[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[BobRyan]

1. I am A Christian

2. The Bible is true. Making up stories about it not being the accurate text or some other mythical authors brought in via wild imagination changes nothing.

3. Even you admitted that the Bible is not preaching Darwinism in ITS presentation of the subject of HOW all life on earth got here!

Just stating the Obvious.

And EVEN Darwin and Dawkins admit along with all Bible believing Christians that the glaring gap between what the bible says and what the doctrines of darwinism imagine - is huge.

You get stuck in a "Bible is not true" argument - which you can have but maybe on its own subject thread.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

1. I am A Christian

And so claim many people who disagree with the interpretation of the Bible that you argue for. Your claim to be a Christian neither adds to nor subtracts from the value that can be placed in your interpretation of biblical text.

2. The Bible is true.

By which I assume you mean that the Bible is literally true? To me, this is a statement of faith. If you wish to make it as a statement of fact, then we can look at individual facts to determine their validity according to the best evidence available to us. Part of the process of inquiry involves asking 'what if' questions, drawing analogies with other texts of similar antiquity, using techniques of literary analysis to determine consistency of authorship, etc, etc.

Making up stories about it not being the accurate text or some other mythical authors brought in via wild imagination changes nothing.

Critical examination is not 'making up stories'. The question of authorship is neither 'mythical' nor an exercise in 'wild imagination'. The scholarship inherent in the Documentary Hypothesis exposes this assertion for what it is.

3. Even you admitted that the Bible is not preaching Darwinism in ITS presentation of the subject of HOW all life on earth got here!

As I have explained before, I believe the Bible is the work of imperfect human beings attempting to interpret creation and divine revelation as best they could given their limited understanding of the world around them. As such, I believe that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject of the theory of evolution, nor would I expect it to.

Just stating the Obvious.

As am I.

And EVEN Darwin and Dawkins admit along with all Bible believing Christians that the glaring gap between what the bible says and what the doctrines of darwinism imagine - is huge.

By 'Bible believing Christians' do you mean 'Christians who believe the Bible to be literally true'? Your use of the term 'imagine' when you address the theory of evolution clearly assumes your conclusion on no better grounds than the argument that the Bible is literally true.

You get stuck in a "Bible is not true" argument - which you can have but maybe on its own subject thread.

I am only following paths you are opening up.

 

[BobRyan]

2. The Bible is true.

By which I assume you mean that the Bible is literally true?

"Really true" is "literal" as opposed to "pretend true" which you argue is also "corrupt" in your Bible-is-corrupt arguments regarding Genesis.

In fact it would be hard to even get "pretend true" out of your plainly stated "bible is corrupt".

So when we say the "bible is true" and you add "you mean literally true" it is the same as your saying "you mean really really really true instead of corrupt?"

Clearly your "Bible is corrupt" argument is a "by faith argument" as we saw in the Creation-of-light thread where you simply "imagine" that David made up a lineage family history to establish a royal claim -- when in fact you did not really understand what you were saying since David's line is not in the royal line of Saul and never was claimed to be such.

Part of the process of inquiry involves asking 'what if' questions, drawing analogies with other texts of similar antiquity, using techniques of literary analysis to determine consistency of authorship, etc, etc.

In the case of the Bible - we have an ancient document -- proven time after time to be reliable. Consider the just-say-nay group's wild claims BEFORE the EBLA tablets were found as compared to afterwards for example. They retreated from their debunked blunders and then cling to the void in what remains yet to be discovered.

Bob
Making up stories about it not being the accurate text or some other mythical authors brought in via wild imagination changes nothing.

L.K
Critical examination is not 'making up stories'.

True critical examination appreciates objectivity -- the very objectivity you reject in exegesis.

True critical examination is NOT of the "just say nay" at every turn variety that seem to imagine. It would never make the wild claims about "David making up his parents and grand parents" AS IF appealing to a mythical non-royal lineage would HELP with a claim to the throne.

Yours is not objective -- it is simply "hoping to imagine a corrupt text" at every opportunity no matter how compromised and transparently "reaching" each attempt to deny the text is seen to be!

The question of authorship is neither 'mythical' nor an exercise in 'wild imagination'.

[/quote]

How so? Did another author stand up and claim the book??

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

3. Even you admitted that the Bible is not preaching Darwinism in ITS presentation of the subject of HOW all life on earth got here!

