Asked to Respond to a Creationist

We LOVE Your Questions!

    We were asked on Twitter to respond to this video of an atheist scientist who became a Christian. I first responded by telling @mazakry, who sent us this video, that I had no interest in watching this video; that anything teaching Creationism is a LIE. I feel confident in saying this because although I'm still in the process of reading the Bible to gain more than the cherry-picked verses that fueld my passionate Christian upbringing. But this gentleman @mazakry was not trying to pose a "knock-down" argument proving creationism, he was simply asking for a different perspective, and how it could be that I could be so sure that this video he's shared with me is useless.

Let us begin with the video itself

 

About 10 mins in, the man in this video claims that the scientific method came from Genesis, and then proceeds to talk about his personal interpretation of the first 7 days. Hypocrisy surfaces early. Let me note that @mazakry sent me this video in a response to this meme 

    Then this man continues to do a bunch of semantic aerobics to say basically NOTHING. There is no science in the Bible. Science was developed over the couple centuries FOLLOWING the Bible. He does what most creationists do. They play semantic games like "Heavens plural, while Earth is singular, and the Bible says God CREATED the Universe..." and uses this as proof.

    I promised to watch and review this whole video, but there's not much more to say. Using the Bible to prove what the Bible says is circular logic and does not prove anything. This is intellectual dishonesty.

     If one wants to verify the claims made in the Bible, there must be objective or observable evidence OUTSIDE the Bible to substantiate such claims. This guy, who I'd rather not even name, is just playing semantic games to make his nonscientific case that the Bible is the literal truth of God. The Bible being worded in such a way that the stories of the Bible follow syntax and grammar, is not proof of the legitimacy of its content. The Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible

-Lutch