Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?

 

[AV1611VET]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?

Hi, nice to meet you

I believe mine is --- yes.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

 

[shinbits]

There is no way to know for sure if any of these views are infalliable. All we can do is go with what seems true to us, and try to stay open minded for even better views.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Hi, nice to meet you

Hi, glad to meet you too. I'm new to the Discussion and Debate forum, although I've hung around the other forums.

I believe mine is --- yes.

Why do you believe that your perspective is infallible?

Sorry to hear about your mother.

Thank you. She passed away about two months ago.

 

[VinceBlaze]

There is no way to know for sure if any of these views are infalliable. All we can do is go with what seems true to us, and try to stay open minded for even better views.

Okay. I've encountered people with multiple stances. Some believe that their views are infallible and some do not. I'm trying to figure out why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, glad to meet you too. I'm new to the Discussion and Debate forum, although I've hung around the other forums.

Why do you believe that your perspective is infallible?

Thank you. She passed away about two months ago.

Welcome to the debate section!

I believe my stance is infallible because I base it on the Bible, which I believe is the infallible Word of God.

I'm not too popular here, as I blend strong opinions in with avant-garde.

But otherwise, I'm pretty friendly --- LOL.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Welcome to the debate section!

Thank you.

I believe my stance is infallible because I base it on the Bible, which I believe is the infallible Word of God.

Why do you believe the Bible to be infallible?

I'm not too popular here, as I blend strong opinions in with avant-garde.

But otherwise, I'm pretty friendly --- LOL.

Not a problem at all. I'm glad to hear people's perspectives.

 

[Adriac]

While it's bad form to ever be 100% sure about anything, if every single line of evidence which leads to a natural development of life as the most likely occurrence is incorrect, the implications are so far reaching as to render the Creation/Evolution dispute petty by comparison.

 

[RichardT]

If YEC is untrue, there is a very big loss, and I would have to go for OEC then....

 

[DailyBlessings]

My views are fallible, as any human's views are like to be.

 

[VinceBlaze]

While it's bad form to ever be 100% sure about anything,

I agree.

if every single line of evidence which leads to a natural development of life as the most likely occurrence is incorrect, the implications are so far reaching as to render the Creation/Evolution dispute petty by comparison.

How so?

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, I know my views aren't infallible. I'd like to think that I've got a reasonably good handle on what we can be sure about and what we can't in my particular field of physics (cosmology), but there's always the possibility of new experiments or new theories to explain old experiments overturning what I now think to be true. From what I have learned about scientists within my own field, I typically trust scientists from other fields to have similar integrity, and thus typically trust what they say about their own fields.

 

[VinceBlaze]

If YEC is untrue, there is a very big loss, and I would have to go for OEC then....

Does this mean that you're not sure either way?

 

[VinceBlaze]

My views are fallible, as any human's views are like to be.

Mine too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you believe the Bible to be infallible?

The Bible, or in this case, the Scriptures, has left an audit trail that leads all the way back to the writings of Moses.

I believe that God perfectly preserved His written words to us:

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

Starting with the infallible Hebrew, I believe the line of authorized writings goes like this:

96 AD --- completion of the Scriptures
AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1560 Geneva Bible
AV 1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1611 King James Version --- the final version

Anything else, as they say, is just fiction.

 

[VinceBlaze]

but there's always the possibility of new experiments or new theories to explain old experiments overturning what I now think to be true.

Do you believe that this also holds true for creationism and evolution views? Or do we have enough present data to be sure one way or the other?

 

[AV1611VET]

If YEC is untrue, there is a very big loss, and I would have to go for OEC then....

Hi, Richard!

 

[VinceBlaze]

Starting with the infallible Hebrew, I believe the line of authorized writings goes like this:

96 AD --- completion of the Scriptures
AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1560 Geneva Bible
AV 1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1611 King James Version --- the final version

Anything else, as they say, is just fiction.

Are you referring to a 66 book canon?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you referring to a 66 book canon?

Yes --- the 1611 King James Bible --- what I posted previously was it's audit trail.

In other words, this is where the King James Bible comes from.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Yes --- the 1611 King James Bible --- what I posted previously was it's audit trail.

In other words, this is where the King James Bible comes from.

I've been under the impression that this audit trail began with more than 66 books.