Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

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.





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




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

That's better. Ok. I'll let you know when I'm set up. Probably Monday is what I'm thinking.

Chuck is very thorough and a better speaker than I, so I'll review the proper videos and post those for you, and we can go from there.

I'll probably not be responding to the angry ones though.

I think they just want to pick a fight and don't care about facts and data whereas you sound a bit of a cut above the others.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's better. Ok. I'll let you know when I'm set up. Probably Monday is what I'm thinking.

Chuck is very thorough and a better speaker than I, so I'll review the proper videos and post those for you, and we can go from there.

Try to find text sources rather than videos; I read faster than people talk, and it is overall much more convenient to read through a person's views than to try and analyze videos of them.

I'll probably not be responding to the angry ones though.

Most of the people debating here aren't angry so much as... I guess I would describe it as very blunt. And that goes for both sides of the debate.

I think they just want to pick a fight and don't care about facts and data whereas you sound a bit of a cut above the others.

Most people on here: here to debate
Me: here to improve my people skills and patience

That's the only reason why I might seem more polite compared to some of the other posters. I guarantee that compared to most other people that participate in these debates, I'm an angry, rude spaz.

 

[Waggles]

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.

What complete rubbish and very poor logic you present.

Jesus upheld and defended the truth of the word of God (the scriptures) as being eternal and
constant; and certainly applicable for knowledge unto salvation.
Jesus quoted Genesis during his ministry here on Earth.
Jesus spoke much about the Word (actually himself in the flesh) always existing and never ever
to be done away with nor expunged.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

 

[Ophiolite]

What complete rubbish and very poor logic you present.

It's a pity, in that case, that your attempt to refute my observations consisted only of further unsupported assertions.

Let me take a single point. Do you deny that Jesus was well versed in Judaism?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Observable reality upholds, no declares, Creation by God.

No it doesn't.

 

[Waggles]

Do you deny that Jesus was well versed in Judaism?

He was more than well versed in Judaism - the religion and culture of the Jews;
he was also the Word made flesh; and knew all the scriptures, every verse and their truth.
Which is why Jesus quoted Genesis because it is true.

And what are these unsupported assertions about Jesus that you allude to?

 

[Waggles]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Absolutely.
Creation everywhere.
Can't see one thing that hints at evolution. Nope not one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, it does. Absolutely.
Creation everywhere. Can't see one thing that hints at evolution. Nope not one.

You might need better glasses then.

PS: what you can assert without evidence, I get to dissmiss without evidence.
So here's where you explain how it "absolutely does".

 

[Ophiolite]

He was more than well versed in Judaism - the religion and culture of the Jews;
he was also the Word made flesh; and knew all the scriptures, every verse and their truth
of each verse. Which is why Jesus quoted Genesis because it is true.

Good. We are agreed on that. However, you characterised my post, in which I made that very point, as "Complete rubbish".

What am I to make of that? Emotional rant? Carelessness? Bombast? None of these solutions work well in advancing a discussion. I would appreciate more precision in your future replies.

Unsupported assertions? You have not demonstrated that Jesus insisted upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have simply asserted that it is so.

You know one of the passages in the Bible I find especially evocative is the opening verse of the Gospel of John. That is quintisential metaphor. A literary technique employed in the NT because it was a continuation of the practice of richly embuing scripture with metaphor in the OT. To repeat, you have not demonstrated that Jesus identified the Genesis tale as being literal. i.e. your assertions are unsupported.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, it does. Absolutely.
Creation everywhere.
Can't see one thing that hints at evolution. Nope not one.

Psalm 119:18
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Just saying.

 

[Divide]

Try to find text sources rather than videos; I read faster than people talk, and it is overall much more convenient to read through a person's views than to try and analyze videos of them.


Most of the people debating here aren't angry so much as... I guess I would describe it as very blunt. And that goes for both sides of the debate.


Most people on here: here to debate
Me: here to improve my people skills and patience

That's the only reason why I might seem more polite compared to some of the other posters. I guarantee that compared to most other people that participate in these debates, I'm an angry, rude spaz.

Ok. I'll do my best.

Debating and talking, tossing things around is a good thing. But we must be teachable. Able to set aside preconceived notions long enough to honestly consider another 's perspective.

If we can not, then the religious box of our indoctrination will make us (them) outright reject new perspectives...in error. If God doesn't fit into the box and it challenges ones belief system, then rejection (without honest consideration) comes in and the pride of intellect then veiled (or outright) insults...and no edification is possible.

Those guys are here. Over educated. I won't respond to them. I got one snarky guy on ignore now because that's all he has is snarks.

This is the root of why we must become as little children...to be able to learn.

You don't seem to be like that. We may not see eye to eye on some things, but you're...reasonable and open minded.
I (no one) has all the answers...and you ask pretty good questions.

