Is there any evidence for Creationism?

[cweb255]

Do you really think the Bible is not from God? Do you really think God did not tell the human authors what to write?

II Timothy 3:16

There was no New Testament at the time of this writing.

2 Peter 1:16

Concerns all the is said that now comprises the New Testament.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Concerns the Old Testament.

2 Peter would be a good book for all who dispute the Bible being the Word of God to read. For your teaching that the Bible is not the Word of God is heresy.

So, if all scripture is God-breathed, then that means Gospel of Thomas is God-breathed, Gospel of James is God-breathed, Sophia Iesou Christou is God-breathed, the Quran is God-breathed, the Vedas are God-breathed...

Lots of sense you're making there.

As for Peter, he explicitly says not to follow what has been written about him, which could change, but listen to the original disciples who witnessed the thing. You contradict your own self.

 

[1denomination]

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcad200.htm Who cares what ecumentical councils think.

 

[GodSaves]

No, it isn't. You're making up your own version of Christianity again, where everyone who disagrees with GodSavesism is a heretic. I've told you before you don't get to do that.

Find me a single ecumentical council that describes my beliefs about the nature of Scripture heresy. Just one. There are none. You're trying to make heresy accusations on your own authority; unfortunately you have none.

To put it another way - heretic, schmeretic. Yah boo sucks to you matey.

I didn't make up Christianity. I follow Christ. On your website you say that you can get to God many ways. This says who you follow.

I have no authority, but God's Word is Authority in all matters. And if you had read what I posted in 2 Peter you would see that the Bible is God's Word for it had its origins in God. For you say otherwise is to denounce the teachings of the Bible and commit heresy. Karl you may have many fooled here, but God sees you.

Call me a heretic all you would like. I will not abandon Scripture so that I can find a place in this world.

 

[GodSaves]

So, if all scripture is God-breathed, then that means Gospel of Thomas is God-breathed, Gospel of James is God-breathed, Sophia Iesou Christou is God-breathed, the Quran is God-breathed, the Vedas are God-breathed...

Lots of sense you're making there.

As for Peter, he explicitly says not to follow what has been written about him, which could change, but listen to the original disciples who witnessed the thing. You contradict your own self.

You obviously don't know what scripture is. Scripture is the Old Testament and that only. You will see in Peter's books that he talks about his writings and other Apostles writings coming from what they witnessed while walking with Christ, and what has been revealed to them by Christ.

As for Peter, he says don't follow him, follow Christ. Peter also say's what he teaches is not his teachings but the teachings of God. Christ is God.

What troubles are you having understanding these things? These are not hard to grasp, maybe you are missing something that I can help with.

 

[cweb255]

You obviously don't know what scripture is. Scripture is the Old Testament and that only. You will see in Peter's books that he talks about his writings and other Apostles writings coming from what they witnessed while walking with Christ, and what has been revealed to them by Christ.

As for Peter, he says don't follow him, follow Christ. Peter also say's what he teaches is not his teachings but the teachings of God. Christ is God.

What troubles are you having understanding these things? These are not hard to grasp, maybe you are missing something that I can help with.

The trouble I'm having is your paradox. You say at first only follow the OT and then you say follow Christ. But none of this has anything to do with literal interpretations!

 

[tryptophan]

OP writer here. I'm glad all of you are having an interesting conversation, but could you take it somewhere else? I'd like to know if there is any scientific evidence for creationist ideas. Thank you.

 

[cweb255]

Oh, we're still talking about that? Then, no. No scientific data at all for creationism.

 

[gluadys]

He just rejects parts of the Bible that he thinks is metaphorical.

No, Karl and the rest of us who hold to metaphorical interpretations do not reject any part of the Bible at all.

The idea that "this passage is metaphorical" = "this passage is rejected" is a false equation made by literalists.

 

[cweb255]

No, Karl and the rest of us who hold to metaphorical interpretations do not reject any part of the Bible at all.

The idea that "this passage is metaphorical" = "this passage is rejected" is a false equation made by literalists.

