Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

It's not about the existence of God. It's about the Bible.

Well if God is real, then His word is real and truth also. So...it is about the Bible.

 

[Divide]

If you didn’t have these faith-affirming experiences, would it be enough to convince you for someone to just tell you “hey, it’s the truth, man!”

Well, I have an analytical mind and learned critical thinking at a pretty young age, so...I was already reading the scriptures even before I gave my life to God and He began doing things in my life to give me these experiences and help...and I was of the mindset of...ya' know, I can see this being the truth, and that, all we really have is our mind and what is inside of it...and (the war within)...everyone outside screaming and yelling and going off on all these tangents that are...patently absurd most of the time...(lol), so yeah, to answer your question, I would say yes because I was about there there anyway whenever I...ran into a life and death situation and cried out to God to help me...and He did. So yes.

Actually, in hindsight, now, I can see that, it was very probably a spiritual attack upon me, and they tried to kill me, so that I would perish before receiving salvation. Luckily, I cried out to God...and said, Lord be with me...and He was, so saved me.

 

[Divide]

When the bible verses come out, you know that the creationist has lost.

Thank you for making my point, Lol. (in another post)

 

[Divide]

Special pleading is a form of erroneous argument in which people essentially demand that the standard of evidence that their position has to meet in order to be considered valid be lowered. It's one of the more subtle terrible debate tactics, and people do it accidentally a lot. One of the most common forms of it is demanding significantly more evidence from the opposing position to even consider it, compared to the small amount of evidence necessary to believe one's own position.


Sure, why would I care what you personally believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Most atheists do not care if other people are believers (most care so little they'd never get involved in discussions about religion).


Honestly, you aren't frustrating to talk to. The only frustrating thing about you is the fact that you want to debate evolution and not put in the time to learn about it, and that's fairly mild. I could give some decent summaries for you, so that you know enough to get by on without having to get a college degree. Request and I will send one as a private message on here.

The real frustration comes from people bogged down with misinformation, because they are absolutely convinced that the garbage they spew is accurate, and there is no correcting them.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but...aren't you replying to my response to a different poster?
That's ok I suppose, because, you're one of the cooler people to talk with with here. You're of a few differing views, but emotionally stable and not obnoxious like some, lol. You're ok Sister, I like you!

I know some about evolution theory, less than some, but more than others. Enough about the foundational parts at least, but it seems to be sort of evolving as a theory lately also, and I admit to not keeping up with that portion of it, because I have previously heard enough of it to, in my mind, find cause to reject it, so have not spent time learning more and more of what I don't believe anyway.

I know that frustrates some, the ones who...seemingly can only parrot what they have read and get frustrated and lash out and try to denounce me because I am not a PHD in it...So There! HA HA, and all that...when they don't even really have a grasp on it themselves. I can't talk to those types, lol. It's all really ego to them anyway and it's a wonder...why they even hang out on a Christian board if they believe those things and don't believe scripture, nor are even willing to consider it as a possibility of it being true. They just, like putting people down I guess.

You want to take it to private message, and discuss some of this Sister? Sure. That sounds cool. We could actually have a conversation without a bunch of noise, Lol! And you talk reasonably and intelligent, yet are open minded enough to be able to realize that...hey, I could be wrong about some things and God could be real...Tada! The mark of genius in today's world, lol.
And I have already admitted that I can be wrong about some things and can learn. I am teachable, because ego doesn't really have a priority in my life. So this could be fun. And we both might just learn some things from each other.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, I have an analytical mind and learned critical thinking at a pretty young age, so...I was already reading the scriptures even before I gave my life to God and He began doing things in my life to give me these experiences and help...and I was of the mindset of...ya' know, I can see this being the truth, and that, all we really have is our mind and what is inside of it...and (the war within)...everyone outside screaming and yelling and going off on all these tangents that are...patently absurd most of the time...(lol), so yeah, to answer your question, I would say yes because I was about there there anyway whenever I...ran into a life and death situation and cried out to God to help me...and He did. So yes.

Actually, in hindsight, now, I can see that, it was very probably a spiritual attack upon me, and they tried to kill me, so that I would perish before receiving salvation. Luckily, I cried out to God...and said, Lord be with me...and He was, so saved me.

