Creationists: Please, I need to hear you say it.

[h2whoa]

I have sort of been losing faith in humanity of late whilst reading these forums.

So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.

You see, at least then I can hear that your position is routed in faith and not in what I perceive to be ignorance.

As the thread starter, I would like to say that there should be no attacks on Creationists in this thread. I just need to hear it said, and if there are attacks on that position, then they won't post.

h2

 

[California Tim]

So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.

I think you take liberty with the assumtion that the "evidence" contradicts what the Bible says took place. I am a (YEC) creationist. I read all the reported "evidence" and I interpret the evidence from the perspective that the Bible teaches - and find a palpable harmony between what science discovers with that of the Bible. The unbeliever must assume otherwise and thus interpets the data with a dramatically different bias. It's as simple as that. The attacks you refer to are not likely to be abated by any statement short of a denial of an omnipotent God to whom we all must be accountable. That is the agenda.

 

[Event Horizon]

The unbeliever must assume otherwise and thus interpets the data with a dramatically different bias.

It's not about bias. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[mikeynov]

I think you take liberty with the assumtion that the "evidence" contradicts what the Bible says took place. I am a (YEC) creationist. I read all the reported "evidence" and I interpret the evidence from the perspective that the Bible teaches - and find a palpable harmony between what science discovers with that of the Bible. The unbeliever must assume otherwise and thus interpets the data with a dramatically different bias. It's as simple as that. The attacks you refer to are not likely to be abated by any statement short of a denial of an omnipotent God to whom we all must be accountable. That is the agenda.

This really isn't what the OP was asking, though.

Imagine this for a second: that the evidence did contradict a literal reading of Genesis.

Would you be swayed? In other words, do you admit the possibility the your YEC position could be incorrect? Or, in the least, that the evidence could favor an old earth, evolutionary perspective?

I think this is what's being asked.

 

[kedaman]

I think its terribly wrong to base your faith on evidence. It is true that faith must begin with evidence, but it should not be grounded in evidence. In fact Faith is evidence of its own. So when you compare Genesis and Science, I think theres a few things to keep in mind. Science teaches you cosmos exists on its own, this already inconsistent with your beliefs. Instead Science should be seen as a perspective on things, not as how they really are, but as how they appear to you. Literal time is among the notion of how things appear to you, so the danger here is trying to interpret the bible scientifically.
I believe in creation, and I do not think any scientific evidence can be inconsistent with genesis.

 

[California Tim]

It's not about bias. The evidence speaks for itself.

Not quite. I used this analogy in another thread, but it bears repeating in this context.

• We have visual proof that a car left "Point A" and arrived at "Point B" one hour later (caught on camera). The distance between the points was 60 miles. How fast did the car travel?

In reality you cannot answer this question with the facts available. You cannot determine if the car started at "point A" from a dead stop, do not know if there were stops along the way and cannot conclude the rate of speed was constant. So as you see, one set of facts may support many conclusions. I know this is overly simplistic, but hopefully demonstrates the point - not all "evidence" speaks for itself by itself.

 

[Event Horizon]

I think its terribly wrong to base your faith on evidence. It is true that faith must begin with evidence, but it should not be grounded in evidence. In fact Faith is evidence of its own.

I disagree. If you have faith that Jesus is on Mars, that's not evidence that he's on Mars.

So when you compare Genesis and Science, I think theres a few things to keep in mind. Science teaches you cosmos exists on its own, this already inconsistent with your beliefs. Instead Science should be seen as a perspective on things, not as how they really are, but as how they appear to you.

Science isn't a philosophy or outlook on life or the world around you. It studys the universe and everything natural in it in order to get information about it and draw conclusions based on the facts and info found.

 

[JohnR7]

So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.

Why would the evidence ever sway us? The Bible is the absolute truth. If we receive evidence in the way of new and additional information, then that is just going to help us to understand our Bible all that much more.

Also, the Bible is going to help us to understand the evidence. I feel sorry for people who try to understand "evidence" without using the Bible to guide them in that. I know it is because they are lazy and looking for a quick and easy way out from having to struggle to understand what the evidence really means.

Are people willing to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway them from rejecting a literal reading of Genesis?

 

[JohnR7]

I disagree. If you have faith that Jesus is on Mars, that's not evidence that he's on Mars.

You do not understand faith. Faith comes from God, it is a gift that we receive from Him. What your are calling faith is most likely just positive thinking. Or now they are starting to call it "possibility thinking".

