Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2017

Astrophile said:
Do you think that the heart, lungs, kidneys and brains of chimpanzees are exquisitely designed?

Yes, and so are the internal working of birds and insects. Take the Rosella parrot in my avatar. It is exquisitely designed and beautifully coloured.

Speedwell · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
Who made the very first primates or slime?

Theists believe it was God who brought the first life into existence--whether through natural causes or otherwise. Atheists, presumably, believe it was natural causes. The point is really not germaine to this discussion, which is not about the existence of God, but about the Bible.

Gene2memE · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
You deflected to another topic,

I'm doing nothing of the sort

OzSpen said:
even though you used similar words.

In order to show you that your unfounded assertion can, with just a little modification, be used to oppose your point as much as support it.

OzSpen said:
You dished up a red herring fallacy, which is ' Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument'

I raised no herrings in your path, red or otherwise.

I'd provided you with information demonstrating that biological evolution resolves the 'appearance of design' quandary. You just rejected it out of hand, using the arguments "You must be trying to kid me" and "I find it laughable".

Convincing, evidentially supported, rational answers these are not.

You then raise a ScienceDaily article about the Cambrian explosion - this is a topic I'm personally interested in and have researched, so I provided some additional information.

OzSpen said:
We can't have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

I addressed your points with the same level of evidential support that you did. I addressed only the topics you raised. The "fallacies" I committed, weren't.

OzSpen said:
I find it incredulous that you revert to fallacies to avoid dealing with the reliable biblical evidence for creation.

Oz

That's really all you've got, isn't it? Personal incredulity.

Lets look at your phrasing in this thread.
"You must be trying to kid me"
"I find it laughable"
"I find it incredulous"
"Purpose in slime to human beings!!"

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2017

gaara4158 said:
Oz, you have to understand this. I’m not out here trying to land a “gotcha” with these questions. When I ask for evidence, I’m asking because I don’t know how you’re coming to the conclusions you’re coming to. It’s common for creationists to feel needled by these hard lines of questioning, but they’re necessary when what you’re saying goes against the consensus of the scientific community. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I thought by "evolutionary assumptions" you were referring to biological evolution, but apparently you're also including cosmic evolution. Makes a little more sense, but still wrong. The solar nebula model isn't an untestable assumption. It makes falsifiable predictions that are tested by collection of data on missions like Rosetta. Although it faces problems in some areas, it's the most widely-accepted model because it offers explanations for a variety of properties of the solar system. Seriously, do some research outside creationist websites every once and a while. You'd know this already.

Again, cosmology is not based on an assumption of evolution, cosmic or otherwise. Physical cosmology is a multidisciplinary field of study that makes no more assumptions than the basic assumptions of science (https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions). It's obvious to all of us that you accuse scientists of making undue assumptions because you know you're doing it and you're trying to level the playing field. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Well, you never started, but I can't say I'm surprised. Yawn.

Cosmology cannot engage in experimental science as no repeatability with experiments is possible.

I provided you with evidence, but because it is not within your evolutionary worldview, you give me a straw man

Oz

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2017

Speedwell said:
Theists believe it was God who brought the first life into existence--whether through natural causes or otherwise. Atheists, presumably, believe it was natural causes. The point is really not germaine to this discussion, which is not about the existence of God, but about the Bible.

No, the point of this thread is not 'about the Bible' but about evidence for creation and intelligent design.

Yes, the reliable historical evidence from the Bible is PART of the evidence. I've provided evidence from nature of wonderful design, but the evolutionists won't accept that view because of their presuppositions against design in nature and historical science from Scripture.

Are you supporting a theistic or atheistic take on creation/ID?

Oz

Speedwell · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
No, the point of this thread is not 'about the Bible' but about evidence for creation and intelligent design.

Yes, the reliable historical evidence from the Bible is PART of the evidence. I've provided evidence from nature of wonderful design, but the evolutionists won't accept that view because of their presuppositions against design in nature and historical science from Scripture.

Are you supporting a theistic or atheistic take on creation/ID?

Oz

My view, as a theist, is that nothing which science has discovered or potentially can discover about the natural world will falsify divine creation. And no, I don't believe the Bible has any "reliable historical information" which bears on the subject.

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2017

Gene2memE said:
I'm doing nothing of the sort

In order to show you that your unfounded assertion can, with just a little modification, be used to oppose your point as much as support it.

I raised no herrings in your path, red or otherwise.

I'd provided you with information demonstrating that biological evolution resolves the 'appearance of design' quandary. You just rejected it out of hand, using the arguments "You must be trying to kid me" and "I find it laughable".

