Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?

No, it wasn't a joke. I really meant it. That's what the Bible says/is. It's like Jesus, both human and divine. You can't seperate the human parts from the divine parts. They're together, welded into one thing.So no, I wasn't joking. If either all of the Bible's true, or all of it's false, if you prove one thing is true, it all has to be true.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Interesting, so lets review:

quote:

---

if you prove one part of the Bible is true (the Exodus, for example), you thereby prove the entire Bible... technically

---

That is your theory.Apply the theory and see if this works out for you.

Some names, dates, places, and events in the Koran are correct. Technically true.

​

Some names, dates, places, and events in the Harry Potter series are correct. Technically true.

​

Some names, dates, places, and events in the The Origin of Species are correct. Technically true. (ohh the irony)

​

Some names, dates, places, and events in the Romeo and Juliet are correct. Technically true.

​

Outside of most science fiction books what exactly should be contained in your fiction section of the library?

​

If either all of the Bible's true, or all of it's false, if you prove one thing is true, it all has to be true.

​

That must be a tough way to view the world. All the contradictions it must introduce with each and every book you read. In some cases ignorance is bliss, I must decline from your worldview given that I read way too many horror novels in my days.

[qs=Codegate]Unfortunately Jar is no longer here to raise this, but I have to ask, which bible are you referring to? There are dozens of different bibles and canons used by different Christian churches around the world.[qs] I am a Protestant, so I believe that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. If you want me to list the books, I will.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

The problem with yours is that again your using novels (or a nice idea, in the case of Origin of the Species, or a good play in Romeo and Juliet). And what I meant was that an event, not a place. The Exodus is an event, not a place. The Exodus took place from Egypt, down the Sinai, across the sea, up the Arabian Peninsula, and across the Jordan River.If you prove an event (especially one as unlikely as the Exodus) is true, you prove the Bible.

So are you. Your just calling it something else. You mean like Darwins journey on the H.M.S. Beagle. Ok, I may have to read up on Harry Potter, and Romeo and Juliet; but thankfully two of my examples hold up to your criterea - the Koran is definitly true. Links please. So if I show that something historical happened (like say the cold war), then the book that contains such facts becomes true (Tom Clancies - Hunt for Red Octoboer)?With some review of my books I am sure I can prove much of my Stephen Kings to be historical documents.

... a fantastical tale based upon a far more mundane real event? Yes. So what if we prove one part, just one, false? Does it work in reverse?What if J. K. Rowling claims that the Harry Potter books were inspired by god, or that Harry himself related the whole story to her personally over tea? Does the existence of London prove Harry Potter true? Completely false. The destruction of Jericho, for instance, seems to have happened (though not the way the bible describes - the walls have collapsed incorrectly for the story to be true). This does not mean there was a worldwide Flood. The Romans did rule Jerusalem in the appropriate time period as described in the Bible, and that does not prove Exodus. They are compeltely disconnected events and seperate claims made by a single comnglomerated text, and each can be verified or falsified individually.Your literalism is easy to disprove: various events in the Bible should have left a great deal of evidence, which is conspicuously missing. The Flood, for example, has no evidence, and there is a mountain of evidence contradicting a global Flood. Exodus should have left a massive amount of evidence from 40 years of being nomads across the desert (we find evidence of small nomadic groups in similar deserts), but there is nothing left of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, a number that should be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions from what I recall of the numbers in the Bible. There is nothing in Egyptian history concerning a mass exodus of Hebrew slaves (or even the presence of Hebrew slaves), or the plagues, or the killing of the firstborn.Since we can show several claims in the Bible to be false or at least grossly exaggerated (far more likely), does that mean the whole thing is bollocks?If the evidence was there, I'd believe in the Bible. If all of its claims were consistently verified, I would accept it as an authoritative book regarding history, and even accept it as evidence of a deity. But since that's not the case...

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Everyone agrees that the Bible is collection of works. Why would proving an event in one correct prove all the events in another ? And then there are the contradictions. If we prove that there was a census of Judaea under Quirinius how could it prove that Jesus was born then - AND that he was born more than ten years earlier ?And why isn't the Koran a good example ? The Koran even claims to be the direct word of God - unlike the Bible.

