Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligent design can be used in the context of both the origin of life and ongoing evolution. Wikipedia, for example, mentions natural selection. A common example of intelligent design in operation is the complex features of the human eye.

No need for intelligent design for that. Eye evolution is rather well understood. Why do you think you need to invoke an "intelligence"?

 

[HitchSlap]

Intelligent design can be used in the context of both the origin of life and ongoing evolution. Wikipedia, for example, mentions natural selection. A common example of intelligent design in operation is the complex features of the human eye.

The evolution of the eye is well understood. No need to act like it's a mystery.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

 

[gaara4158]

This is pure ignorance.
There is no other book or books equivalent to the 66 books of "The Bible"

I see sadly from the ongoing blogging in this thread that many simply choose death
over life.
It is true what Jesus said faith and belief are of the heart (the inner person).

Death is inevitable. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is pure ignorance.
There is no other book or books equivalent to the 66 books of "The Bible"

66-81, depending on the denomination.

I see sadly from the ongoing blogging in this thread that many simply choose death
over life.

That's not how belief works. I 100% fear death; I have an existential crisis almost daily thanks to my immense fear of death, and I hate the fact that I don't believe in life after death, because even if I was wrong and there wasn't one, I could at least move on with my life and stop bogging it up with thoughts of death. You are incredibly wrong if you think I would choose death over life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes... sounds familiar... where have I seen this before? Oh yeah,

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Yep, you're king of cheap shots.

Alright ... point taken ... anything else?

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m aware that it’s standard doctrine.

It's very seldom I hear Baptists referred to as cultists; but to each his own, I guess.

 

[pitabread]

There is no other book or books equivalent to the 66 books of "The Bible"

The Vedas might have something to say about that, considering they are some of the oldest spiritual texts on the planet.

I see sadly from the ongoing blogging in this thread that many simply choose death
over life.
It is true what Jesus said faith and belief are of the heart (the inner person).

I can't speak for anyone else here, but Christian theology is fundamentally illogical to me. I couldn't force myself to become a Christian any more than you could force yourself to become a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist.

The most we can do is be honest with ourselves with what we truly believe.

This is also where I believe that if there really was some all powerful deity that was going to judge us upon death, that they would take all that into account. I would think a sincere belief would be more valued than belief acquired through coercion.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. There is no way to harmonize the creation account with science. Period.

I've been saying that here for years.

There is no firmament.

Yes, there are.

Three of them.

Called "heavens".

That's why "heaven" is singular in Genesis 1:1 and plural in 2:1.

God made two more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how come Darwinists quoting the writings of other Darwinists as truth is OK?

Not to mention quoting from one part of the encyclopedia (or dictionary) to support another.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dedicate my current ministry to my dad who I hope to see in the new heavens and new earth.

Amen, brother.

If your dad was saved at one time, I'm sure you two are going to have a blessed reunion with our Lord in Heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent design can be used in the context of both the origin of life and ongoing evolution. Wikipedia, for example, mentions natural selection. A common example of intelligent design in operation is the complex features of the human eye.

Okay.

 

[ruthiesea]

Really. Then why did God write it this way?

My religion teaches that He wrote it that way because we, as mere humans, would not understand how it really happened. Here we are, thousands of years later, and we are just scratching the surface of how the universe began.

 

[Tayla]

No need for intelligent design for that. Eye evolution is rather well understood. Why do you think you need to invoke an "intelligence"?

I don't claim we need to, probably the full jist of my comments are getting tangled up in this thread.

I do have a nagging doubt. I've studied enough about evolution at the cellular level to be aware of the enormous number of chemical biological interactions and the vast number of errors in the functions; these capable of generating new genetic information. Even so, I'm uncomfortable that the needed probabilities are even remotely sufficient.

If there were a way these random probabilities could be nudged a little bit, that might make all the difference...

I think the only possibility where this could occur is quantum mechanics randomness. If there were an intelligent designer awaiting for a favorable situation to develop, he could monkey with the probability so that an electron appeared in just the right place to influence a chemical reaction, sending it down a path having profound consequences. Ditto for the timing and direction of a burst of radiation triggered by the weak force.

 

[Tayla]

The evolution of the eye is well understood. No need to act like it's a mystery.

Yes, I agree.

I do have a nagging doubt. I've studied enough about evolution at the cellular level to be aware of the enormous number of chemical biological interactions and the vast number of errors in the functions; these capable of generating new genetic information. Even so, I'm uncomfortable that the needed probabilities are even remotely sufficient.

If there were a way these random probabilities could be nudged a little bit, that might make all the difference...

I think the only possibility where this could occur is quantum mechanics randomness. If there were an intelligent designer awaiting for a favorable situation to develop, he could monkey with the probability so that an electron appeared in just the right place to influence a chemical reaction, sending it down a path having profound consequences. Ditto for the timing and direction of a burst of radiation triggered by the weak force.

 

[gaara4158]

It's very seldom I hear Baptists referred to as cultists; but to each his own, I guess.

Some say the only difference between cults and religions is the number of followers. Just think about it

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then how come Darwinists quoting the writings of other Darwinists as truth is OK?

I only very rarely quote other people in general, and when I do, 95% of the time it is taking quotes from a source brought up by a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't claim we need to, probably the full jist of my comments are getting tangled up in this thread.

I do have a nagging doubt. I've studied enough about evolution at the cellular level to be aware of the enormous number of chemical biological interactions and the vast number of errors in the functions; these capable of generating new genetic information. Even so, I'm uncomfortable that the needed probabilities are even remotely sufficient.

If there were a way these random probabilities could be nudged a little bit, that might make all the difference...

I think the only possibility where this could occur is quantum mechanics randomness. If there were an intelligent designer awaiting for a favorable situation to develop, he could monkey with the probability so that an electron appeared in just the right place to influence a chemical reaction, sending it down a path having profound consequences. Ditto for the timing and direction of a burst of radiation triggered by the weak force.

Sorry but this just looks like an argument from ignorance. You also appear to be making a very poor Odds Argument. Yes the odds of humans evolving is practically zero. But the odds of something evolving approaches one. It seems that you are making the mistake of thinking of humans as a goal rather than as a result.

 

[Waggles]

Death is inevitable.

There is a first death, and a second death.
It is the second death that unbelievers of the truth need be fearful of.

 

[Divide]

Yes, I agree.

I do have a nagging doubt. I've studied enough about evolution at the cellular level to be aware of the enormous number of chemical biological interactions and the vast number of errors in the functions; these capable of generating new genetic information. Even so, I'm uncomfortable that the needed probabilities are even remotely sufficient.

If there were a way these random probabilities could be nudged a little bit, that might make all the difference...

I think the only possibility where this could occur is quantum mechanics randomness. If there were an intelligent designer awaiting for a favorable situation to develop, he could monkey with the probability so that an electron appeared in just the right place to influence a chemical reaction, sending it down a path having profound consequences. Ditto for the timing and direction of a burst of radiation triggered by the weak force.

It would still need new information. The evolutionists have never been able to answer for me where does the new information come from for the evolution to take place (the change).

 

[gaara4158]

There is a first death, and a second death.
It is the second death that unbelievers of the truth need be fearful of.

So you say. Why should I be afraid of something I don’t believe in? Whose job is it to convince us?