How to choose between creation and evolution.

[HitchSlap]

IF that's true,

Yep.

the DNA of that plant or animal

Hominid.

has only been in existence for some 6100 years.

That's funny.

 

[AV1611VET]

Support this with data and evidence.

Sure: faith.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

That's funny.

Or it's embedded age (i.e., maturity without history).

 

[HitchSlap]

Or it's embedded age (i.e., maturity without history).

It's not. We know how it happened.

 

[pitabread]

Or it's embedded age (i.e., maturity without history).

aka: Believing a non-objective universe which makes your premise inherently unfalsifiable and is the same problem as Last Thursdayism.

 

[inquiring mind]

Support this with data and evidence.

I don't know about plant or animal, but if it's man's DNA, this coming October 23 it will have been in existence exactly 7572 years if you want to go by Septuagint chronology.

 

[AV1611VET]

aka: Believing a non-objective universe which makes your premise inherently unfalsifiable and is the same problem as Last Thursdayism.

Non-objective universe?

That's the first time I've heard an academian call it that.

Cults call it "maya" or some other such word.

You have heard that God is transcendent, have you not?

 

[pitabread]

Non-objective universe?

The premise of an objective universe is what underlines scientific inquiry. For example, if the universe appears to be ~14 billion years old via scientific evidence, then assuming it is fundamentally objective in nature means it is ~14 billion years old.

Believing it is something else despite what it appears to be means believing it is non-objective in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure: faith.

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

Either the writers of the translators were very confused there since faith is by definition not evidence. In fact when someone does not have a good reason for believing something they say that they believe it on faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or it's embedded age (i.e., maturity without history).

The rather blasphemous claim that God is not honest again.

By the way what we see is not "maturity", so you do not have to worry about a dishonest God. What we see is history. The Earth is old so God did not lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

The rather blasphemous claim that God is not honest again.

Would you know it if He wasn't?

By the way what we see is not "maturity",

Would you know it if you did?

... so you do not have to worry about a dishonest God.

I never have, and I don't intend to start now.

What we see is history.

You might think you do, but you can't see anything past 23 October 4004 BC.

The Earth is old so God did not lie.

No argument there.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't know about plant or animal, but if it's man's DNA, this coming October 23 it will have been in existence exactly 7572 years if you want to go by Septuagint chronology.

Again, support this assertion with data and evidence.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sure: faith.

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

Faith is neither data or evidence, so all you have are empty assertions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is neither data or evidence, so all you have are empty assertions.

The Bible says otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you know it if He wasn't?Would you know it if you did?I never have, and I don't intend to start now.You might think you do, but you can't see anything past 23 October 4004 BC.No argument there.

I won't answer blatantly dishonest posts. There was no need to blow it up in such a manner. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says otherwise.

So we agree, the Bible made a major error. Or perhaps that is your mistaken interpretation of a verse taken out of context. There really are not any other choices.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Bible says otherwise.

Firstly, it doesnt.

Secondly, I dont care about what the bible say or doesnt say. You wanna make assertions abour physical reality you have to back them up with things other than magic. If you cant, well, then your view is wholly irrational and can safely be discarded.

 

[inquiring mind]

Faith is neither data or evidence, so all you have are empty assertions.

Is there any book, contrary to your thoughts, which would not be doubted? The NT was written by the closest thing to ‘historians’ of the time, in some cases witnesses themselves, and provided ‘data’ in the form of ‘personal accounts’ from contemporaries, who many times saw first-hand the events unfolding.

In the case of Hebrews, the author was writing in the present tense, and less than 40 years after Jesus. These communications weren’t for the reason of trying to mold a religious belief hundreds of years after the fact, or creating a historical or scientific paper, but they were observations, which hint at what was transpiring and had transpired, and evidently accepted by many educated people of the time. If not, where are the skeptical accounts of the day? I find it hard to believe there would have been no weighty skepticism survive, had that been the case? Isn’t that a form of ‘evidence?’ These works continue to be poured over by critics, looking for any way to discredit them. When looking for scientific truth, did present-day scientists look at the communication of early men of science, pre-scientific method days, with so much contempt beyond critique?

 

[VirOptimus]

Is there any book, contrary to your thoughts, which would not be doubted? The NT was written by the closest thing to ‘historians’ of the time, in some cases witnesses themselves, and provided ‘data’ in the form of ‘personal accounts’ from contemporaries, who many times saw first-hand the events unfolding.

In the case of Hebrews, the author was writing in the present tense, and less than 40 years after Jesus. These communications weren’t for the reason of trying to mold a religious belief hundreds of years after the fact, or creating a historical or scientific paper, but they were observations, which hint at what was transpiring and had transpired, and evidently accepted by many educated people of the time. If not, where are the skeptical accounts of the day? I find it hard to believe there would have been no weighty skepticism survive, had that been the case? Isn’t that a form of ‘evidence?’ These works continue to be poured over by critics, looking for any way to discredit them. When looking for scientific truth, did present-day scientists look at the communication of early men of science, pre-scientific method days, with so much contempt beyond critique?

That is not how data and evidence works and the bible is not a reliable historical text.

Also, you interpret the text when you say its literal facts, not something that can be asserted that the author(s) meant without analyzing the texts in an historical perspective. Our idea of literal and truth is not the same as in biblical times for starters.

So again, you have nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is there any book, contrary to your thoughts, which would not be doubted? The NT was written by the closest thing to ‘historians’ of the time, in some cases witnesses themselves, and provided ‘data’ in the form of ‘personal accounts’ from contemporaries, who many times saw first-hand the events unfolding.

In the case of Hebrews, the author was writing in the present tense, and less than 40 years after Jesus. These communications weren’t for the reason of trying to mold a religious belief hundreds of years after the fact, or creating a historical or scientific paper, but they were observations, which hint at what was transpiring and had transpired, and evidently accepted by many educated people of the time. If not, where are the skeptical accounts of the day? I find it hard to believe there would have been no weighty skepticism survive, had that been the case? Isn’t that a form of ‘evidence?’ These works continue to be poured over by critics, looking for any way to discredit them. When looking for scientific truth, did present-day scientists look at the communication of early men of science, pre-scientific method days, with so much contempt beyond critique?

The NT is not as “first hand” as you think it is.
You should look into it.