- Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club
“The claims [of evolution] are extraordinary and I just don’t see enough evidence to support them.”
Inserting evolution is not an accurate depiction of what I said.
“You’re going to believe the words written in 1 book that was translated thousands of times in multiple langagues and includes such things as: a talking snake, walking on water, parting a sea, a global flood… you get my point.”
1) You assumed that I do not have sufficient evidence for accepting scripture as truth. See, you may have sufficient evidence to believe in common ancestry and you may not have enough evidence to believe the bible is true. But that is simply you.
I, on the other hand, do have overwhelming that brings me to except the bible is true. What I don’t have is any evidence that has convinced me that common ancestry is true. (none has been provided here even though this has been one of my biggest points.)
2) Even if I didn’t have enough evidence to support my beliefs in the bible, this does not have any bearing on the lack of evidence there is for CA. It’s a false logic and doesn’t support a claim that there is evidence for CA.
“The bible is a nice myth”
You really shouldn’t assert your opinion as fact. This has illustrated my problem. Just the facts please. Not your interpretation of the facts, unless you say just that. ex: “Based on my study, I believe the bible is a myth.” That would be accurate. Your declaration that it is a myth is asserting your opinion.
“It’s full of owning slaves, raping women, cannibalism, and murder.”
Those things really happened. Why would the bible be silent on those topics? It would be a bigger problem for the bible if it were to ignore these things. It is also false to assume the bible supports immorality because it mentions it.
“you abandon modern day marvels”
Which modern marvels are I abandoning?
“You are living in a beautiful era, a GOLDEN age in science and you are willfully choosing to igore it!”
:/ Please enlighten me some more. What am I willfully choosing to ignore?
@pixiecat: “Why would Adam be lonely and need these animal friends if they had been created before him?”
I understand why you would think that 19 indicates that God formed animals after Adam was made, but this misinterpretation is common only to those who insist and want to believe the bible contradicts. Adam was lonely because none of the already formed animals were compatible for him. This is clarified in verse 20. If it has been indicated that the animals were formed before Adam, then why assume that this verse means they were not? A word study on “formed,” shows that “God had formed” is a plausible translation. This translation matches with the rest of scripture, so why assume the word is present tense instead of past tense?
In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be 100% contrary. If there is a possibility that it is not contrary, then you cannot say it is contradictory. It is only contradictory if you interpret it the way you have, but there is nothing indicating that this is the correct interpretation. In fact, had formed (past tense) is the more plausible interpretation in light of the scripture context.