Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Speedwell]

What are you talking about? He did. I don't speak or understand Hebrew But, Across all English Bible translations it says that the world is round. Don't you think the Hebrew scholars would have picked up on Isaiah not saying the world was round?

Any reputable Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word means "circle," not "sphere" which nicely reflects the traditional ANE view of the world as a disc. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for "sphere" which Isaiah could have used if that's what he had meant.

 

[PsychoSarah]

For one, just look at the world around us. It had to be created by something.

Why?

Nothing in this world can exist without there being a God.

Except said god, ironically. Why say the universe can't exist without a creator when there is no creator of the creator deemed necessary?

Evolution has attempted to answer creation but, it raises more questions than answers.

-_- funny thing is, all the theory of evolution does is outline why populations of organisms change over generations. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life (abiogenesis would be related to the latter).

For two, there is plenty of evidence in scripture that supports a young earth and creationism.

-_- then why doesn't radioactive dating CONFIRM that the planet is young? Claims made in scripture are meaningless if observable reality doesn't match up to them.

People also knew the world was round long before science knew. How? From Scripture.

Already corrected by someone else that terming the shape of the world as a "sphere" is a translation error and that the actual word in scripture is "circle". Any mention in the NT would be poinless to bring up, since it was known centuries before those books were written that the planet was roughly spherical. Heck, since the Earth is actually more like a squashed, slightly pear shape, shouldn't scripture say that instead?

I know many people don't see scripture as valid evidence. But, it can be an excellent tool for learning the truth. For three, Creation scientists have all but proven creation and debunked Evolution. If you're curious about the multitudes of evidence for creationism you can go to www.creation.com. It's an excellent website.

Oh, I assure you, I've seen that website's content. It's definitely not for converting non-believers.

 

[pitabread]

For two, there is plenty of evidence in scripture that supports a young earth and creationism.

Why isn't this evidence reflected in reality? Even creationists come up across things that seem to contradict the idea of a young Earth.

For example, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)'s RATE project concluded there is hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay to account for on Earth. Rather that the obvious conclusion that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old (actually ~4.5 billion years old), they instead are searching for 'alternative' explanations to somehow account for that within only 6000 years ago including potentially arbitrary supernaturalism.

That just seems odd.

 

[pitabread]

-_- then why doesn't radioactive dating CONFIRM that the planet is young? Claims made in scripture are meaningless if observable reality doesn't match up to them.

This is what I'd love to know. There are currently zero independent dating methods that confirm the purported "young Earth" age put forth by creationists. Nada, zilch, zippy-de-do.

It makes no sense why if the world was only ~6000 years old that it wouldn't appear to be only ~6000 years old.

 

[Ophiolite]

I won't post evidence for the same reason you and a majority of people here won't click on the link and check it out for yourselves. I'm lazy. Plus, I think that people should do their own research before calling someone else basically, an idiot. I posted plenty of evidence for creationism you're just too blind to want to see.

I'm sorry hear that you are lazy. I do incline that way myself, but - out of respect for alternative views - I have:

• been contemplating creationist arguments for more than half a century.
  
• explored and debated creationist arguments on at least six on-line forums
• read a score of creationist and Intelligent Design books
  
• studied, in depth, relevant portions of the Bible
  
• compared and contrasted the understandings gained through the above with the knowledge I have aquired through -
  • Undergraduate level studies in geology, palaeontology and biology
  • Autodidactic education in the history of science, astronomy and evolution

So, I have done my own research, not that I think that qualifies me to call someone an idiot. (The only qualification required for that is bad manners.)

I have visited your website. I thought it was very professionally done. The copy writing is first rate, colours palettes well chosen, layout inviting; all in all a first rate job. What was lacking was any substantive evidence. Now, that's quite possibly because I didn't dig deep enough or long enough. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would point me to the single piece of evidence, presented on that site, that you find most compelling. (I suggest a single piece, not to restrict you - post more examples if you wish - but out of consideration for your laziness.) Also, if you have the time, I have not yet taken the opportunity to read this entire thread (that pesky shared laziness), so I would welcome you pointing me to one or more of the evidences for creationism you have posted.