I’m struggling to suss out what you mean here. I asked you if you thought you could be convinced of the Bible’s divine inspiration without the help of subjective experience, and you answer yes. But then you cite your reason as being a subjective experience. Did you mean no?

The reason I’m asking is because there are many here who do not share your experiences. If it’s your experiences that convinced you, those won’t convince anyone else. Why should they believe you? They would need to have the experience for themselves, just like you did since that’s what convinced you.

I understand your faith and your style of argument. I used to think the same way as you. In fact, my very first posts on this website were from your side. You’re sure you’re right, so you don’t really care about the facts. No matter what anyone explains to you, no matter how much sense they make, it only impresses you how convincing the Devil can be and how thankful you are to know the Truth. You can’t be wrong, because if you are then you’ll have to re-assess your entire worldview, lose the hope your faith has provided you, and find a whole new meaning to life. This is no small adjustment and I sympathize. That’s why I’m taking this time to explain to you that the people who are convinced by evolution are not convinced by the same things that convince you of your belief. We are convinced by evidence, not anecdotes. If you truly wish to change our minds, become fluent in the evidence.

 

[Skreeper]

I...ran into a life and death situation and cried out to God to help me...and He did.

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that your god was the cause of you being saved. Could it have been something else that resulted in you being saved?

If you claim you are a critical thinker then maybe you should start to critically think about that for a while.

 

[Divide]

I’m struggling to suss out what you mean here. I asked you if you thought you could be convinced of the Bible’s divine inspiration without the help of subjective experience, and you answer yes. But then you cite your reason as being a subjective experience. Did you mean no?

The reason I’m asking is because there are many here who do not share your experiences. If it’s your experiences that convinced you, those won’t convince anyone else. Why should they believe you? They would need to have the experience for themselves, just like you did since that’s what convinced you.

I understand your faith and your style of argument. I used to think the same way as you. In fact, my very first posts on this website were from your side. You’re sure you’re right, so you don’t really care about the facts. No matter what anyone explains to you, no matter how much sense they make, it only impresses you how convincing the Devil can be and how thankful you are to know the Truth. You can’t be wrong, because if you are then you’ll have to re-assess your entire worldview, lose the hope your faith has provided you, and find a whole new meaning to life. This is no small adjustment and I sympathize. That’s why I’m taking this time to explain to you that the people who are convinced by evolution are not convinced by the same things that convince you of your belief. We are convinced by evidence, not anecdotes. If you truly wish to change our minds, become fluent in the evidence.

Hmmm. Maybe I misunderstood you. (Or you me?, idk.) But I thought you meant, aside from my spiritual experiences, would I have become convinced of the reality of God and the truth of the bible's words? I think yes, because even when not walking with God, I was reading His word here and there and considering the possibilities of it perhaps being true.

And weighing those words against those of the worlds, and scientists and stuff, who say we came from a mud puddle which evolved into monkeys and then man, against God, who says that He created us...I thought that, it's just twilight zone enough to be able to be true. And I was leaning that way...and then was attacked for it.

A word about facts here. Tis true, I made a subjective determination. However, the so-called scientific "facts" that are given to us...are they really "facts"? And how do we know that they are facts? Scientific facts are discovered through observation and experimentation and testing and so forth. If the experiments are repeatable then they become predictable and thus, factual (Loosely speaking), right? Pretty much.

I'm an HVAC guy, so I'll use entropy as an example. Heat flows from hot to cold, and the greater the temperature differential, the faster the flow occurs. This is a well known established fact and can be tested, repeatedly tested and will always have the same result. This makes it a fact. One scientist first said, Heat flows from hot to cold. Another scientist said, I'm not sure about that, I'll test the theory to see if it is true...So he fills up his swimming pool on a hot sunny day with ice to make a huge glass of ice-water...and watches and waits to see what happens. Will the ice in the pool eventually melt, and the water return to the ambient temperature outside, or, will the ambient temperature near the pool become cooler as the coldness flows into the heat?

