What proof would you need?

[Jazer]

The details of the story are supported by recent science that concludes the three racial stocks today are all related genetically to one man who lived 40,000 years ago, presumably Noah.

Noah lived more like 4,000 years ago. Noah's father could have known Adam. For a short period of time they were both alive here on this earth.

 

[whitetiger1]

So who told you about 'God's Holy Word'? the fairies?
If you are a creationists you were indoctrinated or are you trying to tell us creationism makes sense?

I read the Holy Scriptures for myself. No I was not indoctrinated, of course the same could be said of you. Who indoctrinated your hatred for God. As a Christian God creating makes perfect sense

 

[whitetiger1]

The lack of self awareness among creationists is truly staggering. People do realize that believing what a holy book says as true is the prime example of indoctrination, don't they?

Nope. The book has divine origins

 

[whitetiger1]

What if you're interpreting "God's Holy Word" wrong?

I am not.

 

[plindboe]

I am not.

You're infallible then? You can't possibly be mistaken?

Peter

 

[whitetiger1]

You're infallible then? You can't possibly be mistaken?

Peter

No the Holy Spirit is.

 

[plindboe]

No the Holy Spirit is.

But you are not the Holy Spirit. Whether you imagine this spirit inside of you or not, you are still a fallible person who can misread and misinterpret, just like the rest of the people on this planet.

There are an estimated 38.000 denominations of Christianity all insisting that they are the one with the right interpreation. How can you be so certain that you are the one with the true interpretation, and everyone else is wrong, when you all seem to be using the same criteria and reaching different conclusions?

I recommend some humility.

Peter

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope. The book has divine origins

Which was indoctrinated in you by the Bible. That is how it works.

Back to the topic, what evidence, if found, would you accept as evidence of evolution?

 

[whitetiger1]

But you are not the Holy Spirit. Whether you imagine this spirit inside of you or not, you are still a fallible person who can misread and misinterpret, just like the rest of the people on this planet.

There are an estimated 38.000 denominations of Christianity all insisting that they are the one with the right interpreation. How can you be so certain that you are the one with the true interpretation, and everyone else is wrong, when you all seem to be using the same criteria and reaching different conclusions?

I recommend some humility.

Peter

I don't expect atheist to understand being spiritually blind to God

 

[whitetiger1]

Which was indoctrinated in you by the Bible. That is how it works.

Back to the topic, what evidence, if found, would you accept as evidence of evolution?

Absolutely none, there is no eveidence thst can turn me away from God

 

[Split Rock]

What if you're interpreting "God's Holy Word" wrong?

I am not.

You're infallible then? You can't possibly be mistaken?

Peter

No the Holy Spirit is.

But you are not the Holy Spirit. Whether you imagine this spirit inside of you or not, you are still a fallible person who can misread and misinterpret, just like the rest of the people on this planet.

There are an estimated 38.000 denominations of Christianity all insisting that they are the one with the right interpreation. How can you be so certain that you are the one with the true interpretation, and everyone else is wrong, when you all seem to be using the same criteria and reaching different conclusions?

I recommend some humility.

Peter

It always amazes me how the Holy Spirit infallibly guides different people to different infallible conclusions about scripture....

 

[Split Rock]

I don't expect atheist to understand being spiritually blind to God

Absolutely none, there is no eveidence thst can turn me away from God

There is a difference bewteen turning away from God and turning away from an incorrect and out-dated interpretation of scripture that ignores reality.

 

[plindboe]

I don't expect atheist to understand being spiritually blind to God

That doesn't address anything I said. Can you please read my post again and try to address what I said?

Peter

 

[plindboe]

It always amazes me how the Holy Spirit infallibly guides different people to different infallible conclusions about scripture....

Indeed. It's beyond my comprehension how all these people can be so astonishingly arrogant and act like they are infallible. There's something seriously wrong with anyone who can't accept the fact that he might be in error.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

So, what would change your mind?

A giraffe giving birth to a walrus. Or Precambrian rabbits.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or Precambrian rabbits.

Interesting.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water." Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smity doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit#cite_note-GodfreySmith2003TheoryAndReality-1
Benton pointed out that, in the short term, scientists often have to accept the existence of competing hypotheses, each of which explains large parts—but not all—of the observed relevant data.

SOURCE

 

[plindboe]

Interesting.

SOURCE

But you already accept the evidence for microevolution, so why would this be a surprise? Precambrian rabbits would turn things upside down, and show science wrong about a whole lotta stuff, but obviously there would still be elements of the theory unaffected. Things that even most creationists agree are undeniable.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

But you already accept the evidence for microevolution, so why would this be a surprise?

I'm not surprised -- I've always pointed out that, in my opinion, evolution cannot be falsified.

In fact, the Antichrist is going to use evolution during the Tribulation period so effectively, scientists will line up to take the mark.

Again, in my [right to have an] opinion, falsifying evolution is a task reserved for Jesus, Himself, when He returns -- and won't be falsified until then.

 

[CTD]

You have just shown us that your indoctrination has been more successful than anyone could have wished and that you know nothing about evolution?

No.

Simple question - simple answer.

I'd ask "Why do you ask?" but it is evident that you have great faith in the power of suggestion.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not surprised -- I've always pointed out that, in my opinion, evolution cannot be falsified.

29 potential falsifications can be found here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent