Accepting all the evidence

[Uphill Battle]

This question is for TE's mostly, because it really does make me curious.

The reason given for believing in the Billions of years universe and the theory of evolution is the "evidence."

now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence exists of blind spontaneously regaining their sight, food that is divided over and over again without running out, ability to walk on water, or calm a storm, and springing to life again after being dead for three day.

How is it, that the "evidence" is adhered to in regards to origins, but is completely ignored when it comes to the miracles of Christ?

It kind of befuddles me, and I'm just curious on how you reconcile the two.

 

[Dannager]

There's a difference between having evidence of something happening (1), having no evidence of something happening (2), and having evidence that something didn't happen (3).

For example, we have empirical evidence that evolutionary theory has occurred (1).

We do not have empirical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (2).

We have evidence against the earth being created 6,000 years ago (3).

In the case of situation (1), such things should be accepted based on the evidence in their favor.

In the case of situation (2), such things should be accepted or rejected based on personal belief or faith.

In the case of situation (3), such things should be rejected based on the evidence against them.

Do you follow so far?

 

[metherion]

Miracles come in two varieties: the kind that will leave evidence that can be examined and the type that don't.

Events like a global flood would leave huge piles of evidence all over the place. Ditto with an ex nihilio creation at a specific date ago.

Events like one person being healed, or one person being raised from the dead in the distant past do not leave any examinable evidence.

So, accepting things like an old universe are based on evidence because there IS evidence around to be looked at.

But accepting things like a lone person being healed or raised are not based on evidence but on faith.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

In the case of situation (1), such things should be accepted based on the evidence in their favor.

except this denies that there is misleading, false evidence or interpretation thereof.

In the case of situation (2), such things should be accepted or rejected based on personal belief or faith.

though this is true, it is not limited to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. it also applies to creation, the flood and other events hard to fathom or prove . to do #1 and #2 means you are cherry picking what you will or won't believe.

In the case of situation (3), such things should be rejected based on the evidence against them.

there is no evidence against a young earth creation. the only words we have are 'in the beginning God...' now the interpretation of said evidence against a young earth creation is faulty as it is based upon bias, hatred, the omission of data, the failure to be objective and to consider all options and so on. plus, these people's conclusions are based upon the minutest amount of evidence, none of which they can demonstrate taking place at any given time, even in the laboratory.

Events like a global flood would leave huge piles of evidence all over the place. Ditto with an ex nihilio creation at a specific date ago.

this position is false as it assumes a specific result in ideal conditions. life just doesn't work that way and 3-10,000 years of living will do something to whatever evidence is left behind. it also discounts the massive amount of evidence already discovered proving the flood and talked about by drs. rehwinkel and hapgood, among others.

this discounting of the evidence is typical and dishonest.

Events like one person being healed, or one person being raised from the dead in the distant past do not leave any examinable evidence.

yes and no. sure, healing does not leave a chemical trace, or a scar and so on but it does leave the evidence that the erson was sick, injured or dying and now they are 100% healthy. such a fact is evidence alone that healing took place. the problem here is that those who believe in science do not get the evidence the way THEY WANT IT so they discount or dismiss the event and ignore God once again.

So, accepting things like an old universe are based on evidence because there IS evidence around to be looked at

again, this is assuming that the so-called 'evidence' is interpretating correctly and without error, is true and correct, and that there are no other options available, which is never the case.

it also assumes that science is the only field which gets to have the answers and that just isn't so. plus it assumes that the people in the field can do no wrong, are not decieved or influenced by the devil or his minions and so on.

such a position is placing oneself out on a limb with the connecting branch sawed halfway through.

But accepting things like a lone person being healed or raised are not based on evidence but on faith.

that is just wrong based upon my answer two quotes up.

 

[Dannager]

except this denies that there is misleading, false evidence or interpretation thereof.

Except that there isn't.

though this is true, it is not limited to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. it also applies to creation, the flood and other events hard to fathom or prove . to do #1 and #2 means you are cherry picking what you will or won't believe.