He sets up many thermometers in and around the pool area. and continually checks them and observes the readings. Eventually, the ice melted and the water temperature began rising until after awhile it became as hot as the ambient temperature outside. Now he knows that the suspect scientist was correct in his assertion and that, heat flows from hot to cold so this can be determined to be a fact.

I have even tested this for myself. People have always said, hot water freezes faster than cold water. Is this true or not? So I tested it myself to find out, and the test actually tested and proved the above fact at the same time. (that heat flows from H to C). I have a digital dual thermometer which uses (K-type) thermocouple sensors which are essentially a thermometer on a tiny wire, so I could fill two glasses with water 1 hot/1 cold and put them both in the freezer, run the wire out the door to my meter and continually check the readings of both glasses of water without having to open the freezer door. I remember using tap water for the experiment and the cold water temp was 58°F, and the hot water temp was 121°F (what my water heater was set at). I have dropped the decimal point reading as unessential for purposes of discussion.

I watched and waited. The hot water began dropping in temp faster than the cold water! Maybe they're right?! The cold water was also dropping in temp, but at a slower rate. I almost wanted to go ahead and stop the test because it seemed to be obvious that the hot water was dropping in temp faster thus indicating that the people who said hot water freezes faster are correct. But something inside of me made me want to see the experiment through completely to gather ALL of the results and have all the data. You never know, Lol.

So I did. As the temperature of both glasses of water started approaching the freezing point, the hot water glass slowed its rate of temperature drop until it was only dropping in temp a little bit faster than the cold glass. Interesting! Very near the freeze point, it became hard to discern exactly which glass was dropping in temp faster than the other because they were both dropping very slowly. The temps in both glasses were becoming closer and closer to each other. The conclusion of the test and answer to the question became clear. The two glasses of water essentially froze at the same time. So the asserted fact that hot water freezes faster than cold water is untrue and no fact at all. I also proved that heat flows from hot to cold, and the greater the temperature differential, the faster the flow. I also proved that stopping a test early would have concluded incorrect results and that tests should be seen through even though early results seem to obviously say one thing or another. (Lol!)

So I established a fact in my mind. Agree? Ok, now then (Lol), What scientific fact are you saying that I am wrongfully objecting/rejecting to? Is it indeed a fact? Testable by me? By you? Or is it a perported fact that has been put forth as truth? How do you know they are facts? What have YOU tested? What have other scientists tested that confirms or denys the supposed fact? Ask yourself this Brother, have you accepted as a fact something that you have not personally tested, but merely subjectively, put your faith into...as true? Or even another scientist which claims he tested (whatever) and also "knows" to be true?

Many things that are put forth as factual, are not even testable by us! We must subjectively determine for ourselves if the material that is purported to be be facts is something that we choose to believe as a fact because it wasn't testable. Either by us or by other scientists. Sometimes it may not be testable by us personally, but is by another scientist who is trained in the area and so can. But then again, we ourselves are back to being subjective as to, do we want to put our faith into that scientist and believe him? Just because he sounds believable doesn't always mean that he is telling the truth.

I can read body language pretty good, but I'm no expert. And some have been trained in the use of certain body language signals to use to be able to fool customers into believing them...so they can make the sale (car salesman for ex.). An expert in body language can spot the other 'tells' that manifest when one lies and suppresses true signals. The point being that all is not as it seems, and all facts may not be facts at all.

Geez this got long. Sorry. Did I answer your question of why I answered like I did, and considered a subjective answer to be a valid answer?

 

[gaara4158]

I think yes, because even when not walking with God, I was reading His word here and there and considering the possibilities of it perhaps being true.

I am interested in the reasons you considered its truth even possible, given some of the downright outlandish claims found within. Talking animals, the dead rising, a global flood... these are things that don't happen in real life. They may have some value taken as cultural artifacts, but true? Only in the most abstract sense... if at all.

And weighing those words against those of the worlds, and scientists and stuff, who say we came from a mud puddle which evolved into monkeys and then man, against God, who says that He created us...I thought that, it's just twilight zone enough to be able to be true.

You jumped the gun there a bit, didn't you? You say you weighed the words of scientists against God's. If you were still deciding what you believed, shouldn't you have said you were weighing the words of scientists against the words of scripture/religious authorities? I mean, if you already knew it was God's word you'd already made your decision.

