The only way to sway someone away from their religious views on origins is to claim a better methodology in how one states they have arrived at the proof that their premises are true.

Get enough people to talk long enough and with enough circular reasoning in their logic and the outcome can very well convince some people of something that was once though incredulous.

Sometimes science does get it right. These are called laws and patterns.

However, sometimes scientists take their premises and run to find proof and then create such a nested looped of interconnected circular reasoned logic that if you try to break any part of the nested loops open for examination, one of the other interconnected nested loops can usually be used to prevent any serious consideration of the original premises.

Either one comes to God believing that he exists, or one uses the flawed reasoning of his own darkened mind to convince himself that he can never know for sure if God exists and thus starts himself on a road that will build interconnected nested loops of so called knowledge and facts that will enable him from having to reconsider if God really might exist.

In the last 200 hundred years a profuse set of religious documents have been attempted to be turned into historical rhetoric. Millions and billions of years are bantered around as if by some mechanism man will be able to somehow fill in all of the gaps so that the proof for naturalistic evolution will somehow turn into a wonderful moasic.

Fossil records do not verify anything other than what one expects them to mean.

Scientific methodology can not be used to study any pre-recorded historical events unless one first assumes the possibility of some series of events that fits with one’s view or origins.

I am a young-earth creationist, not simply because the Bible says so, but because my heart and mind tell me that this is even more possible and believable than what a dedicated naturalist will turn himself inside out trying to convince me about – otherwise.

It only matter to a naturalist that he can convince you that God didn’t have to be directly involved in creation. All he really needs from you is the declaration that you don’t find his ideas offensive to your own. This enables him to build layer after layer of interconnected nested circular logical ideas into a nearly overwhelming worldview that will make you ineffective at even communicating what you believe to your friends, family and children.

I can rebutt any naturalists logic using these simple ideas.

Any view of origins starts with premises.

Supposed evidence can be used in any number of ways to either credit your own beliefs and/or discredit others.

No matter the amount of evidence presented to me, I have never allowed myself to be pushed to the point that I have had to view origins in anyother way that a series of faith based propositions.

Some agnostic naturalists are can admit that their worldview is a religion, but the hard core atheistic one will never do so in a court of law. It is in the courts of law (and academia) that they beleive the preponderance of their nested loops of circular logical reasoning and peer reviewed journalism has proven their position correct and valid.

I trust this has helped someone today.

“Oh, yeah, the “Pi = 3″ one. As if nobody heard of rounding off.”

I was directing the post to:

Internet Elias
“And if part, even a minute part, of scripture is in error, I would have to suspect any part of it to possibly be in error. And..to day…I have found no error or contradiction in scripture.”

Oh, yeah, the “Pi = 3″ one. As if nobody heard of rounding off.

Has anybody heard of anybody trying some sort of “Christian Math” (as opposed to “Secular Humanist Math”) where Pi = 3? (There’s been enough crazies claiming a direct line to God, somebody has to have tried it by now.)

What about the math error in 1 Kings 7:23 ?

I wish I had more time to put into this. I have actually copied some earlier stuff I have written before on the internet and pasted it here. Accordingly, I have tried to find something I have written before to respond to you but could not find it.

However, let me try to respond a bit to your comment. If you look over in the “shipwreck” story of Paul in the book of Acts, you will find that Paul makes two statements to the rest of the people on the water vehicle that might be taken to be a contradiction if folks did not take it right.

One statement is from a divine perspective.

The other statement is from a human perspective.

The divine perspective expresses the absolute certainty that the men will not perish.

The human perspective expresses the idea that “if” the men do not do _________________, they will perish.

These statements do not contradict since God would most certainly spare their lives [since He does not lie], but He would do it THROUGH their action.

If we assume, for argument’s sake, that global warming is true, then the Lord might choose to keep the seasons regular THROUGH the actions of humans who seek to change their habits towards the environment.

Anyway, I hope you see where I am going.

I wish I had more time to put into Joel Hunter’s comments. He has been respectful and I appreciate that.

God Bless,

Benji

You said “Let’s take another idea. How do you know that the seasons will come in the future the way they have come in the past?

However, if you depend upon what God says in Genesis about the seasons, then you can know for certain that the seasons will come in the future the way they have come in the past since God does know what is on the other side of the moon.

Here’s the thing. I don’t know if the seasons will come in the future the way they came in the past. We may have another ice age. Or maybe global warming is real. We know that some parts of the planet that are very cold were once tropical.

Trouble is, if the way seasons come does change, as they have in the past, and I have literally interpreted the Bible to say “God always makes the seasons come the same way”, I have set myself up to say the Bible is wrong, and reject God.

It seems too literal reading can sometimes lead us into a trap. Help me out here.

Well guys, of course Bahnsen’s argument is not dependent upon your approval or disapproval, but I am glad you checked it out.

I wish both of you lived close enough so that I could invite you over for some good “Cracker Barrel” coffee I have now.

God Bless,

Benji