SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No. I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.You mean "read the Bible"?
So it's true, your argument is "it's true because a book says so"?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.You mean "read the Bible"?
So it's true, your argument is "it's true because a book says so"?
And yet here we are.No. I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.
And when you think you can refute any of my claims, just post it.And yet here we are.
Constantly and consistently refuting your "proofs". Simply repeating a claim is not proof.
And when you think you can refute any of my claims, just post it.
Once again I need to remind you how i refuted your "induction proof". Remember how you ran away from the discussion when it was obvious to even you that it was refuted. The Ostrich Defense does not work on the internet. It does not work hardly anywhere.And when you think you can refute any of my claims, just post it.
I'll just go back to your op and the argument of complexity.And when you think you can refute any of my claims, just post it.
You have it backwards. The burden of proof to show that there was a god involved lies upon the people that are making that claim. Think of it this way, they did not prove that fairies did not do it either.I'll just go back to your op and the argument of complexity.
First of all we know what cell phones are, and how they're made and we also know the biology of complex biological systems and how they are made.
The question is where is God in all this?
You have no undisputable proof because you can't even find and point out one single proof involving God. You have the complete inability to even point out anywhere along the process where it's happening.
I guess this ends the thread.
Where did you do that? I didn't see any such thing? You failed to respond to my posts of Ehrman's work on the NT. Your only answer was a frankenstein gospel that is completely different than all others?No. I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.
I proved it many times.Where did you do that? I didn't see any such thing? You failed to respond to my posts of Ehrman's work on the NT. Your only answer was a frankenstein gospel that is completely different than all others?
Again, where? All I see is you asserting a book is true because "you say so". That isn't proof.I proved it many times.
Wait, why are you moving the goalpost? You said you will prove the Bible? Refuting myths isn't something that matters, I cannot refute the stories about Zeus or Romulus either. Doesn't make them true.But if you want to try to refute it please do,
Saves what? Your soul? Please demonstrate proof you have a soul.And TNE gospel of Christ is the only gospel that saves.
You've described how a creationist reads his Bible. He begins with the assumption that its words are correct and never sees anything else ever again. Science approaches these matters very differently, which is why the two produce contradictory belief sets.We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion). Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
And here's a nice example of that kind of thinking. You've chosen to believe that, and so now, that's what you see. And that changes your thinking forever. It determines what conclusions you are allowed to come to when evaluating both science and scripture. The scientific community is not interested in that output. It doesn't look like science on paper and it can't be used for anything except to manipulate those that trust people who think like that.the Bible says that Satan deceives the whole world
So what? Creationists don't need the approval of the scientific community. They've got their own community.if there is any organization or person that shows evolution and billions of years are false, they are labeled as unscientific and even have their integrity questioned
They're not reputable scientific organizations. Like the creationists on RF, they do religion, not science. It's enough that these organizations are considered reputable with creationists.Those organization and people that have shown evolution and billions are false are not counted as reputable scientific organizations.
Make sure that you put that in your articles. Maybe that could be the title of one of them.Evolution of course is not true and the word of God proves that also
You need to get that published.I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.
I have proved that God exists and created all things. I also proved the Bible is the true word of God.You've described how a creationist reads his Bible. He begins with the assumption that its words are correct and never sees anything else ever again. Science approaches these matters very differently, which is why the two produce contradictory belief sets.
And here's a nice example of that kind of thinking. You've chosen to believe that, and so now, that's what you see. And that changes your thinking forever. It determines what conclusions you are allowed to come to when evaluating both science and scripture. The scientific community is not interested in that output. It doesn't look like science on paper and it can't be used for anything except to manipulate those that trust people who think like that.
So what? Creationists don't need the approval of the scientific community. They've got their own community.
They're not reputable scientific organizations. Like the creationists on RF, they do religion, not science. It's enough that these organizations are considered reputable with creationists.
What do you need with scientific journals? The scientists don't need or seek the approval of the creationists. Be like them.
Creationist papers are published frequently in their "creation science journals" where anybody interested is free to read them. Perhaps this is where you should go with your arguments if you want a receptive audience. Here are a few now. Maybe you can get some of your arguments published there:
Answers Research Journal: Cutting-edge Creation Research (Answers Research Journal)
Creation/Evolution Journal | National Center for Science Education (Creation/Evolution Journal)
These people might be interested in your work:
Home (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research (The Institute for Creation Research)
Make sure that you put that in your articles. Maybe that could be the title of one of them.
You need to get that published.
People say that lava is older on top and younger on bottom and that should be impossible, but there is the whole eruption thing. The old rock below the surface gets put on top.And your point?
AND, Please link me to a peer-reviewed paper that suggests dating refutes evolution. An actual peer-review, not the made up creationist one.I proved it many times.
But if you want to try to refute it please do,
And TNE gospel of Christ is the only gospel that saves.
I have peer reviewed and fact checked all papers that claim evolution and billions of years are true and they have been dismissed.AND, Please link me to a peer-reviewed paper that suggests dating refutes evolution. An actual peer-review, not the made up creationist one.
LOL you are by no means the peer of any credible scientistI have peer reviewed and fact checked all papers that claim evolution and billions of years are true and they have been dismissed.
And you get a 100 score for circular reasoning.LOL you are by no means the peer of any credible scientist
That's not circular reasoning!And you get a 100 score for circular reasoning.
Oh the irony!But you obviously are not being scientific in this area of knowledge.
No. I proved that God exists, created all things and that the Bible is true.
You obviously don't know what circular reasoning is
Oh the irony!
No, you have only claimed that and displayed massive ignorance in the process.I have proved that God exists and created all things. I also proved the Bible is the true word of God.
Evolution is false science.