Lack of Evidence?

[Quiddity]

I do ask, I just don't find the answers convincing,

In time I hope to know why. Using the methodological naturalist method I could see why many struggle. This and for other reasons that only God knows. It has been an ancient battle.

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

No there is not lack of credible evidence, its quite abundant, do I really have to list stuff? Not trying to be cold, but the info is out there.

Listen, buddy--I don't know where you're finding all of your info, but I have spent countless hours searching the net for this "credible evidence" you speak of, and have come back empty handed. Therefore, yes, you do have to list stuff.

The oldest living tree is about 4200 years old

Wrong. http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/home/index.cfm?SiteID=609

the oldest living coral reef is about 4200 years old

Wrong. http://www.coralreefalliance.org/aboutcoralreefs/howold.html

the Sahara desert is 4200 years old

Wrong. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sahara-Desert

 

[Scott1]

Even though I doubt joeboonda will come back to this thread, he does bring up something that keeps me from becoming a Christian. Often, Christians say: "come to him as a child" quoting a bible verse that says to put doubt aside entirely. This has always seemed stupid to me. You can convince a child of anything, true or false, so why would you want to emulate that gullibility when looking for ultimate truth?

I agree... I never understood this either.

Secondly, if God made human beings, he gave us a mind with which to explore the world. That's what I am doing. And my mind has determined that God is surprisingly absent in the world's affairs.

Hey, me too!

Therefore, yes, you do have to list stuff.

Nice job C... thanks for the info.:clap

 

[joeboonda]

Hi all, I came back to say hi and hope you are all doing well. It is interesting to see one person look at the world and not see a creator, and another to see it and see a creator. I guess I just fall into the latter half, lol. The post that says I am wrong about the age of the oldes living tree, sahara, desert, etc. I am not sure, but you might find info on that on DrDino.com. Kent Hovind is the mind behind that, and I have some of his videos, which is where that information was found. I havent been boning up on creation studies lately, so I am a bit rusty, so perhaps that site can present where I am coming from better than I can, not that anyone is interested in actually FINDING evidence that God exists, that would be absolutely horrific, I suppose, lol, jk. Well, I am off to chat with some of my Christian friends, have a nice day, and PEACE!

 

[Sunstone]

Dr. Dino. *sigh* Joeboonda, you're a real cool person, and you write wonderful posts, but how can I break it to you that Kent Hovind is not a creditable source of information?

 

[Cynic]

“Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution”, by Kent Hovind:
There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don’t think that it is a human conspiracy. I don’t believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they don’t even know it.

 

[Scott1]

Dr. Dino. *sigh* Joeboonda, you're a real cool person, and you write wonderful posts, but how can I break it to you that Kent Hovind is not a creditable source of information?

Can I get an Amen? :banghead3

 

[joeboonda]

Dr. Dino. *sigh* Joeboonda, you're a real cool person, and you write wonderful posts, but how can I break it to you that Kent Hovind is not a creditable source of information?

He is not my only source, lol, but I do like him even if many ppl discredit him. As I have said, historical science is a very subjective subject (lol), as opposed to operational which can be measured. I have TONS of creation books and videos from other folks. They seem (to me) much more accurate than many "mainstream" books. But that is just my opinion, as I come from a Christian worldview, I will look at something and see it differently than someone from a different worldview. Its cool, I really don't plan to debate on this as I am not an authority. I have my own reasons for believing in God, and I dont think prooving his existence with some kind of scientific evidence is the way to find him. PEACE!

 

[Cynic]

"I had also been alerted to the fact that Hovind was under investigation by the I.R.S. for tax fraud and evasion, that he believes income tax is a tool of Satan to bring down the United States, democracy is evil and contrary to God’s law, and recommends the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that he received his doctorate from a diploma mill, and that even Ken Ham’s creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, disavowed many of Hovind’s wackier beliefs in a fascinating web page document entitled “Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."-Michael Shermer

From Hovinds backyard dinosaur themepark:

 

[Ceridwen018]

As I have said, historical science is a very subjective subject

The only problem is that there is no such thing as "historical science". The point of science is that it is not subjective in any way.

 

[joeboonda]

Well, I still like Kent, he's a very funny guy. I like Ken Ham too, have some of his books. And I dont agree with every theory that different creationists have, there are big differences of opinion among them just like anybody, but they do make some good arguements, and I enjoy their material. The study of Origins is historical science, there is such a thing, at least to some scholars I know.

Anyway, don't give up, maybe you will find evidence for God someday, and I won't either, PEACE!

 

[Cynic]

Well, I still like Kent, he's a very funny guy. I like Ken Ham too, have some of his books. And I dont agree with every theory that different creationists have, there are big differences of opinion among them just like anybody, but they do make some good arguements, and I enjoy their material. The study of Origins is historical science, there is such a thing, at least to some scholars I know.