No. The former cannot be proved or disproved. The latter examples can and have been disproved. That's the difference. It's not cherry-picking. It's rejecting the things that just plain aren't true.

there is no evidence against a young earth creation.

There's about a million evidences against it, and plenty of threads discussing them in great detail.

the only words we have are 'in the beginning God...' now the interpretation of said evidence against a young earth creation is faulty as it is based upon bias, hatred, the omission of data, the failure to be objective and to consider all options and so on.

You keep saying this, and then never do anything to back it up. How about actually supporting your standpoint by arguing for your position with evidence in one of the dozens of threads where the issue is being discussed?

plus, these people's conclusions are based upon the minutest amount of evidence, none of which they can demonstrate taking place at any given time, even in the laboratory.

This is totally false, and you're well aware of it. Shall I link you to a couple of the evidence compilations, archaeologist? Will you actually try to challenge them this time?

this position is false as it assumes a specific result in ideal conditions. life just doesn't work that way and 3-10,000 years of living will do something to whatever evidence is left behind.

Yeah, but not anything that would throw our observations completely off-whack. And we're very good at understanding what thousands of years does to the evidence, and so we calibrate for it.

it also discounts the massive amount of evidence already discovered proving the flood and talked about by drs. rehwinkel and hapgood, among others.

Please link to these evidences so that we can challenge them. Preferably in a thread discussing the global flood.

this discounting of the evidence is typical and dishonest.

No one believes your mischaracterizations, archaeologist.

yes and no. sure, healing does not leave a chemical trace, or a scar and so on but it does leave the evidence that the erson was sick, injured or dying and now they are 100% healthy. such a fact is evidence alone that healing took place. the problem here is that those who believe in science do not get the evidence the way THEY WANT IT so they discount or dismiss the event and ignore God once again.

It does not leave evidence that a miracle happened. Only that healing took place. And that's only if we have that evidence to begin with. Writing a story down in a book doesn't count as empirical evidence.

again, this is assuming that the so-called 'evidence' is interpretating correctly and without error, is true and correct, and that there are no other options available, which is never the case.

No, it's taking the justified position that the evidence has been so incredibly thoroughly tested and examined that to disagree with it shows nothing more than a desire to maintain willful ignorance.

it also assumes that science is the only field which gets to have the answers and that just isn't so.

Science is the only field which gets to have the answers to science.

plus it assumes that the people in the field can do no wrong, are not decieved or influenced by the devil or his minions and so on.

Yeah, just like you assume you aren't influenced by the devil or his minions when you read the Bible.

such a position is placing oneself out on a limb with the connecting branch sawed halfway through.

Kind of like what you do when you read the Bible.

that is just wrong based upon my answer two quotes up.

Your answer two quotes up didn't even address the quote.

 

[philadiddle]

except this denies that there is misleading, false evidence or interpretation thereof.

If the evidence was misleading or false, then it wouldn't be evidence of the theory in question.

though this is true, it is not limited to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. it also applies to creation, the flood and other events hard to fathom or prove . to do #1 and #2 means you are cherry picking what you will or won't believe.

It applies to the flood because the flood would have left signs in geology that we would find. Of course, we find signs to the contrary of the flood, like what #3 says. There is no cherry picking by using #1 or #2, that's rediculous and I hope the lurkers out there understand this.

there is no evidence against a young earth creation. the only words we have are 'in the beginning God...' now the interpretation of said evidence against a young earth creation is faulty as it is based upon bias, hatred, the omission of data, the failure to be objective and to consider all options and so on. plus, these people's conclusions are based upon the minutest amount of evidence, none of which they can demonstrate taking place at any given time, even in the laboratory.

Like in the other thread, you are saying that Christian scientists are deceiving us intentionally?

this discounting of the evidence is typical and dishonest.

so why do you listen to AiG and ICR?

again, this is assuming that the so-called 'evidence' is interpretating correctly and without error, is true and correct, and that there are no other options available, which is never the case.

