|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 3:06:38 PM
|
|
|
endless_night
Posts: 71
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Hello endless_night!
quote:
I am well versed in Scriptures and evolution and the longer I read about evolution, the more my intellect is sure that it was God who created the world, the way He said it in Genesis and through the entire scripture.
I'd be interesting in your testimony -- y'know the details :)
Something interesting to note about this idea though:
quote:
The universe really do[es  ] scream out His creation.
I agree that the totality of the Universe and nature can be a powerful "sign" that God is behind it all!
However, such an idea brings up a strange question: Does nature then speak to us about who God is and how He thinks? Of course, Genesis addresses what I am getting at, but... You know, is God telling us to attack and eat one another? If "survival of the fittest" is indeed so obvious as to be a circular statement -- as in, of course, those who are better endowed to survive will stick around; that's not saying anything! -- then is God saying "might makes right?" Genesis, I believe, contends that creation has been corrupted by sin, and we cannot derive what ought to be from what in fact is.
Truly, the majesty of creation can give a believer a new dimension to his or her awe of God, but then is it true that God "speaks" through nature? That is, does He say anything specific othe rthan, "check this out!!" -- I mean, "Behold, my glory!" and "Behold! I made you a being that can apprehend the scope of my creativity!"
No, I simply mean it shows God (His design), not that it tells us who He is.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 3:24:52 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
thanks and your welcome!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 4:13:04 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
The universe really do scream out His creation.
I agree. It also screams out evolution. That is why our understanding of scripture ought not to contradict the clear message of creation. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. So scripture and evolution must not be mutually exclusive either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 4:24:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Just exactly what aspects of God creating all life according to its respective kinds on three specific days of creation week does not exclude evolutionary common descent? This position is totally untenable by exegetical and scientific criteria, gluadys! You are grasping at straws to maintain even a similance of credibility here.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 4:26:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Just exactly what aspects of God creating all life according to its respective kinds on three specific days of creation week does not exclude evolutionary common descent? This position is totally untenable by exegetical and scientific criteria, gluadys! You are grasping at straws to maintain even a similance of credibility here.
The fact that the three specific days occur in a theological story about creation and not in the physical history of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 4:28:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
And you have observational evidence of the physical history of the universe for this remarkable assertion of yours? NOT!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 4:55:57 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And you have observational evidence of the physical history of the universe for this remarkable assertion of yours? NOT!
More evidence than you have for the remarkable assertion that the Genesis days of creation existed anywhere other than in the text of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 5:25:26 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Just exactly what aspects of God creating all life according to its respective kinds on three specific days of creation week does not exclude evolutionary common descent? This position is totally untenable by exegetical and scientific criteria, gluadys! You are grasping at straws to maintain even a similance of credibility here.
Again, you are unable to provide explanation for your exegesis other than basically referring to anyone who says its unsound as a gentile who just cant possibly understand. Fact is, the rise of your literalist exegesis is a relatively contemporary phenomenon that again, goes against historical precedent. Sure, before science many had no reason to doubt that 6 day creation could have happened, but Augustine and others made it clear the 'plain' and 'literal' readings, to the detriment of the reader, provide only a shallow glimpse (if not complete misunderstanding) of the creation account. The meanings and messages are much richer and deeper than this 'plain reading' doctrine, which seems to have practically appeared out of thin-air. Your position, sir, is the untenable one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 5:40:26 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion, and accepting what the Bible says requires the dismissal of evidence to the contrary. Totally incorrect, Ian! I dismiss NO evidence to the contrary because there is NO evidence in nature that contradicts the Bible. There are only faulty human interpretations due to the faith-based assumptions of uniformitarian naturalism that you perceive may contradict the Bible. Accepting what the Bible says is really quite easy once one eliminates her/his erroneous presuppositions and allows the Word of God to speak for Itself.
Well, I wasn't actually talking specifically about the Bible, but about the analogy. I take it you now accept my analogy. i.e. that IF there exists evidence which contradicts the Bible, the observer must take the Bible on faith and dismiss that evidence.
So my next question is - what leads you to believe that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible? Is it:
1 The Bible is infallible and therefore there is no evidence which contradicts it
or
2 Putting the Bible aside, all evidence happens to concur with the Bible, and in particular, a YEC reading of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 11:28:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
More evidence than you have for the remarkable assertion that the Genesis days of creation existed anywhere other than in the text of Genesis. Then you deny the authoritative inerrancy of Scripture, gluadys, and no amount of intellectual posturing can reverse that simple fact. Factual history is accurate or it is no history at all!
