Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Aman777]

There is no shortage of discussion about the origin of life among scientists, and we are doing anything but saying "it just happened, don't ask why".

And how is a natural explanation handwaving? Are you asserting that only explanations that involve the magic power of Goddidit can truly explain things, for reasons you don't want to share?

Changing descending from Water Gen 1:21 to evolving "naturally" from nothing is false, deceptive and ignorant. God told us HOW He did it but many don't believe Him, putting their faith instead in the changeable thoughts of mortal men. In the end, the discoveries of Science will confirm Genesis IF one has the proper interpretation, which can only be understood by those with "increased knowledge" in the last days. Daniel 12:4

 

[Aman777]

Here's a clue: Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

False since Humans (Adam) was made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 AND "every living creature that moveth) was made the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Either God is lying or changeable scientists are wrong, which is why they made their assumptions changeable. Amen?

 

[Herman Hedning]

What's your SQ? (spiritual quotient)...

Decades ago, it was only IQ that was thought to be the only valid form of intelligence. Then fast forward to 1990s and we were introduced to the concept of emotional intelligence – we were told that how we manage our emotions could potentially be even more important than our IQ. And then came 2000, our understanding of the facets of intelligence was further broadened when the idea of spiritual intelligence emerged.

My what now? Well I suppose it is 666 or so. Does that answer your question?

 

[gaara4158]

Herman,

So are you excited about their being no purpose in life for you personally?

Since there is no purpose in the universe and human beings (what you are suggesting), then it's OK for Hitler to enact the slaughter in the Holocaust, the terrorists to smash aeroplanes into the twin towers on Sept 11, 2001, for paedophiles to rape children, etc.

If there is no purpose in the universe, anything a person chooses to do is acceptable.

View attachment 214041

Oz

“Acceptable” is subjective. Nothing is objectively OK or not OK. Everything just “is” and how we feel about it is subjective.

 

[OzSpen]

It's not a hypothesis anyone would pursue, because no one thinks humans evolved from chimpanzees. I think you need to learn a bit about the TOE before you attempt to debate it.

The Smithsonian disagrees:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years (emphasis added, source).​

Is a chimpanzee ape-like?

Oz

 

[gaara4158]

The Smithsonian disagrees:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years (emphasis added, source).​

Is a chimpanzee ape-like?

Oz

Troll. Calling it. You’re a troll. You can’t seriously be saying you don’t know the difference between a cousin and an ancestor.

 

[OzSpen]

I thought you'd been warned against giving heed to endless genealogies?

Jimmy,

1 Tim 1:3b-4 (NIV) states:

You may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith​

Paul writing to Timothy does not command certain people not to teach about the place of genealogies in Scripture. What was Paul commanding against?

• false doctrines,
• myths, and
  
• endless genealogies, which consist of
• controversial speculations.

Paul was not discounting teaching on say, the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, but speculations involving 'endless genealogies'.

To what was he referring?

Many scholars see in genealogies a clear reference to the second-century gnostic emanations. But there seems stronger reasons to suppose that the anonymous false teachers were members of a sect attracted by the more speculative aspects of Judaism. In Tit[us] 1:14, where the same word muthoi [myths] occurs, they are described as Jewish, and there is a strong assumption that Paul has the same kind of people in mind here. An example of the way in which Jewish delight in such speculations led to the composition of mythical histories based on the Old Testament is found in the Jewish book of Jubilees. It was inevitable that methods so unrestrained (endless aperantos, may be understood in this sense) would lead to further questions, and the whole unprofitable business impressed the apostle with its utter futility. No wonder he contrasts it with godly edifying which is in faith (en pistei). The Greek word, oikonomia, rendered edifying ['advancing God's work' NIV], is difficult to translate. It means properly 'the office of stewardship' but came to be used in the sense of 'administration', which is the general Pauline usage (cf. 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2, 9). Moffatt renders the phrase 'the divine order which belongs to faith', but as Scott points out 'the contrast is between two activities, not between two views of the world'. Paul has just stressed the pointlessness of the false teaching and now contrasts this with the discipline which belongs to faith (RSV 'the divine training' (Donald Guthrie 1957/1990. The Pastoral Epistles. Nottingham UK: Inter-Varsity Press).
​

Therefore, Jimmy, I recommend that you do more research into the meaning of not giving heed to endless genealogies.

Here you have given AV a one-line jab in the intellectual 'ribs', without providing evidence to support your statement.

Oz

 

[Divide]

My what now? Well I suppose it is 666 or so. Does that answer your question?

Wow. Well...yeah it sure does.

 

[OzSpen]

That is a very strange viewpoint that, unfortunately, many christians seem to take. That there is no directed purpose for life, the universe, and everything (except for 42) does of course not mean that my life and actions can't have purpose and meaning to myself as well as to those I interact with.

As for your nonsense about terrorists, Hitler, and paedophiles - no, just no. Don't go there ...

I asked you if there was any directed purpose in the universe and your reply was: 'Correct, there is no directed purpose'.