Thank you in advance.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have:

• been contemplating creationist arguments for more than half a century.
  
• explored and debated creationist arguments on at least six on-line forums
• read a score of creationist and Intelligent Design books
  
• studied, in depth, relevant portions of the Bible
  
• compared and contrasted the understandings gained through the above with the knowledge I have aquired through -
  • Undergraduate level studies in geology, palaeontology and biology
  • Autodidactic education in the history of science, astronomy and evolution

Wow. I am impressed with your credentials. I really am.

I would love to debate such an one.

Let me ask you this:

With all that head knowledge and experience with creationists, do you come to the conclusion ... (as do I w/o all that head knowledge) ... that there is no evidence for creationism?

If so, do you conclude it is because creationism ... (defined as a literal six day creation as laid out in Genesis 1) ... didn't occur as documented; or because creationism would not have left any evidence behind?

 

[Ophiolite]

Note to forum staff: it would be really nice if when one pressed the button "Reveal Ignored Content", one saw a warning notice - "Are you sure you really want to do this? I mean, really?" It would help those of use with deficient will power.

Wow. I am impressed with your credentials. I really am.

I would love to debate such an one.

No you wouldn't. You have demonstrated that in your many trivial responses to me in the past. Debate is about the delivery of reasoned argument, not the random spewing of sound bites and unfounded assertions.

With all that head knowledge and experience with creationists, do you come to the conclusion ... (as do I w/o all that head knowledge) ... that there is no evidence for creationism?

I find evidence for creationism, but it is weak and is contradicted by a much larger body of evidence against creationism. (I am using your constrained definition wherein creationism invokes Biblical literalism.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I find evidence for creationism,

Because it was presented to you in a debate with another creationist (in which case you didn't find it); or because you found it on your own?

If the latter, was it through empirical means?

And for the record, did you "find" it or "discover" it?

Just curious.

 

[Ophiolite]

Because it was presented to you in a debate with another creationist (in which case you didn't find it); or because you found it on your own?

Please don't attempt to debate lexicology with me. Your skill set is not up to it and you will only demean yourself.

My phrase "I find evidence for creationism" is equivalent to "I recognise that there is evidence for creationism", so I did indeed "find it". If you seriously wish to debate serious matters then do not again indulge yourself in delinquent irrelevancies - especially when you get them wrong.

And for the record, did you "find" it or "discover" it?

There are really only two significant categories of evidence for creationism. Neither is especially compelling, at least from a scientific standpoint.

1. Numerous creation myths. (Where there is smoke there is is sometimes fire.)
2. The fact that there is something rather than nothing. (Raising the possibility of a creator.)

Please decide for yourself whether I found them, discovered them, or something else.

Just curious.

No you are not. You are simply behaving as a troll. It's tiresome.

 

[tas8831]

Hello Wakalix. A creator is necessary because there is no other way that the universe can possibly exist.

Circular reasoning.

And question begging.

 

[Neostarwcc]

You're just restating your conclusion. That's not reasoning, that's begging the question.

The larger something is, the harder it is for it to exist on its own? What poppycock. And just because something is awe-inspiring does not mean Goddidit.

Arrow-to-the-knee appeal. How mundane.

Considering that "I believe this" is not a justification for your belief in it, yes.

I've refuted this before: "...a vague statement can be interpreted in many different ways - after the fact, it may seem to match well with our current understanding of reality, but if reality had been different the same vague statement would seem to fit just as well." Furthermore, "...[just] because a mapping exists between a part of the Bible and reality for any given part does not mean that the Bible actually represents reality. To illustrate - if I say that "monkey fish" means all of physics, and then I tell you "monkey fish," am I a physics genius?"

But, the thing is the Bible predicting certain events can make a solid argument for it's validity. Especially when most of the Bible was written before these things were discovered. You're stating that these claims cannot be used as evidence for the Bibles validity. Why?