L.K
As I have explained before, I believe the Bible is the work of imperfect human beings attempting to interpret creation and divine revelation as best they could given their limited understanding of the world around them. As such, I believe that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject of the theory of evolution, nor would I expect it to

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=210#p395048

So you prefer to deny the NT statement that the text is in fact "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - speaking FROM GOD"?? (2Peter 1).

A good atheist solution - but I thought you wanted us to think you accepted the NT just not the OT.

Your arguments against God's Word have been three fold as far as I can tell.

1. The ignorant people writing the original autographs were not informed enough to be accurate.
2. The claimed authors are not the real ones if the topic is prophecy -- since that would make the book supernatural in origin -- rather the real authors come along and portray history as if they were writing much earlier and were inspired by God in writing prophecy.
3. The text we have can not be trusted to even BE the original work -- so we really have no idea what the original author wrote.

You know -- the same position that an atheist would take.

As such, I believe that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject of the theory of evolution, nor would I expect it to.

Again - a good atheist position JUST as we see in these statements from P.C Meyers.

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

Bob said
And EVEN Darwin and Dawkins admit along with all Bible believing Christians that the glaring gap between what the bible says and what the doctrines of darwinism imagine - is huge.

Bible believing as in "Bible is NOT corrupt" Christians.

By 'Bible believing Christians' do you mean 'Christians who believe the Bible to be literally true'?

Ahh your euphamism again for "bible is NOT corrupt" --

Yes I mean the Christians who do NOT claim the Bible is corrupt -- Christians who do NOT make he 3 claims that atheists make against scripture.

As for ID -- EVERY objective unbiased reader can clearly see that if the Bible is NOT corrupt -- if God did MAKE all life on earth in SIX DAYS as Ex 20:8-11 says (in the form of LAW not symbolic poetry) THEN we would expect the statement made in Romans 1 about pagans SEEING the invisible attributes of God in "THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE" to be true in a "bible is NOT corrupt" kinda way.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, I have two simple points to make:

1. 'True' can be understood on several levels. I understand that when you use 'true' you mean 'literally true in every aspect' and my question was directed towards ensuring that I was not misrepresenting you on this. For many Christians, the Bible (and the OT in particular) is metaphorically and/or allegorically and/or poetically true, while still containing relevant historical information as well.

2. Nothing you have so far shown is evidence for the literal truth of every part of the Old Testament. So far the support for this literalness that you have put forward seems to depend entirely on the Bible itself. I have no trouble accepting this as a statement of faith; what I do not accept is that it is a statement of fact. Again I make the point that, if you want to put forward the OT as a compilation of accurate history and science, the OT then becomes subject to examination in the same way as any other document for which similar claims might be made. Such an examination requires evidence beyond the text, unless you wish to argue that anyone who wishes to claim literal truth and an understanding of God's purpose for any ostensibly holy text need rely on nothing more than that text to establish their claim. In which case, whose claim to literal truth and an understanding of God's purpose is 'right' and why?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I have two simple points to make:

1. 'True' can be understood on several levels. I understand that when you use 'true' you mean 'literally true in every aspect'

Actually I mean "Factually correct" rather than "fallaciously fraudulent and flawed".

So that means

1. The author really is the author
2. When the author claims to record real events - his record can be trusted to be factual
3. The Bible is it's own interpreter (Exegesis) -
4. "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16.
5. "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2Peter 1.

So that means for example that while Christ is not a "wooden door" in John 10 HE IS literally the Son of God as we see in John 1.

L.K
and my question was directed towards ensuring that I was not misrepresenting you on this. For many Christians, the Bible (and the OT in particular) is metaphorically and/or allegorically and/or poetically true, while still containing relevant historical information as well.

As our atheist friends point out for us here - the whole argument for atheism is to assert that the Bible is not factually correct -- but it has good moral stories in an Aesop's fables kinda way.

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

By contrast we have "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2Peter 1.

2. Nothing you have so far shown is evidence for the literal truth of every part of the Old Testament. So far the support for this literalness that you have put forward seems to depend entirely on the Bible itself.

By contrast your approach has been -

1. The author is not really the author
2. The character in the story is not the real historic character
3. The text we are reading is not really the text written (in terms of content)
4. The facts (events) the author describes can not be trusted.

And your argument is such in every case no matter how trivial the case that is pointed out in scripture -- whether we are talking about the Genesis 1 account of our CREATOR or HIS own summary of that timeline in Ex 20:8-11 or the existence of King David --- or you just "imagining" that "David beat his wives".

Your "Belief" is that the Bible can not be trusted to be factually correct at any level at all. A true Aesop's fables approach.

