Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

[Mikecpking]

Without looking it up, I believe it was either the AV1568 Bishop's or the AV1534 Tyndale.

And where did they get their material from to make these translations?

 

[AV1611VET]

And where did they get their material from to make these translations?

Here's the line, Mike:

1. AV350 Gothic
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1534 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva -- (God's choice for the Pilgrims)
6. AV1568 Bishop
7. AV1611 King James

 

[Mikecpking]

Here's the line, Mike:

1. AV350 Gothic
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1534 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva -- (God's choice for the Pilgrims)
6. AV1568 Bishop
7. AV1611 King James

So, there would have been 7 translations one after the other.

Even the Gothic tyranslation would have been tranlated from a source.

 

[Greg1234]

No... Behe tried to show irreducibly complex structures and failed.

No he didn't.

So far there aren't any. And you have yet to show a "theory of intelligent design" or any evidence for such a thing. You haven't shown us what this "intelligent design" states, what it calls for or what it predicts. Basically, you just keep using those two words together as if it means something.

These are already given. From Design detection - Conservapedia

Design detection is the science of how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. It is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.[1] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

​

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

And at every turn creationists have been thwarted in their attempts to show design in living systems. The Kitzmiller trial was particularly damaging.

No we haven't, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that purely naturalistic processes creates life. Not only has intelligence been made accountable, but the feasibility of purely naturalistic processes are being relegated through testing, observation and documentation.

I know you like to say "Darwinism" but there isn't such a thing. Darwin wrote a couple of books that set us on this trail but much of his work has been eclipsed already. There isn't an 'ism' involved in accepting evolution.

Darwinism is the idea random mutation and natural selection created all forms of life in existence today.

What tests? I'm going to insist that you show us these or stop lying about their existence.

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

Researcher finds Chernobyl birds have smaller brains

Limits have also been experienced in long-term experimentation and including the data above

Unpredictable Evolution in a 30-Year Study of Darwin's Finches (Creation-Evolution Headlines)

New Work by Richard Lenski - Evolution News & Views

Kentucky Derby Horses More Fragile, But Not Faster | LiveScience

But we have found no evidence of any need for an intelligence.

Yes we have. Intelligence adequately accounts for irregularity (which is relegated through intelligent design) and the relegation of purely naturalistic processes.

No evidence of any intelligence.

Intelligence is an observed phenomenon through the physical senses.

No evidence of anything but natural processes at work.

There is intelligence at work.

So what requirement of an intelligence are you referring to? Your desperate desire to find one? That's the only thing I can think of.

Whether one desires it or not, intelligence is required.

You make these things up and profer them as if they are real. There is no need of an independent outside force and no evidence of one having acted at any point in the history of this planet.Unless you'd like to provide that evidence?

The evidence says otherwise. Intelligence is a phenomenon which has been observed capable of assembling the complexity found in living systems. Irregularity is also fully in compliant with such an agent and so is the relegation of chance through observation of it's short term effect. You make the claim that purely naturalistic processes created life contrary to all physical experimentation and metaphysical analysis. The onus is on you to provide evidence for this.

It would, if it existed.

It does.

 

[Naraoia]

In this case, the good is absolute.

It's not - if it were, we could agree on it

Try, what would you create first if you are in charge of doing it from the beginning? If you don't create "the heavens and the earth", how would you do in different?

Assuming "the heavens" is everything in the universe that isn't the earth, sun or moon - and if you create the sun before the heavens, there's nowhere to put it -, there aren't many logical possibilities, are there? You managed to phrase the question in a way that practically precludes an answer.

Tolkien still managed to answer it, though. In the Ainulindale, the first things to be created (by the master deity) are the gods. (Who then proceed to sing heaven, earth and all that jazz into being)

The Greeks did start with the earth - but it was the earth that created the sky.

In many origin myths, a world ocean was there from the beginning, and never really created.

I've personally used the "in the beginning, the gods" scenario in a creation story I wrote. So I guess that's my answer to "what would you create first". I'd create a bunch of lesser gods, order them around and sit back with a bowl of popcorn to watch my world unfold.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, there would have been 7 translations one after the other.

