Are you denying that there is such a discipline as historical science?

The same principles of methodology are NOT the same in experimental science and historical science. I know. I spent 5 years writing a 482 page PhD dissertation that dealt with historical science and its valitidy or otherwise.

Oz

 

[Aman777]

Exactly. And it starts tomorrow.

Amen?

No, since the 7th Day is Eternity and has NO beginning and NO end. It's where God lives in the Eternal Present. In order to enter His rest, one MUST be born again Spiritually in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16

 

[HitchSlap]

No, since the 7th Day is Eternity and has NO beginning and NO end. It's where God lives in the Eternal Present. In order to enter His rest, one MUST be born again Spiritually in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16

Aucontraire. Once you know the beginning, you will know the end. It’s simple physics.

Amen?!

 

[HitchSlap]

ALL of the evidence and that includes direct creation by God ex nihilo (Gen 1:1)?

Oz

You have evidence for this?

Do tell!

 

[Aman777]

Amen Brother, but I think you have your dates wrong. I'm pretty sure that we're early in the morning of the 7th day.

Then you believe that "every living thing" has been made a vegetarian in the PAST as Genesis 1:30 clearly states. Sorry, but this is prophecy of a future event which happens AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth. You can read of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 11:7.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

See? Read Isaiah 11 to see the time when these events SHALL happen. Amen?