STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[tas8831]

The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...



And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why doesn't the Bible count as evidence if it is the Word of God?

 

[Halbhh]

The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...



And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

It's certainly not good when anyone is preaching some particular version of creationism small details not in the text, a theory, against other believers who believe in God, and that God created this Universe. We should only preach the truths from Christ and the apostles.

It's good to know that Christians have a very wide range of viewpoints about Genesis chapter 1, and that the only saving faith is that in Christ Jesus, alone, and the only sure foundation is the one He gave us in Matthew 7:24-27, and not any other thing, just what He taught. (That's even more key than people imagine -- without doing as He says in Matthew 7:24, but instead doing as in Matthew 7:26...a person can end up like Matthew 7:27 -- destroyed!)

So, ultimately, because there is such a huge range of diverse views, it's not really important what various individuals guess about creation in terms of the many, many things we are not told. The wonderful vision in Genesis chapter 1 is not at all about small details. Not at all.

Instead, we should listen in humble desire to hear, and be given the awe and/or wonder, and the wonderful sense of God creating for us what is "very good".

 

[tas8831]

Why doesn't the Bible count as evidence if it is the Word of God?

Question begging.

 

[tas8831]

It's certainly not good when anyone is preaching some particular version of creationism small details not in the text, a theory, against other believers who believe in God, and that God created this Universe. We should only preach the truths from Christ and the apostles.

It's good to know that Christians have a very wide range of viewpoints about Genesis chapter 1, and that the only saving faith is that in Christ Jesus, alone, and the only sure foundation is the one He gave us in Matthew 7:24-27, and not any other thing, just what He taught. (That's even more key than people imagine -- without doing as He says in Matthew 7:24, but instead doing as in Matthew 7:26...a person can end up like Matthew 7:27 -- destroyed!)

So, ultimately, because there is such a huge range of diverse views, it's not really important what various individuals guess about creation in terms of the many, many things we are not told. The wonderful vision in Genesis chapter 1 is not at all about small details. Not at all.

Instead, we should listen in humble desire to hear, and be given the awe and/or wonder, and the wonderful sense of God creating for us what is "very good".

No evidence? Thanks.

 

[Tree of Life]

Question begging.

Whether or not the Bible is accurate is not what's in question. The question is: "How did life originate on earth?" To answer this question, we should be able to marshal all the data available to us. An important piece of data that we have is what God himself says. Why throw out that important evidence?

 

[Snappy1]

Whether or not the Bible is accurate is not what's in question. The question is: "How did life originate on earth?" To answer this question, we should be able to marshal all the data available to us. An important piece of data that we have is what God himself says. Why throw out that important evidence?

It's in question if you're trying to use it as evidence. That's kinda how this works.

 

[Halbhh]

No evidence? Thanks.

Tons of evidence fitting most mainstream science theories, but I was trying to address just your OP. Does this help: God using evolution by His plan would fit Genesis chapter 1 perfectly (even both versions: with interventions, and even without (many) interventions by perfect Design from the start in the laws of nature (physics), even, all unfolding like a flower from a seed, by perfect Design), as would other many other viewpoints. He is able.

 

[section9+1]

I'm alright with there not being enough hard evidence to satisfy the doubters. It's a faith thing. Evidence does not require faith in God's word or his promises. And if you don't believe them, God is not interested in you. He is only the father of the faithful. He gives you what you want. Enjoy your darkness. You won't be missed.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's in question if you're trying to use it as evidence. That's kinda how this works.

We're talking about logical fallacies. It's not begging the question to use the Bible as evidence because the question is not about the reliability of Scripture. The question is some variation of:

How are we to explain life on earth as we discover it today?

In order to answer that question we appeal to data and evidence that we have. We happen to have words from God which are directly related to this question. It's totally legitimate to rely on those words and this does not commit the "begging the question" fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

Whether or not the Bible is accurate is not what's in question.

Why not?

If that is your source of information, it seems 100% reasonable to question whether or not it is accurate.

The question is: "How did life originate on earth?" To answer this question, we should be able to marshal all the data available to us. An important piece of data that we have is what God himself says. Why throw out that important evidence?

You have a very idiosyncratic definition of data/evidence.


Of course, the ACTUAL question (Well, I didn't really ask a question, but rather a statement on my observations) is what I wrote in the OP:



NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.

If a bible verse conflicts with empirical data, the bible verse loses.