 

[Waggles]

You have not demonstrated that Jesus insisted upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have simply asserted that it is so.

Given that Jesus quoted Genesis and stated that these verses were true and applicable for
his generation (and those to come afterwards) where would there arise any idea that
Jesus did not adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis?
If Jesus declares that the holy scriptures [the word of God] are truth and immutable then
how does the notion that he may not have taken Genesis as literal truth arise?

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour
and majesty.
2 Who covers thyself with light as with a garment: who stretches out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalm 104:
1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into an
high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white
as the light.
Matthew 17:
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13 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:

 

[Waggles]

@Ophiolite
The Preeminence of Christ
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:
This could be the reason as to why Jesus would know that Genesis is literal and true on
creation by himself.

 

[pitabread]

You might need better glasses then.

PS: what you can assert without evidence, I get to dissmiss without evidence.
So here's where you explain how it "absolutely does".

To be fair, one can honestly claim they haven't seen evidence for something if they never bother to look.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Ophiolite
The Preeminence of Christ
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:
This could be the reason as to why Jesus would know that Genesis is literal and true on
creation by himself.

I see nothing here that excludes the possibility that Jesus "knew" Genesis was literal, but equally nothing that excludes the possibility that he understood it to be metaphorical. How do we decide between the two? (Is there a third option?) It is important to look at context. In this case the context is this:

He was more than well versed in Judaism - the religion and culture of the Jews; he was also the Word made flesh;

Thus he was fully aware of the frequent use of literary devices, metaphor and rhetoric within scripture. This was so common that, in arguing the contrary case, you use metaphor to get your point across. Thus, the preponderance of Biblical evidence and the context in which scripture was written point towards a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.

I have no issue with you choosing to believe the alternative; as I noted it is possible based upon how one reads certain passages in the Bible. However, it would be appropriate if you were to acknowledge the possibility that on this point (unlike the majority of Christians) you might be mistaken.

[It is probably going off-topic, but I shall note that I reject the literal interpretation because I add to scriptural clues and context the wealth of evidence from the real world that contradicts a literal interpretation. I do not require that you should address this information in reaching your conclusion. Feel free to believe in embedded age, or a global conspiracy of atheistic scientists, but we could reach an amicable resolution of our dispute if you would concede that you might be mistaken, that the Biblical clues are not sufficient, and - perhaps - that your certainty comes from personal revelation.]

Edit: I think this post adequately addresses your question in post #652. If not please probe further.

Also, I notice you have not retracted your claim that my original post was "comeplete rubbish". (And I have demonstrated that was not the case.) It would help to ensure our exchange remains polite if you were to do so at your earliest convenience.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, it does. Absolutely.
Creation everywhere.
Can't see one thing that hints at evolution. Nope not one.

Then you won't mind participating in my evolution experiment, which will obviously fail and prove creationism, right

 

[pshun2404]

Then you won't mind participating in my evolution experiment, which will obviously fail and prove creationism, right

Is it the one with Triops that will demonstrate the natural processes by which varieties emerge within the same creature (which could or could not have been devised by God), that does nothing to prove or disprove that one creature would eventually develop into another life form?

If so, then this experiment does not prove the basic premise of most evolutionists nor would it prove a creator...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is it the one with Triops that will demonstrate the natural processes by which varieties emerge within the same creature (which could or could not have been devised by God), that does nothing to prove or disprove that one creature would eventually develop into another life form?

10 years for Triops means that about 173 generations of them will pass. To put that into perspective, it takes more than 2500 years for humans to have that many generations pass. Furthermore, I am putting them under the most extreme natural selection pressures possible from generation 2 onward. Unless the mutation rate of Triops is exceedingly low, it is entirely possible for the morphology of these organisms to change so much that they are unrecognizable by the final generation.

If so, then this experiment does not prove the basic premise of most evolutionists nor would it prove a creator...

-_- the basic premise of evolution doesn't need as many generations as I am recording any more than I'd need to watch a mountain grow from the time it was just a noticeable incline to know that it grew gradually as the Earth's crust shifted. Creationists like you demand more than bacteria based experiments and tend to blow off the ones related to birds and lizards because "they still look like birds and lizards, come on, who cares if the entire digestive system and behavior has completely changed when they all look the same?"

Also, I distinctly called it an evolution experiment, so obviously, it is testing evolution. I have never suggested that it could or was even intended to demonstrate the existence of any creator.

 

[Waggles]

I guess in the end those that do want to believe the truth of Genesis and creation
simply do not want to.
Pity.
To choose a lie over the truth may well have dire consequences.
But each person is responsible for their themselves in matters of salvation.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess in the end those that do want to believe the truth of Genesis and creation
simply do not want to.
Pity.
To choose a lie over the truth may well have dire consequences.
But each person is responsible for their themselves in matters of salvation.

Why is it a lie, and not just wrong?