I think “data” is the important term here, instead of evidence. Within ID, subjective opinions of how something looks is considered evidence. “It looks designed” and its corollaries are often cited as evidence within ID. There’s also a large dose of incredulity of credentialism spawning such phrases as “I just can’t believe it could evolve” and “There are scientists who accept ID”. I am also not aware of any practical or pragmatic measurement of information being used by ID proponents within the context of sequence data. Science needs empirical data, and ID just seems to ignore it.
On the flip side, I don’t doubt ID proponents when they present these appearances as evidence. It is evidence, just not in a scientific sense. Then the discussion really comes down to how compelling appearances are as evidence.
If ID wants to be scientific then they are going to have to move away from subjective opinions of how something looks and start to deal with the existing empirical data as well as make predictions for new data. For example:
Why are there around 35 million substitutions separating the human and chimp genomes? Why not 10 million, or 100 million?
Why is there an excess of transition mutations among those substitutions?
Why is the rate of synonymous substitutions the same as the rate of intron substitutions in those same genomes?
Why do we see different divergence rates for exons and introns amongst vertebrates?
how you manage to glean that out of my statement is utter ridiculous. I am not the one who has the theological dilemma (like a lot of indviduals on these forums) who struggle with loosing their faith because darwinian evolution in science doesnt allign with biblical statements. These individuals then seek out other groups who specifically rewrite bible theology to only suit that science.
If you are incapable of accepting the above truth, then its no wonder you rarely use biblical referencing in support of your world view there. You straw pluck texts, try to twist their meanings (despite an overwhelming amount of cross referenced texts from other bible writers that clarify the meaning that disagree with your premises) and then harp on about genre…which fails the test simply because genre cannot apply across different regions, cultures, times, places, individuals (including Christ himself), and even languages that support the literal reading of Genesis Creation and Flood accounts (as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah and the Exodus).
Genre only works when one isolates texts and ignores the above issues and makes up theology that simply isnt there.
A coherant world view in religion only works with any sense of reliability when its consistent in both its writings AND in our reality (which includes science). The trouble with TEism…that is simply not the case…it has huge theological flaws…indeed insurmountable contradictions actually. You may have uniformitarian consistency, but your religious belief is fundamentally a basket case.
It’s the observable facts that don’t align with YEC.
By uniformitarian consistency, you mean we don’t have to invent completely different physical laws from whole cloth in order to explain away inconvenient facts.
Sorry, but to hold that Christ affirmed a literal reading of Genesis requires ignoring the ordinary use of language.
If by “isolating texts” you mean “pay attention to the distinct piece of literature something is part of”, then yes, that’s when genre “works”, because each distinct piece of literature has its own genre.
If as you claim “genre doesn’t work” then you have no basis for reading the Psalms any differently than Genesis 1, and so you must – to be consistent – believe that trees and rivers have hands that they clap, that hills and valleys are capable of singing.
Only if the inspired text is a basket case, because that’s where my religious belief (primarily) comes from – not from science.
Nor does the text in the original language, including the ordinary use of that language, i.e. the grammar and vocabulary.
Once again Adam misses that uniformitarianism is what one would believe from the premise that God is faithful. The God that YEC requires is arbitrary and whimsical.
Can you give me the name of even a single person who “observed” even 1 Darwinian theory? In fact is any theory observable?
Darwinian evolution is widely considered a belief …i dont even rate it that highly, because it isnt observable and that is because we have no historical evidence from witnesses to back it up…hence the constructed theory
Christian belief isnt a theory because we have the historical witnesses who recorded it…the bible even tells us, “they testify of me” [Christ] (John 5.39)
You are making a blanket statement there without considering that making nonsense claims like that arent particularly intelligent and do nothing for furthering ones credibility. You should at least offer examples that can be tested (given you and science are all about testing)
You’ve been given a multitude of observeable facts and measurements that are inconsistent with YEC. Why do you ignore all those and instead try to find shelter in your made-up caricature of “Darwinian theory”?
Again … you’re asked a question that I don’t believe you’ve ever answered anywhere on these forums! Why the dodge?
Yes, observable facts, physical geology being prominent.
The two statements are not logically well-related. “Testify” and “testimony” included prophetic declarations, not merely historical declarations. “Testimony” can refer to the content of a message and not just statements of fact about that message.
You’re again reading into the text what you want to see, not what is there.
This has been done. You ignore them or just cry “Darwin!” as though that made a point of some sort. I’ll repeat the one I’ve done myself: physical measurements of the physical properties of rocks show that many rocks are at the least hundreds of thousands of years old; no assumptions are required other than that nature is orderly (which is what we should expect from a faithful Creator).
Archaeology is a science that has to do with history, and it shows there was no global flood any time within the last 11,000 years, perhaps 12,000.
You put great store in archaeology when it shows some things in the Bible to have been as described; why do you ignore it otherwise?
Hundreds of thousands of annual ice layers in the Antarctic and Greenland.
Billions of years worth of radioactive decay in rocks.
Stars billions of light years away.
" Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them."–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
Observations are the data. Theories explain the observations.
29+ observations that confirm evolution:
How are your claims testable? What observation, if made, would falsify a young Earth, a recent global flood, or separately created species?
They only confirm the basic evolutionary model, they do not confirm the whole thing. There is no evidence to confirm the whole thing. You know it, I know it, but what is a little hyperbole between opponants.
What does that even mean? I suspect it’s just you trying to move goalposts forever out of anyone’s reach. Sort of like saying … yeah - you think that stars are round and never cubical. But you haven’t seen every last star in the universe, so you haven’t “confirmed the whole thing.”
No matter how many transitional gaps get filled, you’ll just choose to see more, ever smaller gaps.