Hi Paulk Maybe it wasn't in one place. My bad for not giving verse 9 also.I kinda believe if all the water was in one place all the land was in one place. They are mentioned in that order and Peleg lived to be 239 years old.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Look at the modern-day globe. All the water is in one place; ie, barring inland seas like the Caspian, all the seven seas are connected to each other.Now look at the land. Barring individual islands, there are 4 separate and distinct continental land-masses. 5 if we wished to promote Greenland.Clearly, if all the water is in one place, it does not follow that all the land would also be in one place.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

So for the Bibles out there that have additional books, only your 66 are divine - the others are all human creations. Similarly, for the bibles that have fewer books, they just don't have the complete picture?If I'm understanding this correctly, you believe that the people that chose those 66 books were all divinely guided in doing so to create the one 'true' bible. All of the other churches that went through the same process were 'faking' it and just picking any books they wanted?

quote:

---

They are mentioned in that order and Peleg lived to be 239 years old.

---

There are just two problems with that. Firstly Peleg also appears BEFORE the Babel story in Chapter 10 - and that's the reference you're reading as referring to massively accelerated continental drift suddenly occuring (contrary to scientific understanding). Secondly you would have to say that Genesis 11:10 also comes after the Babel story: So by that thinking you would have to put the Babel story before Noah's Flood - which of course appears even earlier in Genesis. Your rule can't be consistently applied.What we really have is:Chapter 10 is a listing of descendants of Noah's sons, who separate to found the nations. It is not unreasonable to consider that the Babel story marks that separation and that is the event that Peleg is named for. This interpretation fits the text and doesn't require us to assume that the event Peleg was named for mysteriously got left out of the Bible.Chapter 11 is the Babel story and a more detailed listing of Shem's descendants. Which suggests that the Bebel story - which is not otherwise dated - took place in the lifetimes of at least some of those listed. There's nothing in the Bible that rules out the possibility that it is the event that Peleg is named for.

Hi Paulk, I went digging in some of my old school stuff and run across some notes where we studied that Peleg was about 50 years old when the tower of Babel was built which was around 2200 BC. That would have put him living about 189 years after Babel.Then I went online and found a timeline at:
Amazing Bible Timeline with World History – Easily See 6017 Years of Biblical and World History Together!If he was named for the event he went along time without a name.
The Hebrew word translated earth in Genesis 10:25 is the same as the one in Genesis 1:1.God Bless,PS check out my avatar

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

I went digging in some of my old school stuff and run across some notes where we studied that Peleg was about 50 years old when the tower of Babel was built which was around 2200 BC. That would have put him living about 189 years after Babel.

---

You mean that he would have DIED 189 years after Babel by that estimation. But what's the basis for it ? You yourself said that the Bible didn't provide a timeline and the Babel story doesn't contain anything to date it in relation to the genealogy.

quote:

---

If he was named for the event he went along time without a name.

---

IF the estimate you refer to is correct. But you've offered no reason to think that it is. In fact you said that there ISN'T any way to know when Babel happened, other than sometime in the period covered in the genealogies.

quote:

---

The Hebrew word translated earth in Genesis 10:25 is the same as the one in Genesis 1:1.

---

IIRC that word has a wide usage (similar to the English "land") - it can refer to all of the land on the planet or just a single geographical area.

Hi Paulk, No I think I said:
Message 35I am presenting no timeline as the Bible gives none.
Message 37There is no timeline given and I gave none.
Message 40The Bible gives no time frame for any of these events.I did not say events could not be figured out from the genealogies of the lifetime of the people that was involved.You mentioned time in several messages then in Message 56 You as much as said my understanding was competely off as the time was all messed up.I then went digging for notes as to why I believed what I did. I also went and found a Bible Timeline that is taken from the genealogies of the ages of the men in the Bible.There are historians who have spent their life compiling those genealogies. Just as there are those who spent their lifetime working on the tree of life.But I know you do not believe the Bible so it does not make any difference as you believe it is just a pack of lies anyway.You are welcome to your opinion.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : fix link

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The question would be better phrased as: "Would the scientific community accept evidence for Creationism."If by evidence, one means observable empirical evidence, then the answer is: absolutely. Science is not a popularity contest or a boxing match; nobody is trying to win anything.If the observed empirical evidence pointed to a 6,500 year old Earth etc., then the scientific community would have no choice but to accept Creationism as a fact. Barring such empirical evidence, the scientific community will naturally head where the evidence points. When looked at objectively, such evidence does not point to Creationism.With that being said, I would like to propose the following question to Creationists: Would a Creationist accept evidence for Evolution? If so, what evidence would be required?