My "belief" is the "Bible believing Christian" model that does not go to your "If I can imagine the Bible to be in error on some point -- then it is".

I have no trouble accepting this as a statement of faith; what I do not accept is that it is a statement of fact. Again I make the point that, if you want to put forward the OT as a compilation of accurate history and science, the OT then becomes subject to examination in the same way as any other document for which similar claims might be made.

So "imagining" that it is "not true" is not "substantive proof" that the text is incorrect -- this is particularly true when we look at the history of the Ebla tablets and observe how many things "imagined" about the Bible not being true - crumbled when the tablets were found.

Clearly all that nay-saying was nothing more than "imagination".

Such an examination requires evidence beyond the text, unless you wish to argue that anyone who wishes to claim literal truth and an understanding of God's purpose for any ostensibly holy text need rely on nothing more than that text to establish their claim. In which case, whose claim to literal truth and an understanding of God's purpose is 'right' and why?

1. I DO argue that the Bible model "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11 regarding the factual events predicted for the Messiah.

2. I DO argue that the Bible IS "sufficient for doctrine and correction" 2Tim 3:16.

3. I DO argue that the example in Acts 17:11 is one of NON-CHRISTIANS coming to a CHRISTIAN conclusion while testing the message of a CHRISTIAN Apostle like Paul.

4. I DO argue that the book of Daniel was written during Daniel's life time -- during the reign of the real kings as stated at the beginning of most of the chapters in the 6th century AD.

5. I DO argue that Romans 1 is speaking to the real fact that non-Bible non-believing pagans (Barbarians as the text calls them) can easily see the "invisible attributes of God" in that they are "clearly seen in the things that have been MADE". This explains why non-Christian evolutionists engaged in ID SCIENCE can see clearly evidences of Intelligent Design IN the things that have been made --

hint:

Intelligent design SEEN here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n ... re=related


Scientists ADMIT to intelligent design here - -eye witness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZ3bhQpz5s


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

By contrast your approach has been -

1. The author is not really the author
2. The character in the story is not the real historic character
3. The text we are reading is not really the text written (in terms of content)
4. The facts (events) the author describes can not be trusted.

And your argument is such in every case no matter how trivial the case that is pointed out in scripture -- whether we are talking about the Genesis 1 account of our CREATOR or HIS own summary of that timeline in Ex 20:8-11 or the existence of King David --- or you just "imagining" that "David beat his wives".

The point, Bob, is that if you want to claim scientific and historical accuracy for the text of the Bible, i.e. if you want to provide evidence that what the Bible contains is factually correct rather than spiritual poetry, metaphor and allegory structured around some actual history of the Jewish people, you have to provide evidence beyond the text that this is so. You seem keen to invoke this evidence when it appears to support biblical text, but less so when it is seems equivocal or contradictory.

Again, the evidence attesting to the existence of an historical King david can be examined in the context of the biblical King David to look for points of correspondence that may or may not validate the biblical text. I am not sure why you are so exercised about this.

Furthermore, I do not imagine that David beat his wives; I gave you legitimate social and cultural reasons for supposing it the case that, as an historically trivial possibility, the historical David may have beaten his wives. As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, I am not aware that it attests one way or the other, but would be happy to read any reference that you could provide that indicates otherwise one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast your approach has been -

1. The author is not really the author
2. The character in the story is not the real historic character
3. The text we are reading is not really the text written (in terms of content)
4. The facts (events) the author describes can not be trusted.

And your argument is such in every case no matter how trivial the case that is pointed out in scripture -- whether we are talking about the Genesis 1 account of our CREATOR or HIS own summary of that timeline in Ex 20:8-11 or the existence of King David --- or you just "imagining" that "David beat his wives".

The point, Bob, is that if you want to claim scientific and historical accuracy for the text of the Bible, i.e. if you want to provide evidence that what the Bible contains is factually correct rather than spiritual poetry, metaphor and allegory structured around some actual history of the Jewish people, you have to provide evidence beyond the text that this is so.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=225#p395379

1. So you did or "did not" take the 3 minutes to observe the hand-in-glove argument you and these atheists are making against the Bible in your Aesop's fables proposals?

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

2. You did or "did not" take the time to compare the doubt-the-bible-first arguments made prior to discovery of the Ebla tablets vs the accusations debunked afterwards?

3. You did or "did not" observe a trend where more data over time simply confirms what the just-say-nay groups put in doubt as they argued from the void "absence of external evidence is evidence of absence"??

