Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Speedwell]

Why should I rely on the provisionality of evolution when I can build my knowledge of
the world on the certainty and truth of creation.

Certainly you are free to do so. I can see no objection to it. If I object to anything about it, it is the attitude taken by some of your fellow believers towards others. Other than that, no one would care what you believed, any more than we care that Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat.

 

[Waggles]

But what is really "wasted effort" is trying to conflate the theory of evolution with atheism.

Well the theory of evolution certainly does not come out of a confidence in the truth and
validity of God's word - the holy scriptures.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:
and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw
that it was good.
God states that he created plants that are dependant on photosynthesis on the
"third day." Genesis goes on to declare that:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Thus God created our Sun and our Moon afterwards. First plant life, then our
sun and moon after the creation of plants.
Does this synch in with the theory of evolution? Do the Christians who also claim
faith in both God and evolution reconcile this and submit evolution to this
remarkable declaration of events by God.

Who is telling the truth? Darwin or Jesus? Who is calling Jesus a liar?
Creationists? Evolutionists?

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun,
shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
Acts 26:13

 

[HitchSlap]

Well the theory of evolution certainly does not come out of a confidence in the truth and
validity of God's word - the holy scriptures.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:
and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw
that it was good.
God states that he created plants that are dependant on photosynthesis on the
"third day." Genesis goes on to declare that:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Thus God created our Sun and our Moon afterwards. First plant life, then our
sun and moon after the creation of plants.
Does this synch in with the theory of evolution? Do the Christians who also claim
faith in both God and evolution reconcile this and submit evolution to this
remarkable declaration of events by God.

Who is telling the truth? Darwin or Jesus? Who is calling Jesus a liar?
Creationists? Evolutionists?

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun,
shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
Acts 26:13

G1/2 is a mythical account of creation, nothing more.

 

[Speedwell]

Do the Christians who also claim
faith in both God and evolution reconcile this and submit evolution to this
remarkable declaration of events by God.

Who is telling the truth? Darwin or Jesus? Who is calling Jesus a liar?
Creationists? Evolutionists?

That is the attitude I meant.

 

[Speedwell]

Well the theory of evolution certainly does not come out of a confidence in the truth and
validity of God's word - the holy scriptures.

No, no scientific theories do--not even those you approve of. But that is not the same as being atheistic.

 

[Divide]

That Goldilocks zone is (drumroll please) about .6 of an AU - which is about 90 million km across.



Actually, there's one other very well evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and a whole heap of really poorly evidenced ones.



Funny - concentrations of CO2 literally an order of magnitude higher than we have not have existed in the past 40 million years, and life didn't have any problems dealing with it. Similarly, CO2 concentrations less that half of what it is now have occurred in the past 2 million years, and ligfe had no problems there.



No seasons would mean that life was different (probably), but no axial tilt and no seasons really doesn't matter that much to most lifeforms. Certainly it wouldn't affect most sea life, all archea and bacteria, all lithtropes and most other micro-organsiams, which make up the vast preponderance of life on the planet.

We MIGHT not be around, but then again, humans have only been around for a very, very, very short time in the history of life.



If gravity were different, no universe and ergo not life. Or possibly not. There are some models that suggest a the gravitational constant could swing upwards/downwards by 4% and things would still be much as they are.



You might want to go back and check the tape on that one. To the best of my knowledge, they physical constants have been pretty much "constant" since the very early universe. Any changes in them have been in the order of parts per million or parts per billion.



Gonna need to see your maths on that one chief. Care to outline how you made your probability calculations?



You really don't know much about early universe cosmology do you? I don't either (really), but I do know enough to shake my head at just how awful your description of the Big Bang is.

Wiki has a nice write up on the timeline of the early universe, which provides a nice springboard to dive into the longer/deeper descriptions of the formation of our universe.

Uh-oh. I think you've figured out that I'm not a PhD, lol. Show my probability calcs?! Are you kidding? I got that from a lecture by Chuck Missler.

I do remember when we were kids and learning their lies in school...we'd be walking down the alley and see a mud puddle, and come out with the cut-down "there's your mom" and point to the puddle, lol.
I think even then we subconsciously knew...it was lies in school.

 

[Ophiolite]

Who is telling the truth? Darwin or Jesus? Who is calling Jesus a liar?
Creationists? Evolutionists?

There is more evidence that someone called Darwin existed than someone called Jesus existed.

However, I have no problem if someone chooses to believe that Jesus existed. (I'm undecided) Many aspects of what he taught are a solid foundation for living a positive and cooperative life. (I would say all aspects, but some followers of his philosophy have placed interpretations on his words that I find less endearing.)

I can see nothing in scripture that indicates that Jesus spoke about evolution. As someone well versed in Judaism he would have understood that the creation passages in Genesis were not meant to be taken literally. Consequently, if anyone is calling him a liar it would appear to be the Creationists who have chosen to put words into his mouth that never came out of it. I'm not even a Christian and I find that distasteful.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Who is telling the truth?

The one who's statements are in accordance with observable reality.

Darwin or Jesus?

If Jesus here is a symbolic representative of the typical YEC, then obviously Darwin.

Who is calling Jesus a liar?

Certain creationists surely are liars. They've been caught red handed with their pants on fire.
Other creationists, I'ld say, are just mistaken.

 

[tas8831]

Uh-oh. I think you've figured out that I'm not a PhD, lol. Show my probability calcs?! Are you kidding? I got that from a lecture by Chuck Missler.

"Charles W. "Chuck" Missler is an author, evangelical Christian, Bible teacher, engineer, and former businessman. " (Google search)


So, you have no idea whether or not Missler the minister's probability claims had merit or not, but you accept them as valid BECAUE Missler is a minister... Purveyors of fake news LOVE people like you.

