How did the ark Kinds give rise to extant taxa?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

FYI, but this isn't why non-believers don't believe the Bible. If you really want to engage non-believers on the subject of why they don't believe, you should try asking them instead of telling them.

There's no point. Unbelievers decide to be so, and they will defend their decision to the last. They can't be persuaded by just human intellectual logic or evidence. God has to show mercy and through His grace, work in them by the Holy Spirit to enlighten their minds and give them the awareness of God and their accountability to Him. Until God does it, unbelievers remain unbelievers.

The Christian's commission is to just tell unbelievers about Christ and what He has done for them in order to get them saved from hell. It is not the Christian's role to actually convert unbelievers, because that is something only God can do, and if He decides not to do it, then the unbeliever remains lost.

But, after having heard the gospel of Christ and the invitation that God gives all unbelievers to believe the gospel, then that is enough for them to be accountable when the time comes for them to account for why they rejected the gospel and decided to remain unbelievers.

 

[Speedwell]

There's no point. Unbelievers decide to be so, and they will defend their decision to the last. They can't be persuaded by just human intellectual logic or evidence. God has to show mercy and through His grace, work in them by the Holy Spirit to enlighten their minds and give them the awareness of God and their accountability to Him. Until God does it, unbelievers remain unbelievers.

The Christian's commission is to just tell unbelievers about Christ and what He has done for them in order to get them saved from hell. It is not the Christian's role to actually convert unbelievers, because that is something only God can do, and if He decides not to do it, then the unbeliever remains lost.

But, after having heard the gospel of Christ and the invitation that God gives all unbelievers to believe the gospel, then that is enough for them to be accountable when the time comes for them to account for why they rejected the gospel and decided to remain unbelievers.

So why don't you do that, instead of going on about literal inerrancy?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Isaiah prophesied the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem accurately right down to the very day. He spoke of the Messiah being crucified long before crucifixion was even thought of.

That's just two examples.

I very clearly said "claims in the Bible without any corroborating evidence do not count as fulfilled prophecy." I look forward to you providing corroborating evidence for those claims. No evidence = not a fulfulled prophecy.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So why don't you do that, instead of going on about literal inerrancy?

The more information I give the greater the accountability.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I very clearly said "claims in the Bible without any corroborating evidence do not count as fulfilled prophecy." I look forward to you providing corroborating evidence for those claims. No evidence = not a fulfulled prophecy.

I don't have to, and I would be wasting my time. All I have to do is to give you the gospel of Christ and you either believer it or not. There is nothing I can do to cause you to believe it if you have decided not to. But the day will come for you when the question will be asked of you: "What did you do with the gospel information that was given and explained to you by the many Christian believers with whom you debated?"

 

[Shemjaza]

The more information I give the greater the accountability.

Do you mean for yourself as the witness or the unbeliever?

I don't have to, and I would be wasting my time. All I have to do is to give you the gospel of Christ and you either believer it or not. There is nothing I can do to cause you to believe it if you have decided not to. But the day will come for you when the question will be asked of you: "What did you do with the gospel information that was given and explained to you by the many Christian believers with whom you debated?"

Many of us could answer: "I considered it, but when the evidence was examined it wasn't convincing."

 

[Speedwell]

The more information I give the greater the accountability.

But you've not given any information about the Gospel of Christ. All you've done is talk about the allegedly prescient knowledge contained in the Bible

 

[pitabread]

Unbelievers decide to be so, and they will defend their decision to the last.

Belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice. It's a state of being arrived at through personal experience.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do you mean for yourself as the witness or the unbeliever?


Many of us could answer: "I considered it, but when the evidence was examined it wasn't convincing."

The best of British luck to that!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But you've not given any information about the Gospel of Christ. All you've done is talk about the allegedly prescient knowledge contained in the Bible

If you are the one who says that you have been debating these issues for the last couple of years, I would say that you have been given copious amounts of information concerning the gospel of Christ. I think you know very well what the gospel is all about. It is just that you have decided not to accept it, and are just clickbaiting people to have discussions that end up going nowhere.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice. It's a state of being arrived at through personal experience.

Not possible without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't have to, and I would be wasting my time. All I have to do is to give you the gospel of Christ and you either believer it or not. There is nothing I can do to cause you to believe it if you have decided not to. But the day will come for you when the question will be asked of you: "What did you do with the gospel information that was given and explained to you by the many Christian believers with whom you debated?"

Your argument amounts to "this prophecy was fulfilled because I say it was. We don't need evidence, just my assertion."

Seriously, do you not see a problem with that line of reasoning?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Your argument amounts to "this prophecy was fulfilled because I say it was. We don't need evidence, just my assertion."

Seriously, do you not see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Prophecy was fulfilled because subsequent history proved it. Anyone who has made an informed comparison between Biblical prophecy and subsequent historical record will affirm the truth of Biblical prophecy.

It is much easier to make throw away comments like yours, than to take the time and effort to examine the prophecies and subsequent history to find out the facts.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Prophecy was fulfilled because subsequent history proved it. Anyone who has made an informed comparison between Biblical prophecy and subsequent historical record will affirm the truth of Biblical prophecy.

It is much easier to make throw away comments like yours, than to take the time and effort to examine the prophecies and subsequent history to find out the facts.

I set you a perfectly reasonable challenge - non-biblical support for fulfilled prophecy. Your inability to meet that standard is not an indication of my failure to examine evidence, it is an indication that such evidence has not been presented to be examined.

It's incredibly simple - provide non-biblical evidence that biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. If you can't, then you demonstrate that your assertion is dishonest and erroneous.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I covered that. Animals do not randomly deform when they change. Changes happen in one generation.

No, they don't. Changes happen over many generations, and every fossil is a sample of a population in transition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing was half formed. They changed with no intermediate forms in one generation.

Not like the foxes then?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, they don't. Changes happen over many generations, and every fossil is a sample of a population in transition.

True. But nothing randomly mutates and there are no experimental limbs, eyes, organs, bones or body parts as evolutionists fail to admit.

 

[Speedwell]

If you are the one who says that you have been debating these issues for the last couple of years, I would say that you have been given copious amounts of information concerning the gospel of Christ. I think you know very well what the gospel is all about. It is just that you have decided not to accept it, and are just clickbaiting people to have discussions that end up going nowhere.

I know the Gospel of Christ, I believe the Gospel of Christ. You have not preached that Gospel to us, only spoken of allegedly prescient knowledge contained in the OT, which has nothing to do with the Gospel. You are not preaching the Gospel of Christ you are preaching the literal inerrancy of scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

True. But nothing randomly mutates and there are no experimental limbs, eyes, organs, bones or body parts as evolutionists fail to admit.

That begins to sound like the old creationist canard about organisms dragging around half-formed body parts waiting for the next mutation.

 

[Larniavc]

Let's see your evidence that science has disproved the Bible.

What is the value of pi?