Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie: faith based on facts

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:48 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 20, 12:35 am, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 19, 3:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:26 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snip)
We don't. Evolution is true, and I believe that Christianity is true.
We can test the theory of evolution, we can't test the beliefs of
Christianity.
(snip)
This Christian thinks that what he wrote makes
sense, why else did he write it?
If you are talking about Dana Tweedy, he obviously wrote it in a vain
attempt to inject a clue into the OP.
The only other option is that this
person is lying, that he is an Atheist attempting to make Christianity
look bad.
The only one in the conversation that makes Christianity look bad are
the Creationists; Dana Tweedy sure isn't making Christianity look
bad.
How else do we explain a "Christian" who places Christ and
Christianity beneath evolution?
You're nuts. No, excuse me, you are lying. It's as stupid and
inexcusable for you to say that Tweedy puts Christ beneath evolution
as it would be to say a physicist puts Christ beneath gravity. Do you
say that, Ray?
Dana thinks evolution is supported by evidence and Christianity is not
- that is what he said. Of course it is something that an Atheist
would say; it places Christianity beneath evolution = exactly what
Atheists believe. Material evolution produced the brain which imagined
the idea of God.
Ray's faith is weak, or non-existent. If it were not, he would be
able to understand that Dana is right--we are Christians, not
because there is invulnerable scientific evidence, but because we
have faith in that which we do not see.


Comment says Christianity is not supported by evidence.

Comment on my comment says Ray didn't understand my comment.

Tom, we already know that Atheists misrepresent Christianity this way
- what is your point?

What about 'we have faith in that which we do not see' is confusing you?

BTW, I am a Christian. I fully expect you to deny that, or to tell others (or even me) that I am deluded or some such. Yet the fact remains, I am a Christian, and I accept the results of science as the best *current* explanations for the physical universe.

And, by the same token, we accept the evidence for things we *do*
see, such as evolution as the best current explanation for the
diversity of life on Earth.


We know Atheists use science as a pretext to attack their enemy - the
Bible and Christianity.

What, they don't attack the Koran and Islam, or the Vedas and Hinduism, or the Midiwewin, or Shinto, or Anansi and all his tribe?

Just the Bible and Christianity, eh? Not even the Bible and Judaism?

This means that Evolutionism is their religion
operating under the cover of legitimate science;

No, this does not follow.

and since nearly all
Atheists are evolutionists,

Now it's 'nearly all'? See! Even *you* evolve!

and since they have no choice but to
believe that life evolved apart from Divine power, this could explain
why they "see evidence" of evolution.

Or maybe, just perhaps, they see evidence of evolution because they are honest observers of the world around them?

Since over half of all adults in
the U.S. are Creationists,

And 'over half'? Why Ray! At the rate you are evolving, you will morph those gills in no time!

these are good explanations as to why
evolutionists "see evidence" of evolution.

So by your lights, creationism in the U.S. is false, and its opposite, evolution, is true?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Evolution is a predetermined interpretation of evidence based on
rejection of Genesis. But any objective interpretation of the same
evidence reveals that Creationism-Design is a superior explanatory
filter since it accepts the face value meaning of the observation of
design to correspond to the work of invisible Intelligence, whereas
Evolutionism says the same observation corresponds to unintelligent
process. Of course it almost goes without saying that unintelligence
or the absence of intelligence cannot produce antithetical results.
This is why Creationism-Design is a superior filter to interpret
evidence: no ridiculous special pleading is required. Design
corresponds to invisible Designer (= straightforward logic).

Logic with bad premises returns unreliable results. As here.

Again,
said logic is rejected by Atheists for obvious reasons, but the point
is that reality is filled with evidence of breathtaking design and the
same logically corresponds to the intelligence of the Genesis Creator
and the eternal Logos/Christ.

I see that, and agree with the last bits. But I see because I have faith; I don't have faith because I see.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

John 1:1 (KJV)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God...."

This is why we have faith in a invisible God - the facts of
observational reality (design) provide a rational basis.

When you say, "we," who exactly do you mean? That isn't the basis of my faith, nor that of most of the Christians I know. The basis of my faith is an inward and invisible spiritual one.

Sorry you have to fight so hard to believe.

<snip>

There is no insult in being called a "sicko" by a person who actually
thinks there is evidence for apes morphing into men.
We are still apes. We came from apes that were closer genetically
to the other Great Apes, especially gorillas and chimps.

Atheists have no choice but to believe this nonsense based literally
on scraps and, of course, the presuppositions of Materialism. No
rational or sober minded person would even consider scraps to be
evidence of an extraordinary claim like human evolution.

You clearly don't know much about the 'scraps' to which you appear to refer. I do. You are wrong.

Of course the most devastating refutation of human evolution will be
found in my forth-coming paper.

I abate with weighted breath.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Only for those with very weak faith. ... and you are not threatened by evolution and have faith, ... his own personal version of christianity. ... the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Only for those with very weak faith. ... and you are not threatened by evolution and have faith, ... his own personal version of christianity. ... the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Only for those with very weak faith. ... and you are not threatened by evolution and have faith, ... his own personal version of christianity. ... the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evidence for Gods existence?
    ... Some believers will insist that there is evidence, ... his faith, but came up with a better theory and lost his faith. ... have a stranglehold on modern states like they used to. ... We started off discussing God's existence rather than Christianity. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Dinesh DSouza: Atheism Masquerading as Science
    ... at all about evolution or its compatibility with Christianity. ... Atheists and non-atheists accept him as a scientist. ... Except that atheism is not anti-religion, ...
    (talk.origins)