Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[HitchSlap]

Evidence informs my beliefs also. I provided you with evidence for creation ex nihilo. But you refuse to accept the evidence.

'The LORD merely spoke, and the heavens were created. He breathed the word, and all the stars were born' (Ps 33:6 NIV).

Are you open to this evidence? If not, why not?

Oz

Again, I saw where you quoted some bible verses. I'm still waiting for the evidence part.

 

[OzSpen]

Ah yes, the ever convincing argument from 'it's just obvious'. Surely that couldn't be fallacious...

Stating something has the "appearance of design" is not the same as saying it is actually designed. A stone fish or an octopus can have the appearance of a rock, but they are not rocks. Snowflakes and the Giant's Causeway both have the appearance of design, but they are not designed.

Evolution gives the answer to the appearance of design (at least in biology).

Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed.

You must be trying to kid me to say that evolution answers the appearance of design issues. I find it laughable that intelligent scientists are so fixated on the evolutionary methodology that ScienceDaily can report: 'Researchers are providing a new explanation as to why life remained as little more than slime for a billion years, before rapidly diversifying in the 'Cambrian explosion of life' (source).

We have that choice OR human beings are made by God in his image. I know which evidence I'm going with.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Purpose... evolution takes care of that. Why can't you see that?

Purpose in slime to human beings!!

 

[OzSpen]

Again, I saw where you quoted some bible verses. I'm still waiting for the evidence part.

The historically reliable Scriptures are evidence, mate! But you are not open to this evidence. You don't have an open mind to deal with ALL of the evidence.

You have committed the Cherry Picking Fallacy or Fallacy of Exclusion.

We can't have a rational discussion when you continue to do this. If you reply with anything that looks like the Cherry Picking Fallacy, I will not reply as reasonable interaction is not possible when you use fallacious reasoning.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I’m not asking about your dissertation. As a broad term to include such disciplines as paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, etc. yes, historical science is a valid scientific discipline. What I’m asking you about is whether you consider these scientific disciplines to be valid. If not, why?

Historical science includes an examination of the historical evidence for the historical Jesus. Do you accept this?

Yes, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology are valid sciences, but I have to be very discerning in uncovering the presuppositions (often evolutionary) that underlie those pursuing research in those disciplines. Many assume evolutionary processes and seek to find them.

My 482 pp dissertation involved uncovering the presuppositions and methodology of an historical Jesus scholar. If I need to do it for him and people need to do it for my research, I must do it for your discipline and those in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology.

I will not fall for what scientists in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology find without an investigation into their presumptions.

From what I've read of your posts here, you are not open to considering ALL of the evidence.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I must have missed it. All I saw was a bible verse and a link to a book about bible verses. Did you have anything of substance, or was that it?

This is your cherry picking fallacy. In #1229 you stated, 'Evidence informs my beliefs, and I’m open to all of it'.

No, you are not! You are not prepared to investigate the historically reliable Bible to inform your beliefs.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So a designer created hands and arms with the future intention they would be eventually used for typing?

Or is it that a designer created keyboards to be used by our already-existing hands?

Yes, a designer created the keyboards!

Who created the already-existing hands? I mean the very first hands that led to your hands and mine.

 

[pitabread]

Who created the already-existing hands? I mean the very first hands that led to your hands and mine.

Biological evolution.

 

[pitabread]

As an 'agnostic' how can you put your 'theology' on the shelf to examine any evidence objectively? You can't.

Let me explain my philosophical position just so there is no guessing or confusion. It boils down to two basic ideas:

1) My opinion on the existence of a deity doesn't change the existence of that deity. If a deity exists and I don't believe in them, they'll still exist. Conversely if a deity doesn't exist, my belief won't make them exist.

2) Based on my study of the history of human religious beliefs and its evolution, I doubt that any deity would be accurately represented by any individual human religion. And especially given that people who claim they found the one "true" faith are often representative of a time and place where that particular religious belief is the predominent. Which seems overly coincidental to me.

Human beings are 'wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14). Do you agree or disagree?

That's too vague a question to answer. I have no idea what "wonderfully made" is supposed to mean.

 

[OzSpen]

Let's start with this, kiddo. The "exodus" never happened. Nary an ounce of evidence. It's complete fabrication.

