I struggle with...

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it's a miracle...
But how do you see it in your mind?
Do you see dust swirling together to form the shape of a man?
Do you see a rib being lengthened and fleshed out to form a woman?

How do you see these miracles?

I see consol.

 

[The Brown Brink]

I see consol.

Can you describe this?

 

[Waggles]

I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

Sure. Because it is true.
Oh, and evolution ain't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you describe this?

Sure.

 

[USincognito]

There is no observable evidence for evolution between kinds,

What does that even mean? How about you provide a hypothetical example of the part I've bolded and then we can talk?

...it is an educated assumption, which in turn requires faith.

Vacuous rhetoric and magic words is not the same as actually addressing the evidence.

When you have no answer for something, call it a strawman!
Or fallacy, whatever buzzword you're comfortable with using to dodge the question at hand.

Actually when someone presents a straw man as an argument, it's entirely appropriate to call it what it is - a straw man. Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the earth so it's a red herring as well. That said, no where in astrophysics is there the suggestion of the world "manifest(ing) out of nothing". Maybe you could learn a little something about the subject before trying to critique it.

 

[Wolfe]

Maybe you could learn a little something about the subject before trying to critique it.

Something I suggest ALL atheist do...
You're no exception of course, try again.

I hope you do better this time.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

There is no observable evidence for evolution between kinds, it is an educated assumption, which in turn requires faith.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by "evolution between kinds?"

 

[Wolfe]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by "evolution between kinds?"

If you're educated on the subject, which I would presume you would be, having the confidence to reply, why would you need one?
You'd obviously know what I was talking about.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What makes you so sure that your interpretation is correct anyway?

Because we have the Holy Spirit of God for our teacher to guide us and lead us into all truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because we have the Holy Spirit of God for our teacher to guide us and lead us into all truth.

So do the faithful who's interpretation differs to yours, you can't all be right.

 

[Jimmy D]

If you're educated on the subject, which I would presume you would be, having the confidence to reply, why would you need one?
You'd obviously know what I was talking about.

He's probably wondering what a kind is, as am I.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If you're educated on the subject, which I would presume you would be, having the confidence to reply, why would you need one?
You'd obviously know what I was talking about.

I'd say I'm educated on the subject of evolution, yes. I'm not educated on this "evolution between kinds" thing you brought up. What does that mean?

 

[Wolfe]

He's probably wondering what a kind is, as am I.

Well, a kind in a biblical sense would suggest, family.

If you wanna put it in a sentence, a kind would be an entire group of a certain animal.
Pigeons, crows, seagulls, hawks, etc, are all the same kind, bird.

The evolutionist idea is, that everything evolved from the same kind, as in, everything branched off from one source, one way or another.
Which can't really be proven, you can make assumptions and educated guesses, but it's not a proven fact.
Which is what I find funny, because it's as much as a religion, as anything else.

There seems to be different denominations of evolutionist, different beliefs within the community, arguments, and counter arguments, but the evidence that is there isn't enough to convict it.
Just like a religion.
And people adhere, and defend it, just like a religion.

Oh! I go off evidence! When it's largely speculation, guessing, and a lot of blind faith in man.

In any case, evolution has little to nothing to do with Christians, if it's true, doesn't effect us one bit, if it's not, still doesn't effect us.
Nothing about evolution contradicts biblical doctrine.

I can concede mutations, and small changes occurring over time. We can observe this, we know this happens, we can't exactly prove it for ALL animals, but I know certain types of worms, and flies, tend to evolve rather quickly, and we've seen that happen. So I can concede to that.
But the small changes are not enough, and never will be enough, to constitute the diversity we see today.
And scientist say the earth isn't even as diverse as it once was.

I will however, not concede to something that is speculation, unless the speculation is founded in enough evidence to warrant my attention.
Which I find it to be not.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well, a kind in a biblical sense would suggest, family.

If you wanna put it in a sentence, a kind would be an entire group of a certain animal.
Pigeons, crows, seagulls, hawks, etc, are all the same kind, bird.

I think I get it. For example, Lions and Tigers would be part of some kind of "cat kind" or "feline kind" or something like that?

