I struggle with...

[razzelflabben]

Come off it. Creationists believe that man did not descend from ape-like ancestors. The science proves that he did.

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.

 

[Barry Desborough]

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.

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).
Veritas: ERV FAQ: Hasn't the evolutionist's story about ERVs been debunked by scientists such as Dr. Yingguang Liu and Dr. Georgia Purdom?

 

[Barry Desborough]

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.

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.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

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.

 

[Cearbhall]

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].

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 And why do you believe that every part of it was intended as a literal scientific and historical document?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 hope I don't come across as rude. I have a genuine interest in gaining a meaningful understanding of beliefs that are not my own.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

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.

 

[Hidden In Him]

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?

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 to debate on my end, and no longer a great concern.

 

[Barry Desborough]

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.

Oh great. Another closed mind.

 

[The Brown Brink]

That's because there's nothing scientific or natural about the creation events.

God spoke the universe into existence.Or miracle.

But 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.

 

[razzelflabben]

But 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.

don't confuse lack of detail with magic

 

[USincognito]

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

I hope you do better this time.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

There is no such a thing as deep time. The universe and everything in it has only been in existence for 6020 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

That seems to be circular logic.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome back, Gene!

 

[Cearbhall]

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 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.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

I'm saying the Bible isn't circular logic. If It is, then so is the Encyclopedia Britannica.

They were written and chosen specifically to add to the existing canon.

And it was done with God's superintending. Meaning the Holy Spirit guided their choices.

Of course it all works together to some degree.

Yup.

As God put it:

Isaiah 28:13a But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little;

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.

What does all this have to do with the Bible being circular logic?

If you have to stoop to this [borderline] anti-Semite garbage, let's just drop it; and you can pine away thinking the Bible is circular for all I care.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh great. Another closed mind.

Why is one theory more valid than another? They all look equally as valid to me.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm saying the Bible isn't circular logic. If It is, then so is the Encyclopedia Britannica

And I'm saying that's a meaningless comparison.

And it was done with God's superintending. Meaning the Holy Spirit guided their choices.Yup.

Source? Why do you believe this?

If you have to stoop to this [borderline] anti-Semite garbage

Excuse me?

 

[joshua 1 9]

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 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.