“his conclusion was based on claims of Jesus and others in the Bible.”
No they aren’t. If he truly believed in Jesus and the Bible, he’d not try to make his faith sound like science.
Mr. MS himself has a crisis of confidence. he lacks faith.
He thinks that if he doesn’t add science (as good he can understand it) to back up his faith that somehow he is being heretical. Mr. MS has no science, and he has no faith. Mr. MS is a true agnostic through incompetence. He is a man with nothing.
Lots of you Creatards on these threads are just incompetent Christians and incompetent scientists. Like Mr. M.S. you have nothing, so you attempt to gain grace through science. How stupid, really. Grace doesn’t work that way.
Isn’t it ironic that an engineer had to explain that to all you scientifically illiterate faithless fools that claim the mantle of Christianity.
Perhaps you are right about him having this fault, I'm not sure. I have my own faults, and perhaps even you have some.
My comment was about his conclusion that death is not the final word. That was the part you quoted. Can we agree he is not basing his belief in the resurrection upon anything other than the authority of Jesus and the teachings of the Christian bible? Certainly unlike the concept of a 6000 year old universe, the resurrection is an essential doctrine to Christianity.
Lots of you Creatards on these threads are just incompetent Christians and incompetent scientists.
You guessed a bit wrong about where I am coming from. I have a brief statement on my view of evolution on the my about page. I have not changed it for months.
Isn’t it ironic that an engineer had to explain that to all you scientifically illiterate faithless fools that claim the mantle of Christianity.
Perhaps you would find it ironic that I am an engineer myself (software in my case). Not that this makes me any kind of authority on the issues at hand.
I will agree with you in so far as I would prefer other Christians not to buy into the idea of a 6000 year old universe as an essential doctrine. But I feel no compelling reason to try to slam them for it. And will out of curiosity and courtesy consider their arguments, and even support them when they seem to make a valid point, or when a critic makes an invalid argument against them. I also will do the same for the evolutionists, as I think I have already demonstrated in other postings I have made regarding this article.