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Questions about ID?

Allow yourself to "look" --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you could at least make the effort to reply to the substance of my posts rather than just the parts that you feel allow you to post the same tired old points over and over. I am still awaiting your detailed responses to the outstanding questions I asked you in respect of the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas' and Nebuchadnezzar's Empire and the Achaemenid Empire on the Old Earth/Bible thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Furthermore, I do not imagine that David beat his wives; I gave you legitimate social and cultural reasons for supposing it the case that, as an historically trivial possibility, the historical David may have beaten his wives..

Then we both agree - your arguments rest heavily on your own imagination in making the case -- not on any actual data in the Bible or elsewhere about David.

In your model - "thought experiments" easily suffice to deny scripture.

The result is your bible-is-corrupt argument analyzed here -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395472

I am still awaiting your detailed responses to the outstanding questions I asked you in respect of the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas' and Nebuchadnezzar's Empire and the Achaemenid Empire on the Old Earth/Bible thread.

Already done on the "other" thread -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32659&start=165#p395809


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Furthermore, I do not imagine that David beat his wives; I gave you legitimate social and cultural reasons for supposing it the case that, as an historically trivial possibility, the historical David may have beaten his wives..

Then we both agree - your arguments rest heavily on your own imagination in making the case -- not on any actual data in the Bible or elsewhere about David.

In your model - "thought experiments" easily suffice to deny scripture.

No, the argument rests on our knowledge of the treatment of women in patriarchal societies where women may be widely regarded as inferior to men, subject to male authority and control, and the property of men. This has nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with understanding societies in their appropriate historical and ethical contexts, something you appear incapable of grasping.

 

[BobRyan]

Announcement --- L.K has just come out of the closet on the ID topic -- but has done it on another thread perhaps hoping to stay in line with the atheist argument in the ID threads while secretly holding to THIS view below ...

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Announcement --- L.K has just come out of the closet on the ID topic -- but has done it on another thread perhaps hoping to stay in line with the atheist argument in the ID threads while secretly holding to THIS view below ...

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

You choose to misinterpret the argument I make, but perhaps you have not seen me make it elsewhere. If God is believed to be the creative force behind the Universe, the evidence for God's work and how he carried it out is that which science unfolds before us. Clearly this will include the mechanism of evolution, the birth of stars and the antiquity of Earth, as many of the scientists who are Christians and for whose understandings I have provided you with links believe and argue. Do not try and use my statement to push the snake-oil ideas that underpin ID.

 

[BobRyan]

Announcement --- L.K has just come out of the closet on the ID topic -- but has done it on another thread perhaps hoping to stay in line with the atheist argument in the ID threads while secretly holding to THIS view below ...

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

I find it facinating that you call this argument about nature giving WITNESS to the EVIDENCE of God's WORK -- "snake oil" while making claims like that above!

If God is believed to be the creative force behind the Universe, the evidence for God's work and how he carried it out is that which science unfolds before us.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=396010#p396003

There we have a claim for God's handiwork SEEN IN SCIENCE - that is far above and beyond what some ID SCIENTISTs make!!

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result". L.K rushes on to tell us that it was GOD! L.K rushes on to tell us that we can SEE "Gods WORK" in nature and that "Nature is giving silent WITNESS" to GOD!


How entertainingly -- self-conflicted is it goes far beyond claims of many ID scientists while trying to condemn them all!

Hint for the unbiased objective reader -- I am one who BEIEVES Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 1-2:3 that God created all life on earth in a real creation week (i.e. not fictitious) less than 10,000 years ago --- but I do NOT claim that ID SCIENCE shows us that WEEK -- it merely discovers points of obvious DESIGN.

as we all SAW here -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

(Notice the complete absence in those examples of L.K's "recognize (SEE) the evidence of God's WORK" --- and yet L.K who makes a much more DIRECT claim to GOD is condemning the LESSER claim of ID SCIENCE as asserting TOO MUCH?? -- How transparently self-conflicted!!)



Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly this will include the mechanism of evolution, the birth of stars and the antiquity of Earth,

...
(as compared to) the snake-oil ideas that underpin ID.

HINT - as has already been pointed out to the unbiased objective reader NOT "simply glossing over inconvenient details" there are ID scientists that are evolutionists -- just now devoted believers in atheist darwinISM.

ALL L.K has done is make that same claim (only more so with his "nature is silent witness" to God argument, while seeking to condemn them all!