 

[JohnR7]

harmony between what science discovers with that of the Bible..

Really, there is no conflict between true science and the Bible.

 

[Event Horizon]

Not quite. I used this analogy in another thread, but it bears repeating in this context.

• We have visual proof that a car left "Point A" and arrived at "Point B" one hour later (caught on camera). The distance between the points was 60 miles. How fast did the car travel?

In reality you cannot answer this question with the facts available. You cannot determine if the car started from a dead stop, do not know if there were stops along the way and cannot conclude the rate of speed was constant. So as you see, one set of facts may support many conclusions. I know this is overly simplistic, but hopefully demonstrates the point - not all "evidence" speaks for itself by itself.

Good point.

 

[Event Horizon]

You do not understand faith. Faith comes from God, it is a gift that we receive from Him. What your are calling faith is most likely just positive thinking. Or now they are starting to call it "possibility thinking".

"1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : [size=-1]LOYALTY[/size] b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=9&y=9.

I'm speaking of faith as in "complete trust" with "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". From there, I was making the point that just because you have faith in something like George W. Bush used to be a rabbit, doesn't provide evidence or proof that he was a rabbit.

 

[kedaman]

Stop twisting my words then. I'm talking from a biblical perspective:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

...just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.

imo, the simple message of the Gospel of Salvation is sancrosanct. Aside from that all else is based on history, customs and traditions and are up for grabs.

We must be willing to follow The Truth wherever it may lead, even if it means going against everything we've ever heard, learned, thought or wannabe.

Without that willingness, without that submissive will, we will never learn anything the Scriptures have to reveal.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."-1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[spiced]

H2whoa,

On what basis and on what literature where you subject too to become a Christian?
The shortest verse in the Bible is "Jesus wept". should I take it literally?

 

[A4C]

What I have seen lines up with God's Word.
I have also seen that some will depart from God and convert truth into a lie

 

[caravelair]

Not quite. I used this analogy in another thread, but it bears repeating in this context.

• We have visual proof that a car left "Point A" and arrived at "Point B" one hour later (caught on camera). The distance between the points was 60 miles. How fast did the car travel?

In reality you cannot answer this question with the facts available. You cannot determine if the car started at "point A" from a dead stop, do not know if there were stops along the way and cannot conclude the rate of speed was constant. So as you see, one set of facts may support many conclusions. I know this is overly simplistic, but hopefully demonstrates the point - not all "evidence" speaks for itself by itself.

i don't think your analogy really works, because the evidence only allows one conclusion, not many. the evidence allows us to determine the average velocity of the car, and nothing beyond that. anything else you say about the velocity will not be based on the evidence available. so what other way can you interpret this evidence then?

 

[JohnR7]

I'm speaking of faith as in "complete trust" with "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

You do not understand what Bible faith is. We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do. When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do. In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.

 

[California Tim]

i don't think your analogy really works, because the evidence only allows one conclusion, not many. the evidence allows us to determine the average velocity of the car, and nothing beyond that. anything else you say about the velocity will not be based on the evidence available. so what other way can you interpret this evidence then?

Here are a couple of conclusions supported by the same evidence:

• The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.
• The car travelled 35 mph to the 1/2 mile mark, sped up to 100mph for another 1/4 mile and finished at 60 mph

Naturally, as you correctly pointed out, these are all speculations unproven by the known evidence. Yet all fit the evidence and that is my point.

 

[OccamsLaser]

You do not understand faith. Faith comes from God, it is a gift that we receive from Him. What your are calling faith is most likely just positive thinking. Or now they are starting to call it "possibility thinking".

You do not understand faith. Faith is required to accept a certain proposition in the absense of evidence. Paul characterized it as "the fabric of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" - when what is required is actual fabric and actual evidence seen. The church, unable to provide that evidence, builds faith up as something that is required not just to accept the claims, but required to obtain salvation - which is one of the claims being made.

Faith comes from God, you say, but it is a substitute for the evidence of the same God's existence, because the evidence isn't available at all. That's the foundation of any good scam, a confidence scheme, a snow-job. You must have faith that the man offering you the Brooklyn Bridge for sale actually owns it, and a "gesture of good faith" would be you not questioning his ownership in exchange for him giving you a great bargain price. Not surprisingly, the con artist tells you it's a good thing to have faith in him.