quote:
Again, you are unable to provide explanation for your exegesis other than basically referring to anyone who says its unsound as a gentile who just cant possibly understand. Nonsense, drj. The internet is full of scholarly articles clearly describing the proper exegetical approach to Genesis as historical narrative prose. You have no interest in understanding the hermeneutical rationale behind correct interpretation because you #1 - do not believe in the authority of scripture and #2 - are brainwashed by your faith-based reliance on uniformitarian naturalism. That has nothing to do with being Gentile (which BTW, I am as well).
quote:
The meanings and messages are much richer and deeper than this 'plain reading' doctrine, which seems to have practically appeared out of thin-air. Your position, sir, is the untenable one. You are lecturing me about "richer and deeper meanings and messages" of God's Holy Word? What an incredibly ostentatious attitude! And you call 1800 years of Christian exegesis to be "practically appearing out of thin air"? What worthless atheist website fills your head with such blatant misrepresentations? On second thought, don't bother to share them - no need to poison the minds of still rational seekers!
quote:
I take it you now accept my analogy. i.e. that IF there exists evidence which contradicts the Bible, the observer must take the Bible on faith and dismiss that evidence. The correct statement is: IF there exists an interpretation of evidence which apparently contradicts the Bible, then the interpreter must take the Bible on faith and re-evaluate his faulty interpretation.
quote:
So my next question is - what leads you to believe that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible? Is it:
1 The Bible is infallible and therefore there is no evidence which contradicts it
or
2 Putting the Bible aside, all evidence happens to concur with the Bible, and in particular, a YEC reading of the Bible. Yes to 1). No to 2). Evidence doesn't just "happen" - it results from God's design and creation of the universe. Also, there is no such thing as "a YEC reading of the Bible". Proper exegesis leads to the inescapable conclusion that God created everything in six days about 6000 years ago. There is no evidence to contradict these facts, only faulty human interpretations of evidence
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/17/2008 11:48:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
More evidence than you have for the remarkable assertion that the Genesis days of creation existed anywhere other than in the text of Genesis. Then you deny the authoritative inerrancy of Scripture, gluadys, and no amount of intellectual posturing can reverse that simple fact. Factual history is accurate or it is no history at all!
I do not deny the inspiration or authority of scripture. I do deny the historicity of the creation accounts. Indeed, factual history must be accurate to be history. Fortunately the creation accounts do not need to be history to be true and authoritative for Christian doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 2:02:26 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1191
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
More evidence than you have for the remarkable assertion that the Genesis days of creation existed anywhere other than in the text of Genesis.
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” – John 5:46
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 4:22:58 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So my next question is - what leads you to believe that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible? Is it:
1 The Bible is infallible and therefore there is no evidence which contradicts it
or
2 Putting the Bible aside, all evidence happens to concur with the Bible, and in particular, a YEC reading of the Bible. Yes to 1). No to 2). Evidence doesn't just "happen" - it results from God's design and creation of the universe. Also, there is no such thing as "a YEC reading of the Bible". Proper exegesis leads to the inescapable conclusion that God created everything in six days about 6000 years ago. There is no evidence to contradict these facts, only faulty human interpretations of evidence
See I think that is the whole point. By stating that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible (in particular what you consider to be the correct reading of it), by definition you dismiss anything which might contradict that belief. You certainly dismiss the *possibility* that something contradicts the Bible, and that's an a priori assumption. (Others would argue that it is your interpretation that the evidence contradicts, and not the Bible, but that's someone else's argument to have.)
It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1.
I don't have an issue with what you believe, or whether it is right or wrong - but it is what you believe, not what is proved to you by evidence. You are starting with faith, and therefore must consider everything else in the context of that faith. By definition this means you cannot objectively assess evidence, since you are starting with the a priori assumption that the evidence must fit the Bible. The irony of this is that you spend much of your time lambasting others (admittedly, occasionally justifiably) for doing what you perceive to be exactly the same thing.
You might make the same criticism of atheists, for example, but the distinction is that even atheists like Dawkins allow for the possibility that God exists. By allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, they make no a priori assumption and can objectively assess evidence and judge it on its merits. (I make this point only to highlight the difference, not to be dismissive of what you believe.)
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 7:08:31 AM
|
|
|
endless_night
Posts: 71
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
See I think that is the whole point. By stating that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible (in particular what you consider to be the correct reading of it), by definition you dismiss anything which might contradict that belief. You certainly dismiss the *possibility* that something contradicts the Bible, and that's an a priori assumption. (Others would argue that it is your interpretation that the evidence contradicts, and not the Bible, but that's someone else's argument to have.)
It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1.
I don't have an issue with what you believe, or whether it is right or wrong - but it is what you believe, not what is proved to you by evidence. You are starting with faith, and therefore must consider everything else in the context of that faith. By definition this means you cannot objectively assess evidence, since you are starting with the a priori assumption that the evidence must fit the Bible. The irony of this is that you spend much of your time lambasting others (admittedly, occasionally justifiably) for doing what you perceive to be exactly the same thing.