How "instructive" that L.K waits 16 pages to come out with this!!!

How "instructive" that I had to "out him" before he would do it!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, I fail to follow your logic in supposing that a suggestion that, if God is the creative force behind the origins of the Universe and the understanding of how that creative force worked is in the evidence that science reveals - evolution, the antiquity of the Universe, the long history of mankind and life, etc - this in some way equates to my being some sort of closet ID-er unaware of my ID-edness until Bob opened the door for me, then you are deluding yourself. Again you should consider the points of view of those scientists who are Christians, who are evolutionists, who believe ID to be plain wrong, and who believe that science reveals the mechanisms of God's creation, before claiming to understand what I believe better than I do myself.

 

[BobRyan]

Announcement --- L.K has just come out of the closet on the ID topic -- but has done it on another thread perhaps hoping to stay in line with the atheist argument in the ID threads while secretly holding to THIS view below ...

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

I find it facinating that you call this argument about nature giving WITNESS to the EVIDENCE of God's WORK -- "snake oil" while making claims like that above!

If God is believed to be the creative force behind the Universe, the evidence for God's work and how he carried it out is that which science unfolds before us.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&p=396010#p396003

There we have a claim for God's handiwork SEEN IN SCIENCE - that is far above and beyond what some ID SCIENTISTs make!!

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result". L.K rushes on to tell us that it was GOD! L.K rushes on to tell us that we can SEE "Gods WORK" in nature and that "Nature is giving silent WITNESS" to GOD!


How entertainingly -- self-conflicted is it goes far beyond claims of many ID scientists while trying to condemn them all!

Bob, I fail to follow your logic in supposing that a suggestion that, if God is the creative force behind the origins of the Universe and the understanding of how that creative force worked is in the evidence that science reveals - evolution, the antiquity of the Universe, the long history of mankind and life, etc - this in some way equates to my being some sort of closet ID-er unaware of my ID-edness until Bob opened the door for me,

1. ID scientists are in some cases evutionists -- just not koolaid drinking darwinists. you argue that if they believe in evolutionism they can not be touting ID... wrong.

2. You argue more than "God is confined to a box 14 billion years ago" rather you argue the EVIDENCE of GOD's HAND IN the NATURAL WORLD!

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

ID scientists DO NOT present their arguments for ID SCIENCE in the form "THIS is an evidence for God's WORK in the natural world" -- as you do.

The self-conflicted nature of your attacks on these ID scientists is evident as YOU make far more blatant "God's WORK IN the NATURAL WORLD" statements than THEY do!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From Page 9 on this thread

Jim9683
Oh please, listening to Kent Hovind and VenomFangX doesn't count as evidence. Get back to me when creationism becomes and established scientific theory.

The only reason its not established, is because people hate it so dearly because it invokes a God who will one day judge them.

From page 16

Do you think it at all possible that you may be the one who is 'unwitting' in your refusal to understand and recognise the evidence of God's work in the natural world? Nature is a silent, unbiased witness to God's work;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&p=395996#p395917

While this is not the same as an appeal to CREATIONISM -- it certainly goes to John's appeal "to GOD" and his handiwork SEEN IN the NATURAL WORLD!

Interesting that L.K was silent on that point -- on page 9

Bob asks L.K

So the question for L.K on ID and his statement above is... "How So?"

How do you see that there is in fact "evidence of God's work IN the natural world"?

How do you find nature to be the "silent WITNESS to God's work"??

And WHY have you never stated that on an ID thread?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

There we have a claim for God's handiwork SEEN IN SCIENCE - that is far above and beyond what some ID SCIENTISTs make!!

ID science is NOT the argument "SEE science is showing us what GOD DID" it is simply the more modest statement "this appears to be the work of someone or something -- a work designed not an undirected random result". L.K rushes on to tell us that it was GOD! L.K rushes on to tell us that we can SEE "Gods WORK" in nature and that "Nature is giving silent WITNESS" to GOD!

Bob, you may read what you wish to into my words as that seems to be your practice pretty much all the time. An 'if' becomes 'a rush to tell'. Let me say it again, if God is the creative force behind the origin of the Universe, the testimony of Nature stands as a far more potent a witness to how that creative force worked than does the Bible. That is the sole intent of my argument. You are so eager to misrepresent the intent of my words that you will bend them to your purpose as you will.

By the way, it was my impression that the Dover case ended with the conclusion of the court that the subtext beneath the muddy waters of ID propaganda was that indeed God was the designer concealed in a maze of rhetoric.