human life began in Africa, is this not what the bible tells us?

[RealityCheck01]

I've presented evidence.

Can you link to some of this evidence in this thread, Aldebaran?
Your personal opinion is not evidence.
Quoting the Bible to support the Bible is not evidence, that is circular reasoning.
The YEC "evidence" is considered invalid evidence, even by some creationists:
YEC Criticism: Theological considerations and Lack of scientific acceptance

Genesis itself contains two accounts as to whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

So in your mind, did David exist or didn't he? You seem to think that if there's not "evidence" for something, then it never existed. Time has a way of erasing evidence, you know.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

 

[Aldebaran]

Can you link to some of this evidence in this thread, Aldebaran?
Your personal opinion is not evidence.
Quoting the Bible to support the Bible is not evidence, that is circular reasoning.
The YEC "evidence" is considered invalid evidence, even by some creationists:
YEC Criticism: Theological considerations and Lack of scientific acceptance

You can choose to believe this about the bible if you wish. I choose to believe what it says. Face it, when you come to a Christian website, you're bound to find people here who believe what the bible says. There are other websites you can go to if you want to converse with people who believe otherwise. Just sayin'

 

[Loudmouth]

You can choose to believe this about the bible if you wish. I choose to believe what it says. Face it, when you come to a Christian website, you're bound to find people here who believe what the bible says. There are other websites you can go to if you want to converse with people who believe otherwise. Just sayin'

We were asking for evidence, not what you believe. Just sayin'.

 

[Aldebaran]

We were asking for evidence, not what you believe. Just sayin'.

I believe what the bible says. The fact that I have told you this is evidence for that belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe what the bible says. The fact that I have told you this is evidence for that belief.

Stating a belief is belief, not evidence.

 

[Aldebaran]

Stating a belief is belief, not evidence.

If I proclaim that belief, then it is evidence that I believe it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I proclaim that belief, then it is evidence that I believe it.

A belief is a belief, not evidence. Do you understand the difference between the two?

 

[AV1611VET]

A belief is a belief, not evidence. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Our faith is our substance.

Our faith is also evidence of things you can't see.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So in your mind, did David exist or didn't he?

In my mind there is no evidence other than the Bible that David exists so he probably did not exist. Just like the mention of a teapot floating between Earth and Mars in a book without evidence means that the teapot probably does not exist.
Russell's teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

This is a part of the rational thinking within the scientific method - nothing should be described as not existing or existing juts because someone has a bias one way or another. It is the evidence for and against existence that is important.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...

Just left in the actual answer to the question in my post, Aldebaran. Seems you need to learn what a question is. This is a question:
24th February 2015: Can you link to some of this evidence in this thread, Aldebaran?

An explanation of what evidence is not is:

Your personal opinion is not evidence.
Quoting the Bible to support the Bible is not evidence, that is circular reasoning.
The YEC "evidence" is considered invalid evidence, even by some creationists:
YEC Criticism: Theological considerations and Lack of scientific acceptance

 

[ViaCrucis]

I answered you with God's word because your profile claims that you are a Christian. I'm assuming you're a Christian who puts some credibility in God's word.

You didn't use Scripture to answer anything I've said in this thread so far. You used Scripture to attack the very premise of seeking knowledge about the natural world as a means to avoid having to engage any arguments actually raised under a thin veneer of shallow religiosity.

To which my response in my previous post about either you being consistent in such a view or else you are being a hypocrite stands.

And there still remains the fact that you have not actually addressed anything.

Job 38 doesn't address anything I've said in this thread.

I would expect someone who claims to respect Holy Scripture to take it more seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[variant]

Because we didn't evolve from apes, to say apes evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs from fish is preposterous

Of course we did, humans are still apes.

 

[Shemjaza]

If I proclaim that belief, then it is evidence that I believe it.

I don't think anyone doubts the YEC sincerity... they just find the lack of evidence a reason to not share the beliefs.

 

[yesyoushould]

I don't think anyone doubts the YEC sincerity... they just find the lack of evidence a reason to not share the beliefs.

I'm sure that if you defined the "YEC", we would still have no idea what you are talking about. Make things up much?


YEC, Young Earth Creation. Still a mystery.


Calculate the years before death existed. Don't go dumb on me.

 

[yesyoushould]

God made all. Can't hate me for that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm sure that if you defined the "YEC", we would still have no idea what you are talking about. Make things up much?


YEC, Young Earth Creation. Still a mystery.


Calculate the years before death existed. Don't go dumb on me.

God made all. Can't hate me for that.

Wow, that was rude and more then a little incoherent.

Have you honestly not heard the phrase "Young Earth Creationist"? It's a term mostly applied to those who believe that Genesis 1 describes a literal even that occurred approximately six thousand years ago.

I was merely trying to explain that I (and most evolution accepting people) fully accept that people have very real belief in many forms of creationism. However, that someone believes it is not, in and of itself, a good reason for me to agree.

 

[Aldebaran]

Just left in the actual answer to the question in my post, Aldebaran. Seems you need to learn what a question is. This is a question:
24th February 2015: Can you link to some of this evidence in this thread, Aldebaran?

An explanation of what evidence is not is:

I think AV1611VET answered your question very well. I know anything from the bible means nothing to you, which is your problem rather than mine....

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Our faith is our substance.

Our faith is also evidence of things you can't see.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think AV1611VET answered your question very well. I know anything from the bible means nothing to you, which is your problem rather than mine....

Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between belief and evidence. Believing that the moon is made of cheese is not evidence that the moon is made of cheese.

In 3rd grade we were given an exercise where we were supposed to differentiate between opinions and facts. I would hope that you were taught this, too. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit those lessons.

 

[Loudmouth]

God made all. Can't hate me for that.

Can't call it evidence, either.