Peter Henderson wrote:My question to YECs is this Ashley. If a non believer (like Nye for example) accepted Christ and was saved, but still rejected YECism would YEC groups like AiG and CMI give thanks another lost soul had found the Lord ?
They refuse point blankly to answer this question directly. All I get is "We have never said that you must be a YEC in order to be a Christian" waffle. As we know, this is not what their followers believe.
Yet, they continually repeat the line their ultimate aim is to lead people to Christ ??????????
I think they are hypocrites.
Peter Henderson wrote:Can't really see anything Ashley. Which post is it on ?
a_haworthroberts wrote:Peter Henderson wrote:Can't really see anything Ashley. Which post is it on ?
He's posted a screenshot of your recent comment under the opening comment: "Many anti-creationists are shallow thinkers but fancy themselves deeply intellectual. (This one used "guilt by association" one time to call me stupid because I like "Ian Jubby".) Instead of reasoning ability, people like this have rebellion against God and hatred for his people. -Cowboy Bob"
(Earlier this evening I was having problems cutting and pasting onto the BCSE website.)
I can see how you can be a believer and be OEC or TE. I don't see how you can be saved and STAY there.
a_haworthroberts wrote:"Why do our critics sincerely believe that we are lying?"
"Why are our critics sometimes genuinely angered by our claims and our behaviour?"
"Why do vast numbers of people, including many Christians, sincerely believe that we are wrong on scientific matters?"
It's called putting yourself in the other person's shoes.
archaeologist55 wrote:The truth does not need a majority to be the truth
Assuming by 'truth' were talking in common terms about the correspondence theory of truth or as Aquinas put it
Provide a hypothesis for the existence of cyclothems in the geological column within the context of a global flood model that can be confirmed through observation or experiment?
Otherwise please stop trying to make God scientifically falsifiable by insisting that Genesis is a literal explanation of creation against all theological sense and scientific knowledge.
archaeologist55 wrote:Assuming by 'truth' were talking in common terms about the correspondence theory of truth or as Aquinas put it
Who said Aquinas was correct? Since he was not inspired by God nor wrote scripture we do not have to listen to him.
Since Noah's flood, let alone the special creation of all animal species, cannot be observed or replicated, you are in no position to demand than anyone believe in them.archaeologist55 wrote:Since the original conditions that started life, since the supposed original ancestor , and since the process of evolution cannot be observed at any time nor replicated by secular science, you are in no position to demand anything.
archaeologist55 wrote:and since the process of evolution cannot be observed at any time nor replicated by secular science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests