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of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.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

[Dimensio]

Whose reality? How do you define it?

Reality is not owned by anyone. Reality is that which does not cease to exist when you stop acknowledging it.

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

I do not see that you have provided an argument.

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.

As I have said, this argument implies a false dichotomy. The Bible is a collection of numerous writings created over many centuries. Demonstrating the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of one part of the Bible does not demonstrate the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of another. In other words, showing that the Bible accurately documents the history of political events occuring in a specific region in 3000BC does not demonstrate, in any way, the validity of the Genesis creation account.

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

Yes. Your original statement was the cause of my inquiry.

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.

So what, then, is your response to evidence showing that diverse species emerged over a period of billions of years, rather than coming to exist at a single point in history?

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.

Are you saying, then, that if the Genesis account is not a literally accurate accounting for the origin and diversity of all life on Earth, that nothing in the Bible can be divine revelation? I believe that you have created another false dichotomy.

Your charity that "Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate" is a farce.

I am attempting no farce. I am merely explaining that historical accuracy of some claims in an accounting of events is not evidence that all claims in the account are historically accurate. Each claim must stand or fall on its own merits.

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.

Again, I have specifically asked that you support your claims regarding the validity of Genesis. I do not understand why you have thus far gone out of your way to avoid providing evidence of your claims.

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

To what "farce" and "religion" do you refer? There is no single religion to which people who accept evolution adhere universally.

I never made that claim.

That is why I said that it "appears" that you have made that claim. It is the impression that I received from your statements. I apologize for my misunderstanding, but I did phrase my statement to avoid making a direct accusation.

Archeology and the antiquities count as "historical evidence".

Then please reference archeology and antiquities that support the Genesis creation account.

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

What, specifically, am I attempting to "evangelize"?

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

What claims, specifically, have I made that you would like to see supported with evidence?

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.

On the contrary, I have denied nothing. I have merely asked you to explain what history supports the Genesis creation account and for you to explain what "faith" is involved in accepting evolution as valid.

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.

Your assessment of me is incorrect. I am only typing this as I wait for a Symantec Ghost server to complete reading of a hard drive image for future deployment.