Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Jimmy D]

The Bible uses simple terminology that any child can understand, and that is also useful as time changes.

A good example would be the term: "horseless carriage."

A horseless carriage could refer to everything from the Model A to an F-350 pickup.

A "bird" could be an avian animal, or it could be an airplane.

Paul also says a few other things....

Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,

desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Obviously referring to IDers!

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul also says a few other things....

Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,

desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Obviously referring to IDers!

I won't argue that.

I'm not so sure you believe that; but that's a common tactic with you guys: to use examples you yourselves don't believe.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm not so sure you believe that;

Correct. It was an attempt at humour.

 

[Speedwell]

Not true! I'm not dictating to you how to interpret Scripture. You can interpret it whichever way you want, my perspective will be that of 'the divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct' (Evangelical Alliance #3).

Right. but that does not require that the creation stories of Genesis be 100% accurate literal history.

My links DO NOT rest on the assumption of sola scriptura. They rest on this authority: 'All Scripture is God-breathed' (2 Tim 3:16 NIV). That seems to be in agreement with your statement, 'The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance'.

Quite so, but you link made the point that the only way we can know of our salvation is through the literal and inerrant scriptures. In other words, Sola Scriptura.

Under your avatar, it states you are an Anglican but you claim that you are not a Protestant. Does that mean you are in an Anglican diocese that is opposed to the origin and continuation of Anglicanism worldwide, which is Protestant?

Anglicanism, one of the major branches of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation and a form of Christianity that includes features of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Anglicanism is loosely organized in the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of religious bodies that represents the offspring of the Church of England and recognizes the archbishop of Canterbury as its nominal head (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2017. s v Anglicanism).​

Oz

Not Protestant in the same sense as the movements of Luther and Calvin. As your quote states, Anglicanism is a distinct movement which includes features of both Protestantism and Catholicism. Within Anglicanism that gives individuals a choice as where in that range they will be. It is quite acceptable within the church to deny that one is a Protestant. As an American Anglican, I would normally be an Episcopalian, but that church has grown too liberal and moved too far to the Protestant end of the scale for me--primarily with respect to liturgical expression.. I now belong to a smaller and more conservative denomination within Anglicanism here, one that is referred to as "high church" or "Anglo-Catholic."

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct. It was an attempt at humour.

We call it diabolical mimicry.

 

[Aman777]

Theists believe it was God who brought the first life into existence--whether through natural causes or otherwise. Atheists, presumably, believe it was natural causes. The point is really not germaine to this discussion, which is not about the existence of God, but about the Bible.

The ToE is the villain since it falsely implies that we poofed into being from nothing. Godless men dreamed up the ToE in an attempt to remove God from His creation. They were very sly and cunning and changed God's Truth, that ALL life was created and brought forth from Water, Gen 1:21 and changed it into the Lie that life emerged from water "naturally". Beware of the twisted thinking of Godless men.

 

[Speedwell]

The ToE is the villain since it falsely implies that we poofed into being from nothing. Godless men dreamed up the ToE in an attempt to remove God from His creation. They were very sly and cunning and changed God's Truth, that ALL life was created and brought forth from Water, Gen 1:21 and changed it into the Lie that life emerged from water "naturally". Beware of the twisted thinking of Godless men.

It implies no such thing. Your entire rant is false, propaganda dreamed up by creationists in an attempt to turn the evolution controversy into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism, when it is really just a disagreement between a minority of Protestants with a political agenda versus everyone else, theist and atheist alike.

 

[Aman777]

It implies no such thing.

I've never met a Darwinist who didn't also believe in Abiogenesis or some other magical natural generation. God tells us He made "every living creature that moveth" from WATER Gen 1:21 while evolution worshipers tell us they appeared "naturally". That's poofing no matter what name you give it.

our entire rant is false, propaganda dreamed up by creationists in an attempt to turn the evolution controversy into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism, when it is really just a disagreement between a minority of Protestants with a political agenda versus everyone else, theist and atheist alike.

