Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?
Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?Basically, the argument is that God "wrote" the bible, and God is infallible, so his book is infallible also. Since creationism is based on the bible, it is also "God's Word" and thus infallible. Problem is, God didn't write the bible.. men wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, and now interpret it.
Facts, for starters.What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?
Yes, sometimes, yes, and occasionally.Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?
Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?
I didn't say they were.None of these things you mentioned are infallible.
By the time monsanto gets done God will have to purify the earth again. Only this time He will use fire, not water. The drought on corn, wheat and soy is a sign of things to come.I agree. The KJV says: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,"
You mean like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?I thought I discussed the issue of miracles with you recently. While I may not subscribe to them, I don't have a real issue with them because of the fact they are isolated events.
Which reality, yours or ours?1. Because they do not contradict reality.
That's because your belief is based on your fallible interpretation of GEN.2. Because I believe that is the way the scriptures (at least GEN) were intended to be read.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." (Prov 3:5-6).Any interpretation that conflicts with the reality that we have determined via our species' combined scientific inquiry bothers me.
Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?
None of these things you mentioned are infallible. Did I not already post that "All human endeavours are fallible?"
I didn't say they were.
I contend your interpretation is based on cherry-picking.23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;
Unless of course you contend plants aren't really alive.
You mean like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?
Or like, "The waters rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."?
One might expect those events were miraculous, otherwise you might have found evidence of them by now?
Which reality, yours or ours?
That's because your belief is based on your fallible interpretation of GEN.
So can your fallible interpretation of scripture... yeah, we're even now!Scientific inquiry by your fallible species can take a hike.
Talk about literal interpretation!I agree. The KJV says: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,"
Then Genesis 8:11 says: "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth."
Correct.Basically, the argument is that God "wrote" the bible, and God is infallible, so his book is infallible also.
Is this the kind of logic you apply to science?Since creationism is based on the bible, it is also "God's Word" and thus infallible.
That's like saying Split Rock didn't type your posts, the keyboard did it.Problem is, God didn't write the bible.. men wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, and now interpret it.
Talk about literal interpretation!
The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.Why would a miracle NOT leave evidence behind?
Well then it was a miracle that should not have left evidence and did not.If it is a miracle that should have left evidence and did not, then it logically (opps ugly word!) did not happen.
Exactly. No evidence.What evidence would you expect to be left behind that Jesus walked on water? None.
So if there is no evidence to support a worldwide flood, why believe it?The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.
God was not trying to impress scientists by leaving evidence lying around for them to pick at.
Well then it was a miracle that should not have left evidence and did not.
The purpose of the flood miracle was to cleanse the earth of human pollution, not leave evidence behind for scientists to pick at.
Even the dirty flood waters had to be purified afterwards.
Exactly. No evidence.
Exactly. No evidence.
What about the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus
I thought I explained that?Gen. 7:23 says all living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth except that which was on the Ark. How is it supposed to be taken?
Gen. 8:11 says a dove brought an olive leaf to Noah. Where did that life come from?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?