Disproving the Bible

[Jenny A]

Regarding the flood, you all seem to think that is a linchpin argument against the existence of God and I have to prove it. I have no idea if the flood was regional , if the genealogy from Noah was just for the Jewish family tree, how many animals were there or how they dispersed. I will follow the science where it goes. However, there is a difference from following the science to accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism. If the YEC theories do not hold up against hard evidence, then they are wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to ignore our senses, in fact we should examine our surroundings.

You will follow science "where is goes" but not to the point of "accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism?" Honey, ALL prevailing scientific theories are rooted in naturalism. What you are really saying is that you won't believe science if goes so far as to contradict what you believe. That is the core of what is wrong with creationism.

For example, I do not believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor) because the theories are not supported by science.

Saying you believe in micro but not macro-evolution is like saying you believe in erosion of river banks, but not river beds.

You keep asking for examples of macro evolution beyond the fossil and genetic record. I have one for you: the dog. We've bred all kinds of dogs from the wolf. And yes they are all the same species now because you can still inter-bred them and produce more dogs. But it a long way from a Chihuahua to a wolf. Eliminate all the dogs larger than a toy poodle but smaller than a German Shepard and what you get is two separate species that can't inter-bred. That is macro evolution.

We share a common ancestor species with chimps, but were that ancestor species alive today neither group could bred with it. All the intermediaries are dead. The only difference with dogs is that we've kept the intermediaries alive.