Human chromosone #2
retroviral insertions in common places with other primates, in a nested hierarchy
the slow formation of chalk cliffs
starlight from distant stars
shall I go on?

it also assumes that science is the only field which gets to have the answers and that just isn't so.

What other field gets answers about the natural universe/matter/energy, etc.?

plus it assumes that the people in the field can do no wrong, are not decieved or influenced by the devil or his minions and so on.

This is definatly not true. Where do you get this stuff? Are you a bot?

So, was Jesus lying when He said the mustard seed was the smallest seed?

 

[archaeologist]

this is going tobe difficult as i will try to match up the two posters' answers along with the quote they are responding to, to keep things straight.

i am not hijacking the thread but initially responded to those posts which were placed on the board in answer to the original post. now i must deal with their answers to mine.

except this denies that there is misleading, false evidence or interpretation thereof.

If the evidence was misleading or false, then it wouldn't be evidence of the theory in question.

Except that there isn't.

the answers here (in black) declare that science is perfect and that the Bible is wrong. the Bible is very clear about corruption being in the world and no one escapes this corruption, even science so there are misleading evidences, theories and etc. read 2 thess. 2:9-12 for other truths.

though this is true, it is not limited to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. it also applies to creation, the flood and other events hard to fathom or prove . to do #1 and #2 means you are cherry picking what you will or won't believe.

It applies to the flood because the flood would have left signs in geology that we would find. Of course, we find signs to the contrary of the flood, like what #3 says. There is no cherry picking by using #1 or #2, that's rediculous and I hope the lurkers out there understand this

No. The former cannot be proved or disproved. The latter examples can and have been disproved. That's the difference. It's not cherry-picking. It's rejecting the things that just plain aren't true.

--------

the former: flood geology is rejected so that is a non-answer. there is no evidence contradicting the global flood. any evidence that proves it, is just rejected without investigation. it is chery picking for it says that the bible is wrong and science trumps the bible.

the latter: basically states that God lied, so we can't trust the Bible . puts science above the Bible which is just wrong

there is no evidence against a young earth creation

Like in the other thread, you are saying that Christian scientists are deceiving us intentionally

There's about a million evidences against it, and plenty of threads discussing them in great detail.

o.e.c./evolution is based upon assumption and interpretation. there really isn't any evidence against y.e.c., it all depends on how you look at things.

this discounting of the evidence is typical and dishonest.

so why do you listen to AiG and ICR?

No one believes your mischaracterizations,

i don't and thatis according toyou

again, this is assuming that the so-called 'evidence' is interpretating correctly and without error, is true and correct, and that there are no other options available, which is never the case.

starlight from distant stars

shall I go on

This is totally false, and you're well aware of it. Shall I link you to a couple of the evidence compilations, archaeologist? Will you actually try to challenge them this time

the former ignores the supernatural and expects everything to go according to laws created by God and doesn't allow Him toput everything into place tobegin with. they call it deception then.
the latter ignores examples like lucy, neanderthal skeletons, the 'walking fish fossil' pil;tdown man and so on.

it also assumes that science is the only field which gets to have the answers and that just isn't so.

What other field gets answers about the natural universe/matter/energy, etc

Science is the only field which gets to have the answers to science

but it doesn't get answers to what belongs to theology or comes from God. creation, the flood and other biblical events do not belong to science--you are out of luck.

plus it assumes that the people in the field can do no wrong, are not decieved or influenced by the devil or his minions and so on.

This is definatly not true. Where do you get this stuff? Are you a bot?

it is in your words .

Please link to these evidences so that we can challenge them. Preferably in a thread discussing the global flood.

they are in books and can't be linked

It does not leave evidence that a miracle happened

sure it does, the person was healed, that is the evidence.

Yeah, just like you assume you aren't influenced by the devil or his minions when you read the Bible.

you have no idea what i go through to preach the truth.