Not me. How many Creationists tell you the things I show you Scripturally, Scientifically and Historically? Answer NONE. While they study the musings of ancient men, I show you the "increased knowledge" of the last days Dan 12:4 which totally AGREES in every way with every other discovered Truth. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

I've never met a Darwinist who didn't also believe in Abiogenesis or some other magical natural generation. God tells us He made "every living creature that moveth" from WATER Gen 1:21 while evolution worshipers tell us they appeared "naturally". That's poofing no matter what name you give it.

That's what I believe, that God created "every living creature that moveth" through the action of His natural laws.

 

[OzSpen]

A "bird" could be an avian animal, or it could be an airplane.

Or a 'sheila'.

 

[Aman777]

That's what I believe, that God created "every living creature that moveth" through the action of His natural laws.

Amen. That also means that Humans were first made long before the sons of God (prehistoric people)....which also means that Humans did NOT evolve from Apes nor any other living creature. We are His kind, the kind made by the Hands of Lord God/Jesus from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4-7

 

[Wakalix]

At some point one has to admit, (1) The universe, and thus human beings, are eternal - with no beginning, or (2) There was an eternal Being (God) who created the first human beings. Surely the current discussion
in scientific circles of the Big Bang points towards a beginning.

Oz

...what? The universe can be eternal without humans also having always existed.

 

[Speedwell]

Amen. That also means that Humans were first made long before the sons of God (prehistoric people)....which also means that Humans did NOT evolve from Apes nor any other living creature.

Why would it mean that? Science is pretty clear that humans did indeed evolve from a precursor primate.

 

[Wakalix]

That's what I believe, that God created "every living creature that moveth" through the action of His natural laws.

What does that mean? Did God make the first self-replicator and then guide it from there?

 

[OzSpen]

Right. but that does not require that the creation stories of Genesis be 100% accurate literal history.

So it's OK for God to be a liar in the content of 'All Scripture is breathed out by God....' (2 Tim 3:16 ESV)?

What causes you to believe the description of the universe in Gen 1 and 2 is not accurate? Which measure do you use to throw out a certain % of the creation stories as being inaccurate?

Quite so, but you link made the point that the only way we can know of our salvation is through the literal and inerrant scriptures. In other words, Sola Scriptura.

Please direct me to where I stated that.

Is there only one way to eternal salvation or are there many ways?

Not Protestant in the same sense as the movements of Luther and Calvin. As your quote states, Anglicanism is a distinct movement which includes features of both Protestantism and Catholicism. Within Anglicanism that gives individuals a choice as where in that range they will be. It is quite acceptable within the church to deny that one is a Protestant. As an American Anglican, I would normally be an Episcopalian, but that church has grown too liberal and moved too far to the Protestant end of the scale for me--primarily with respect to liturgical expression.. I now belong to a smaller and more conservative denomination within Anglicanism here, one that is referred to as "high church" or "Anglo-Catholic."

In my part of the world, there are generally two expressions of Anglicanism: (1) Anglo-Catholic, and (2) Evangelical.

However, from the Thirty Nine Articles, the foundation of Anglicanism, we know that it is a Protestant denomination by way of doctrine.

Like many denominations that started out evangelical Protestant, they have moved to teaching false doctrine of liberalism, postmodernism, etc. As you know, the Anglicans/Episcopalians are one such denomination.

In Australia, the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church is evangelical, as are certain regions of the Melbourne Diocese. But here in Queensland it's another story, like the rest of Australian Anglicanism. It's liberal through and through. However, there are glimmers of light, like that of an Anglican church near me that is evangelical - North Pine Anglican Church.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

...what? The universe can be eternal without humans also having always existed.

How come?
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[Speedwell]

What does that mean? Did God make the first self-replicator and then guide it from there?

It may. It may also mean that God created the universe such that the first replicator arose naturally. As to "guidance," surely God could create a system of natural laws which did not require it.

