Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Aman777]

Aucontraire. Once you know the beginning, you will know the end. It’s simple physics.

Correction: It's simple physics in the present Cosmos. The same rules don't apply to other Universes. Amen?

 

[OzSpen]

‘ID is creationism in a cheap tux.’

That's your slang and put down of ID. This is your Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy. Here you have mocked Intelligent Design instead of providing the evidence to demonstrate your point.

I know you are an atheist, but God doesn't believe in atheists (see Romans 1:18-32). God's view what the Psalmist praised God for: human beings are 'fearfully and wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14 NIV).

ID is the language of some today. The Bible's language is that human beings are 'wonderfully made'. Since we are under the curse of sin, there are many malfunctions in our bodies and in the environment. God said this would happen from the beginning of time (see Genesis 3:14-19 NIV).

I ask you to consider the God-given evidence all around you that demonstrates (with constant evidence) the existence of God and his sustaining power in the universe. Every breath you and I breathe depends on the Lord God's provision (Gen 2:7; Isa 42:5; Acts 17:25).

Oz

 

[HitchSlap]

That's your slang and put down of ID. This is your Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy. Here you have mocked Intelligent Design instead of providing the evidence to demonstrate your point.

I know you are an atheist, but God doesn't believe in atheists (see Romans 1:18-32). God's view what the Psalmist praised God for: human beings are 'fearfully and wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14 NIV).

ID is the language of some today. The Bible's language is that human beings are 'wonderfully made'. Since we are under the curse of sin, there are many malfunctions in our bodies and in the environment. God said this would happen from the beginning of time (see Genesis 3:14-19 NIV).

I ask you to consider the God-given evidence all around you that demonstrates (with constant evidence) the existence of God and his sustaining power in the universe. Every breath you and I breathe depends on the Lord God's provision (Gen 2:7; Isa 42:5; Acts 17:25).

Oz

Do you know where the phrase ‘ID is just creationism in a cheap tux,’ is from?

 

[OzSpen]

You have evidence for this?

Do tell!

Hitch,

Yes, I most certainly have evidence but you as an atheist don't seem to be open to ALL of the evidence provided by historical science and reliability or unreliability of documents from the past.

The OT is an historically reliable set of documents (cf Plato's and Josephus's writings). See Walter Kaiser's defense of this position - with the evidence: The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Do you know where the phrase ‘ID is just creationism in a cheap tux,’ is from?

Of course I do! See HERE and HERE.

Nevertheless, copying another's cheap slogan still gets you to the point of engaging in the use of a red herring fallacy. Why?

You have introduced an irrelevant topic (tuxedo) to try to divert attention away from God's design in human beings and nature (ID and God's creation) - 'we are fearfully and wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14) and depend on God for every breath we breathe (Acts 17:25).

Oz

 

[pitabread]

Why repeat the evidence that others have provided?

I've read a lot of the DI's purported papers supporting Intelligent Design and they're generally poor and don't provide the evidence the DI purports.

I keep searching for good examples of evidence for Intelligent Design, but I've yet to find any.

As an agnostic, are you open to ALL of the evidence and that includes direct creation by God ex nihilo (Gen 1:1)?

If there is sufficient enough to evidence to support it, sure. I've found though that after 20 years of this stuff, the arguments tend to be lacking.

Part of the problem is I find arguments for specific theologies usually carry with them the implicit assumption those theologies are true. But if you don't buy into the theology in question, the arguments fall apart.

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course I do! See HERE and HERE.

Nevertheless, copying another's cheap slogan still gets you to the point of engaging in the use of a red herring fallacy. Why?

You have introduced an irrelevant topic (tuxedo) to try to divert attention away from God's design in human beings and nature (ID and God's creation) - 'we are fearfully and wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14) and depend on God for every breath we breathe (Acts 17:25).

Oz

How do you recognize design?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitch,

Yes, I most certainly have evidence but you as an atheist don't seem to be open to ALL of the evidence provided by historical science and reliability or unreliability of documents from the past.

The OT is an historically reliable set of documents (cf Plato's and Josephus's writings). See Walter Kaiser's defense of this position - with the evidence: The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?

Oz

Evidence informs my beliefs, and I’m open to all of it.

Now you mentioned you had evidence for creation ex nihilo. So let’s see it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Gene,

How would those 'historical' criteria help me verify or falsify whether it is an historical fact that Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770?

By helping to determine the reliability and accuracy of the claims within the source.

If Cook claimed he saw a 900 ft tall rainbow unicorn on his journey up the Australia coast, it may be cause to reassess the reliability of that claim.

How contemporary or near-contemporary documents agree or disagree with the claims in Cook's journals would be irrelevant, in my understanding, to the historical investigation of Cook's visit to Australia.

Not to historians assessing the validity of a claim or set of claims. If Cook's journal didn't jibe with journals of others on the voyage, and documentary evidence pre/post voyage gave no indication that he'd sailed up the coast, that would testify to the reliability of the claims in the document.

