STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[CaptainFarkus]

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.

Perhaps I could help. First, what kind of evidence are you looking for exactly?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review.

There is too much flaming.​

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been cleaned. Please remember to address the topic of creation vs evolution. Questioning another member's faith status is not allowed.
mod hat off​

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps I could help. First, what kind of evidence are you looking for exactly?

ACTUAL evidence - not personal anecdotes, assertions, bible verses, etc. Empirical evidence.

 

[Halbhh]

ACTUAL evidence - not personal anecdotes, assertions, bible verses, etc. Empirical evidence.

If Ralph and Stan claim wonderful things about a person named John, what good is it to demand proof from Ralph and Stan?

This merely means you'd not trust their word.

Of course it's sensible if a person wants to know if this John person is for real, they'd want to seek out his door and knock on it, themselves, and try to meet him. How else would they ever meet John?

 

[tas8831]

If Ralph and Stan claim wonderful things about a person named John, what good is it to demand proof from Ralph and Stan?

This merely means you'd not trust their word.

Because Ralph and Stan could, perhaps, point to newspaper clippings documenting that time John saved a bus full of kids. Or show that he had earned 'Citizen of the Year.' Or that John donates every Saturday feeding the homeless.

They could, in other words, provide tangible evidence for their claim.

But if they just kept making assertions, you are right - why bother?

Of course it's sensible if a person wants to know if this John person is for real, they'd want to seek out his door and knock on it, themselves, and try to meet him. How else would they ever meet John?

See above?

So, no relevant evidence.
Got it.

 

[Halbhh]

Because Ralph and Stan could, perhaps, point to newspaper clippings documenting that time John saved a bus full of kids. Or show that he had earned 'Citizen of the Year.' Or that John donates every Saturday feeding the homeless.

They could, in other words, provide tangible evidence for their claim.

But if they just kept making assertions, you are right - why bother?



See above?

So, no relevant evidence.
Got it.

It's up to you, not us, what you look for.

 

[Speedwell]

If Ralph and Stan claim wonderful things about a person named John, what good is it to demand proof from Ralph and Stan?

This merely means you'd not trust their word.

Of course it's sensible if a person wants to know if this John person is for real, they'd want to seek out his door and knock on it, themselves, and try to meet him. How else would they ever meet John?

But what if Ralph and Stan demand that we acknowledge the existence and good works of John whether we want to or not, on the basis of writings in an old book which they claim is 100% objective truth?

 

[Old Trapper]

If Ralph and Stan claim wonderful things about a person named John, what good is it to demand proof from Ralph and Stan?

This merely means you'd not trust their word.

Of course it's sensible if a person wants to know if this John person is for real, they'd want to seek out his door and knock on it, themselves, and try to meet him. How else would they ever meet John?

It's up to you, not us, what you look for.

Wouldn't one need to know "John's" last name, the date of the incident, and the whereabouts of the incident, in order to do so? That would require some kind of proof the incident even occurred. But then, if one makes a claim it is up to that party to prove the claim, not up to someone else to prove the claim to be wrong.

And personally I believe no one on the internet.

 

[Old Trapper]

ACTUAL evidence - not personal anecdotes, assertions, bible verses, etc. Empirical evidence.

Since no one was there that would be an impossible task just as one cannot prove evolution occurred.

The Scientific Evidence for Creation - Summit Ministries

 

[Halbhh]

But what if Ralph and Stan demand that we acknowledge the existence and good works of John whether we want to or not, on the basis of writings in an old book which they claim is 100% objective truth?

Well, always, the idiosyncrasies of Ralph, Stan, and Hal, won't define 'John' for anyone else, also, so therefore, even if Hal or Ralph manage to get something right, how would the seeker know what was what?

By going to the definite most knowledgeable, about God, the person Jesus, and seeing what he said about God, instead of Hal or Ralph.

That's be the only way really, to have much confidence one would be even knocking on the right door at all, even.

Because Ralph and Stan could, perhaps, point to newspaper clippings documenting that time John saved a bus full of kids. Or show that he had earned 'Citizen of the Year.' Or that John donates every Saturday feeding the homeless.

They could, in other words, provide tangible evidence for their claim.

But if they just kept making assertions, you are right - why bother?



See above?

So, no relevant evidence.
Got it.