Even the Gothic tyranslation would have been tranlated from a source.

As far as I know, it was the AV96 Koine Greek completed Scriptures.

 

[Mikecpking]

As far as I know, it was the AV96 Koine Greek completed Scriptures.

Ok, but Genesis was not written in Greek.

 

[Split Rock]

When one line of translations stands out head-and-shoulders above the others as far as wording is concerned, that's a good tip that the Arab phone didn't ring much.

If I told you I was in the construction business, and my trademark was blue houses, I'd say if you entered my neighborhood, you could spot my houses from those who build houses of various colors.

I suppose this has something to do with the paragraph you like to quote from 7 different versions, all being very similar. What does that have to do with the question of either:
A. Being a correct translation?
B. Being specially protected by God?

 

[dustcake]

11 pages and nothing more than word games by YECs.

 

[AV1611VET]

11 pages and nothing more than word games by YECs.

What did you expect?

After a whole paragraph of telling YECs what they can't answer, you finally want a reply.

I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).

I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.

Looks like you knew the answers before you even asked the question.

I don't mean 9 -- and I don't want to see "nine" -- and please don't use Roman numerals or anything that represents the number 9, but I want to know what you think 5 + 4 equal.

 

[wensdee]

11 pages and nothing more than word games by YECs.

What else have they got besides words? words are all they can play with.

I would also like to see someone try to defend creationism without resorting to magic.

 

[Redac]

I don't mean 9 -- and I don't want to see "nine" -- and please don't use Roman numerals or anything that represents the number 9, but I want to know what you think 5 + 4 equal.

5 + 4 = 6 + 3

I would also like to see someone try to defend creationism without resorting to magic.

Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.

That's the best we have; and although I don't like to pull rank on them with that, I will if I have to.

 

[wensdee]

Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.

Sometimes I feel like a visitor to a psychiatric hospital.

 

[theFijian]

Sometimes I feel like a visitor to a psychiatric hospital.

You've certainly found an outlet for those with multiple personalities

 

[rhapsody1]

hey Jesus said AS he his so i am in this world what a confession i am great born of God himself wow!!!!!!!!! what a privilege, view my signature to visit my blog

 

[juvenissun]

It's not - if it were, we could agree on it

Assuming "the heavens" is everything in the universe that isn't the earth, sun or moon - and if you create the sun before the heavens, there's nowhere to put it -, there aren't many logical possibilities, are there? You managed to phrase the question in a way that practically precludes an answer.

Tolkien still managed to answer it, though. In the Ainulindale, the first things to be created (by the master deity) are the gods. (Who then proceed to sing heaven, earth and all that jazz into being)

The Greeks did start with the earth - but it was the earth that created the sky.

In many origin myths, a world ocean was there from the beginning, and never really created.

I've personally used the "in the beginning, the gods" scenario in a creation story I wrote. So I guess that's my answer to "what would you create first". I'd create a bunch of lesser gods, order them around and sit back with a bowl of popcorn to watch my world unfold.

The earth in Gen 1:1 should not be our earth. I would say it means something which is not space, it includes material and energy.

And I agree with you on the creation of gods, except in Christianity, they are called angels. And I don't think it is a good idea to give the creation power to those gods. They are not as powerful and may screw things up.

Have ocean first does not make a good sense. Unless the earth is a water ball, the ocean water must sit on rocks. If so, the rocks should be created first. This illustrates how wise was the Bible writers. As impressive as the vast ocean is, the creation of ocean is listed on Day 3 in the Bible after many other more essential items were created.

 

[juvenissun]

Well i wouldn't create light on the first day and the source on the fourth, that is for sure.

You do not understand light. Those two lights are different lights. One is x-ray or more energetic, one is visible light.

It demonstrates the genesis account is really coming from God rather than human.

 

[Split Rock]

You do not understand light. Those two lights are different lights. One is x-ray or more energetic, one is visible light.

It demonstrates the genesis account is really coming from God rather than human.

It demonstrates that the Genesis account is backwards.

 

[AV1611VET]

It demonstrates that the Genesis account is backwards.

What's wrong? don't like the order of the Creation week?

Kinda stands out in a crowd, doesn't it?