Does the evidence point at one or several creators?

[In situ]

From whence do you take your definition of science, may I ask?

This illustration might shine some light over what I mean:

A carpenter, a school teacher, and scientist were traveling by train through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the window of the train.
"Aha," said the carpenter with a smile, "I see that Scottish sheep are black."
"Hmm," said the school teacher, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black."
"No," said the scientist glumly, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is black."

 

[In situ]

... I'll leave that up to you!

I leave it to God.

 

[Alithis]

I felt a bit tempted to press the report button for him saying you are not a Christian... :-D

he hasn't told me he is or is not .. if he says he is .then cf rules state i cant say or imply otherwise . iv come across people with the wrong tag on their profile before

 

[Alithis]

Well, I can't stop you from doing so. But, if I literally believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and that He rose again ... literally ... then I'm not sure it is for you to judge the quality of my faith.

and i missed this post where you did say that .. so that settles that lol

 

[In situ]

No, at the beginning of my faith I wasn't so much concerned with the state of loved ones as might be viewed in the long term of the great bye-and bye. Mostly, I was trying to look for various ways to cope with a dysfunctional family situation; I needed some hope for that and for the understanding that I would die someday myself, all of which might sound kind of self-centered, but ... there it is.

So it is fair to say that you had personal reason for believing in the beginning? You indicated previously that your reason for believing have change over time. To what extent have it changed?

 

[In situ]

he hasn't told me he is or is not .. if he says he is .then cf rules state i cant say or imply otherwise . iv come across people with the wrong tag on their profile before

You really need to start read more carefully what people writes. 2PhiloVoid quite clearly stated his position was theistic evolution in the post you commented on.

 

[In situ]

and i missed this post where you did say that .. so that settles that lol

A quite lame excuse, in particular when you try to laugh it away. Apparently you mange to reply to 2PhiloVoid's post, but you did not manage to read what he actually wrote in it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I often hear creationist claim commonality or similarities among the living is evidence for a single common (intelligent) designer/creator.

Imagine that.

Especially since creationists are generally based in the Bible that teaches a single creator.

 

[Alithis]

A quite lame excuses, in particular when you try to laugh it away. Apparently you mange to reply to 2PhilioVoid's post, but you did not manage to read what he actually wrote in it.

sorry lame excuse ? why do i need an excuse .. after i replied to one post .. i scrolled back and saw the other .. and that clarified things .. so no problem

 

[In situ]

Imagine that.

Especially since creationists are generally based in the Bible that teaches a single creator.

Are you saying the single creator is assumed? Is it then fair to say it is not about looking at the evidence to see what it tells but to look at the evidence to confirm what one already believe?

ID's = Inteligent Designers

 

[Kenny'sID]

For instance extant tetrapods can be split in two groups, those that do not have an antorbital fenestra (mammals, turtles, amphibians and some reptiles) and those that do (basically the rest). Does the presence of an antorbital fenestra in "half" the terapods means there is two creators? Or take so diverse living beings such as starfishes, a pine trees and a squirrels. Based on the commonality argument, does that mean there is 3 creators? Or if we compare the cat kind, the dog kind, the bird kind and the fish kind, which are said to be four non-overlapping kinds, does that mean there is 4 creators? Etc, etc...

Just the fact you would ask the questions goes to show we can/how some do take anything and make it into anything we like and then claim the evidence backs the conclusion. Then actually come to believe the conclusion, no matter how silly.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you saying the single creator is assumed? Is it then fair to say it is not about looking at the evidence to see what it tells but to look at the evidence to confirm what one already believe?

No, not assumed at all, and it has an awful lot to do with looking at the evidence. How we look at the evidence has more to do with it than anything else.

 

[In situ]

sorry lame excuse ? why do i need an excuse .. after i replied to one post .. i scrolled back and saw the other .. and that clarified things .. so no problem

Why do I get the feeling of a one-way communication here? Do you actually ever halt for a moment and interrupt your own thought pattern and instead reflect a bit on what others actually tries to convey?

 

[In situ]

Just the fact you would ask the questions goes to show we can/how some do take anything and make it into anything we like and then claim the evidence backs the conclusion. Then actually come to believe the conclusion, no matter how silly.

I am not sure what it is you are trying to say here. Are you saying the observation I made is not real in some sense?

 

[In situ]

No, not assumed at all, and it has an awful lot to do with looking at the evidence. How we look at the evidence has more to do with it than anything else.

So can you explain to me how to look at the evidence then?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am not sure what it is you are trying to say here. Are you saying the observation I made is not real in some sense?

I was making a point, but I guess I now get to make another in that the post was extremely clear, yet you don't see it.

This all ties into evidence and what we make of it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So can you explain to me how to look at the evidence then?

No. I can only make the points, I can't think for you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

he hasn't told me he is or is not .. if he says he is .then cf rules state i cant say or imply otherwise . iv come across people with the wrong tag on their profile before

Well...if my Faith designation says "Christian," which it does, then I would assume you'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm telling the truth. That's what I try to do for other Christians, regardless of denomination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So it is fair to say that you had personal reason for believing in the beginning? You indicated previously that your reason for believing have change over time. To what extent have it changed?

Good questions. It's always good for me to ruminate on why I think I still believe, or why I have believed.

In the beginning ... ? Yes, at the start of my Christian walk, I had more personal reasons for believing. I had a simpler understanding of the Bible as well, although even at the beginning there were some saving graces which probably put stop-gaps in my skepticism, sparing me from relinquishing my faith over time.

One stop-gap was, I think, that I never began with the assumption that the content of the Bible could simply be taken at face value at every turn of every sentence. What do I mean by this? I mean that I had a respect for cosmology and the theory of evolution before ever coming to the Bible, and that the meaning of the figures of Adam and Even was something which I always had to wrestle with. I never really had to face what some people do in being initially told that A&E were real and then have that understanding dashed to pieces when it dawns on them that A&E probably never existed.

Later in my life, the further gaining of an education informed me of some of the additional errors still left in my thinking from my earlier days, one of which was a temporary appropriation of "Creation Science."

Again, that's the short of it. I've had a lot of time to ponder and study about ... a great many things and reaching a few conclusions, one of which is knowing now that God doesn't intend to allow me to know all of what I'd like know, however ironic that may sound. At least I'm nobody's dummy.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am ignornat about who the Smithsonian Institute are or what they do. I ventilated my personal opinions only and my own opinions can of course be in error, which they mostly are.

That's ok if you don't know. The Smithsonian is located in Washington, D.C. and is collectively "—the world’s largest museum and research complex—includes 19 museums and galleries and the National Zoological Park." It's famous in the U.S. Here's a link to their homepage.
They have one the the largest Natural History Museums anywhere, store-housing a lot of fossils and other artifacts and things related to ecology and evolution.

I would not say I take my "definition" of science from anywhere, but at the same time I take it from everywhere. With that I mean I have a certain sense of what science is about and is not about. Science is not just about making observation, explanation and testing them. Science is more than that. Science is a systematic study which looks for a deeper understanding of what has been observed. This is what differ science from mere observing, explaining and testing, because those things everyone does all the time anyway - that is basically how our minds works.

Again, this is my opinion only.

That's fine. I'm glad you're honest about it.