Kind of like what you do when you read the Bible

sorry but such maliciousness undermines your arguments

Your answer two quotes up didn't even address the quote

yes it did.

notice how these two posters cherry picked through my statements and only chose those they felt they could answer and wouldn't make them question their own position.

they deny certain evidences and then claim there is no evidence to support the Bible. this is the kind of logic that is used by those who believe alternatives.

or they expect global flood evidence to exist eventhough there has beenso much interuption of geography via so many different factors. it is unrealistic to think global flood evidence would survive consistantly around the globe.

but even if it did, they wouldn't believe it for they would attribute it to things like an ice age, or global flood and so on.

thisis the game and pared down, all it is is a decision not to believe God and to disobey Him and His words by following the world and its thinking.

 

[Assyrian]

How about using people's names in the quotes so we can see who you are responding to?

 

[Uphill Battle]

There's a difference between having evidence of something happening (1), having no evidence of something happening (2), and having evidence that something didn't happen (3).

For example, we have empirical evidence that evolutionary theory has occurred (1).

We do not have empirical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (2).

We have evidence against the earth being created 6,000 years ago (3).

In the case of situation (1), such things should be accepted based on the evidence in their favor.

In the case of situation (2), such things should be accepted or rejected based on personal belief or faith.

In the case of situation (3), such things should be rejected based on the evidence against them.

Do you follow so far?

I understand what you are saying, however, #2 could be applied by using the atheistic "flying spaghetti monster" argument, that if something has no evidence at all, you can believe pretty much whatever you want to.

I'm just contrasting the strict adherence to empirical evidence, vs. the lack thereof.

 

[crawfish]

I understand what you are saying, however, #2 could be applied by using the atheistic "flying spaghetti monster" argument, that if something has no evidence at all, you can believe pretty much whatever you want to.

I'm just contrasting the strict adherence to empirical evidence, vs. the lack thereof.

That doesn't change with or without the TE argument! We do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God...however, we do not believe that it was intended to be a science or history journal; it was written for a far different, and higher, purpose.

We (most of us, at least) accept that there are and have been miracles. We accept that God can do things that defy natural law. What we do not accept is that God does things in that way, and yet provides evidence that they happened in some other way.

 

[archaeologist]

We do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God

then why do you ignore what it says and follow secular science, theories, conclusions all of which are not of God?

<staff edit>

 

[Jase]

then why do you ignore what it says and follow secular science, theories, conclusions all of which are not of God?

There is no such thing as secular science. Stop saying that. And you blindly follow science every day arch. You are nothing but a hypocrite. Right now you are on the internet, created by science. The internet is a worldly system full of sin and filth, and yet here you are on it. If you ever go to the doctor, you are trusting worldly science to make you better. If you ever get in an airplane, you are trusting worldly science that keeps that plane in the air and not blown up on the ground.

Get off your high horse Arch. You follow science every day. You are not better than TE's. You do far more damage to the Christian cause than any TE could ever hope to.

 

[Nachtjager]

Once again, I'll say I don't think the creation account given in Genesis is accurate, nor is it literal. It is the account compiled by relatively primitive Hebrew priests observing the world around them and interpreting what they believed God was conveying to them. Having said that, I DO believe God created everything in the cosmos, including us.

Why couldn't He have created the countless galaxies, Earth, and everything else, and then let it evolve? Thus, you have creation by God, and a certain amount of evolution as well - thus, both Biblical and scientific communities could find common ground and stop arguing. Is the Earth only 6,000 years old? I strongly doubt that, it would certainly seem to be much older. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I don't think my salvation depends on the age of this rock or whether or not I think trees were created on a certain day.

As to the miracles of Jesus, as stated before, that is a matter of faith and there is no evidence left behind to study in any of the instances noted. Therefore, there can be no scientific analysis of those events. Certainly I believe in the miracles of Christ, but I believe them strictly from a faith standpoint because I choose to believe.