What scientific fact are you saying that I am wrongfully objecting/rejecting to? Is it indeed a fact? Testable by me? By you? Or is it a perported fact that has been put forth as truth? How do you know they are facts? What have YOU tested? What have other scientists tested that confirms or denys the supposed fact? Ask yourself this Brother, have you accepted as a fact something that you have not personally tested, but merely subjectively, put your faith into...as true? Or even another scientist which claims he tested (whatever) and also "knows" to be true?

You are claiming that evolution is false even though you admit you have a very limited understanding of it, right? Evolution is a theory based on facts like natural selection, the fossil record, and genetics. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution itself isn't a "fact" because it's an ever-changing model of the tree of life as we know it. Scientists have been testing the theory for over 150 years. Plenty of simple observations could be made that would disprove it completely, like rabbits in the precambrian, but such things are never found. All data found fits with evolution perfectly. Sometimes new data is found that changes details of certain lineages, but the theory itself remains unchallenged. This information is freely available from a plethora of sources both online and on paper. If you're interested in the answers to the questions you're asking you can check out a book from the library or even do a quick Google search. You'll learn all about how the theory has been tested and how you can test it yourself.

Ah, but how do you know what you're reading is true, you ask? It's the way science works. Scientists are constantly working to prove each other wrong. The peer review process is all about finding flaws in a fellow scientist's work. No study is perfect, but those that get past peer review carry decent weight for this reason. Skepticism is great, but to suppose a theory that makes up the backbone of biology has been upheld for 150 years only by systematic falsification of data and oppression of opposing data is beyond skeptical, it's a conspiracy claim of unprecedented magnitude. That's something you would have to demonstrate and I would be very interested to know about. If it's true, let's crack this thing open!

The point being that all is not as it seems, and all facts may not be facts at all.

Indeed. Have you applied this skepticism to claims found in the Bible?

 

[ruthiesea]

My religion teaches that science is the proper way to study and learn about G-d's creation, the universe. That is because the Bible, especially the first five books, are considered to be neither science nor history books.

 

[AV1611VET]

My religion teaches that science is the proper way to study and learn about G-d's creation, the universe. That is because the Bible, especially the first five books, are considered to be neither science nor history books.

The Bible may not be science or history overall, but do you agree that science and history are found within Its pages?

 

[Divide]

I am interested in the reasons you considered its truth even possible, given some of the downright outlandish claims found within. Talking animals, the dead rising, a global flood... these are things that don't happen in real life. They may have some value taken as cultural artifacts, but true? Only in the most abstract sense... if at all.

Oh, well I have suspected (and now know for sure) that there is more here than (our natural realm) what we can see. I suspect that you are aware of it also. Everyone is I think, whether it be that they believe in Ghosts (or have even seen apparitions), or believe in magic, or sorts of crafts (witchcraft/sorcery), or Angels and even God. So I considered that it may be possible and true what is claimed in the Bible because of this. And I figured that (IF) there really is a God, then it stands to reason that He is all powerful and can do anything at all.

And as time goes on, archaeological discoveries support this notion. They have found evidence of King David in discoveries. They have found evidence of the Red Sea crossing underwater over there, Noah's Ark, and all sorts of stuff. Even as a child and I read about Greek Mythology, I wondered...why would they make a science fiction book/writings about all that sort of stuff? It probably is true. What it comes to is, I am not so big headed to think that I am the epitome of life in the universe. Lol.

You jumped the gun there a bit, didn't you? You say you weighed the words of scientists against God's. If you were still deciding what you believed, shouldn't you have said you were weighing the words of scientists against the words of scripture/religious authorities? I mean, if you already knew it was God's word you'd already made your decision.

Wow, way to nitpick me Brother. I didn't call it the word of God when I was young, I called it the bible, because that's how people referred to it. I call it the word of God now because I'm a little better versed in it and realize it's full intent and potential.

