Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Evidence and Faith"
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 303 (398931)
05-03-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by riVeRraT
05-02-2007 10:08 PM


I assume that you mean this claim:
1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
So I would characterise the claim under discussion as asserting that the universe (including the Earth) was directly created by an intelligent entity no more than 10,000 years ago.
In that case there is no real objective evidence for it, and so much evidence against it that it is not a scientiifcally tenable view. The same goes for Creation "Science"'s Flood Geology or the notion of separate creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM PaulK has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 17 of 303 (398967)
05-03-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
05-03-2007 2:36 AM


So I would characterise the claim under discussion as asserting that the universe (including the Earth) was directly created by an intelligent entity no more than 10,000 years ago.
I don't think it has to be 10,000 years ago. Isn't Genesis unspecific enough to allow for any amount of time to have passed?
Aren't there 2 kinds of creationists, young earth, and old earth?
Does it really matter if we are doing science, when the earth was created? Only that it was created?
I personally don't think it was created such a short time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2007 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 9:20 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2007 10:19 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:02 AM riVeRraT has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 303 (398976)
05-03-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 8:46 AM


Rat, the problem is that we can observe the various stages in the process of creating planets going on today.
We can see new stars being born.
We can see accretion disks.
We are beginning to really understand the process of planetary creation.
But you are asking if there can be proof of supernatural intervention.
The answer to that is "NO!"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:42 AM jar has replied
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:11 AM jar has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 303 (398984)
05-03-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 8:46 AM


quote:
I don't think it has to be 10,000 years ago. Isn't Genesis unspecific enough to allow for any amount of time to have passed?
That's a contentious issue. My view is that a literal reading of Genesis severely limits the time, as the YECs say.
quote:
Aren't there 2 kinds of creationists, young earth, and old earth?
Creation "Science" is strictly Young Earth.
quote:
Does it really matter if we are doing science, when the earth was created? Only that it was created?
If you're asking for objective evidence I don't really think you could find any outside of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 20 of 303 (399129)
05-04-2007 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by riVeRraT
05-02-2007 10:54 PM


I am looking for evidence of the world being created, NOT FORMED.
the problem then is HOW the creation occured , as unless there is a stamp saying "product of the creator " or a video of it happening , we are limited to looking for the tell tales of what ever processes where involed in the creation event .
example ..(assuming creation of the whole universe not just earth) .. creation is a on / off switch .. with a zero time interval .. now if creation is a zero time event there is no current method of detecting the event .. there is no before and after to compare .
however if it is a step by step creation , over a period of time , there will be changes occuring with time , and rthese may leave traces , ie gravity / lightwaves / energy et al ,
you cant look for evidence unless you know something about the event .
example . . finding a bullet in a dead body is not evidence that the person was killed by gunfire , you have to know how the body works , understand the damage the bullet caused and determine if that resulted in death . ... the bullet could be there because they swallowed a live bullet as for a bet , and the bullet is in the digestive tract ..and is not related to the death ....
define what creation is and how it occurs .. then you can look for evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:45 AM ikabod has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 21 of 303 (399153)
05-04-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
05-03-2007 9:20 AM


Yes, I am well aware of that jar. I am an ameture astronomer, and try to stay up on what is going on out there.
Those planets are not being created, they are being formed.
Let's stick to those definitions for purposes of this discussion.
Plus, you are limiting it to just the earth, I said the world, which means everything in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 9:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 10:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 22 of 303 (399155)
05-04-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ikabod
05-04-2007 3:47 AM


Your post brings up a point I will be making to my Pastor.
That is, when it comes to God, we have faith to believe in Him. When it comes to going to the doctor, we have science. I am sure most people would not approve of the methods that creation scientists use to have them operate on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ikabod, posted 05-04-2007 3:47 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 10:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 303 (399162)
05-04-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 8:46 AM


Enter Creator: Stage Left
Rat writes:
Aren't there 2 kinds of creationists, young earth, and old earth?
Does it really matter if we are doing science, when the earth was created? Only that it was created?
I personally don't think it was created such a short time ago.
IF our basic belief is that God is the Creator, we can ask ourselves where He fits into the picture. Here are my current beliefs:
  • God exists and has always existed. Even though I can only conceive of Him within the limits of my imagination, I believe that He existed long before I or any other human or animal even had the ability to conceive of Him. Thus, in that regard, God is the Creator.
  • One sermon that I heard asked the rhetorical question of which came first: God or Dirt? It was funny, but it basically framed the overall creation issue as I see it.
  • What came first? The Creator or human ideas about this creator?
  • What came first? A Creator or a singularity?
  • as for the idea and question that many folks ask: Who made God?
    I would ask: Which idea was the original premise? The human idea or Gods I Am that I Am idea?
    To boil it down:
    Are we Gods idea? (His creation?)
    or is God our idea?
    I believe the former.
    Edited by Phat, : add by edit