Convincing, evidentially supported, rational answers these are not.

You then raise a ScienceDaily article about the Cambrian explosion - this is a topic I'm personally interested in and have researched, so I provided some additional information.

I addressed your points with the same level of evidential support that you did. I addressed only the topics you raised. The "fallacies" I committed, weren't.

That's really all you've got, isn't it? Personal incredulity.

Lets look at your phrasing in this thread.
"You must be trying to kid me"
"I find it laughable"
"I find it incredulous"
"Purpose in slime to human beings!!"

Gene,

I wrote:

'Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed' (#1242)

Your reply began:

'Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution' (#1267).

I wrote about organs of the human body being 'exquisitely designed', in support of ID.

How did your response begin? It dealt with the biology of human organs being 'products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution'.

My topic was ID; yours was biological evolution. You diverted attention from ID to your presupposition of evolution.

I said 'you deflected to another topic' (#1271) and so committed a red herring fallacy.

Now you deny that. In the face of the FACTS: I discussed ID and you responded with evolution. So you DID deflect from ID to biological evolution. You did NOT deal with the fact that human beings are 'exquisitely designed'. You did NOT provide evidence to demonstrate there was no such ID in human beings or nature.

Your 'deflecting' and red herring fallacy are the correct labelling of what you did.

Oz

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2017

Speedwell said:
My view, as a theist, is that nothing which science has discovered or potentially can discover about the natural world will falsify divine creation. And no, I don't believe the Bible has any "reliable historical information" which bears on the subject.

Speedwell,

You've given me your anti-reliability of the Bible presupposition and the presupposition that your theism does not require any conflict with science's discovery of the natural world (evolutionary in most cases) and divine creation.

You and I know that your presuppositions are those of theological liberalism that denies the authority of Scripture.

See: Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline by Dean R. Hoge

Oz

Speedwell · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
Speedwell,

You've given me your anti-reliability of the Bible presupposition and the presupposition that your theism does not require any conflict with science's discovery of the natural world (evolutionary in most cases) and divine creation.

You and I know that your presuppositions are those of theological liberalism that denies the authority of Scripture.

See: Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline by Dean R. Hoge

Oz

No, I don't deny the authority of scripture, only your authority to dictate to me how to interpret it. The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance, not from its adherence to any particular literary genre. Further, your links rest on the assumption of Sola Scriptura, which--as I am not a Protestant--means nothing to me.

gaara4158 · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
Cosmology cannot engage in experimental science as no repeatability with experiments is possible.

I provided you with evidence, but because it is not within your evolutionary worldview, you give me a straw man

Oz

And we're back to the very first thing I replied to you with.

You keep using that word, "repeatable." I do not think it means what you think it means. Pay very close attention, because I will be referring you to this post whenever you bring up this sticking point in the future: No, we cannot repeat past events. However, that doesn't leave us in the dark about the past, not if we're clever. If we know enough about the present, we can uncover clues about the past. If we can reliably demonstrate facts about the present (this is where repeatability comes in) paired with our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology (all demonstrated by repeatable experiments), we can construct a robust, scientific model of the past without having to repeat it.

For example, let's say you come home and you find your front window broken. There is a brick lying amid shards of broken glass in your living room just below the broken window. What happened? Can you figure it out? You can't repeat the past, so how will you ever find out what happened? Let's say there were no witnesses.

Because of what you know about physics, you know a blunt force must have been applied to your window to make it shatter like that. You also know the force must have come from outside, because the glass is sitting inside your house, not outside. What about the brick? It's lying among the shards. It wasn't there before. Its mass, volume, and density make it a good candidate for a glass-breaking object. Have you put it together yet? Given what you know about bricks, you know they don't fly through windows of their own volition. They have to be projected. By what means could it have been projected? Humans are the most common users of projectiles, although other animals have been known to use them on occasion as well. But you don't know of any such animals in your neighborhood. You conclude that a human has thrown a brick through your window just by investigating the clues left by the event. Congratulations! And you did it all without evolutionary presuppositions.

Gene2memE · Nov 21, 2017

OzSpen said:
Gene,

I wrote:

'Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed' (#1242)

Your reply began:

'Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution' (#1267).

I wrote about organs of the human body being 'exquisitely designed', in support of ID.

How did your response begin? It dealt with the biology of human organs being 'products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution'.

My topic was ID; yours was biological evolution. You diverted attention from ID to your presupposition of evolution.

...

Now you deny that. In the face of the FACTS: I discussed ID and you responded with evolution. So you DID deflect from ID to biological evolution.