I do remember when we were kids and learning their lies in school...we'd be walking down the alley and see a mud puddle, and come out with the cut-down "there's your mom" and point to the puddle, lol.

Totally hilarious - then, when your kids were learning their tall tales from the middle east in church, did you point at dust on the ground and be like "there's Adam" har de har?

I think even then we subconsciously knew...it was lies in school.

It looks to me far more like you just don't know any better.

Sorry.

For your integrity's sake, i do suggest that you stop paraphrasing Missler the Minister's lies about probability and stuff, especially since you cannot understand his claims, much less explain them.

 

[Waggles]

The one who's statements are in accordance with observable reality.

Observable reality upholds, no declares, Creation by God.

 

[HitchSlap]

Observable reality upholds, no declares, Creation by God.

I think you're bluffing. I call.

 

[HitchSlap]

Uh-oh. I think you've figured out that I'm not a PhD, lol. Show my probability calcs?! Are you kidding? I got that from a lecture by Chuck Missler.

I do remember when we were kids and learning their lies in school...we'd be walking down the alley and see a mud puddle, and come out with the cut-down "there's your mom" and point to the puddle, lol.
I think even then we subconsciously knew...it was lies in school.

Did someone say Peanut Butter man?

yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaa.... we're sciencing now!

 

[Speedwell]

Observable reality upholds, no declares, Creation by God.

Yes. Psalm 19. What is that to do with evolution?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Observable reality upholds, no declares, Creation by God.

If this was true, these debates would be both sides presenting evidence which supports their position... but that's not what happens. Most of the creationists instead focus on trying to discredit evolution rather than give credit to their own position. But if observable reality fit with their position so well, it would be easier and faster to just present evidence supporting their position.

This is because the theory with the strongest evidence wins.

 

[Divide]

"Charles W. "Chuck" Missler is an author, evangelical Christian, Bible teacher, engineer, and former businessman. " (Google search)


So, you have no idea whether or not Missler the minister's probability claims had merit or not, but you accept them as valid BECAUE Missler is a minister... Purveyors of fake news LOVE people like you.



Totally hilarious - then, when your kids were learning their tall tales from the middle east in church, did you point at dust on the ground and be like "there's Adam" har de har?



It looks to me far more like you just don't know any better.

Sorry.

For your integrity's sake, i do suggest that you stop paraphrasing Missler the Minister's lies about probability and stuff, especially since you cannot understand his claims, much less explain them.

You are nuts to presume so much about me, and Chuck Missler. Chuck was seriously highly educated and in the business world for 30+ years before going into ministry and did more research in a day than you have in a lifetime.

My poor memory does not invalidate his work. Neither does your P'shawing him with your narrow minded view.

Blessings brother.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are nuts to presume so much about me, and Chuck Missler. Chuck was seriously highly educated and in the business world for 30+ years before going into ministry and did more research in a day than you have in a lifetime.

Working in business has nothing to do with biology or any other STEM field, and would lend this man absolutely no authority on discussing these matters. I'd much rather a nurse a semester of college away from graduating set a broken bone than a person with a doctorate in art history.

However, you can feel free to participate in the evolution experiment I am running (Evolution Experiment; Creationists, Choose their Fate!), I need some creationist representation there badly.

My poor memory does not invalidate his work. Neither does your P'shawing him with your narrow minded view.

Then post a link to his work, and we can discuss it together with a readily available reference, so any fault in our memories can be made up for.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are nuts to presume so much about me, and Chuck Missler. Chuck was seriously highly educated and in the business world for 30+ years before going into ministry and did more research in a day than you have in a lifetime.

My poor memory does not invalidate his work. Neither does your P'shawing him with your narrow minded view.

Blessings brother.

When he's not busy plagiarizing books, or grossly misrepresenting science, I'm sure he's a swell guy.

Cheers.

 

[Divide]

I notice that some of the best teachers are attacked the most and the fiercest from the people who are the most threatened by them, lol.

Working in business has nothing to do with biology or any other STEM field, and would lend this man absolutely no authority on discussing these matters. I'd much rather a nurse a semester of college away from graduating set a broken bone than a person with a doctorate in art history.

However, you can feel free to participate in the evolution experiment I am running (Evolution Experiment; Creationists, Choose their Fate!), I need some creationist representation there badly.


Then post a link to his work, and we can discuss it together with a readily available reference, so any fault in our memories can be made up for.

Not from this smart phone. When I get my desktop back and set up perhaps.

Then I'll have my notes and can navigate and type better.

Chuck's no dummy. Even if I am and some others here are.

 

[HitchSlap]

I notice that some of the best teachers are attacked the most and the fiercest from the people who are the most threatened by them, lol.




Not from this smart phone. When I get my desktop back and set up perhaps.

Then I'll have my notes and can navigate and type better.

Chuck's no dummy. Even if I am and some others here are.

Chuck has no relevant degrees in biblical scholarship. There's zero reason to feel threatened or take him seriously.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I notice that some of the best teachers are attacked the most and the fiercest from the people who are the most threatened by them, lol.

I don't feel threatened when evolution is challenged, fyi, because it ain't a part of my identity. Theories get disproven from time to time, and I'd be very interested if that happened with evolution, not upset.

Not from this smart phone. When I get my desktop back and set up perhaps.

Oh, I used to post on this site using my tablet a lot. It was awful; the browser liked to close, and it was very touchy on selecting parts to copy and paste. Wouldn't be too hard to put in a vote for 2 traits you want to see some crustaceans develop in an evolution experiment though ;P

Chuck's no dummy. Even if I am and some others here are.

Not calling him stupid (or you, for that matter). I don't know enough about either of you to try to make that judgement call yet XD