Ah, if Hal, Ralph or Stan point you to an article by Jane or Jim, how would you know at all that's any more proof of anything?

Instead, the only safe bet to have half a chance of finding out authentic stuff about John would be according to the definite most knowledgeable -- Jesus, who would say, far better than the idiosyncratic Ralph who may be blending in who knows what, or that wonderful Hal ;-), heh heh (wink), really. How would Hal know more than the definite best Teacher? Hal would be lucky to just try to learn what that Teacher, Jesus, said, so as to knock on the right door, himself. Best not follow Hal or Ralph or Jim, but try to find out more directly what the really knowledgeable person said.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know...."
Luke 1 NIV

 

[Jjmcubbin]

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

Becuase it's like me pointing to Harry Potter as proof the the battle of hogwarts happened.

Which it did.

 

[Old Trapper]

Well, always, the idiosyncrasies of Ralph, Stan, and Hal, won't define 'John' for anyone else, also, so therefore, even if Hal or Ralph manage to get something right, how would the seeker know what was what?

By going to the definite most knowledgeable, about God, the person Jesus, and seeing what he said about God, instead of Hal or Ralph.

That's be the only way really, to have much confidence one would be even knocking on the right door at all, even.

Not sure when the last time occurred that I saw anything by Jesus regarding a local event in modern times. Got any examples?

 

[Old Trapper]

Becuase it's like me pointing to Harry Potter as proof the the battle of hogwarts happened.

Which it did.

Wasn't that the Battle of The Hogs v The Warts, and The Warts won?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Since no one was there that would be an impossible task just as one cannot prove evolution occurred.

The Scientific Evidence for Creation - Summit Ministries

An article that confuses evolution with speciation is unlikely to be an authoritative source of information (q.v. their peppered moth example).

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Speciation is the process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.

The peppered moths evolved, but not sufficiently to become new species.

 

[Halbhh]

Not sure when the last time occurred that I saw anything by Jesus regarding a local event in modern times. Got any examples?

'John' above was used to illustrate that God is a person, not an inert object one can examine, but a person one must relate to. In the analogy, the name 'John' for a moment represented this unknown Person. Like Paul saw in Athens -- "to the unknown ____"

 

[Old Trapper]

An article that confuses evolution with speciation is unlikely to be an authoritative source of information (q.v. their peppered moth example).

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Speciation is the process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.

The peppered moths evolved, but not sufficiently to become new species.

Is not evolution most often confused with mutation? I have seen no evidence that man "evolved", or even "mutated", from another species. Much speculation, none in the way of hard core empirical evidence.

 

[Old Trapper]

'John' above was used to illustrate that God is a person, not an inert object one can examine, but a person one must relate to. In the analogy, the name 'John' for a moment represented this unknown Person. Like Paul saw in Athens -- "to the unknown ____"

Guess I need to see the original post. In any event, in Acts 17 Paul was speaking of the Athenian idol designated "The Unknown God" which was placed there in case they had missed one in all of their idols. And while God had taken the form of a human in the nature of Christ His body was again changed back to that of God upon His resurrection. (e.g. Mark 9, and Mark 16) God is no longer in the form of a human, and thus cannot be "examined".

 

[Halbhh]

Guess I need to see the original post. In any event, in Acts 17 Paul was speaking of the Athenian idol designated "The Unknown God" which was placed there in case they had missed one in all of their idols. And while God had taken the form of a human in the nature of Christ His body was again changed back to that of God upon His resurrection. (e.g. Mark 9, and Mark 16) God is no longer in the form of a human, and thus cannot be "examined".

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth..."

We see how they even tried to worship God in a sense, that is feared leaving a crucial one out, though rationalized intellectually as if another of god(s) even, mentally not knowing, but...as Paul says, let me tell you of Whom this is! (at the margin of your awareness, not understood!) A wonderful thing to understand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is not evolution most often confused with mutation?

No, I don't think so; it requires mutation, but it's not evolution until the mutation has spread through the population over successive generations. Evolution happens to populations, mutations happen to individuals.

I have seen no evidence that man "evolved", or even "mutated", from another species. Much speculation, none in the way of hard core empirical evidence.

There's plenty out there; maybe you haven't been looking in the right places (or at all). Molecular genetics has the best evidence.