First of all, neither my name, nor my nom de plume, is "Gene".

Secondly, ID is only raised as an alternative to evolutionary biology. It is impossible to have a debate about the merits and plausibility of ID vs evolutionary biology without mentioning the latter. Ergo, it is not a deflection.

Thirdly, you raised evolutionary biology EXPLICITLY in your following paragraph. So, you yourself made mention of it - "I find it laughable that intelligent scientists are so fixated on the evolutionary methodology that ScienceDaily can report" - thus it cannot be either a deflection or a red herring.

OzSpen said:
You did NOT deal with the fact that human beings are 'exquisitely designed'.

I did not, because you did not support that claim with anything bar bare assertion. I, on the other hand, a least provided a link to information that shows why evolution provides an answer to the appearance of design. Hitchens razor would seem to apply: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The best available evidence, gleaned from 160+ years of study, demonstrates that human beings are not 'exquisitely designed'. What the evidence shows is that we are the products of hundreds of millions of years of biological trial and error, operating under a principle of natural selection (among others). Otherwise, we wouldn't have DNA full of noncoding regions, atavisms, a broken GULO gene, vestigial structures, a fused chromosome 2, an identifiable phylogentic tree with other hominids and shared endogenous retroviruses. That, or the 'Designer' is far from 'exquisite' at designing.

Tell me, if you had no religious beliefs, would you still be a cdesign proponentsistst? Is that the hat you hang your scientific beliefs about biology on?

For example, evidence demonstrates that human hands are more primitive than those of our close genetic cousins, the chimpanzees (link to full study in Nature). What is the creationist/ID explanation for such a fact? Not the refutation of the evolutionary reasoning, but the creationist/ID reasoning for such a thing, on its own.

OzSpen · Nov 22, 2017

Speedwell said:
No, I don't deny the authority of scripture, only your authority to dictate to me how to interpret it. The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance, not from its adherence to any particular literary genre. Further, your links rest on the assumption of Sola Scriptura, which--as I am not a Protestant--means nothing to me.

Not true! I'm not dictating to you how to interpret Scripture. You can interpret it whichever way you want, my perspective will be that of 'the divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct' (Evangelical Alliance #3).

I have a biblical responsibility to practise Acts 17:11 (NRSV), 'These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so'.

My links DO NOT rest on the assumption of sola scriptura. They rest on this authority: 'All Scripture is God-breathed' (2 Tim 3:16 NIV). That seems to be in agreement with your statement, 'The authority of scripture derives from its divine provenance'.

Under your avatar, it states you are an Anglican but you claim that you are not a Protestant. Does that mean you are in an Anglican diocese that is opposed to the origin and continuation of Anglicanism worldwide, which is Protestant?

Anglicanism, one of the major branches of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation and a form of Christianity that includes features of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Anglicanism is loosely organized in the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of religious bodies that represents the offspring of the Church of England and recognizes the archbishop of Canterbury as its nominal head (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2017. s v Anglicanism).

Oz

Jimmy D · Nov 22, 2017

OzSpen said:
Who made the very first primates or slime?

Their parents.

OzSpen · Nov 22, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Their parents.

And who created them?

Jimmy D · Nov 22, 2017

OzSpen said:
And who created them?

Their parents.

What are you not getting?

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Their parents.

OzSpen said:
And who created them?

Jimmy D said:
Their parents.

Now you know why the Bible refers to evolution as:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

OzSpen · Nov 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Now you know why the Bible refers to evolution as:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Do you really think this refers to the issues relating to evolution we have discussed?

I think you'll need to demonstrate that evolution is a fable. We are dealing with 'endless genealogies' when it was stated that primates were created by their parents and on-and-on it goes back to the first primate 'parents'. That's my understanding of 'endless genealogies'.

At some point one has to admit, (1) The universe, and thus human beings, are eternal - with no beginning, or (2) There was an eternal Being (God) who created the first human beings. Surely the current discussion
in scientific circles of the Big Bang points towards a beginning.

Oz

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2017

OzSpen said:
Do you really think this refers to the issues relating to evolution we have discussed?

Affirmative.

Jimmy D · Nov 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Now you know why the Bible refers to evolution as:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Yes that's right, it is so obviously refering to evolution, good old Timmy!

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Yes that's right, it is so obviously refering to evolution, good old Timmy!

The Bible uses simple terminology that any child can understand, and that is also useful as time changes.

A good example would be the term: "horseless carriage."

A horseless carriage could refer to everything from the Model A to an F-350 pickup.

A "bird" could be an avian animal, or it could be an airplane.

Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency