Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, creation says man is a separate creation but NO science proves nothing about common ancestry and your use of the word "proves" tells me you haven't studied the theory enough to know the difference between what the big business teaches and what is truth about the science.Come off it. Creationists believe that man did not descend from ape-like ancestors. The science proves that he did.
Nonsense. I've linked you to my FAQ. Here are creationist attempts to address the issue. As you will see. Zero serious research. Only propaganda (much of it dishonest).oh no dear one, it's on both sides don't fool yourself and your very question testifies to the truth that it is a two sided coin.
I use the word prove in the sense of "establish beyond reasonable doubt". Read my FAQ, and get back to me if you think you have any reasonable doubts about the conclusions. Take your time. There is a lot there.Yes, creation says man is a separate creation but NO science proves nothing about common ancestry and your use of the word "proves" tells me you haven't studied the theory enough to know the difference between what the big business teaches and what is truth about the science.
as I said, did that a long time ago and even tested it and found it hugely wanting. You can blindly believe if you want but I would rather believe something tested and tried then just go along with the rhetoric that I am told to believe.I use the word prove in the sense of "establish beyond reasonable doubt". Read my FAQ, and get back to me if you think you have any reasonable doubts about the conclusions. Take your time. There is a lot there.
I'm glad this thread was made, because the creationist mentality is "alien" to me as well, despite my Christian upbringing. I think this is where you guys lose me. How do you know it's the infallible and inerrant Word of God? What other source is there for that besides the book itself? That seems to be circular logic. And why do you believe that every part of it was intended as a literal scientific and historical document? There are other kinds of truth. Theological, philosophical, etc.I believe anything taught in the Bible because it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. It is God-breathed. It cannot be false. And yes, it really does teach creationism. [Staff edit].
testing...admittedly not everyone believes that testing is the answer but scripture tells us to test what we are taught and I believe that is important and have been testing it for some 50 years now and found it to be infallible.I'm glad this thread was made, because the creationist mentality is "alien" to me as well, despite my Christian upbringing. I think this is where you guys lose me. How do you know it's the infallible and inerrant Word of God? What other source is there for that besides the book itself? That seems to be circular logic.
I hope I don't come across as rude. I have a genuine interest in gaining a meaningful understanding of beliefs that are not my known.
Seems to me you were looking for an excuse. The fossil record is not the only line of evidence for evolution. Tell me. Are you a YEC too?
Oh great. Another closed mind.That was the only line of evidence I felt I needed. The fossil record and LACK there of is cold hard reality. Things like carbon dating are subject to interpretation.
Yes, Young Earth. But I wasn't really replying to your post to engage in a ton of debate. I hope you won't take that as not having the ability to counter arguments. I simply don't find the issue to be much open got debate on my end, and no longer a great concern.
That's because there's nothing scientific or natural about the creation events.
God spoke the universe into existence.Or miracle.
don't confuse lack of detail with magicBut miracles can be described with details.
Creationists don't describe how God turned dirt into Adam...
Mind you, I believe God did turn dirt into Adam...just like you do...only I believe God used time to do it.
We humans seem to like the idea of things happening suddenly... and mysteriously.
Once we know the timeline of something, we seem to think there is no "magic" to it anymore.
Maybe that's why creationists cling to the story of days...
It's so magical.
Awww, how cute. You're trying to turn a scientific discussion into a religious one. Nice try, but I'll stick with discussing the science when addressing a scientific subject. Save your red herrings for those who will take the bait.Something I suggest ALL atheist do...
You're no exception of course, try again.
I hope you do better this time.
There is no such a thing as deep time. The universe and everything in it has only been in existence for 6020 years.If he did, then he also spoke all the (according to you) false evidence of evolution and deep time with it.
There is no such a thing as deep time. The universe and everything in it has only been in existence for 6020 years.
The Bible consists of 66 books, written over a period of some 1500 years by some 40 authors, on 3 continents and in 3 languages; under a variety of conditions from peace to martial law to war.That seems to be circular logic.
Welcome back, Gene!
I'm not sure what you're saying. They were written and chosen specifically to add to the existing canon. Of course it all works together to some degree. Christianity would not exist without Judaism. The New Testament would not exist if not for the Old Testament. Judaism would not exist without prior mythology, oral history, and polytheistic religious traditions of the Bronze Age.The Bible consists of 66 books, written over a period of some 1500 years by some 40 authors, on 3 continents and in 3 languages; under a variety of conditions from peace to martial law to war.
To say It is circular logic, when all 66 books verify one another, is like saying the Encyclopedia Britannia is circular logic as well.
I'm saying the Bible isn't circular logic. If It is, then so is the Encyclopedia Britannica.I'm not sure what you're saying.
And it was done with God's superintending. Meaning the Holy Spirit guided their choices.Cearbhall said:They were written and chosen specifically to add to the existing canon.
Yup.Cearbhall said:Of course it all works together to some degree.
What does all this have to do with the Bible being circular logic?Cearbhall said:Christianity would not exist without Judaism. The New Testament would not exist if not for the Old Testament. Judaism would not exist without prior mythology, oral history, and polytheistic religious traditions of the Bronze Age.
Why is one theory more valid than another? They all look equally as valid to me.Oh great. Another closed mind.
And I'm saying that's a meaningless comparison.I'm saying the Bible isn't circular logic. If It is, then so is the Encyclopedia Britannica
Source? Why do you believe this?And it was done with God's superintending. Meaning the Holy Spirit guided their choices.Yup.
Excuse me?If you have to stoop to this [borderline] anti-Semite garbage
I have been on this board for a while now asking for any scientific evidence that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. So far no one has come up with anything other than the skeptics Bible which can be dealt with as a whole unit. People either have the mind of Christ or they have a reprobate mind and that is pretty much the extent of it. Either way there is still no scientific evidence that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true.The Bible consists of 66 books, written over a period of some 1500 years by some 40 authors, on 3 continents and in 3 languages; under a variety of conditions from peace to martial law to war.
To say It is circular logic, when all 66 books verify one another, is like saying the Encyclopedia Britannia is circular logic as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?