[Dimensio]

You should inform me? What is your impetus for such evangelism?

I am merely relating a simple fact. Are you disputing my claim? Do you claim that age enhances the truth value of a statement? If so, I would ask you to support such a statement.

We all know that truth, or at least man's understanding of it, cannot be absolute if man is still evolving. But then, individual perspective and relativity are one in the same. What is truth? What difference does it make to an evolutionist? It's all relative anyway.

This is false. Truth is that which conforms to reality.

Absolute truth would have to originate outside man's perspective, and anything less than that is just perspective. Yours, mine, and Hitler's view of truth are then of equal weight.

This is false. I do not understand the source of your claims.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.

Actually, all that need be done is demonstrate that observations of physical evidence contradict the Biblical account of creationism. Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate.

Attributing the Bible as mere myth and folklore is at variance with a wide body of scholarly study and research to the contrary. (Ah..no, I won't provide a detailed reference list; try Google.) Christianity is, and has always been a religion of faith based on historical evidence. No Christ = no Christianity. No fulfillment of prophecy = no revelation. If God did not create this world, man, and everything in it as the Bible has claimed, then the Bible is a lie and a false "revelation". In fact, if God has not revealed Himself to man, man certainly will not unveil God by himself, unless of course man becomes like God. And of course, if God cannot control the delivery and veracity of his own revelation, what sort of god is that?

I will note that you have not, in any of your statements above, provided any evidence that the Genesis account of creationism is accurate. It appears as though you are trying to claim that if any one part of the Bible is accurate, then the entire collection of writings must be accurate. This is not true.

So, for you to declare unequivocally state that "age of a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim"

This is a simple statement of fact. I do not understand why you wish to take issue with it.

and then connect it with the Bible is clearly dagger pointed at the heart of historicChristianity (i.e. not the fake existential stuff).

You are drawing inferences that I have not made. I am merely pointing out that appealing to the longetivity of a belief does not demonstrate that the belief is factual. It is possible that the claims of the Bible are accurate, however even if this is true, it cannot be determined by the age of the claims made.

Your rhetorical question regarding the historicity of Christianity and Creation implies that such a notion is novel news to you.

My question was not rhetorical. When you claimed the existence of historical evidence, I was under the impression that you beleived that physical historical evidence existed supporting the creation account of Genesis. I was asking for you to elaborate on such evidence, if that is in fact what you meant.

No, you are not that ignorant, and yes, it is a pejorative statement, framed in a nice, "tolerant", open-mind sort of way.

I am not attempting to make pejorative statements. I am aware that the Genesis creation account has been accepted as truth by a few civilizations for several thousand years. I merely did not realise that to be the nature of your claim. As I said, I was under the impression that you were referring to historical evidence that supports the validity of the claims in Genesis, not simply that Genesis has been believed as fact historically.

Again, I question your honesty and sincerity, but certainly not your evangelical intent.

Then you are simply wrong. I am not attempting to "evangelize". I have only asked that you clarify your claims which I also note that you have yet to actually do.

No amount of historical evidence can convince a person who so firmly, and a priori rejects in any notion of divine revelation, or a divinity apart from man.

Where have I claimed to reject a priori any notion of divine revelation or divinity? Where have I claimed that humans are divine? It appears as though you are making further faulty assumptions about me.

What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species?

This is a false dichotomy.

Whatever standard you set, I trust it will be equivocal or unattainable. Otherwise, your faith might be at risk.

I will note that you have still not supported any of your previous claims with evidence.

You have your faith, and I have mine. Mine is informed by historical fact; yours by an "incomplete" geological record. Yours leads to a pit in the ground after death; mine to eternity. See you on the other side.

You again are presenting a false dichotomy, and you have still not supported your claims with evidence. I do not understand why you have gone to such trouble to avoid actually demonstrating that your claim of "historical fact" is in fact true.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Are you disputing my claim? Do you claim that age enhances the truth value of a statement?

Nothing I've written or say could be so construed.

This is false. Truth is that which conforms to reality.

Whose reality? How do you define it?

This is false. I do not understand the source of your claims.

No it is not. You are unwilling to deal with the argument I provided.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.

Actually, all that need be done is demonstrate that observations of physical evidence contradict the Biblical account of creationism. Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate.

Do you recall my original statement that you challenged, before you started this intellectual little game?

" I'm willing to admit that there are elements of both history and faith in my support for Biblical Creationism. If only the Darwinian secularists were as honest."

I certainly don't dispute the fact that ANY history (which is based upon evidence) that contradicts the Bible invalidates the Biblical view of creation. However, the Bible is not simply about creation, or good morals, or evil, or Israel, or Jesus Christ, or the first century Christian church. It is in context about all of the above. The Bible makes claims for itself as divine revelation. If it is not historically reliable in context, then neither is it from the God as described by the document. Your charity that "Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate" is a farce. After you've ripped the guts from the Bible (without documentation), you allow Christians that the balance of their fairy tale may be in some parts accurate.

Yet, evolutionists maintain a farce of historicity and evidence for their religion that cannot be supported, though of course, you will contest this.

As I said before, go play this dishonest game of "honest inquiry" with someone else. You knew your answers before you ever opened your first Biology text.

I will note that you have not, in any of your statements above, provided any evidence that the Genesis account of creationism is accurate. It appears as though you are trying to claim that if any one part of the Bible is accurate, then the entire collection of writings must be accurate. This is not true.

I never made that claim. I will note that you are not honest about your biases.

My question was not rhetorical. When you claimed the existence of historical evidence, I was under the impression that you believed that physical historical evidence existed supporting the creation account of Genesis. I was asking for you to elaborate on such evidence, if that is in fact what you meant.

Archeology and the antiquities count as "historical evidence".

I am not attempting to make pejorative statements. …. Then you are simply wrong. I am not attempting to "evangelize".

But of course you are. You've invested a lot of time to do so. You're just intellectually dishonest about your goal.

SFS: What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species?

Evolutionist: "This is a false dichotomy".

False choice? Of course it is not, and I'll note that you refused to address your standards of evidence. By implication, some evidence is more "special" than other evidence.

I will note that you have still not supported any of your previous claims with evidence.

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

I do not understand why you have gone to such trouble to avoid actually demonstrating that your claim of "historical fact" is in fact true.

And I do not understand why it is so important to you to deny that both evolution and creationism have elements of both history (i.e. evidence) and faith. Your faith in evolution is already on open display.

As I said originally, go play with someone else. You've just wasted a few hours of my time. You obviously do not work for a living, or have your living funded by an academic or government institution.

Gee, what was the article in this thread all about anyway. In countering your religious zeal, I seem to have forgotten.