Your assertions without a shred of evidence! I will not reply again when you state your anti-Bible opinion.

This evidence demonstrates you are yodelling when you try to convince me that the Exodus is fiction:

The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?

The Exodus Is Not Fiction

Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus Account and the Accuracy of the Biblical Chronology: Time for a New Look

I will not play your games when I have evidence (see articles here) to refute your false opinions.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Biological evolution.

Who created the 'slime' for the biological evolutionary explanation?

 

[pitabread]

Who created the 'slime' for the biological evolutionary explanation?

What "slime"? I thought we were talking about the evolution of hands.

 

[OzSpen]

2) Based on my study of the history of human religious beliefs and its evolution....

Evolution is your presupposition, not your proof.

That's too vague a question to answer. I have no idea what "wonderfully made" is supposed to mean.

Too vague or too much outside your worldview?

When I consider the human body and the nature of the universe (as discovered by astronomy), I understand how the universe and human beings are 'wonderfully made'.

God's infinite wisdom and power are demonstrated in the exquisite structure of the human body and the exact functioning of the universe (including sun, moon & stars).

When I consider the human structure and the universe's structure, I stand in awe of the Lord God who made it with the power of His might.

He's the One before whom I will stand at the end of life. I have a godly fear of Him and the salvation he offers to everyone. Those who reject His offer do to eternal damnation.

Your leaving God out of the picture in your agnosticism has eternal ramifications. Do you care about that?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

What "slime"? I thought we were talking about the evolution of hands.

Where did human beings come from, according to your evolutionary model?

See: Without this gene, we'd all still be slime | WIRED UK

Oz

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is your presupposition, not your proof.

I was talking about the evolution of religious beliefs. Not biological evolution.

Though, much like biological organisms, religious beliefs have also evolved over time as societies and cultures too evolve.

Too vague or too much outside your worldview?

Too vague. "Wonderfully made" implies some sort of standard or comparison and I have no idea what that would be in this context.

He's the One before whom I will stand at the end of life. I have a godly fear of Him and the salvation he offers to everyone. Those who reject His offer do to eternal damnation.

You can save the threats of eternal damnation. I've heard it all before and I find it an incredibly distasteful form of witnessing.

Your leaving God out of the picture in your agnosticism has eternal ramifications. Do you care about that?

The most important thing to me is that I am honest with myself. I can't force myself to believe in something I don't believe in.

I also refuse to treat a religion as an insurance policy.

 

[pitabread]

Where did human beings come from, according to your evolutionary model?

Humans evolved from earlier primates.

 

[OzSpen]

I was talking about the evolution of religious beliefs. Not biological evolution.

Though, much like biological organisms, religious beliefs have also evolved over time as societies and cultures too evolve.

Your presupposition is still evolution [of religious beliefs]. You start with an evolutionary mindset and your conclusions have to agree with that view.

If I found evidence in Scripture that coincided with evidence from science regarding evolution as God's mechanism of creation, I'd be right there believing evolution with you. However, I find evolutionary science to be contradictory to biblical revolution.

I'm going with God's view: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1 NIRV).

It doesn't say, 'In the beginning, the evolutionary process was used to produce everything on earth, including human beings - from the beginning'. Neither does it say, 'In the beginning, God used an evolutionary mechanism to create the heavens and the earth'.

God tells us why we don't want to accept his view of creation: 'But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (Rom 1:18 NLT).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Humans evolved from earlier primates.

Who said? Who made those primates and the primates before them?

 

[pitabread]

Who said? Who made those primates and the primates before them?

I'm not here to teach you how evolutionary biology works. If you want a starting point: Welcome to Evolution 101!

And then go from there...

 

[pitabread]

Your presupposition is still evolution [of religious beliefs]. You start with an evolutionary mindset and your conclusions have to agree with that view.

No, it's simply a case of studying history. Religious beliefs have not been static throughout history.

I'm going with God's view: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1 NIRV).

It doesn't say, 'In the beginning, the evolutionary process was used to produce everything on earth, including human beings - from the beginning'. Neither does it say, 'In the beginning, God used an evolutionary mechanism to create the heavens and the earth'.

If you've decided to adopt a particular belief system that involves eschewing modern biological science, that's your call. You're perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.