You might make the same criticism of atheists, for example, but the distinction is that even atheists like Dawkins allow for the possibility that God exists. By allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, they make no a priori assumption and can objectively asses evidence and judge it on its merits. (I make this point only to highlight the difference, not to be dismissive of what you believe.)
Regards, Ian
I find it funny that you said "It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1" and do not realize that this also applies to Evolution. And for anyone who has really studied evolution to it's core and believes it, realizes that Evolution does not lead to a possibility of an existing God, it leads to the idea that someone created God so they could more easily function in this world. To say that God existed and He created evolution is to say that God's account in creation was wrong and the human account of evolution is right. But what I find funny is this, it's not that I want things to contradict the bible to be wrong, I just happens that when something does contradict the bible, that "evidence" or thing turns out to be wrong. Funny how that works.
To say that an atheists allowed for the possibility that God existed is at best a contradiction. If someone allows for the possibility that God exists they are usually referred to agnostics because atheism by definition means the "belief" that there is no God. I totally understand that it is the semantics, but without the semantics we would not understand each other.
For those who think that creationist interpreting of scriptures are wrong and that evolution is proving God, is a mind-bogging statement. If evolution, at it's core belief states that things are created by pure chance (random mutations), then how does that not contradict the simple act that God was creating the universe in the very first verse of Genesis 1. Doesn't the simply fact that God is wrote about as creating the universe contradict the idea that the universe was created by pure chance. How then can they be cohesive, if, at the very start, they are contradictory. So, it stands that one must make a decision, whether to believe God's view of His creation or man's view of evolution. It's not both, it really is either/or. And to say that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong but yet you believe almost everything else in the bible is also contradictory. Throughout the whole entire Bible, you can continuously see that the "fact" that God created the universe is written over and over again. Do, we sit there and tell ourselves, I don't believe such in such in the bible simply because it goes against evolution--thus, does it not become that "in order to have complete faith in what you believe about evolution you must believe that the bible does not contradicts evolution" and you do that by simply denying the passages that goes against evolution and believe in everything else.
< Message edited by endless_night -- 6/18/2008 7:17:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 7:59:52 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
More evidence than you have for the remarkable assertion that the Genesis days of creation existed anywhere other than in the text of Genesis.
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” – John 5:46
Non-sequitor. Moses wrote a doctrinal text. I have no problems with the teachings of Moses re Christ. This does not require that the Mosaic text on creation be scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 9:17:08 AM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 568
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that I will not go against the only persons who actually saw the world being created, who incidentally was creating it Himself.
I am well versed in Scriptures and evolution and the longer I read about evolution, the more my intellect is sure that it was God who created the world, the way He said it in Genesis and through the entire scripture.
The universe really do scream out His creation.
This could not be said better!
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 9:18:17 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1191
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
This does not require that the Mosaic text on creation be scientific.
It is historic. Science CANNOT explain miraculous events.
It is the devotion to materialism, not evidence, that forces acceptance of old earth philosophy.
Evolution is a LIE straight out of the pits of hell.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 10:30:38 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
This does not require that the Mosaic text on creation be scientific.
It is historic. Science CANNOT explain miraculous events.
It is the devotion to materialism, not evidence, that forces acceptance of old earth philosophy.
Evolution is a LIE straight out of the pits of hell.
Of course, science cannot explain miraculous events. But it is not a miraculous event that needs explaining in light of the Genesis accounts of creation. It is the scientific evidence of a long history of the earth that needs to be explained.
The only miracle that can remove the scientific evidence from consideration is last Thursdayism. That means that creation never happened either as scientific evidence says it did, nor as a literal reading of Genesis asserts. Creation never really happened at all, except in the sense of implanting false memories and false sensory "evidence" into an illusory creation to make it look like an ancient creation.
Belief in a real creation means taking the evidence in creation seriously. It means assuming creation is real, the stuff in creation is real, and our God-given capacity to observe and reason logically about our observations is real and adequately reliable.
It is also to be noted that comprehension and good exegesis of scripture also rely on a God-given capacity to reason about our observations. Scripture is not intended to be a magical mantra that only requires it to be recited over and over again. It is intended to be interpreted and understood rationally.
Rational theologians understood Genesis to be other than historical long before the scientific evidence of an ancient earth was uncovered. If Genesis can be seen not to be historical just from the text alone, how much more so when creation contributes further evidence supporting the same conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 10:47:37 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And for anyone who has really studied evolution to it's core and believes it, realizes that Evolution does not lead to a possibility of an existing God, it leads to the idea that someone created God so they could more easily function in this world. quote:
To say that an atheists allowed for the possibility that God existed is at best a contradiction. quote:
So, it stands that one must make a decision, whether to believe God's view of His creation or man's view of evolution. It's not both, it really is either/or. And to say that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong but yet you believe almost everything else in the bible is also contradictory. Excellent rebuttals, endless_night! Thanks for beating me to them.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 10:57:05 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I don't know about that either/or business y'all.
