Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[OzSpen]

Just curiosity.
I've lived in the "Bible Belt" here--that is, where creationists are most heavily concentrated (basically the same territory as the old Confederate States). I've seen them in action where they are in the majority and know what their political goals are. I am curious to know how that plays out in another country.

Again, what's the title of the OP?

 

[Speedwell]

Again, what's the title of the OP?

So, what's your evidence?

 

[OzSpen]

Well said! Why are no creationists presenting any evidence?

Jimmy,

I am presenting the evidence, but you won't receive it because it doesn't fit with the presuppositions of your worldview.

You won't break through this barrier until you are open to ALL of the evidence. So far you've demonstrated that you will not accept the creationist/ID evidence.

Dr Hugh Ross, astronomer, presents more evidence for ID in the moon's design in, Lunar Designs Optimize Life for Both Predators and Prey

Will you receive this evidence?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So, what's your evidence?

I've presented it over and over but you have a blind spot in seeing and accepting the evidence because of your worldview.

 

[Speedwell]

Jimmy,

I am presenting the evidence, but you won't receive it because it doesn't fit with the presuppositions of your worldview.

You won't break through this barrier until you are open to ALL of the evidence. So far you've demonstrated that you will not accept the creationist/ID evidence.

Dr Hugh Ross, astronomer, presents more evidence for ID in the moon's design in, Lunar Designs Optimize Life for Both Predators and Prey

Will you receive this evidence?

Oz

Sure. I observe things like that all the time. For instance, I observe that my legs are exactly the right length to reach the ground. If they were any shorter, my feet wouldn't touch the ground, and if they were any longer I would have to walk around with my knees bent. Obvious evidence of design.

 

[OzSpen]

Well said! Why are no creationists presenting any evidence?

What's your definition of 'NO'? For how many posts have I been presenting evidence that you refuse to accept? The issue is NOT 'no evidence' but the evolutionist's ability to see and acknowledge the evidence presented.

 

[OzSpen]

Sure. I observe things like that all the time. For instance, I observe that my legs are exactly the right length to reach the ground. If they were any shorter, my feet wouldn't touch the ground, and if they were any longer I would have to walk around with my knees bent. Obvious evidence of design.

Again, you refuse to deal with the evidence I presented?

What is your tactic called?

 

[Speedwell]

Again, you refuse to deal with the evidence I presented?

What is your tactic called?

Because your evidence isn't evidence for "design." If anything, it's evidence that creatures have adapted to varying levels of nightime lighting. If the moon behaved differently, then creatures would behave differently, too. So what? None of that anthropic principle stuff makes it as evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of that anthropic principle stuff makes it as evidence.

If the Anthropic Principle wasn't in effect, we wouldn't be in the image & likeness of God, would we?

None of that puddle analogy stuff makes it as refutation.

 

[Speedwell]

If the Anthropic Principle wasn't in effect, we wouldn't be in the image & likeness of God, would we?

None of that puddle analogy stuff makes it as refutation.

Why not? If God made us in His likeness and image, does that necessarily mean God placed the Moon where it is specifically to benefit nocturnal mammals? Or did He place it where it is for some reason that we don't know about? Or perhaps He just let it wind up where it wound up and the nocturnal mammals learned to take advantage of it? How would you tell?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not? If God made us in His likeness and image, does that necessarily mean God placed the Moon where it is specifically to benefit nocturnal mammals? Or did He place it where it is for some reason that we don't know about? Or perhaps He just let it wind up where it wound up and the nocturnal mammals learned to take advantage of it? How would you tell?

I was talking about the Anthropic Principle in its entirety, not just the moon.

I don't think the moon is a very good example of scientific evidence against creationism.

Scientists have come up with about eight ways we got it, they deny proprietary light to claim the Bible is wrong about it being a light source, they changed their calculations about the depth of the dust on its surface, and they refuse to invoke relativity when it comes to blaming Joshua for geocentrism.

 

[Speedwell]

I was talking about the Anthropic Principle in its entirety, not just the moon.

I don't think the moon is a very good example of scientific evidence against creationism.

The placement of the Moon is being as evidence for creationism, on the grounds that its light benefits nocturnal mammals.

 

[AV1611VET]

The placement of the Moon is being as evidence for creationism, on the grounds that its light benefits nocturnal mammals.

According to the Bible, and to answer your question:

Or did He place it where it is for some reason that we don't know about?

... God created the moon, among other things, to "rule the night."

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

[pitabread]

Dr Hugh Ross, astronomer, presents more evidence for ID in the moon's design in, Lunar Designs Optimize Life for Both Predators and Prey

Will you receive this evidence?

That entire article is one giant post hoc fallacy. It's essentially arguing that because life is adapted to lunar cycles, therefore the lunar cycles were created with life in mind.

However, life has evolves in response to its environment (which includes the moon), consequently adaptations that we observe is a result of that evolution. Not the other way around.

 

[Jimmy D]

What's your definition of 'NO'? For how many posts have I been presenting evidence that you refuse to accept? The issue is NOT 'no evidence' but the evolutionist's ability to see and acknowledge the evidence presented.

I must have missed them, although I did have a quick look through the thread. I apologise if I'm mistaken, maybe a giving a link to the post would help.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy,

I am presenting the evidence, but you won't receive it because it doesn't fit with the presuppositions of your worldview.

You won't break through this barrier until you are open to ALL of the evidence. So far you've demonstrated that you will not accept the creationist/ID evidence.

Dr Hugh Ross, astronomer, presents more evidence for ID in the moon's design in, Lunar Designs Optimize Life for Both Predators and Prey

Will you receive this evidence?

Oz

Pitabread has said all that needs to be said about that article.

 

[OzSpen]

I must have missed them, although I did have a quick look through the thread. I apologise if I'm mistaken, maybe a giving a link to the post would help.

You want me to provide evidence that you don't accept as evidence. I'm not entering into that pointless exercise AGAIN.

 

[OzSpen]

Because your evidence isn't evidence for "design." If anything, it's evidence that creatures have adapted to varying levels of nightime lighting. If the moon behaved differently, then creatures would behave differently, too. So what? None of that anthropic principle stuff makes it as evidence.

None of your explaining away evidence causes actual evidence to be annulled.

 

[OzSpen]

However, life has evolves in response to its environment (which includes the moon), consequently adaptations that we observe is a result of that evolution. Not the other way around.

That's your presuppositional theory that needs to be proved by evidence. So far all I've received is your evolutionary presuppositions, not factual data.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Pitabread has said all that needs to be said about that article.

Again, you refuse to deal with the content of what I wrote to you.