The primary #1 definition of
evidence from the Free Online Dictionary:
quote:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis
Due to the fact that I have been singled out by Admin and other members as rarely, if ever, posting evidence in the debating fora. Cases in point would be Biblical prophecy and the Exodus threads.
Admin has suggested that I propose a topic to debate/discuss the topic of evidence and what constitutes evidence. He has intimated that this may be necessary so as to reconsider my participation in the science forums.
I've thought long and hard on the reasons I've been singled out. I have come to realize that there is, indeed, a reason; that being that much of what I debate relates to where the
rubber meets the road regarding the existing of supernatural phenomena.
Much of what active members like Iano, ICant and the Christian evolutionists post are faith based, requiring no evidence, whereas much of my activity relates to phenomena requiring evidence.
Problem: It's an established fact that no evolutionist, secularist or otherwise will ever acknowledge evidence of supernatural phenomena, such as ID creationism, fulfilled prophecy or evidence of the Exodus event. To do so would be to undermine their own secularistic mindset; that is,
mind set.
It has been argued that my own constituency rejects much of my cited evidence, such as the Exodus and the prophecies.
First off, who are these? Which members of EvC are these? Phat is an evolutionist. I'm not sure about Purpledawn. Is she creationist or evolutionist? Phat is an evolutionist. To my knowledge, he contributes little in the phenomena debates. They are not his forte. There are others who have only a passing interest in things like The Exodus or prophecy. There are some newer members who don't come to mind, some of who may have rejected my evidence. Perhaps they will come forward.
Institution For Creation Research has their own minds set to the extent that they show no interest in researching the Aqaba site or the Wyatt, Fassold et al discovery in the foothills of Ararat of a formation the length of the Biblical ark, accompanied by what appears to be ballast stones; one or more having inscriptions depicting 8 people and a boat; inscriptions not contemporary to Noah, but nevertheless, old.
Morris, et al at ICR, having launched numerous expeditions up high in Mt. Ararat, doggedly refuse to consider any other site, notwithstanding that it would be impossible for many hoofed animals to disembark at such rugged heights, etc.
ICR's text books and other educational criteria depict the traditional Mt. Sinai as the real Sinai, eliminating the Aqaba site as a possibility. Why? Because they are reluctant to admit error and to retool, so to speak, all of their criteria.
Ken Ham, founder of AIG comes from ICR. What applies to ICR, generally applies to AIG. I consider them all as brothers in Christ. I share their views on much of the good work that they do, but LOL on changing their mindset on some major issues.
Pastors and other creationists educated in the seminaries and educational institutions have little knowledge or interest in the prophecies. These schools tend to evade supernatural phenomena like the prophecies. Thus the ignorance or interest from sheeple sitting in the pews.
Also, most teach pre-tribulation rapture falsely thinking that little of fulfilled prophecy will affect them before being raptured out. LOL on that. Again, LOL on any of them supporting anything that I post regarding phenomena evidence.
No amount of evidence which I post supportive to fulfilled prophecy will ever be acknowledge by the secularist counterparts who debate me on these. Nor is any creationist having little interest in or little knowledge of the prophecies expected to contribute much on my behalf in the prophecy debates.
In summary, no amount of evidence that I post will be considered viable by moderators or members of EvC. Having explained the above, however, perhaps moderators; particularly Admin will understand my dilemma and reconsider my participation in the science fora.
If Admin and others will check out the science threads in which I have participated, they will find that I am careful not to delve into science debates beyond my capability or knowledge.
There are times when, though I am not educated in given science topics I cite logical problems to something that is alleged. Case in point would be my last message in the one on one Great Debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. Another would be logical problems which I've alluded to regarding the BB alleged singularity or whatever premises the BB, having no time, space or outside of in which to have existed or expanded into. There is no hard evidence for
theory premising the alleged BB or of the degree of billions of years of uniformitism, all the way from the zero event to the present, necessary for establishing BB theory.
Imo, what's good for he goose is good for the gander. By definition, there are variables of evidences. Some are weak, nevertheless supportive. Others are more supportive. Others are conclusive.
I've never claimed any evidence of the Exodus, prophecies, flood, etc to be empirical proof; nevertheless supportive to the hypothesis in question.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.