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

[aeroz19]

If you could prove a theory, it wouldn't be science.

If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.

 

[Event Horizon]

If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.

Small details in a theory can easily be changed when evidence permits.

 

[kedaman]

If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.

now thats better

 

[OccamsLaser]

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.

If I can present you with a situation from the Bible in which God does NOT do what He says He will do, how would that change your conviction? Hint: there are several such references. And "Let's see the references" isn't a proper answer; note I am asking you how your point of view would be changed.

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.

Unless you get that faith from divine inspiration or reading a diary of her actions which someone else wrote a long time ago, it's quite a different faith from the faith you have in God. For starters, as others have already pointed out, you can easily determine and demonstrate that your wife exists, which is not the case at all with God.

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.

Leaving aside the issue of whether God always keeps His promises, your concept of "contract" is a little blurry. A covenant, or contract, between two parties is an agreement approved by both parties. In exchange for "consideration" (currency, goods, or services) provided by the first party, the second party agrees to provide similar "consideration". Agreement is typically indicated by a handwritten signature on a written contract instrument. What you would like to pretend is a contract consists, probably, of God's offer to provide eternal salvation from hell to humans after their deaths, in exchange for humans adopting and sincerely believing certain articles of faith, which generally orient a person in the direction of what is considered "good" behavior, but which is also used by church administration for political, social, and economic control of large groups of people.

I have reviewed the particulars of the "covenant", and have read the "fine print" (specifically, I have read the Bible cover to cover five times, with a sixth planned for next year). Based on the details in the "contract", I do not agree, and choose not to enter into this covenant. On that basis, whether God can justly choose to inflict eternal punishment on me for failing to enter into the agreement - or simply if God wants to provide a threat of eternal punishment in hell as something He can protect me from - reduces God to the level of a Mafia strong-arm enforcer in a protection racket.

 

[OccamsLaser]

If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.

Aye - it only takes one white crow to disprove the theory "All crows are black."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I have reviewed the particulars of the "covenant", and have read the "fine print" (specifically, I have read the Bible cover to cover five times, with a sixth planned for next year). Based on the details in the "contract", I do not agree, and choose not to enter into this covenant. On that basis, whether God can justly choose to inflict eternal punishment on me for failing to enter into the agreement - or simply if God wants to provide a threat of eternal punishment in hell as something He can protect me from - reduces God to the level of a Mafia strong-arm enforcer in a protection racket.

Anyone can read but that does not guarantee understanding. Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it. In order to understand the fine print of The Contract one must be able to comprehend legalese and this contract's legalese can only be discerned spiritually otherwise it is but foolishness to the foolish for it is impossible for them to understand the things of God for their heart is stubborn, their will unbending and the unwilling can see only the worldly.

 

[OccamsLaser]

Anyone can read but that does not guarantee understanding.

I'm not claiming understanding. All I'm claiming is that I choose not to enter into the covenant.

Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22." (Yossarian, in Joseph Heller's Catch-22)

In order to understand the fine print of The Contract one must be able to comprehend legalese and this contract's legalese can only be discerned spiritually otherwise it is but foolishness to the foolish for it is impossible for them to understand the things of God for their heart is stubborn, their will unbending and the unwilling can see only the worldly.

You had me up to the middle part. Go ahead and consider that one of the reasons I choose not to enter the covenant is because it is as hard to understand as your sentence here which attempts to explain why it is hard to understand.

So, to the point of my concern: why should I bear the consequences of a covenant I never entered into?

 

[OccamsLaser]

Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it.

Sorry, I may have misread that. It looked like a pretty good example of a Catch-22, anyway.

You may be under the misunderstanding that I've never been a Christian. I was, for about a dozen years, and many atheists and skeptics have been as well. The English translations of the Bible are about at the ninth grade level of reading complexity, and most of the claims (supernatural or otherwise) are easily understood at face value. The understanding you are most likely referring to is an apologetic of why the intended meaning does not match the actual text. In the context of the current analogy to a contract, that's fraud.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

Faith is rooted (not routed) in reason and in epistomology (theory of knowledge) there is a distinction between things believed and things that warrant total convidence. I spend way too much time looking at the evidence and frankly find it unconvincing. On the other hand with the Bible I see evidence for it's credibility that is unequaled.

I resent being called ignorant because I hold to a literal interprutation of Genesis but I can understand why someone would think that. You have to understand the nature of Christian theism, it is rooted and grounded in the Gospel and untill you understand that the rest is completely incomprehensible.

Bottomline, faith is a product of reason and it is not supposition or superstition. Faith is convidence that does not waiver in the face of criticism or even ridicule. Faith is the substance of things unseen and the evidence of things hoped for.

"...well spake the Holy Ghost by E-sai'as (Isaiah) the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and thier ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Acts 28:25-27)

 

[Pilgrim 33]

It looked like a pretty good example of a Catch-22, anyway...[]...You may be under the misunderstanding that I've never been a Christian. I was, for about a dozen years

No, there is no catch-22; indeed, where (spiritual) understanding is devoid there can be no catch-22.

"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

It is extremely doubtful, if not completely impossible, for one indwelt by The Holy Spirit to turn away from the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It takes more to be a Christian than just saying it, just as reading is not studying.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."-2 Timothy 2:15

The problem for many in this regard, imo, is that they desire to mix beliefs and lifestyles and it will not work and their conscience is in opposition to that of The Holy Spirit and they do not wish to change their life to conform to the wishes of God. In short, they never were a true believer in Christ.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

 

[Nathan Poe]

Aye - it only takes one white crow to disprove the theory "All crows are black."

Aye - Then we change the theory to "All crows are black... except that one over there..."

 

[dudeoffaith1]

Creationism is right. Thanks

 

[Event Horizon]

Creationism is right. Thanks

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

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

Faith is not based on belief nor can faith be based on evidence. So what is the substance of faith or, better put, in the end what really matters is correctly choosing The Object of our faith. What is The Object of your faith?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

non sequitur, it's not a theory; if it wasn't black it wouldn't be a crow.

 

[JohnR7]

What is The Object of your faith?

The object of our faith is that we believe God is trustworty and true. We believe that He will do what He says He will do. God keeps His promises. We do not put faith in ourselves and in man's ability. We put faith in God and and His ability.

Of course the problem is when people put faith in something that God never said that He was going to do.

 

[JohnR7]

Well, I'm convinced.

That was easy, what do we talk about now?

 

[gluadys]

The object of our faith is that we believe God is trustworty and true. We believe that He will do what He says He will do. God keeps His promises. We do not put faith in ourselves and in man's ability. We put faith in God and and His ability.

Of course the problem is when people put faith in something that God never said that He was going to do.

Emphasis added.

Actually, John, the bolded statement is heresy.

The object of our faith is God. Not what we believe about God, but God himself. Everything else flows from that.

I won't say more on that here, as it would take us too far into General Apologetics.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

Faith is not based on belief nor can faith be based on evidence. So what is the substance of faith or, better put, in the end what really matters is correctly choosing The Object of our faith. What is The Object of your faith?

Faith cannot be based on evidence of things unseen? I don't get it

 

[Nathan Poe]

non sequitur, it's not a theory; if it wasn't black it wouldn't be a crow.

Can't there be an albino crow?