If there is no directed purpose, anyone can choose whatever morality they want to pursue and you and I have no reason for objection because there is no 'directed purpose in the universe' (your words).

I was pointing to the logical conclusions of your 'no-directed-purpose' world view. There's nothing we can do to stop the terrorists, Hitler, paedophiles, September 11, etc. If they are pursuing their own 'purpose', why should any person, army or government stop them?

A purposeless universe means a purposeless life with no direction. Hitler was, therefore, right in doing whatever he wanted to do in his purposeless life. Why stop him?

That's the logical conclusion of your purposeless worldview.

Oz

 

[gaara4158]

If there is no directed purpose, anyone can choose whatever morality they want to pursue and you and I have no reason for objection because there is no 'directed purpose in the universe' (your words).

Wrong. Reasons for objection can draw from shared values and goals, regardless of the universe’s indifference.

 

[OzSpen]

I thought you'd been warned against giving heed to endless genealogies?

You have committed an Appeal to Self-Evident Truth Fallacy.

How come? This fallacy means that you have asked a question that presumes AV1611 has made a statement that supports genealogies, which your claim is that it comes under the category of 'endless genealogies'.

What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to others.

Your fallacy has this outline of explanation:

AV1611: He made a statement about Jesus' genealogy from Luke 3.

Jimmy: He claims that AV should have taken notice of the warning about giving 'heed to endless genealogies'.

Oz: Jimmy didn't provide the evidence to demonstrate that AV had used 'endless genealogies' in his statement from Luke 3. Oz provided evidence that Jimmy should have given to show that Jimmy's own question was irrelevant because he provided no support for it.

Jimmy: He is asking the question, with the assumption that the meaning of 'endless genealogies' is self-evident. He assumed that AV, Oz and other people on CFnet know the meaning of 'endless genealogies'.

Jimmy, you are using erroneous reasoning. You have put up a question that indicates you know the meaning of 'endless genealogies', but you provided no defense for it to explain your understanding. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy that you used.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

My what now? Well I suppose it is 666 or so. Does that answer your question?

That is ridicule!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's not a hypothesis anyone would pursue, because no one thinks humans evolved from chimpanzees. I think you need to learn a bit about the TOE before you attempt to debate it.

Imagine if you could show transitional fossils from Chimpanzee to human. Disproving ToE. Wow!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If there is no directed purpose, anyone can choose whatever morality they want to pursue and you and I have no reason for objection because there is no 'directed purpose in the universe' (your words).

Non sequitur

That's the logical conclusion of your purposeless worldview.

No, it isn't.

 

[Jimmy D]

The Smithsonian disagrees:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years (emphasis added, source).​

Is a chimpanzee ape-like?

Oz

Of course it's an ape, taxonomically so are we, but that doesn't mean it's our ancestor. If you don't understand these basic things I'm not sure these debates are for you.

 

[Jimmy D]

You have committed an Appeal to Self-Evident Truth Fallacy.

How come? This fallacy means that you have asked a question that presumes AV1611 has made a statement that supports genealogies, which your claim is that it comes under the category of 'endless genealogies'.

What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to others.

Your fallacy has this outline of explanation:

AV1611: He made a statement about Jesus' genealogy from Luke 3.

Jimmy: He claims that AV should have taken notice of the warning about giving 'heed to endless genealogies'.

Oz: Jimmy didn't provide the evidence to demonstrate that AV had used 'endless genealogies' in his statement from Luke 3. Oz provided evidence that Jimmy should have given to show that Jimmy's own question was irrelevant because he provided no support for it.

Jimmy: He is asking the question, with the assumption that the meaning of 'endless genealogies' is self-evident. He assumed that AV, Oz and other people on CFnet know the meaning of 'endless genealogies'.

Jimmy, you are using erroneous reasoning. You have put up a question that indicates you know the meaning of 'endless genealogies', but you provided no defense for it to explain your understanding. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy that you used.

Oz

No, it was a joke, maybe not a particularly funny one, but a few posts before that AV bought up the endless genealogies quote in reference to common descent. I am perfectly aware of what Paul was talking about thanks.

Good job at sucking the humour out it though.

 

[Herman Hedning]

My what now? Well I suppose it is 666 or so. Does that answer your question?

That is ridicule!

Really? Since I have no idea what Spiritual Quotient is and how it's supposed to be measured, I just took a number at random.

 

[OzSpen]

Non sequitur

That's your personal opinion. I did not engage in fallacious reasoning. I demonstrated the consequences of what happens in a purposeless universe.

 

[OzSpen]

Of course it's an ape, taxonomically so are we, but that doesn't mean it's our ancestor. If you don't understand these basic things I'm not sure these debates are for you.

So are you the expert in ToE (theory of evolution). Are you accusing me of being an ignoramus about ToE?

 

[OzSpen]

Really? Since I have no idea what Spiritual Quotient is and how it's supposed to be measured, I just took a number at random.

I didn't use the term Spiritual Quotient. That was another poster!