Comparing creation to the miracles of Jesus is a bit like apples and oranges I think, or more correctly, apples and nitrogen - it's two entirely different things.

Take care and God bless!

 

[theIdi0t]

then why do you ignore what it says and follow secular science.

This is a lie archie. Ignorant is the one who doesn't hear. I've seen you cower away from numerous other discussion about Genesis, such as your belief that animal death is the result of the fall, yet scripture doesn't say this, nor does scripture tell us that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall, but that is what you would have me believe.

I don't believe your literalism, or your interpretation, I ignore only the voice of the ignorant, but I do not ignore scripture. I seek to know what it is saying, and I know that it is not telling me science, but what humbles the soul. Unless you find the verse that tells me that I am to believe in Genesis as literal and not allegorical then you have little room to speak of ignorance, because when you do it is only you who appears ignorant.

Ignorant men try and tell me the Bible divinely speaks to us of science, and when I look in their eyes I feel pity for their loss, and their inability to find. For those who have found know that scripture speaks to something much higher than science ever could.

You can seek remnants of the ark, but I seek food for the soul.

 

[random_guy]

then why do you ignore what it says and follow secular science, theories, conclusions all of which are not of God?

So, do we also ignore God and the Bible when we know how to do simple secular mathematics? Remember, you're the person that can't do basic high school math, and you're now telling us that we don't follow God? You claim that we only follow secular science, when more likely, you have very little grasp of science, math, or almost any other educational subject, and the reason why you attack us is due to your ignorance of these areas.

It seems like things we understand (math and science) are the same things you don't understand (as shown in your posts). Maybe the reason why you hate these subjects is much like the Fox and the Grapes parable (which is a lie, according to you). Perhaps if you actually understood science, you would also understand how we can accept both science and God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

[Your Subject heading]

WRT your subject heading: I would say that most of us TE types get along quite well with busterdog and laptoppop -- to name two. There are probably other whose names escape me.

 

[archaeologist]

I take offense to your arrogant tone, so I'm not going to reply any further.

so now we know that the big, bad TE can dish it out but can't take it.

This is totally false, and you're well aware of it.

again to prove you wrong:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

In 2000 Leakey found an old Homo erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that one evolved from the other,

bold mine and shows you the minute evidence they work from and build theories on. this is done in all fields of science.

random_guy

his post is full of false accusations and personal attacks so it is ignored.

I've seen you cower away from numerous other discussion about Genesis,

you need to watch your adjectives...i have never cowered. i have not participated as there are discussions i do not want to participate in or i see the direction they are heading and decide not to do them. both of which are within my right to do so.

the rest of the post is ignored as it displays more ignorance than what i am being accused of. i started a thread, 'when did God say...' there are scriptures there for you to read.

There is no such thing as secular science

actually, yes there is, both busterdog and i have defined it .

And you blindly follow science every day arch

that is wrong. i do not blindly follow science, i follow God and use the results of science with the aid of God.
the rest of your post is based upon assumption and not even close to being true.

 

[KerrMetric]

shows you the minute evidence they work from and build theories on. this is done in all fields of science.

How would you know what constitutes "minute evidence" since you lack scientific training and understanding?

actually, yes there is, both busterdog and i have defined it .

Even if you did, which I don't think you succeeded, what authority can you do this from? Between the two of you I have yet to see scientific understanding or ability.

 

[archaeologist]

How would you know what constitutes "minute evidence" since you lack scientific training and understanding

always with the personal attacks. it is amazing how TE's can derail a thread or a discussion and flawlessly move into personal attacks.

Even if you did, which I don't think you succeeded, what authority can you do this from

the authority that comes form God.

 

[theIdi0t]

so now we know that the big, bad TE can dish it out but can't take it.

the rest of the post is ignored as it displays more ignorance than what i am being accused of. i started a thread, 'when did God say...' there are scriptures there for you to read.

What's the matter archie, you can dish it, but can't take it?