Anyway, don't give up, maybe you will find evidence for God someday, and I won't either, PEACE!

Yes, I agree that Kent is funny too, but the reasons why I am laughing are totally different. Arguements? Oh, you mean the relentless babble.

 

[cmotdibbler]

Kent Hovind makes me embarrassed to be an American.

 

[dorsk188]

And I dont agree with every theory that different creationists have, there are big differences of opinion among them just like anybody.

Creationist 1: My flawed analogy will show that the world that the world was created.
Creationist 2: No! My inept scientific reasoning will is ample proof.
Creationist 3: You're both wrong! We'll just attack evolution and then everyone will accept Jesus!

Seriously, though, creationists always start with what they want to prove then seek evidence to support it. When does a creationist say: "I tried to prove that the Bible was true, but it turns out that I can't." Real scientists admit when they are wrong, even if they must abandon a fondly held position. And, by and large, scientists do. (Aside from the occasional case of a proud researcher who never admits defeat.)

 

[Ceridwen018]

creationists always start with what they want to prove then seek evidence to support it.

Exactly, and this is the opposite way that science works. Scientists go into an experiment with some idea of what they think might happen, but ultimately they make their conclusions after they have seen the evidence, instead of making conclusions beforehand.

 

[Valjean]

You've brought up a very important point, Ceridwen. People of faith know what they believe and seek evidence or text to support it. They do not seek to test it and ignore or explain away all evidence that would tend to falsify it.

Scientists form hypotheses and then design experiments with the aim of falsifying them. If the hypotheses resist falsification they become theories/facts and are generally accepted. If experiments do falsify them they are reviewed, reformulated, and tested again, or dropped and a different interpretation tested.

Religion/Faith is dedicated to maintaining ideas "known" to be true and will not accept any evidence to the contrary. Science is dedicated to disproving its own theories.

People have had faith for thousands of years and it contributed essentially nothing to man's understanding of the world. It's only been in the last couple centuries that some men have dared to question the religious interpretation of things and form opinions based on the weight of evidence rather than the current church doctrine. The result has been an explosion of technological, scientific and medical insight and a revolution in the way people live. A century ago most people did not have electricity, running water, central heating, antibiotics or lifespans >50 years.

The only thing that prevented this social and technological revolution from occurring in Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago is Faith/Religion.

 

[joeboonda]

And the dark ages, where the Roman Catholic Church would not let people learn anything or read the Bible for themselves. Once people had the word, and were free, did knowledge explode.

 

[joeboonda]

Exactly, and this is the opposite way that science works. Scientists go into an experiment with some idea of what they think might happen, but ultimately they make their conclusions after they have seen the evidence, instead of making conclusions beforehand.

The things I observe in nature, like its design, etc. and the fulfilment of Bible prophecy, and archeological findings, and many other things all contribute to my Christian beliefs. I was saved at a young age, then I had doubts, only after more investigation did I come to my conclusion that the God of the Bible is indeed God. I began my investigations when I was in my teens, now I am 40 and after many years of study, I still believe in the God of the BIble.

I have seen secular scientists and creationists both try to make the science fit their worldview. If one wants to follow Darwin, and believe in evolution, and be an atheist, thats fine. Maybe move to a communist nation like Russia, N. Korea, China, or Vietnam. Reminisce about Stalin and Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Hitler who all followed Darwin's evolution and killed miillions. And dont throw up the crusades or northern Ireland or the inquisition, they ignored the command to love our enemies.

 

[Valjean]

I think history will show that religion was an impediment to science, joeboonda. Any investigation that led to questioning church doctrine was supressed, not encouraged. Scientists dared not investigate the world, much less publish.

Galeleo was darned lucky to get away with only house arrest and the banning of his books.

 

[Cynic]

You've brought up a very important point, Ceridwen. People of faith know what they believe and seek evidence or text to support it. They do not seek to test it and ignore or explain away all evidence that would tend to falsify it.

It's called selective thinking, or cherry picking, whatever you like to call it. They'll select whatever evidense supports their ideology (which is usually anecdotal), yet they will not recognize the opposing evidense whatsoever, thus they ignore it (goes in one ear and out the other). If they understood the opposing evidense, instead of ignoring it, they would not embarass themselves the way the do. Kent Hovind is a clear example of this. (I'm talking about the conservatives, not the liberals)

--The bible says this, the opposing evidense contradicts the bible, and so the opposing evidence is incorrect. The bible is God's word, which is "infallible", therefore it cannot be wrong.--

These people are stuck in a subjective box, lacking the ability to understand the difference between subjective truth and objective truth, they refuse to see outside of that subjective box, because then they would be doubting God and the "infallibility" of scripture. Its unlikely that people like this will ever come to understand science.

Science and religion are two completely different modes of thinking, and usually one side does not understand how the other side thinks, or how they come to reach their conclusion.