Scientific proof of God and Darwin proven wrong

[Clockstopper]

So you believe the sun really does revolve around the Earth as recorded in Joshua? Very revealing.

Of course, from our vantage point on the earths surface. But scientifically, the earth goes around the sun in 365.24 days. The description in Joshua is from the vantage point of those who saw the miracle.

The comments in Joshua were given in a colloquial fashion and such grammatical expressions are still common in this day and age.

Example: "These athletes are here for this Olympiad from the four corners of the earth."

Does the announcer really believe that the earth is flat and has four corners? Of course not. Such an expression is a common idiom of human language. But you are so messed up with Darwinian mental junk food that you can't think that far, and you won't allow the Holy Spirit license to describe things (i.e. in Joshua) that are commonly used in modern human language.

You are not a four dimensional thinker.

 

[ghendricks63]

Example: "These athletes are here for this Olympiad from the four corners of the earth."

Does the announcer really believe that the earth is flat and has four corners? Of course not. Such an expression is a common idiom of human language. But you are so messed up with Darwinian mental junk food that you can't think that far, and you won't allow the Holy Spirit license to describe things (i.e. in Joshua) that are commonly used in modern human language.

You are not a four dimensional thinker.

And the expression day is also a common idiom of human language. I.E., our older generation may say to a youth "back in my day" when referring to an earlier period of time. God has shown us billions of years of literal history in both the earth and the universe. But you are so messed up with the grade school level pseudo-science mental junk food promoted by YEC zealots that you can't think that far, and you won't allow the Holy Spirit license to describe things (i.e. day in Genesis) that are commonly used in modern human language.

 

[Clockstopper]

And the expression day is also a common idiom of human language. I.E., our older generation may say to a youth "back in my day" when referring to an earlier period of time. God has shown us billions of years of literal history in both the earth and the universe. But you are so messed up with the grade school level pseudo-science mental junk food promoted by YEC zealots that you can't think that far, and you won't allow the Holy Spirit license to describe things (i.e. day in Genesis) that are commonly used in modern human language.

Hmm, you told me in angry words, quote...'leave me alone'. So I did. I took a hike and came back only to find you bashing me again. And I am supposed to respect this as adult maturity?

"...you are so messed up with grade school level pseudo-science mental junk food.'

Know this O arrogant one: I am an ex-evolutionist and defender of Darwinian evolution. I was converted by the FACTS that reveal that such a belief system bears no relation to reality. Evolution doesn't even exist in our world and it never did.

But I will indeed leave you alone. I am not enjoying this conversation and I would rather not communicate with those who are so thoroughly indoctrinated with demonic teaching.

 

[ghendricks63]

Hmm, you told me in angry words, quote...'leave me alone'. So I did. I took a hike and came back only to find you bashing me again. And I am supposed to respect this as adult maturity?



Know this O arrogant one: I am an ex-evolutionist and defender of Darwinian evolution. I was converted by the FACTS that reveal that such a belief system bears no relation to reality. Evolution doesn't even exist in our world and it never did.

But I will indeed leave you alone. I am not enjoying this conversation and I would rather not communicate with those who are so thoroughly indoctrinated with demonic teaching.

Are you for real? This post was nearly 2 hours prior to when I gave up responding to your childish rants and told you to either grow up or leave me alone. Apparently you could do neither one any better than you can read a time stamp on a post.

The other rather obvious point that you missed was that what you referred to as "bashing you" was a parody of your very words. Strange when you used them on me you thought you were making a point...but when returned back on you word for word they are "bashing". Now you refer to my views (shared by the majority of Christians BTW) as demonic teaching. Another post that is pure flaming and warrants another report to the mods.

As I said before...either grow up or leave me alone. You keep calling me arrogant or indoctrinated with "demonic teaching" and I will report your every post.

I am glad you are not enjoying this. Perhaps you will learn some manners.

 

[mark kennedy]

Know this O arrogant one: I am an ex-evolutionist and defender of Darwinian evolution. I was converted by the FACTS that reveal that such a belief system bears no relation to reality. Evolution doesn't even exist in our world and it never did.

Evolution in the genuine article of science is the 'change of alleles in populations over time'. It exists everywhere in nature, on the other hand, evolution as the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent is another matter. Either the naturalistic assumptions transcend every living thing in every period of natural history or God is a possible cause.

It's not the fault of science or even evolution. The problem is you are dealing with a philosophy that has two definitions at the same time, one that is on the surface and one that must be assumed.

Watch your self, there is an equivocation trap here, they bait you with the genuine article and slam the a priori semantics trap.

But I will indeed leave you alone. I am not enjoying this conversation and I would rather not communicate with those who are so thoroughly indoctrinated with demonic teaching.

Some of them may well be influenced by the spirit of the age, prince of the power of the air wormwood from the abyss. What I think the real problem is here is that the natural man does not receive the things of God.

Try this, find a single line of evidential proof and ask yourself this, how much is actual observation and demonstration and how much is assumed before the evidence is even considered.

Grace and peace,
Mark