The target audience should have little bearing on historical science, except for understanding the culture and genre of the journal.

Actually, it has a MASSIVE bearing on historical investigation and determining the reliability of a source. Some audiences have built in biases that the author may or may not directly acknowledge - a Meiji period samurai and his audience would near-universally accept the claim that the Emperor was 'Arahitogami' - a literal direct descendant of the gods. That doesn't mean its actually so though.

Similarly, the biblical writers (NT & OT) would share plentiful assumptions about the truth of certain things with their audience.

I suggest that an examination of Cook's journals, using some of the criteria/indications of historical reliability pursued for an examination of the historical Jesus.

...

See 'The "Criteria" for Authenticity' by Robert H Stein for an explanation of other criteria of authenticity for historical documents.

'Authenticity' =/= reliability.

 

[OzSpen]

I've read a lot of the DI's purported papers supporting Intelligent Design and they're generally poor and don't provide the evidence the DI purports.

I keep searching for good examples of evidence for Intelligent Design, but I've yet to find any.

If there is sufficient enough to evidence to support it, sure. I've found though that after 20 years of this stuff, the arguments tend to be lacking.

Part of the problem is I find arguments for specific theologies usually carry with them the implicit assumption those theologies are true. But if you don't buy into the theology in question, the arguments fall apart.

As an 'agnostic' how can you put your 'theology' on the shelf to examine any evidence objectively? You can't.

Human beings are 'wonderfully made' (Ps 139:14). Do you agree or disagree?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Similarly, the biblical writers (NT & OT) would share plentiful assumptions about the truth of certain things with their audience.

So does Gene2memE.

 

[OzSpen]

How do you recognize design?

You did not deal with the evidence I provided.

 

[OzSpen]

How do you recognize design?

The Oxford dictionary online states that design is,

Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object.
‘the appearance of design in the universe’ (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v design).​

As I type this post, I'm looking at my fingers, thumbs, hands, arms, skin and arteries bulging on top of my hands.

I see grand purpose and planning behind the hands and arms that allow me to engage in touch typing for this post. There is the appearance of design (purpose and planning) in this part of my human body.

I could go to each part of the body and see exquisite design through God's purpose and planning of the make up of human beings.

Why can't you see it?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Evidence informs my beliefs, and I’m open to all of it.

Now you mentioned you had evidence for creation ex nihilo. So let’s see it.

Evidence informs my beliefs also. I provided you with evidence for creation ex nihilo. But you refuse to accept the evidence.

'The LORD merely spoke, and the heavens were created. He breathed the word, and all the stars were born' (Ps 33:6 NIV).

Are you open to this evidence? If not, why not?

Oz

 

[Gene2memE]

The Oxford dictionary online states that design is,

Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object.
‘the appearance of design in the universe’ (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v design).​

As I type this post, I'm looking at my fingers, thumbs, hands, arms, skin and arteries bulging on top of my hands.

I see grand purpose and planning behind the hands and arms that allow me to engage in touch typing for this post. There is the appearance of design (purpose and planning) in this part of my human body.

I could go to each part of the body and see exquisite design through God's purpose and planning of the make up of human beings.

Why can't you see it?

Oz

Ah yes, the ever convincing argument from 'it's just obvious'. Surely that couldn't be fallacious...

Stating something has the "appearance of design" is not the same as saying it is actually designed. A stone fish or an octopus can have the appearance of a rock, but they are not rocks. Snowflakes and the Giant's Causeway both have the appearance of design, but they are not designed.

Evolution gives the answer to the appearance of design (at least in biology).

 

[gaara4158]

My PhD dissertation had NOTHING to do with creationism. I had to deal with methodology and historical science.

Are you denying that there is such a discipline as historical science?

The same principles of methodology are NOT the same in experimental science and historical science. I know. I spent 5 years writing a 482 page PhD dissertation that dealt with historical science and its valitidy or otherwise.

Oz

I’m not asking about your dissertation. As a broad term to include such disciplines as paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, etc. yes, historical science is a valid scientific discipline. What I’m asking you about is whether you consider these scientific disciplines to be valid. If not, why?

 

[Divide]

Then you believe that "every living thing" has been made a vegetarian in the PAST as Genesis 1:30 clearly states. Sorry, but this is prophecy of a future event which happens AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth. You can read of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 11:7.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

See? Read Isaiah 11 to see the time when these events SHALL happen. Amen?

Huh?! Lol. Yes I'll read that.

 

[pitabread]

I see grand purpose and planning behind the hands and arms that allow me to engage in touch typing for this post.

So a designer created hands and arms with the future intention they would be eventually used for typing?

Or is it that a designer created keyboards to be used by our already-existing hands?

 

[HitchSlap]

You did not deal with the evidence I provided.

View attachment 213561

I must have missed it. All I saw was a bible verse and a link to a book about bible verses. Did you have anything of substance, or was that it?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why can't you see it?



Oz

Purpose... evolution takes care of that. Why can't you see that?