Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[Lion Hearted Man]

The Bible does not damage faith, only false interpretations do.

Since you're willing to accept the age of the earth and want to avoid all the incest, why not accept the scientific fact of evolution? It really doesn't take all that many mental gymnastics from where you are currently.

 

[Research1]

Since you're willing to accept the age of the earth and want to avoid all the incest, why not accept the scientific fact of evolution? It really doesn't take all that many mental gymnastics from where you are currently.

1. I believe in what the Bible teaches - creationism.
2. I believe in polygenism.

I reject ToE on the basis of my Biblical interpretation, but also because i do not believe monogenism is scientific. I also already listed the holes in the evolution theory. Macroevolution has never been observed anyway, so for me to convert to an evolutionist is the same chance i start to believe in the tooth fairy...

 

[Skaloop]

Macroevolution has never been observed anyway

Creation has never been observed. So that doesn't really solve your problem.

 

[Research1]

Creation has never been observed. So that doesn't really solve your problem.

I believe God revealed to Adam about the creation. And that the days in Genesis 1 are not the days God created, but the days God revealed to man about the creation.

 

[Skaloop]

I believe God revealed to Adam about the creation. And that the days in Genesis 1 are not the days God created, but the days God revealed to man about the creation.

Great. But, nobody observed it.

Unless you want to count God as somebody who observed it, but then that would counter your earlier point that macroevolution has never been observed since God would have observed macroevolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great. But, nobody observed it.

A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?

663

 

[Gracchus]

A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?

663

I'll believe that when your post count reaches ONE quadrillion!

 

[hillard]

A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?

That's it AV1611VET keep digging that hole, you know it makes sense.

 

[chris4243]

Creation has never been observed. So that doesn't really solve your problem.

But we've seen lesser versions of creation, micro-creation if you will, in how humans build cars or genetically engineer organisms. Surely if you scale up the process it could account for large scale creation events?

 

[AV1611VET]

But we've seen lesser versions of creation, micro-creation if you will, in how humans build cars or genetically engineer organisms. Surely if you scale up the process it could account for large scale creation events?

Like Intelligent Design?

 

[hillard]

A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?

What did your god want with "a few quadrillion angels"? was he lonely?

 

[AV1611VET]

What did your god want with "a few quadrillion angels"? was he lonely?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[driewerf]

1. I believe in what the Bible teaches - creationism.
2. I believe in polygenism.

I reject ToE on the basis of my Biblical interpretation, but also because i do not believe monogenism is scientific. I also already listed the holes in the evolution theory. Macroevolution has never been observed anyway, so for me to convert to an evolutionist is the same chance i start to believe in the tooth fairy...

I want to confront you with your own words:

It doesn't need to be directly observed, there are physical remains left, and these can be tested.

As an honest man, I have to stress that you wrote that about Ice Ages, not about evolution. Yet, the principle stays. We don't need to observe evolution directly. There are physical remains left, and these can be tested. Remains like the georgrphical distribution of living species, the sequence in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy in animal features, the genetic similarity of key genes, etc.
You'll have to deal with all of these (and many more) before doing the ToE away.
But above all, your attitude of "it hasn't been observed directly, so it isn't true", can't be held any longer.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Creation has never been observed.

Tell that to Picasso: http://www.christianforums.com/t7543350-4/#post56969436

 

[Gracchus]

But above all, your attitude of "it hasn't been observed directly, so it isn't true", can't be held any longer.

He can probably hold it. I once held a cow-pie,

 

[hillard]

Sadly creationists have been duped into believing the impossible is possible providing you believe it strongly enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sadly creationists have been duped into believing the impossible is possible providing you believe it strongly enough.

Not exactly -- here's What makes the impossible possible:

Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

 

[theFijian]

The Bible does not damage faith, only false interpretations do.

This of course comes from the guy who says the Bible is just for white people

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I want to confront you with your own words:

As an honest man, I have to stress that you wrote that about Ice Ages, not about evolution. Yet, the principle stays. We don't need to observe evolution directly. There are physical remains left, and these can be tested. Remains like the georgrphical distribution of living species, the sequence in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy in animal features, the genetic similarity of key genes, etc.
You'll have to deal with all of these (and many more) before doing the ToE away.
But above all, your attitude of "it hasn't been observed directly, so it isn't true", can't be held any longer.

QFT. He probably won't reply but still.

 

[AV1611VET]

This of course comes from the guy who says the Bible is just for white people

Fijian, none of my business really; but just out of curiosity, are you among the elect or the reprobate?

Of course, I don't know if you're Lapsarian or Supralapsarian, or neither; and I don't even know if Calvin taught you can know for sure -- but I'm just wondering.

Thanks --