Any reputable Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word means "circle," not "sphere" which nicely reflects the traditional ANE view of the world as a disc. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for "sphere" which Isaiah could have used if that's what he had meant.

You are correct. Isaiah thought the world was a round disc he didn't have it 100% correct but he still thought the world was round. Quite a big achievement because everyone in around 700 BC thought the world was flat and called him crazy.

Why?


Except said god, ironically. Why say the universe can't exist without a creator when there is no creator of the creator deemed necessary?


-_- funny thing is, all the theory of evolution does is outline why populations of organisms change over generations. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life (abiogenesis would be related to the latter).


-_- then why doesn't radioactive dating CONFIRM that the planet is young? Claims made in scripture are meaningless if observable reality doesn't match up to them.


Already corrected by someone else that terming the shape of the world as a "sphere" is a translation error and that the actual word in scripture is "circle". Any mention in the NT would be poinless to bring up, since it was known centuries before those books were written that the planet was roughly spherical. Heck, since the Earth is actually more like a squashed, slightly pear shape, shouldn't scripture say that instead?


Oh, I assure you, I've seen that website's content. It's definitely not for converting non-believers.

Because Evolution isn't real. Simply put. So if Evolution isn't real the only other conclusion is that there has to be a creator. Evolutionists claim that Evolution has been 100% proven. But, It's still just a faith based theory just like Creationism. It hasn't been 100% proven at all so why is it even taught in our public schools? I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools (even though I believe it to be the truth) But, something that hasn't been 100% proven shouldn't be taught in schools as if it has. Because, it hasn't. Good that you've at least seen the website and I'm sorry you don't find their evidence valid.

Why isn't this evidence reflected in reality? Even creationists come up across things that seem to contradict the idea of a young Earth.

For example, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)'s RATE project concluded there is hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay to account for on Earth. Rather that the obvious conclusion that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old (actually ~4.5 billion years old), they instead are searching for 'alternative' explanations to somehow account for that within only 6000 years ago including potentially arbitrary supernaturalism.

That just seems odd.

That's interesting. I disagree But, It's interesting.

 

[TBDude65]

But, the thing is the Bible predicting certain events can make a solid argument for it's validity. Especially when most of the Bible was written before these things were discovered. You're stating that these claims cannot be used as evidence for the Bibles validity. Why?



You are correct. Isaiah thought the world was a round disc he didn't have it 100% correct but he still thought the world was round. Quite a big achievement because everyone in around 700 BC thought the world was flat and called him crazy.



Because Evolution isn't real. Simply put. So if Evolution isn't real the only other conclusion is that there has to be a creator. Evolutionists claim that Evolution has been 100% proven. But, It's still just a faith based theory just like Creationism. It hasn't been 100% proven at all so why is it even taught in our public schools? I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools (even though I believe it to be the truth) But, something that hasn't been 100% proven shouldn't be taught in schools as if it has. Because, it hasn't. Good that you've at least seen the website and I'm sorry you don't find their evidence valid.



That's interesting. I disagree But, It's interesting.

"But, the thing is the Bible predicting certain events can make a solid argument for it's validity. Especially when most of the Bible was written before these things were discovered. You're stating that these claims cannot be used as evidence for the Bibles validity. Why?"

If you considered "fulfilled prophecy" to be an indicator of the truth of the Bible, what about prophecies that have gone unfulfilled? Do they, by extension, prove the Bible isn't true? If not, then why would "fulfilled prophecy" demonstrate truth? If yes, then you've a paradox.

Biblical prophecy appears no different than the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.
Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki


There is an even more fundamental issue that seems to be ignored when Christians propose "fulfilled prophecy" as evidence of the validity of the Bible, namely that people already knew of the prophecies prior to their fulfillment. Meaning that people intentionally go out to make the prophecies become fulfilled (or at least write stories indicating as much). Is it a fulfilled prophecy if someone takes it as an instruction to do something?

