It's good that you initiated this thread for the purpose of discussing connecting evidence to valid conclusions. You must remember however that I admitted that there were items in the list which were impossible for verification. The reason I included these is that Litodid's proposal didn't require verifiable evidence for the reasons we were to list. What he wanted from us included things which pertained to corroborating
personal evidence which lends reason for us to remain creationists.
For me, it amounts to a combination of personal experiences as observed in the life of my own family and friends, including church circles as well as physical evidence which is more science related.
I've said that to say that the closer creationist's get to the book and the god of the book, the more Jehovah reveals to us experientially. We cannot verify this beyond ourselves, circles of others involved or folks who observe changes effected by un-natural experience.
The more something can be corroborated, the more sensible it becomes
to us. The list of sensible corroborating items pertaining to my personal experience is longer than the list which would make sense to you or Lithodid.
Percy writes:
Buz sees fulfilled Biblical prophecies as evidence for creationism. Since, for example, Daniel predicts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, therefore there was a global flood.
Daniel predicted the rise and fall of no less than 5 major world class empires which would follow the Egyptian beginning with the Babylonian, the first in his vision. The Roman was the last to fall. The last/5th (emerging) is to include
all nations, tribes and tongues of the planet.
One prophecy does relatively little to lend support to the global flood. However it's one major link in a long chain of other corroborating evidences for the credibility of the Biblical model in explaining/interpreting what we observe as Biblical model creationists.
Percy writes:
This is a common feature of creationist thought, drawing conclusions about things unrelated to the evidence under consideration, so it seems valid to conclude that to convince creationists of science you first have to find a cure for incredibly fuzzy thinking.
Implicating my typical creationist thinking as
fuzzy is disingenuous in that Lithodid did not ask for verifiable reasons.
When the supernatural gets involved, the creationist model requires a greater amount of corroborating evidence than the evolutionist model which enjoys the status of acceptable theory. Much of this applies to personal experience observable only to those who participate in the experiential aspects of it. This applies to both the evil (demonic) for example) and the good.
I'm sure the folks known as
Spiritualists at Lilly Dale here in upstate NY know what I'm talking about relative to experiential evidence of the supernatural.
That's all I have time for presently. New Years Cheers and may God's blessings be on you and yours in '08!
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2
