STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[Inkfingers]

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.

You mean you don't think that an orderly universe tends to suggest intelligence at work?

Don't give me "random". It's even more meaningless than claiming miracles - a kind of secular version of a god of the gaps.

 

[Ophiolite]

You mean you don't think that an orderly universe tends to suggest intelligence at work?

I'm not clear why order would suggest intelligence. I can see that, at a stretch, it might, but I cannot see any prima facie reason it should be so. Would you explain your thinking please?

 

[Inkfingers]

I'm not clear why order would suggest intelligence. I can see that, at a stretch, it might, but I cannot see any prima facie reason it should be so. Would you explain your thinking please?

Order means information is being processed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Order means information is being processed.

I'm still struggling; that might relate to the definition of information (or that of processing, but the former seems more likely.) So, for example, what information is being processed when a Giant Molecular Cloud collapses to produce a number of stars?

 

[Deidre32]

For non-believers, the evidence will be different than what believers consider to be evidence. I think that it also comes down to faith. Belief. If I could put God through the scientific process to satisfy every non-believer that God exists, then it would cease to be faith. This is always the line in the sand between atheists and theists...atheists lack faith, whereas theists believe that their faith is enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

Should there be some?

God spoke the universe into existence from nothing.

Should there be an ion trail? plasma cloud? time crystals? documen... (skip that one )

 

[Gene2memE]

I get sad seeing creationists and atheists arguing, when they actually have quite a lot in common. Both groups tend to be viciously opposed to the idea that Genesis 1-11 is parable.

From an atheist perspective, it depends very much on their background.

As an former Catholic, Creationism was just as mystifying to me when I was a believer as it is now. It's a similar situation for most atheists that have come from Catholic and Anglican denominations that I know of/interact with.

Atheists tend to REACT to Christian biblical literalists because their claims flatly contradict reality. I'd argue that most atheists are inclined towards some version of materialism, physicalism, versificationism or skepticism, or at least are anti-idealists. So they get upset when individuals claim divine "proof" of things that are not based in evidential reality.

 

[tas8831]

so how did it all start?

Don't know.

But I accept your concession .

 

[tas8831]

Should there be some?

Yes.

God spoke the universe into existence from nothing.

Question begging assertion.

Should there be an ion trail? plasma cloud? time crystals? documen... (skip that one )

Yes, skip that one for there is no actual evidence for it. Just empty wishes.

 

[Kristen.NewCreation]

ADMIN HAT

This thread underwent a thread clean for flaming, goading and Off topic posts. Please stick to the OP and do not engage the poster you are responding to in a negative fashion, nor write about another poster in the thread in that way.

If your post is missing or edited, this is why.

Thanks!​

 

[HitchSlap]

For non-believers, the evidence will be different than what believers consider to be evidence. I think that it also comes down to faith. Belief. If I could put God through the scientific process to satisfy every non-believer that God exists, then it would cease to be faith. This is always the line in the sand between atheists and theists...atheists lack faith, whereas theists believe that their faith is enough.

“We either base our 'confidence' on reason (evident probabilities, past experience, competence, etc) or we base our beliefs on faith, which is blind by definition. Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, because it is an assertion of stoic conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.”
― AronRa

 

[HitchSlap]

God spoke the universe into existence from nothing.

Man spoke god into existence from nothing.

 

[Deidre32]

I think one can separate the two. You can live a faith filled life but also have a deep respect for science etc. and not use faith as a way to twist truths.

“We either base our 'confidence' on reason (evident probabilities, past experience, competence, etc) or we base our beliefs on faith, which is blind by definition. Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, because it is an assertion of stoic conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.”
― AronRa

 

[tas8831]

You mean you don't think that an orderly universe tends to suggest intelligence at work?

Correct - I am not so easily impressed by simplified slogans, I guess.

Don't give me "random". It's even more meaningless than claiming miracles - a kind of secular version of a god of the gaps.

So no evidence for creation or ID. Got it. Thanks.

 

[tas8831]

To the individual, and then to the community at large. This is done through natural selection, and even then may not produce a new "species". Man has mutated over the eons as he has adapted to the various surroundings he finds himself in, and yet he has not formed a new species.

So it is our fault that your "folk genetics" isn't real?

Maybe I just don't care. There are enough other things to contemplate on rather then argue the difference between the creationist 10,000 year belief that a tribal deity breathed life into the dust of the ground and a fully formed adult human male emerged , and the secular belief in millions of years beginning with a puddle of "mud" that eventually "evolved" into modern man.

Added a bit of relevant detail that you accidentally left out.

The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great.

How did you determine what these odds are? What variables did you employ?

And molecular genetics, as was classical genetics, will be replaced by yet another theory ad infinitum.

Classical genetics is still a thing. Molecular genetics did not 'replace' it. Do you understand the difference?

 

[tas8831]

And it is all a guessing game of "estimates".

So you've got nothing.

And yet the molecule is being broken down into even smaller "parts". And who knows what will come after that.

What are you even talking about?

 

[tas8831]

There are plenty of evidences for creation. You are probably not able to apprehend any of them. Do you understand that it would take a college education to see an evidence with uses calculus? If you are only a middle-school student, you won't be able to see the evidence even it is laid right before your eyes.

Do you write this poorly on purpose?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

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

What about circumcision? Its not specifically creation related, but in the bible, God commanded the Israelites to circumcise all boys on the eighth day after birth. You might not believe the bible, but the Jews still practice this ritual on the eighth day today, which is evidence the bible is true in its account.

Modern science not only provides evidence for the health benefits of circumcision, but indicates that the eighth day is the ideal day to perform the procedure due to optimal levels of vitamin K. How would an ancient people know not only the benefits of removing the foreskin (from a very sensitive and important organ), but also know when the optimum time to perform the procedure was, in the absence of the Designer who completely understands His creation?

 

[HitchSlap]

What about circumcision? Its not specifically creation related, but in the bible, God commanded the Israelites to circumcise all boys on the eighth day after birth. You might not believe the bible, but the Jews still practice this ritual on the eighth day today, which is evidence the bible is true in its account.

Modern science not only provides evidence for the health benefits of circumcision, but indicates that the eighth day is the ideal day to perform the procedure due to optimal levels of vitamin K. How would an ancient people know not only the benefits of removing the foreskin (from a very sensitive and important organ), but also know when the optimum time to perform the procedure was, in the absence of the Designer who completely understands His creation?

If god wanted little boys to have part of their penis removed, why didn't he design it that way to begin with?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

If god wanted little boys to have part of their penis removed, why didn't he design it that way to begin with?

Remember the fall? In the beginning, man and woman didn't wear clothes. If wearing clothes, you don't really need excess skin for protection. Circumcision just removes the excess skin, not part of the male genitals.