Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Paul James]

Well, when someone tells me that they don't want a discussion, they just run in, say what they believe and then run out, it feels like being spammed with advertising. And advertising is just an attempt to convert you to using a particular product.

So, if you want to have a discussion, then have a discussion. I've already made it as clear as possible that if you can actually present me with valid evidence and that evidence withstands investigation, then I'll change my position. So the ball's in your court now.

If you go back through the thread and read the other posts by other creationist members, including my fellow New Zealander, you will see that all the arguments have been presented, and the associated responses. It is significant that the creationist posts have been logical and evidence-based. I went back through the thread and saw your responses to Oscarr and I conclude that your responses will be exactly same to me. I have nothing to add to his posts, and I would be asking the same question about conclusive proof that he is asking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you go back through the thread and read the other posts by other creationist members, including my fellow New Zealander, you will see that all the arguments have been presented, and the associated responses. It is significant that the creationist posts have been logical and evidence-based. I went back through the thread and saw your responses to Oscarr and I conclude that your responses will be exactly same to me. I have nothing to add to his posts, and I would be asking the same question about conclusive proof that he is asking.

Now that is a falsehood. Creationist posts are not logical, they are not evidence based. In fact creationists as a rule do not understand the concept of evidence.

I offer to discuss the nature of evidence with you. You are bound to repeat the errors of your forerunners since it is rather clear that you do not understand the nature of evidence. We do not need to bring up evolution in the discussion of the nature of evidence. Are you game?

 

[Paul James]

Well, when someone tells me that they don't want a discussion, they just run in, say what they believe and then run out, it feels like being spammed with advertising. And advertising is just an attempt to convert you to using a particular product.

So, if you want to have a discussion, then have a discussion. I've already made it as clear as possible that if you can actually present me with valid evidence and that evidence withstands investigation, then I'll change my position. So the ball's in your court now.

I must say that your responses have been respectful, and it is appreciated.

 

[Kylie]

If you go back through the thread and read the other posts by other creationist members, including my fellow New Zealander, you will see that all the arguments have been presented, and the associated responses. It is significant that the creationist posts have been logical and evidence-based. I went back through the thread and saw your responses to Oscarr and I conclude that your responses will be exactly same to me. I have nothing to add to his posts, and I would be asking the same question about conclusive proof that he is asking.

I'm sorry, I missed the post where there was a logical and evidence based argument for the creationist position. Can you provide a link? I will have a look at it, and if I discount that evidence, I will explain why I do so.

 

[Kylie]

I must say that your responses have been respectful, and it is appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Paul James]

I'm sorry, I missed the post where there was a logical and evidence based argument for the creationist position. Can you provide a link? I will have a look at it, and if I discount that evidence, I will explain why I do so.

It was over a series of posts on two or three threads, and it would be too time consuming to go back and try to find each post. I don't think I can contribute any further here without maintain my Biblical Christian view, where I could go too far and be seen to be preaching Christianity.

 

[Paul James]

Thank you.

I've gone back to the Christian only discussion and debate area so I can be abundantly clear where I stand as a Bible-believer. Although I wouldn't have a problem with you coming over there and further debating the issues, others may, and I wouldn't want to expose you to unnecessary reporting.

 

[Kylie]

It was over a series of posts on two or three threads, and it would be too time consuming to go back and try to find each post. I don't think I can contribute any further here without maintain my Biblical Christian view, where I could go too far and be seen to be preaching Christianity.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to continue this via private message.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've gone back to the Christian only discussion and debate area so I can be abundantly clear where I stand as a Bible-believer. Although I wouldn't have a problem with you coming over there and further debating the issues, others may, and I wouldn't want to expose you to unnecessary reporting.

There is nothing wrong with being a Christian or even a "Bible believer" but in this part of the forum one really needs something more than mere belief to make a case. There are countless Christians that accept evolution so it clearly is not necessary to believe Genesis literally. In fact that introduces quite a few problems in a Christian belief.

 

[Kylie]

There is nothing wrong with being a Christian or even a "Bible believer" but in this part of the forum one really needs something more than mere belief to make a case. There are countless Christians that accept evolution so it clearly is not necessary to believe Genesis literally. In fact that introduces quite a few problems in a Christian belief.

My husband agrees with you. He accepts evolution and he doesn't see how the creation account could be taken literally.

 

[ruthiesea]

Belief in G-d and acceptance of evolution, which meets the criteria of a valid scientific theory, are not mutually exclusive. I know a number of people who, like myself, absolutely believe in G-d and see no conflict between that and science.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's almost as though the people who want to disprove evolution aren't interested in science,

It's not science that is going to disprove evolution.

History is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not science that is going to disprove evolution.

History is.

Nope. History is in the past. Misinterpreting the Bible is not "history".

 

[AV1611VET]

History is in the past.

And I know Someone who can take us there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I know Someone who can take us there.

No, you really do not. I can guarantee it. I would suggest learning the difference between "know" and "believe". As your friend likes to say "If you can't show it you don't know it".

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you really do not. I can guarantee it. I would suggest learning the difference between "know" and "believe".

2 Timothy 2:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 Timothy 2:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Abusing the Bible is frowned upon here. It appears to be trolling which would be a rather vial use of the Bible, even by a Christian. And of course you are still demonstrably wrong and cannot even answer the simple question of How do we know that the Earth is not Flat?

 

[AV1611VET]

It appears to be trolling which would be a rather vial use of the Bible, even by a Christian.

Don't you mean vile?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't you mean vile?

Yep, that was late at night and not the sort of error that I usually make. My bad. But not as bad as what you did and you still have as of yet to acknowledge or apologize for it. Not to me but to your fellow Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to me but to your fellow Christians.

We can discuss that at the marriage supper of the Lamb.