Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesI am confusedWhoa. my apologies. i'm pretty new to this forum and i don't know who believes what. i assumed that i was speaking to a person who believes the Bible and uses it as their authority. i'll answer you differently then: fascinating attempt at a rebuttal when that very idea of your is ALSO a presupposition (assuming that this ancient book really WAS written by people dominated by superstition). really? maybe what you think to be "rational" is simply the accidental by-product of some genetic mistake that conferred some kind of survival advantage on your alleged apelike ancestor, which gives no reason to suppose your ideas to be true? your own reasoning betrays you. with that aside, the "rational discoveries of science" that you bolster (all the while giving an example of not even one) are based on Naturalistic assumptions that depend on human tradition and are no more objective than the reasoning you castigate me for (see Col 2:8 for a wonderful verse dealing with this). and, excuse me, verifiable, observable data? you're confusing operational science with historical science. Evolution and Naturalism and ideas of millions of years are simply story-telling about the UNOBSERVABLE past masquerading as science. these ideas are no more solid than what the Bible presents (the difference being that while the Bible was inspired by a perfect, Omniscient God who WAS there and knows everything and recorded it for us; all these other ideas of secular scientists come from fallen, sinful people, who don't know everything and WEREN'T there.) the problem is not the evidence, it's the AXIOMS one uses when interpreting that evidence. you come to the wrong conclusions because you start with the wrong presuppositions. with this thinking, you'll NEVER be able to arrive at the truth. it's fine to resort to such denunciations, but actually demonstrating your position is much more difficult. this false idea has long been refuted. the Bible NEVER talks about a stationary earth, it only describes the cosmos from the vantage point of earth. resorting to age-old canards won't work here. i've barely said anything. most of my ideas thus far have dealt with philosophy and reasoning. i haven't been trying to be "scientific". this too is a misnomer because you ASSUME that that idea is true. i firmly reject it. i don't believe that we ever sat in caves (in the prehistoric sense that you speak of). you treat everything according to your own worldview and then rage against us because we don't accept that worldview. we could do the same and simply say that you're ignorant as well of the truth. they were. they also seemed like they came from "Skeptics-R-Us" or some such place. i've seen them all before and they're easily answered with sound reasoning. and what happened to the way that you answered that one person earlier by saying that you were genuinely seeking for answers? you said: you've demonstrated that to be a complete fabrication and have affirmed his initial response to be deadly accurate. if you're trying to "build your Christian faith", then why don't you follow what Jesus says (which is the definition of a Christian: someone who follows Christ)? He specifically demonstrates that all ideas of millions of years are a lie (Mark 10:6), and He says that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). to be a Christian you need to follow Christ and His teachings. why do you not do this? interesting for you to say considering the fact that i and another person have already answered the questions. if no answer will suffice for your superior mind, then why ask the questions in the first place? you seem to be a dishonest skeptic; pretending to search for answers to questions, but when they're given, you reject them anyway. aside from that, i'd hate for the world to fall back into the dark ages, after all the trouble that Biblical Christianity went through to get us out of them . not to mention the fact that some of the most beneficial scientists in history have been Biblical creationists: Isaac Newton, Carolus Linneaus, William Herschel, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell and so many more. here's a couple of quotes that you'll do well to pay attention to: "Nothing in real science disproves the Bible. As amply shown, these people decree in advance that theism is not an option, then proceed to tell the public that atheism was a conclusion of their research when in reality it was a premise." -- Jonathan Sarfati "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." --G.K. Chesterton you continue to talk about me being ignorant of science and being erroneus in so many areas, but you've actually demonstrated this not once. why don't you post something that ACTUALLY refutes what i'm saying, instead of just appealing to some alleged proof, or resorting to "elephant hurling"? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame