How to choose between creation and evolution.

[pitabread]

Well, we got something in common with the science community, I guess.

Not really. The level is disparity among creationist beliefs vastly eclipses anything in the scientific community.

Not only that but creationists have no method by which to test different ideas. There isn't even agreement on the fundamental nature of the universe (if creationists on this forum are anything to go by).

 

[Subduction Zone]

But education is?

It is far more reliable than faith. Faith is the excuse given when one does not have a good reason for one's beliefs. And with a user name like "inquiring mind" I would think you would want to learn how we know that there was no flood.

 

[inquiring mind]

It is far more reliable than faith. Faith is the excuse given when one does not have a good reason for one's beliefs. And with a user name like "inquiring mind" I would think you would want to learn how we know that there was no flood.

Would that be in the same way you came to know there is no God? No thank you... but I am learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would that be in the same way you came to know there is no God? No thank you... but I am learning.

You have an incorrect concept of atheism. Atheism is not a claim that there is no God, it is a lack of belief in a God. There is an important difference there. For example Ken Ham was asked during the flood debate "what evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong?" He answered no amount. He could not be convinced That was the moment that he clearly lost the debate with Bill Nye. He admitted to an irrational belief there. Bill Nye on the other hand said almost any reliable evidence would convince him. Atheists in general do not declare there is no God. They lack a belief because of a lack of reliable evidence. That means that they are generally open to change.

My knowing that there was no flood, and I do know, where you only have belief, did not keep me from being a Christian. Most Christians worldwide do not believe the flood story. It is not a matter of "faith" it is a matter of an honest God. The evidence against the flood is so monumental the only way that it could be real is if God dishonestly hid his work. And not just after the flood but for generations after it he was still covering his tracks. That does not sit well with too many Christians. It would imply a dishonest God. As a result it is better to take the story as allegory than as an actual event.

 

[inquiring mind]

You have an incorrect concept of atheism. Atheism is not a claim that there is no God, it is a lack of belief in a God. There is an important difference there. For example Ken Ham was asked during the flood debate "what evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong?" He answered no amount. He could not be convinced That was the moment that he clearly lost the debate with Bill Nye. He admitted to an irrational belief there. Bill Nye on the other hand said almost any reliable evidence would convince him. Atheists in general do not declare there is no God. They lack a belief because of a lack of reliable evidence. That means that they are generally open to change.

My knowing that there was no flood, and I do know, where you only have belief, did not keep me from being a Christian. Most Christians worldwide do not believe the flood story. It is not a matter of "faith" it is a matter of an honest God. The evidence against the flood is so monumental the only way that it could be real is if God dishonestly hid his work. And not just after the flood but for generations after it he was still covering his tracks. That does not sit well with too many Christians. It would imply a dishonest God. As a result it is better to take the story as allegory than as an actual event.

Unless it was possible for you to convincingly add to your list of flood arguments (1) “God is not omnipotent” and (2) “God must, and always has explained and revealed to us in detail everything He does”... then like Ken Ham, I would say “save your breath.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless it was possible for you to convincingly add to your list of flood arguments (1) “God is not omnipotent” and (2) “God must, and always has explained and revealed to us in detail everything He does”... then like Ken Ham, I would say “save your breath.”

Even if God was omnipotent the evidence against the flood tells us that either it did not happen, or that God had to dishonestly cover it up. That should be a moral problem for you. Can God lie? If he can't then there was no flood. The story still works as allegory. It does not work as fact.

 

[inquiring mind]

Even if God was omnipotent the evidence against the flood tells us that either it did not happen,

Since when does interpretation of evidence outweigh omnipotence?

or that God had to dishonestly cover it up.

Dishonesty would require (2) on your list of flood arguments.

 

[VirOptimus]

Since when does interpretation of evidence outweigh omnipotence?


Dishonesty would require (2) on your list of flood arguments.

If your argument is ”more magic”, then you can explain everything and therefore nothing.

That way lays ”last thursday-ism”.

 

[inquiring mind]

If your argument is ”more magic”, then you can explain everything and therefore nothing.

That way lays ”last thursday-ism”.

Sorry, "magic" is not a valid term regarding God's actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since when does interpretation of evidence outweigh omnipotence?

Are you serious? The evidence tells us what happened.

Dishonesty would require (2) on your list of flood arguments.

This makes no sense as written.

Here is a simple question: Will God lie? I say that if exists he won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, "magic" is not a valid term regarding God's actions.

Actually there really is no difference. It is a bit insulting to use, I do agree with that. Christians try to redefine the word "magic" as a result. But insulting terms are not conducive to polite discourse and that should have been your response.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, "magic" is not a valid term regarding God's actions.

There's a winner!

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually there really is no difference.

Pharaoh's magicians, who were magicians in the truest sense, learned the difference the hard way.

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pharaoh's magicians, who were magicians in the truest sense, learned the difference the hard way.

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

Except that too is a fictional part of the Bible. It does not help you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that too is a fictional part of the Bible. It does not help you.

Mything the point, are you?

 

[VirOptimus]

Sorry, "magic" is not a valid term regarding God's actions.

God(s) are supposedely supernatural and thats magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

God(s) are supposedely supernatural and thats magic.

So you believe in the supernatural, do you?

 

[VirOptimus]

So you believe in the supernatural, do you?

No I dont, and I wont watch your video either.

 

[tas8831]

While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind. There are no such “detailed changes,” beyond general “simple to more developed” specific forms of life, which no doubt fuels macroevolution speculation. The Cambrian Explosion shows major life forms bursting onto the scene in a relatively short time, which counters the idea of slow transitions.

Why are you still regurgiposting these acts of incompetence and what must by now be considered lies?

Does it make you feel special to lie for Jesus?

When are you going to provide evidence for Yahweh creating a man from dirt? or are you just another sad-sack creationist that thinks mere belief is all it takes, while demanding detailed evidence that you have already admitted you cannot understand from others?

IOW, why such a child?

 

[tas8831]

"Son?"

You can't jam 3.8 billion years of life into the universe's age of 6,000 years.

LOL!

Wow...

So, your fake flood happened right in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, and dang it, they didn't seem to notice. Must not have been global. Then that means...