 

[Wakalix]

I've never met a Darwinist who didn't also believe in Abiogenesis or some other magical natural generation. God tells us He made "every living creature that moveth" from WATER Gen 1:21 while evolution worshipers tell us they appeared "naturally". That's poofing no matter what name you give it.

...poofing? Do you mean handwaving?

We actually have an explanation for abiogenesis beyond "it happened one day," you know. If you took the time to look at the Wikipedia page on abiogenesis, you'd see that it says:

It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[17] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[18][19]

The classic Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the basic chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions have been proposed, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[21][22][23][24]

A protocell is a self-organized, self-ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[169] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and differed in reproductive contribution to the following generation driving the evolution of life. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, there are scientists who think the goal is well within reach.[170][171][172]

Self-assembled vesicles are essential components of primitive cells.[169] The second law of thermodynamics requires that the Universe move in a direction in which entropy increases, yet life is distinguished by its great degree of organization. Therefore, a boundary is needed to separate life processes from non-living matter.[173] Researchers Irene A. Chen and Jack W. Szostak amongst others, suggest that simple physicochemical properties of elementary protocells can give rise to essential cellular behaviours, including primitive forms of differential reproduction competition and energy storage. Such cooperative interactions between the membrane and its encapsulated contents could greatly simplify the transition from simple replicating molecules to true cells.[171] Furthermore, competition for membrane molecules would favour stabilized membranes, suggesting a selective advantage for the evolution of cross-linked fatty acids and even the phospholipids of today.[171] Such micro-encapsulation would allow for metabolism within the membrane, the exchange of small molecules but the prevention of passage of large substances across it.[174] The main advantages of encapsulation include the increased solubility of the contained cargo within the capsule and the storage of energy in the form of a electrochemical gradient.

The RNA world hypothesis describes an early Earth with self-replicating and catalytic RNA but no DNA or proteins.[180] It is generally accepted that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world,[17][181] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to exist.[18][19] This conclusion is drawn from many independent lines of evidence, such as the observations that RNA is central to the translation process and that small RNAs can catalyze all of the chemical groups and information transfers required for life.[19][182] The structure of the ribosome has been called the "smoking gun," as it showed that the ribosome is a ribozyme, with a central core of RNA and no amino acid side chains within 18 angstroms of the active site where peptide bond formation is catalyzed.[18] The concept of the RNA world was first proposed in 1962 by Alexander Rich,[183] and the term was coined by Walter Gilbert in 1986.[19][184]

Possible precursors for the evolution of protein synthesis include a mechanism to synthesize short peptide cofactors or form a mechanism for the duplication of RNA. It is likely that the ancestral ribosome was composed entirely of RNA, although some roles have since been taken over by proteins. Major remaining questions on this topic include identifying the selective force for the evolution of the ribosome and determining how the genetic code arose.[185]

There is no shortage of discussion about the origin of life among scientists, and we are doing anything but saying "it just happened, don't ask why".

And how is a natural explanation handwaving? Are you asserting that only explanations that involve the magic power of Goddidit can truly explain things, for reasons you don't want to share?

 

[Wakalix]

It may. It may also mean that God created the universe such that the first replicator arose naturally. As to "guidance," surely God could create a system of natural laws which did not require it.

So God selected, out of all possible universes, this particular universe because of its contents? That's one of the most consistent and plausible theories of God that I've heard... and since it's probably indistinguishable (not testably different) from my favored cosmology (many-worlds), it comes down to differing priors, which I'm not nearly as certain about as I am of evolution. I should probably take a serious look at this possibility.

Hm. In your view, what explains God's existence and complexity? And if you don't have an explanation, wouldn't an explanation-by-unexplained-large-numbers be more plausible than an explanation-by-unexplained-intelligence?

 

[Wakalix]

How come?
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

...because 'universe goes along, then humans start existing for reasons where they didn't before' is a valid history of time? Because the universe and humans can have different starting times?

The linked article shows that the universe could be time-infinite. This doesn't require humanity to be time-infinite as well.