For instance, if I say to my wife that "the dishes will get done before the end of the week" and then she (under the assumption that I was suggesting she do the dishes) does them, did I just predict an event? No, I didn't.

 

[Neostarwcc]

"But, the thing is the Bible predicting certain events can make a solid argument for it's validity. Especially when most of the Bible was written before these things were discovered. You're stating that these claims cannot be used as evidence for the Bibles validity. Why?"

If you considered "fulfilled prophecy" to be an indicator of the truth of the Bible, what about prophecies that have gone unfulfilled? Do they, by extension, prove the Bible isn't true? If not, then why would "fulfilled prophecy" demonstrate truth? If yes, then you've a paradox.

Biblical prophecy appears no different than the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.
Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki


There is an even more fundamental issue that seems to be ignored when Christians propose "fulfilled prophecy" as evidence of the validity of the Bible, namely that people already knew of the prophecies prior to their fulfillment. Meaning that people intentionally go out to make the prophecies become fulfilled (or at least write stories indicating as much). Is it a fulfilled prophecy if someone takes it as an instruction to do something?

For instance, if I say to my wife that "the dishes will get done before the end of the week" and then she (under the assumption that I was suggesting she do the dishes) does them, did I just predict an event? No, I didn't.

Do you mean the ones that have not come to pass yet? Like for example, Jesus's second coming in Revelation? Just because a prediction has yet to come true doesn't mean that the Bible is invalid. I do believe that all of the prophecies in the Bible will eventually come true. If that's not what you mean you'll have to tell me what you mean because I'm not understanding you.

 

[pitabread]

That's interesting. I disagree But, It's interesting.

Disagree with what?

 

[TBDude65]

Do you mean the ones that have not come to pass yet? Like for example, Jesus's second coming in Revelation? Just because a prediction has yet to come true doesn't mean that the Bible is invalid. I do believe that all of the prophecies in the Bible will eventually come true. If that's not what you mean you'll have to tell me what you mean because I'm not understanding you.

No, I mean prophecies that never were and can no longer be fulfilled. Like Nebuchadnezzar destroying the city of Tyre and that the land upon which Tyre resided would never be built on again.

Do failed prophecies demonstrate that the Bible is not true? (if "fulfilled" prophecies do, then by logical extension, failed prophecies should prove it false)

 

[Steve Petersen]

Yeah, so this is a thread about evidence for ID. How does Bible prophecy have anything to do with that?

 

[Neostarwcc]

No, I mean prophecies that never were and can no longer be fulfilled. Like Nebuchadnezzar destroying the city of Tyre and that the land upon which Tyre resided would never be built on again.

Do failed prophecies demonstrate that the Bible is not true? (if "fulfilled" prophecies do, then by logical extension, failed prophecies should prove it false)

I'm actually not familiar with that story. I never read the Old Testament all the way through. So I cannot comment on it's validity.

Yeah, so this is a thread about evidence for ID. How does Bible prophecy have anything to do with that?

It's also a thread about evidence for Creationism and since the Bible is used for evidence for Creationism that's why we're discussing Bible prophecy.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It's also a thread about evidence for Creationism and since the Bible is used for evidence for Creationism that's why we're discussing Bible prophecy.

I don't see why prophecy is relevant to creationism.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I don't see why prophecy is relevant to creationism.

Because it proves or disproves the Bible. And the Bible is always presented as evidence for Creationism.

 

[TBDude65]

I'm actually not familiar with that story. I never read the Old Testament all the way through. So I cannot comment on it's validity.



It's also a thread about evidence for Creationism and since the Bible is used for evidence for Creationism that's why we're discussing Bible prophecy.

Well, all of the prophecies that Jesus supposedly filled came from the OT. So it should be something you're familiar with if you're going to use prophecy as a measure of validity for the Bible. The example I gave is a demonstrable example of a failed prophecy. Could you answer my question with regards to failed prophecy? Do failed prophecy prove the Bible untrue as one would logically conclude from the counterargument that "fulfilled" prophecies demonstrate the "truth" of the Bible?