Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
He was working off of a supposition, just like creationists are. They have decided what they want to be true first, and ignore evidence otherwise.
If God doesn’t exist, then we will never have evidence for his existence.
On the other hand—if the triune God of the Bible is real, then the evidence for his existence is everything in the entire universe.
But my point was this. Belief in God is said to be “Just about buttressing your fairy tale because you’re so afraid to die.”
But the same argument works for atheism. It frees the atheist to pursue worldly pleasures. (The advantage unique to Christianity is the believer doesn’t have to hide anything.)
It clearly says that the sun stood still "about a whole day" -- if a 'day' is 24 hours and that's how long it stood still how can you say that Joshua's 'day' was 24 hours? (24 + about 24 = 24?)
It's really not that hard — my point is that this "about 48"* hour day is still clearly referred to as a 'day' even though it is clearly unlike other days. The point is that the reference for 'day' is not 24-hours, but the time it takes the sun to complete it's circuit in the sky. If there is no sun, nor [solid] Earth from which to reference the non-existent sun for those first days then why should they be 24 hours? These creative days are also unlike other days, especially those where the sun [or Earth-proper] didn't exist.
I'm not saying that they aren't 24 hour days, but I am saying that they needn't be.
IOW, the truthfulness of the creation account does not rest on the most restrictive usage of the words — indeed, your claim that "almost all" instances of yom are 24-hour days implicitly admits that some appearances of yom do not — the Bible isn't about describing the universe with scientific precision to people, it's about showing us who God is and why we need Him — in short, it is about Jesus.
A quick search reveals this article which claims the only appearance of yom in the old testament with the evening and morning association is in Daniel 8 and refers to a set of years.
Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.
YEC was around long before ID.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Unless you don't consider God an intelligent designer.
This might be of consequence if non-believers were the only ones committing crimes and "pursuing worldly pleasures."
But we all know that ain't true by a longshot.
However, one could make the example that the Christian worldview allows the pedophile priest into heaven after he confesses his pedophilia to Christ, and the molested child goes to hell after shunning God and Jesus because of a correlation between the faith and his abuse.
So I guess we all have our paradoxes, huh?
They are according to the Discovery Institute, the main lobbying organization for Intelligent Design.
And a self-professed failed physicist is qualified to speak on physics exactly how?
You're going to have to provide something more to support your claim then as to why the time dilation does not work.
You switched cause and effect.
Switch it back around and you’ll see what I mean. Psychology works against atheism just as well.
And so the kids get to be taught the atheists secular humanist creation account above all others because YOU think it’s better?
How about this? Don’t teach ANY creation account. Kids do not need the ToE to understand science.
Eliminate the indoctrination and just teach them science and forget the atheists religion of secular humanism.
I'll repeat myself one last time since you didn't seem to know how to read what I stated and it address your quote.
There is no disservice in letting students know what alchemy is and why people may think it is illegitimate or legitimate (do you get it now? We agree here!). It is a disservice keeping students from learning what it is. Children not taught of such things find out about them and don’t know what to do when confronted by them. It’s no wonder why kids get into witchcraft when they don’t learn what it is about in school but from their peers.
I totally support teaching witchcraft, alchemy, and creationism alongside each other in schools, so that students will be aware of them and know that they're false and not supported by evidence.
If a child molester merely parrots a confession he won’t have salvation. But if he truly repents, accepts God’s forgiveness and comes to know Jesus he’s meeting God’s standards, not those of man.
God sets the standards.
Even the Pope believes in evolution, as do a lot of Christians and religious people are all sorts.
So your assertion that atheism is a prerequisite for learning and understanding evolution is provably false.
‘The Bible says the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is “three.” Is there an explanation of that in your “scientific data?” ‘
That’s been explained a number of times. Since evos don’t want to believe it, they won’t accept it.
However, here goes.....
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Actually, the numbers support religious people committing crimes at higher rates than non-religious. So statistically, it doesn't work "just as well".
Right, in my hypothetical example the priest is truly repentant for his crimes. But the child is also truly genuine in his rejection of God and Jesus because of his experience, so he goes to Hell.
Isaac Newton was practicing the settled science of his day.
Creationism is another example of religion making really smart people believe really stupid things.
If that's the case, you haven't proved it yet and if you are implying that Newton was an example because he was a creationist, that falls flat as well.
I have no doubt that Newton had more brains in his pinky that you'll ever have in your entire lifetime.
*Science* proves what various claims in the Bible are nonsense?
And you know the Bible is wrong just how?
What objective absolute standard of truth are you using to measure the veracity of the Bible?
So, tell us.....
What is truth?
How do you know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjHkk6Xbls
There is some compelling evidence here and I think you'll find it interesting.
I'll be praying for you as you debate with FredZarguna. As you can see in my other post, he gets irrational, and uses the usual Evo tactics of taking things out of context, being hypocritical (like using the Bible authoritatively though he does not agree with its authority), etc. etc. But you know how to handle such things quite well. Anyway, it always makes for amusing reading for us folks who like to kick back and just read these post, like I'm going to do on this thread from here on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.