Do you not reject taking the Bible literally? That was what I was referring to.

 

[GodSaves]

cweb255, what kind of revisions do you make to the KJV of the Bible? This is what your profile says that you make revisions to the Bible.

 

[cweb255]

http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/122.kjverrors.html

Although now that I do a lot of my own translations, I find myself making my own compilation.

 

[tryptophan]

Dials Police


Yes, there are some strange people here who have stolen my thread. They won't go away.

 

[1denomination]

Dials Police


Yes, there are some strange people here who have stolen my thread. They won't go away.

haha (or at least i think that smiley is laughing looks more like a sneeze to me)

 

[GodSaves]

Dials Police


Yes, there are some strange people here who have stolen my thread. They won't go away.

LOL! I apologize.

Genesis has all the evidence I need.

Sorry about derailing.

 

[TwinCrier]

tryptophan, perhaps you could describe what you will accept as proof, since the bible is not to be trusted for such matters as this.

 

[Vance]

tryptophan, perhaps you could describe what you will accept as proof, since the bible is not to be trusted for such matters as this.

First a couple of points:

1. It is wrong (but typical) for you to characterize it as not trusting the Bible. To say that the Bible may not contain accurate history or science is not in ANY way to say that it can not be trusted. If it was intending to give history or science, but didn't give it correctly, that would be different. But since we believe that what God was intending to convey was something OTHER than historical or scientific information, we do not find it untrustworthy at all.

2. I don't think he was asking for proof, but just evidence. These matters are not the subject of "proof", only degrees of evidence.

As for what evidence would be convincing?

- a supportable explanation for the geologic data which causes the geologists to conclude that the earth is billions of years old. By supportable explanation, I mean one that explains it comprehensively, not just bits and pieces and ignores the rest.

- a model for special creation which adequately explains, and is consistent with, the fossil record as we have it.

- a model for special creation which adequately explains, and is consistent with, the genetic information as we have it.

- a model for special creation which adequately explains, and is consistent with, the double nested heirarchies of species, as we have it.

- a supportable reason why micro-evolution would not, given enough time, result in macro changes (since the "no new information" concept falls flat).

- an alternate and supportable explanation for the data which causes astro-phycisists to conclude billions of years of development in the universe.

And, by "adequate" and "supportable", I mean at least as much so as the views held by mainstream science, meaning the same breadth of evidence, the same quality of evidence and the same levels of consistency with the data. Shouldn't be hard at all if YEC'ism is correct.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Who cares about ecumenical councils 1Denomination? Anyone who is interested in the faith once delivered to the saints, not the latest rantings of fundamentalist flavours-of-the-month and johnny-come-latelies, that's who.

GodSaves. Let's test this. Where exactly on my website does it say there are many paths to God? I'm pretty sure I can find where it says there aren't...

Oh, and I never said you were a heretic.

 

[tryptophan]

Thanks for apologies. It's just that we get into these tangents and forget what exactly it is we were talking about.

I'll be up front. It is my belief that evolution is the process by which God has taken us to where we are today. I do believe that the Earth is 6 billion years old, life has been on Earth for about 4.5 billion years, and humans have evolved from a common ancestor between humans and apes.

I would be interested to know if Creationists have any evidence that the Earth was created in 6 literal days, that all animals and man were created on a single day, and that there was a Garden of Eden. So far, all I've heard are argements against evolution. The problem with that scientifically speaking is that creationism cannot be a default theory. Even if it were possible to disprove evolution, there would then need to be proof for creationism, otherwise, science has no explanation for the diversity of life.

So, do creationists have any positive evidence for a literal 6 days?

Edit: Oops. I think I might be a little bit off with those numbers.

 

[jiminpa]

I think scientific evidence for any origins theory will be difficult, since origins is the realm of philosophy and religion. Evolution is philosophy and Creationism is religion. True science is observable and repeatable. Origins is neither.

 

[Euryale]

True science is observable and repeatable. Origins is neither.

Not true.