Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

[Split Rock]

What's wrong? don't like the order of the Creation week?

Kinda stands out in a crowd, doesn't it?

Yeah, now that we understand the world around us better than the writers of Genesis did. Let me guess, according to twisted creato-logic, the fact that the Genesis account is backward is actually proof that it is correct. Kinda like the fact that there is no evidence for The Flood or creation ex nihilo is proof that it happened... right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, now that we understand the world around us better than the writers of Genesis did.

Is that why there's five different explanations for our moon?

Let me guess, according to twisted creato-logic, the fact that the Genesis account is backward is actually proof that it is correct.

Nope -- the fact that God said it, settles it.

Kinda like the fact that there is no evidence for The Flood...

Either that, or there is -- like the White Cliffs of Dover.

... or creation ex nihilo is proof that it happened... right?

Like I said ... no proof necessary.

God said it, that settles it, evidence to the contrary can take a hike.

 

[Mikecpking]

Is that why there's five different explanations for our moon?

Nope -- the fact that God said it, settles it.

Either that, or there is -- like the White Cliffs of Dover.

Like I said ... no proof necessary.

God said it, that settles it, evidence to the contrary can take a hike.

What is the white cliffs of Dover got to do with a flood?

You never answered me about the word 'nephesh'.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the white cliffs of Dover got to do with a flood?

God cleaned up the mess after the Flood, stockpiling coccoliths (or coccospores, or whatever they're called) as evidence.

You never answered me about the word 'nephesh'.

The King James translators beat me to it.

 

[Mikecpking]

God cleaned up the mess after the Flood, stockpiling coccoliths (or coccospores, or whatever they're called) as evidence.

Well, since I come from southern England and my home town is on the chalk layers, how does one explain the greensand layers underneath the chalk and Jurrasic limestone underneath that? 3 differing rock types with different fossils showing continued evoltion and change..40 days of rain and 150 days of flood was no0t enough time..

The King James translators beat me to it.

So, you admit the truth that animals are souls just like humans correctly according to the bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, since I come from southern England and my home town is on the chalk layers, how does one explain the greensand layers underneath the chalk and Jurrasic limestone underneath that?

Who cares right now?

I'm talking about coccospheres.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God cleaned up the mess after the Flood, stockpiling coccoliths (or coccospores, or whatever they're called) as evidence.

So now you believe in evidence?

The King James translators beat me to it.

Always nice to see people smarter than you whom you don't openly resent.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now you believe in evidence?

Yup -- sure do.

 

[Phred]

God cleaned up the mess after the Flood, stockpiling coccoliths (or coccospores, or whatever they're called) as evidence.

Are you getting dumber as you get older?

 

[Split Rock]

Is that why there's five different explanations for our moon?

And all five explanations are much more likely than the one you see in Genesis.

Nope -- the fact that God said it, settles it.

But even in The Bible, God said very little. What you really mean (but always neglect) is the KJV1611 writers translated it, you interpreted it, that settles it.

Either that, or there is -- like the White Cliffs of Dover.

Book and chapter? No? Oh... one of your "opinions," then... got it

Like I said ... no proof necessary.

Of course not, that would cramp your style.

God said it, that settles it, evidence to the contrary can take a hike.

Here, let me fix that for you:

The KJV1611 writers translated it, AVET interpreted it, that settles it, evidence to the contrary can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you getting dumber as you get older?

Why? are assuming I was ever smart?

 

[wensdee]

Creationism should supply a good few American comedians with enough material to last their whole careers.

 

[Phred]

Why? are assuming I was ever smart?

No, just watching you get less and less so. You've given up even trying.

 

[Phred]

Creationism should supply a good few American comedians with enough material to last their whole careers.

There's a difference between funny and pathetic.

 

[Naraoia]

The earth in Gen 1:1 should not be our earth. I would say it means something which is not space, it includes material and energy.

Why is it called the earth, then?

And I agree with you on the creation of gods, except in Christianity, they are called angels.

Does the Bible say anything about the creation of the angels? Based on my search, they aren't even mentioned until Genesis 16 or something Besides, angels don't do much creating, do they?

And I don't think it is a good idea to give the creation power to those gods. They are not as powerful and may screw things up.

If I'm omnipotent, I can make them so they don't screw up.

Have ocean first does not make a good sense. Unless the earth is a water ball, the ocean water must sit on rocks. If so, the rocks should be created first. This illustrates how wise was the Bible writers. As impressive as the vast ocean is, the creation of ocean is listed on Day 3 in the Bible after many other more essential items were created.

Your subjective opinion. I think a water ball is quite nice Besides, who said that I have to create our world to start with? If we're talking metaphysics anyway, why can't I make a world where an infinite, bottomless cosmic ocean is possible? Open your mind, let your creativity soar

 

[Phred]

I'm talking about coccospheres.

He's cuckoo for coccospheres.

 

[Split Rock]

He's cuckoo for coccospheres.

Thanks, Phred... I got a good laugh out of that one!

I think we can all agree at this point that a summary of the answer for the O.P. is NO.

/thread

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we can all agree at this point that a summary of the answer for the O.P. is NO.

I've only been saying that here for years, and you're just now getting around to agreeing?

Oh well, we'll be happy to prove it again -- just holler.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've only been saying that here for years, and you're just now getting around to agreeing?

Oh well, we'll be happy to prove it again -- just holler.

We've long since agreed that creationism offers nothing of value -- no hollering necessary.

 

[Delphiki]

I've only been saying that here for years, and you're just now getting around to agreeing?

Oh well, we'll be happy to prove it again -- just holler.

The Creation and Evolution forum is a sub-forum of Physical and Life Sciences.

What this means is, the topics include things pertaining to science, which is the study and knowledge of the physical universe and nature. These things require evidence or testability in order to qualify as science. As such, and as you've now admitted that you are unable to provide evidence, I feel I am doing you a favor in informing you that you are off-topic for this part of christianforums.com.

Since your arguments are based solely in faith, I would suggest the Christianity and World Religion section (/f76).

I, too, made a similar mistake when I first joined CF, because there were so many topics, I didn't notice there was one for Science. A good portion of my early posts were in the Christian and World Religion forum until I finally found the Physical and Life Science forum.

Your welcome.