You are claiming that evolution is false even though you admit you have a very limited understanding of it, right? Evolution is a theory based on facts like natural selection, the fossil record, and genetics. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution itself isn't a "fact" because it's an ever-changing model of the tree of life as we know it. Scientists have been testing the theory for over 150 years. Plenty of simple observations could be made that would disprove it completely, like rabbits in the precambrian, but such things are never found. All data found fits with evolution perfectly. Sometimes new data is found that changes details of certain lineages, but the theory itself remains unchallenged. This information is freely available from a plethora of sources both online and on paper. If you're interested in the answers to the questions you're asking you can check out a book from the library or even do a quick Google search. You'll learn all about how the theory has been tested and how you can test it yourself.

The theory has been blown out of the water. But you would not be able to receive that information because you have a different way of thinking and have decided that you do not want to believe in anything else. (how you sound at least).
So the theory has been tested eh? Ok, have you gone ahead and tested for yourself any of these tests? Or are you simply taking their word for it, and putting your faith and trust into man rather than yourself or God? I mean gee, after all, man is perfect and never makes mistakes or fouls procedures or anything like that, right? (Lol)

Indeed. Have you applied this skepticism to claims found in the Bible?

I absolutely have. From laughable up to serious. Scripture says that God will not be tested. He is not a vending machine, nor a magic show or genie in a bottle that we can come order around to perform tricks for us and our amusement and entertainment. I understand that. However, in one place in scripture it does say "Test me on this" and that has to do with tithing. So I did. It says it's ok to test God this way so I had no fear to put it to the test. Long story short, I tested and retested so much that it got to the point to where I knew the point had been made and I was beginning to feel as if I was taking advantage of it, and that sort of scared me a little bit so I went ahead and stopped and said wow. It really is true. You tithe your money in and you get blessed back with more than you tithed. It's almost like a money machine. Geez, it's true what the scripture says...you can't outgive God.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well if God is real, then His word is real and truth also. So...it is about the Bible.

Any analytical thinker would realize then, that god could be true and the Bible could still be wrong. These are two separate propositions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any analytical thinker would realize then, that god could be true and the Bible could still be wrong. These are two separate propositions.

Are atheists analytical thinkers?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are atheists analytical thinkers?

Obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously.

So atheists obviously realize that God could be true?

 

[HitchSlap]

So atheists obviously realize that God could be true?

Lol.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol.

What are you LOL-ing about?

You said it.

 

[Divide]

So atheists obviously realize that God could be true?

Personally, I think that atheists are either angry at God for something that happened to them or else they asked God to come to them or whatever and didn't do it...either right then or in the way that they expected and wanted Him too...so either gave up or stopped trying to believe in Him.

When we pray to God for something, we always have an idea in mind of how He should answer it or in what way that we are expecting it to be answered. I have done this myself, seen other Christians do it, and also people who are ubelievers but arent sure so asked. This is all due to what we know, our experiences, our belief system.

That's why many people did not recognize Jesus for who He was. They were expecting Him to come set up a kingdom. To come in glory and power, and kick some butt. But He didn't.

Same thing on the road to Emmaus when Jesus appeared to them and walked and talked to them. They didn't recognize Him. So it can happen to anyone. If Jesus doesn't do it the way we expect, then He doesn't fit into the little box of our belief system so He remains unrecognized. The problem being, His thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways above our ways.

I'll prolly get yelled at for that (lol) because A slightly different thought or thing is within someone and I didn't say it. Sorry!

 

[pitabread]

Personally, I think that atheists are either angry at God for something that happened to them or else they asked God to come to them or whatever and didn't do it...either right then or in the way that they expected and wanted Him too...so either gave up or stopped trying to believe in Him.

This is highly presumptuous of you.

You're assuming that atheists actively tried to believe in God in the first place, as opposed to simply adopting a position based on lack of evidence for such a being. The latter seems to be the position of many atheists I have talked to.

 

[Divide]

See told you...

This is highly presumptuous of you.

You're assuming that atheists actively tried to believe in God in the first place, as opposed to simply adopting a position based on lack of evidence for such a being. The latter seems to be the position of many atheists I have talked to.

Yeah, there's that too. Sorry, I didn't mean to forget any specific possibilities, I was just talkin' off the top of my head. No offense was intended to you or anyone...