Silly Creationist

[Cinjin]

---

To your #1 response: Again I'm curious what your definition of 'the truth' is? And what evidence you have of evolutionists suppressing it?
Even if you find the 'proof' to be unsatisfactory, it is still more substantial than no proof. As has been stated many times before, the Bible cannot be used as legitimate 'proof' of creation.
To your #2 response: Are we going to get into another debate about "what is Logic"?

---

1. Scripture says that creation itself attests to God's existence and work, unbelievers suppress this truth. So that would be the truth I am referring to.
2. Well that's just it though Cinjin, because the "proof" that evolutionists use to support their theory is structurally invalid, it can just as easily and often is used to support Creation because it fits both models. You really don't think that the Creation guys have a model that explains the fossil record? They do and it works just as well as the evolutionary model. Just out of curiosity, why can't the Bible be used as proof? If it really is inerrant as I believe it is, what better proof could you ask for?

See the problem here is Statler, that you scoff at the evidence provided by science and yet you defend the "evidence" provided by a book that even you have admitted requires faith. It's not fair to claim that the arguments of evolutionists is logically invalid when your own "evidence" first requires one to believe in a holy book. You ask why the Bible can't be used as proof and follow that up with the fact that you believe it is inerrant.
It seems to be blatant hypocrisy.
"I don't think your evidence is logically valid - mine isn't either, but mine is still better because it came from the hand of men who claimed they spoke to god."

It seems ever so clearly biased to me.

It's like trying to prove that you had a threesome with two supermodels by using your personal Diary as evidence. It's just simply not valid.