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 24 of 303 (399164)
    05-04-2007 10:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by riVeRraT
    05-04-2007 9:42 AM


    Why must you diminish and belittle GOD?
    If you are aware of that much of "HowGodDidit" why must you continue to place limits on GOD and turn Her into some back yard conjurer?
    Why limit creation to "the world?"
    Why do you always belittle GOD?
    Science is but the search for the answers to "HowGodDidit™"

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:13 AM jar has not replied
     Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 10:22 AM jar has replied

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 25 of 303 (399165)
    05-04-2007 10:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 18 by jar
    05-03-2007 9:20 AM


    If the proof is in the pudding, who made the pudding?
    Jar writes:
    But you are asking if there can be proof of supernatural intervention.
    The answer to that is "NO!"
    Words are human inventions. One could argue that God created everything and that we are simply recreators. (Meaning that there is nothing new under the Sun) In other words, when a human invents something, the idea already existed. There is no such thing as an original thought. Perhaps the only original thought could be thought of by (The Origin) That speaks of a Creator. Again.
    But the definition of ideas can only be expressed through words.
    Clusty writes:
  • n. - proof, cogent evidence -- (any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it")
  • n. - proof -- (a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it)

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by jar, posted 05-03-2007 9:20 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 10:18 AM Phat has replied

    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 26 of 303 (399166)
    05-04-2007 10:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
    05-02-2007 10:49 PM


    quote:
    I am only asking if there has been any valid evidence of the creation of the world
    Sure, and there's a whole field of study called Cosmology devoted to learning how planets are created.
    If the supernatural was involved is not something that physical evidence can determine.
    Edited by nator, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:49 PM riVeRraT has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:20 AM nator has not replied

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 27 of 303 (399167)
    05-04-2007 10:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 24 by jar
    05-04-2007 10:10 AM


    Re: Why must you diminish and belittle GOD?
    Jar writes:
    Why do you always belittle GOD?
    Maybe because I think I am the know-it-all instead of Him!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 10:10 AM jar has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 28 of 303 (399170)
    05-04-2007 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
    05-04-2007 10:11 AM


    Re: If the proof is in the pudding, who made the pudding?
    Words are human inventions. One could argue that God created everything and that we are simply recreators. (Meaning that there is nothing new under the Sun) In other words, when a human invents something, the idea already existed. There is no such thing as an original thought. Perhaps the only original thought could be thought of by (The Origin) That speaks of a Creator. Again.
    Sorry but a totally inane statement of the "Anything conceivable school of theology".
    It is totally irrelevant whether anything new is possible. If it is new to you, it is new.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:11 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by Phat, posted 05-04-2007 10:23 AM jar has not replied

    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 29 of 303 (399171)
    05-04-2007 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
    05-04-2007 9:45 AM


    quote:
    When it comes to going to the doctor, we have science. I am sure most people would not approve of the methods that creation scientists use to have them operate on them.
    Of course, by your own admission, you "hate" studies, so I don't know why you would have a problem with a doctor who ignores them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:45 AM riVeRraT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 10:34 AM nator has not replied

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 30 of 303 (399172)
    05-04-2007 10:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by nator
    05-04-2007 10:13 AM


    Evidence and Faith
    Nator writes:
    Sure, and there's a whole field of study called Cosmology devoted to learning how planets are created.
    Evidence is human conclusions based on human wisdom. Thats all it ever can be.
    Clusty writes:
  • n. - evidence, grounds -- (your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling")
  • n. - evidence -- (an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear")
  • n. - evidence -- (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved)
  • v. - attest, certify, manifest, demonstrate, evidence -- (provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness")
  • v. - testify, bear witness, prove, evidence, show -- (provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence")
  • I can attest that God is real in my heart. I can bear witness that I am growing stronger in being able to articulate my faith even as I test it against other faiths. My testimony speaks for myself. It does not speak for God.(although people may see my testimony as a tool to reaffirm their own beliefs one way or another.)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 10:13 AM nator has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024