Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

pitabread said:

Believe what was?

I don't mind answering questions, but please try to articulate clearly what you're trying to ask.

Click to expand...

From the appearance of a tree to the appearance of man?

Tone said:

From the appearance of a tree to the appearance of man?

Click to expand...

Three days.

KWCrazy said:

Did I say that?
I said your belief is wrong if it is contradicted by the word of God.
The Bible doesn't specifically answer all questions. It's the questions it DOES answer which bother so many.

Click to expand...

Whether ones belief contradicts God's word will depend on the interpretive method. Not all Christians have the same interpretive method.

AV1611VET said:

Three days.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Tone said:

Well said!

Click to expand...

"Tree days" would've been funnier..ha ha...

Steve Petersen said:

Whether ones belief contradicts God's word will depend on the interpretive method. Not all Christians have the same interpretive method.

Click to expand...

Yet every single Christian who has ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes: IN THE BEGINING, GOD.

Does that mean anything?

AV1611VET said:

Yet every single Christian who has ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes: IN THE BEGINING, GOD.

Does that mean anything?

Click to expand...

Not only that, they will believe in the "three days", but some will say that it wasn't three twenty-four hour periods. Where does the seven 24 hour periods come from anyways...convention?

AV1611VET said:

Yet every single Christian who has ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes: IN THE BEGINING, GOD.

Does that mean anything?

Click to expand...

Of course it does. HOW and WHEN he did it is the point of contention.

Tone said:

I don't actually have a position...I am simply asking questions. In asking these questions,it occurred to me that if we keep going back to a source...the Sun is also a link in the chain, so to speak.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the absence of a position is what makes your questions appear strange. The questions also follow a trajectory that strongly suggests that you do actually have a position, perhaps one you are not consciously aware of. An alternative explanation is that you are not doing due diligence on your questions before posing them. That would lead, eventually, to your questions being disregarded and your assertions ignored.

Tone said:

From the appearance of a tree to the appearance of man?

Click to expand...

According to evolution, I believe the answer is: 385 million years.

Tone said:

Not only that, they will believe in the "three days", but some will say that it wasn't three twenty-four hour periods. Where does the seven 24 hour periods come from anyways...convention?

Click to expand...

The seven days becoming seven eons of time is a lame attempt to inject deep time into Genesis 1.

AV1611VET said:

Yet every single Christian who has ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes: IN THE BEGINING, GOD.

Does that mean anything?

Click to expand...

It means quite a bit to Christians and other theists, but it has no relevance whatever to the creation/evolution debate which is about the Bible and how some Christians interpret it, not the existence of God and His authorship of our being.

Steve Petersen said:

So everyone agrees on what God's word says?

Click to expand...

Yes,the divisions come when people...well...divide the plain and simple meaning into their concocted definitions. Oh yeah,did I mention that "science" comes from a parent root meaning "to divide"?

Steve Petersen said:

Of course it does. HOW and WHEN he did it is the point of contention.

Click to expand...

If you concatenate the genealogies, I think this discrepancy can be resolved.

Speedwell said:

It means quite a bit to Christians and other theists, but it has no relevance whatever to the creation/evolution debate which is about the Bible and how some Christians interpret it, not the existence of God and His authorship of our being.

Click to expand...

No argument there.

AV1611VET said:

If you concatenate the genealogies, I think this discrepancy can be resolved.

Click to expand...

Ussher has already done that. Of course, he used the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint.

Ophiolite said:

you do actually have a position

Click to expand...

Well, the idea that I am throwing around right now is that nothing really is a light of itself, e.g., the Sun, so when I am told that it is ridiculous to say that the Moon is light, because it is only re-emitting or reflecting the Sun's light...why can't I say that it is ridiculous to speak of the Sun as being the source of light, since it is only interacting with light in its own way?

Tone said:

Well, the idea that I am throwing around right now is that nothing really is a light of itself, e.g., the Sun, so when I am told that it is ridiculous to say that the Moon is light, because it is only re-emitting or reflecting the Sun's light...why can't I say that it is ridiculous to speak of the Sun as being the source of light, since it is only interacting with light in its own way?

Click to expand...