 

[Snappy1]

We're talking about logical fallacies. It's not begging the question to use the Bible as evidence because the question is not about the reliability of Scripture. The question is some variation of:

How are we to explain life on earth as we discover it today?

In order to answer that question we appeal to data and evidence that we have. We happen to have words from God which are directly related to this question. It's totally legitimate to rely on those words and this does not commit the "begging the question" fallacy.

It's begging the question when you assert that the Bible is the word of God. That's what the comment was referring to.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why not?

If that is your source of information, it seems 100% reasonable to question whether or not it is accurate.

Sure, but this would be a different question. In regards to the question of the origins of life, appealing to the Bible as evidence is not begging the question.

You have a very idiosyncratic definition of data/evidence.

It just seems obvious that you reject the authority of Scripture and so will not accept it as evidence.

Of course, the ACTUAL question (Well, I didn't really ask a question, but rather a statement on my observations) is what I wrote in the OP:

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.

If a bible verse conflicts with empirical data, the bible verse loses.

You've decided at the outset, for some unknown reason, that God's Word is not acceptable as evidence. You say further that it's possible for a Bible verse to lose. So I assume that you reject the authority of Scripture.

Apart from the testimony of Scripture, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that God created the world from nothing in the space of six days. There's no reason for a non-Christian to accept this account if they reject Scripture.

If you reject the authority of Scripture, why do you identify as a Christian?

 

[Tree of Life]

It's begging the question when you assert that the Bible is the word of God. That's what the comment was referring to.

To assert that the Bible is God's Word does not beg the question because the question is not about the Bible. It's about life on earth.

 

[Snappy1]

To assert that the Bible is God's Word does not beg the question because the question is not about the Bible. It's about life on earth.

You doing this on purpose or what?

 

[tas8831]

We're talking about logical fallacies. It's not begging the question to use the Bible as evidence because the question is not about the reliability of Scripture.

If Scripture is going to be used as evidence, then it darn well SHOULD be the question!

You are merely assuming - or really, presupposing - that what we find in the bible IS reliable and accurate.

There is frankly little reason to employ such an assumption.

When one side has verifiable data, voluminous evidence, and the other side has passages written millenia ago by numerologists and mystics, it should not be hard to choose sides.

The question is some variation of:

How are we to explain life on earth as we discover it today?

In order to answer that question we appeal to data and evidence that we have. We happen to have words from God which are directly related to this question. It's totally legitimate to rely on those words and this does not commit the "begging the question" fallacy.

No, it really is, since you are assuming the bible's words are accurate and reliable without showing that they are.

I have copy-pasted a list of DNA-related experiments on here a dozen times or more - a list that was originally written on this forum 5 or 6 years ago by at least 2 other people (who had no better luck getting legitimate replies than I have) - a list that outlines the tests of a DNA analytical method, then applications of this tested method on evolutionary hypotheses. And the results confirm the hypotheses.

Compare that with bible verses about how someone is a fool for not believing Scripture.

The choice is clear, the conclusion obvious - no evidence from one side, lots of evidence from the other.

And so far, already, this thread is demonstrating the same.

 

[Tree of Life]

If Scripture is going to be used as evidence, then it darn well SHOULD be the question!

You are merely assuming - or really, presupposing - that what we find in the bible IS reliable and accurate.

There is frankly little reason to employ such an assumption.

When one side has verifiable data, voluminous evidence, and the other side has passages written millenia ago by numerologists and mystics, it should not be hard to choose sides.



No, it really is, since you are assuming the bible's words are accurate and reliable without showing that they are.

I have copy-pasted a list of DNA-related experiments on here a dozen times or more - a list that was originally written on this forum 5 or 6 years ago by at least 2 other people (who had not better luck getting legitimate replies than I have) - a list that outlines the tests of a DNA analytical method, then applications of this tested method on evolutionary hypotheses. And the results confirm the hypotheses.

Compare that with bible verses about how someone is a fool for not believing Scripture.

The choice is clear, the conclusion obvious - no evidence from one side, lots of evidence from the other.

And so far, already, this thread is demonstrating the same.

I think that your question is: "What evidence do we have that the Bible is the Word of God?"

Is this really what you're struggling with?

 

[Tree of Life]

You doing this on purpose or what?

I'm purposefully demonstrating that I've committed no logical fallacy.

 

[Snappy1]

I'm purposefully demonstrating that I've committed no logical fallacy.

No, you're begging the question, acting obtuse when called on it, and derailing the OP.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, you're begging the question, acting obtuse when called on it, and derailing the OP.

Do you even know what it means to beg the question?