I think natural selection, and hence evolution, just says
1) If traits are hereditary
2) And if traits confer relative reproductive advantage
-----------------------------------------------------------
3) Then, these traits will be more greatly represented in successive generations.
Now, if mutations occur and some of them confer adavantage, then a species would appear to change over time.
If one accepts that mutations occur, then why not evolution?
I agree that some Darwinists try to extend these simple premises and conclusions beyond the scope of knowledge (such as when they say if everything is encodable and genetically heritable then everything, including consciousness and so on, evolved -- these are big "ifs"), but that's their problem, not evolution's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 11:28:20 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If one accepts that mutations occur, then why not evolution? Because random mutations are almost invariably deleterious and add no complex informational content to the original genome. Without this increase in complex informational content, there is no basis for the progressive evolution of higher organisms forming new tissues, organ systems, limbs, etc.
quote:
I agree that some Darwinists try to extend these simple premises and conclusions beyond the scope of knowledge (such as when they say if everything is encodable and genetically heritable then everything, including consciousness and so on, evolved -- these are big "ifs"), but that's their problem, not evolution's. Some Darwinists? That's their problem? Don't be so naive, hhhi! Darwinian evolution from goo-to-you is rammed down the throat of every public school student in this country as absolute fact. It sickens me to see real science perverted into a humanistic religion of uniformitarian naturalism.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 12:20:26 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So my next question is - what leads you to believe that there is no evidence which contradicts the Bible? Is it:
1 The Bible is infallible and therefore there is no evidence which contradicts it
or
2 Putting the Bible aside, all evidence happens to concur with the Bible, and in particular, a YEC reading of the Bible. Yes to 1). No to 2).
As ianz said, this is the whole game right here. drmark is incorrigible. Someone who accepts as an axiom that no evidence contradicts a particular interpretation of the Bible is immune to rational debate.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 12:37:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
I find it funny that you said "It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1" and do not realize that this also applies to Evolution.
This is not true. Scientists are always seeking new evidence. Evolutionary theory has progressed a great deal from Darwin's time by incorporating new ideas and new data, not by declaring them to be invalid by fiat.
quote:
And for anyone who has really studied evolution to it's core and believes it, realizes that Evolution does not lead to a possibility of an existing God
That is untrue. The theory of evolution does not discuss the existence of gods in any way.
quote:
To say that an atheists allowed for the possibility that God existed is at best a contradiction. If someone allows for the possibility that God exists they are usually referred to agnostics because atheism by definition means the "belief" that there is no God. I totally understand that it is the semantics, but without the semantics we would not understand each other.
I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.
I believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist.
I am an alochnessmonsterist.
Nevertheless, I don't consider the existence of the Loch Ness monster to be a 100% impossibility. I'm willing to allow for that possibility and look at evidence.
Similarly, I am an atheist, but I'm willing to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and look at the evidence. I am not a drmark, who admits that his reponse is a reflexive dismissal of anything he disagrees with.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 1:27:10 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3267
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
drmark is incorrigible. If by that you mean "firmly rooted or fixed so as not to be changed", then I will take it as a real compliment, es. I am firmly rooted in the glorious Truth of God's Word - praise His Name!
quote:
Someone who accepts as an axiom that no evidence contradicts a particular interpretation of the Bible is immune to rational debate. As usually, you have no concept of the Christian worldview, es. It is only due to the fact that I am a God-fearing, Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christian that my rationality remains intact while the godless humanists basking in their religion of uniformitarian naturalism pretend to uphold "evidence" when in reality they only show their own faith-based assumptions which blind them to the truth.
quote:
I am not a drmark, who admits that his reponse is a reflexive dismissal of anything he disagrees with. Oh but you are, es, you just cannot see that your faith-based dogma of uniformitarian naturalism is a reflexive dismissal of anything you disagree with. It's just easier to hide behind the cover of "scientific majority" instead of opening your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, God has the only right answer! I pray one day you will see that, es.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 1:36:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I am not a drmark, who admits that his reponse is a reflexive dismissal of anything he disagrees with. Oh but you are, es, you just cannot see that your faith-based dogma of uniformitarian naturalism is a reflexive dismissal of anything you disagree with.
Can you provide evidence of 'nonuniformitarian' radioactive decay?
Can you provide evidence of 'supernatural' radioactive decay?
If not, I have nothing to dismiss and you have no basis for dismissing the scientific result that the earth is billions of years old.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