 

[Wolfe]

I think I get it. For example, Lions and Tigers would be part of some kind of "cat kind" or "feline kind" or something like that?

Technically, yes.
Any feline, no matter what kind of feline it is, would be under the feline category.
But you've gotta also understand how we define the feline, and the family all together.

Versus how we did back then.

For instance, bats was under the bird category. We didn't classify birds the same way back then, as we do now. To be under the bird category, it had to be winged, and fly.
now we classify it much differently, bats are mammals, not birds.
Whales would have been called fish, I would presume.
Very simplistic classing system, if it looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it was a duck.
See what I mean?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So do the faithful who's interpretation differs to yours, you can't all be right.

Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. In a building every stone is right and true when they line up with the cornerstone (level and plum). As a carpenter I know the further you get away from the cornerstone the more difficult it is to build your building.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, a kind in a biblical sense would suggest, family.

If you wanna put it in a sentence, a kind would be an entire group of a certain animal.
Pigeons, crows, seagulls, hawks, etc, are all the same kind, bird.

You don't know what a kind is but you're claiming that there's no evolution between kinds?

The evolutionist idea is, that everything evolved from the same kind, as in, everything branched off from one source, one way or another.
Which can't really be proven, you can make assumptions and educated guesses, but it's not a proven fact.
Which is what I find funny, because it's as much as a religion, as anything else.

And then you come up with this stuff?

There seems to be different denominations of evolutionist, different beliefs within the community, arguments, and counter arguments, but the evidence that is there isn't enough to convict it.
Just like a religion.
And people adhere, and defend it, just like a religion.

Sorry Wolfey this is just nonsense.

In any case, evolution has little to nothing to do with Christians, if it's true, doesn't effect us one bit, if it's not, still doesn't effect us.
Nothing about evolution contradicts biblical doctrine.

True!

I can concede mutations, and small changes occurring over time. We can observe this, we know this happens, we can't exactly prove it for ALL animals, but I know certain types of worms, and flies, tend to evolve rather quickly, and we've seen that happen. So I can concede to that.
But the small changes are not enough, and never will be enough, to constitute the diversity we see today.
And scientist say the earth isn't even as diverse as it once was.

I will however, not concede to something that is speculation, unless the speculation is founded in enough evidence to warrant my attention.
Which I find it to be not.

No one's forcing you to accept anything, if you won't examine the evidence though it's a bit rich to make all these pronouncements about it.

 

[Wolfe]

So do the faithful who's interpretation differs to yours, you can't all be right.

The bible isn't as complex as people would like to think.

It isn't hard to study the scripture, and find out what it actually means, and there in lies the true doctrine.
Anyone who has differing views of the true doctrine, would be wrong.

And it isn't true, because I see it as true, it's true because it's true.
The bible says what it says, there's no real personal interpretation, it either is this, or is not this, and I feel the bible makes it clear, if you honestly investigate it.

However, many are blinded by personal bias, such as with liberals, a typical liberal would support, and encourage homosexuality, as where the bible does not.
And in their bias, they fool themselves into thinking the bible actually promotes it, and it doesn't.
Anybody who reads it knows it, it isn't even in a particularly cryptic verse.

Even as an atheist, you must be able to discern what the bible teaches, and what it doesn't, so I mean, take it as you go.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you can't all be right.

Would it matter?

After all, every single Christian ever born, ever will be born, and alive today believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD; yet you're still an atheist.

So telling us we can't all be right is just an attempt at making some kind of point; and a lame attempt at that.

How about you state your point clearly, please?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Technically, yes.
Any feline, no matter what kind of feline it is, would be under the feline category.
But you've gotta also understand how we define the feline, and the family all together.

Versus how we did back then.

For instance, bats was under the bird category. We didn't classify birds the same way back then, as we do now. To be under the bird category, it had to be winged, and fly.
now we classify it much differently, bats are mammals, not birds.
Whales would have been called fish, I would presume.
Very simplistic classing system, if it looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, it was a duck.
See what I mean?

Yes. As time goes on we get much better at classifying types of animals. I suppose I'd wonder what would warrant a lion and a tiger, or a pigeon and a hawk, to be of the same kind but not humans and chimps or bonobos.