Spectrox War-
Let's talk science, since you claim that it is perfect. A few years ago one of our satellites took the photograph of a meteor crater which measured 53 miles in diameter. This meteor crater has been dated to 35 million years ago. It's located under Chesapeake Bay, on the east coast of the USA. This was initially declared by scientists to have been another extinction level event.
Then the random evolution apologists stepped in. Because this meteor strike had left visible evidence that could not be refuted, they could not deny that it had happened. But instead of recognizing it as another ELE, thus cutting in half the time period which they had originally claimed was necessary for us to have developed, they claimed it was 'a big splash', and nothing more, even though Chesapeaks Bay is less than 300 feet deep. Even other scientists have said that the ambient heat which radiated from that meteor would have evaporated all the water ahead of it before it reached the surface of that bay, making it a meteor that struck bedrock, not water.
Again, according to scientists, there have been at least 2 supervolcanic eruptions which have occurred within the past 640,000 years. Yellowstone erupted circa 640,000 years ago, and Mt.Toba, located in Sumatra, erupted 70,000 years ago. In both cases scientists themselves state that the resultant ash and sulphuric gas cloud reached the outermost layer of this planet's atmosphere, enveloping it in a blanket that deflected sunlight for years. As a consequence of this, the entire planet's temperature dropped to that of a presentday walk-in freezer, and remained there year-round for years, if not decades.
But the evolutionists claim that we survived this catastrophe at a time when they also claim we had not even mastered the use of fire. And what was the reason which all of them gave for our having survived years of well below freezing temperatures? Their argument was that if we hadn't, the theory of evolution could not be accepted as fact without outside intervention (intelligent design) augmenting it.
That's called a circular argument. To formulate a theory, then be presented with facts that offset that theory as proposed, would cause the theory to be seriously reexamined if purely scientific principles were applied. For people who claim to be scientists to state that what we all know to be unsurvivable was survived, but offer as their only evidence for its having been survived that the theory of evolution as they have taught it would no longer be valid if it had not been survived, is not science; it's idolatry. Instead of worshipping Ba'al or Zeus, they're simply worshipping a theory. It brings idolatry to the 21st century, but it's still idolatry.
In the twentieth century we saw the difference between the humanistic eutopia which some claimed that we could build for ourselves, and the reality of what happens to nations who choose to either turn their backs on God or reduce his influence to that of an icon supporting the dictates of their leaders. Instead of eutopia, we had Russia under first Lenin, then Stalin; we had Germany under Adolph Hitler; we had Cambodia under Pol Pot; we had Iraq under Saddam Hussein; we had China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. These are not coincidences. It has been known for centuries that the society which denies God his rightful place soon becomes a horror to itself and all around it:
The attempt made in recent decades by secularist thinkers to disengage [the moral principles of Western civilization] from their [scripturally based] religious context, in the assurance that they could live a life of their own as a "humanistic" ethic, has resulted in what one writer has called our "cut-flower culture." Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice, and personal dignity - the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality. Morality ungrounded in God is indeed a house built upon sand, unable to stand up against the vagaries of impulse and the brutal pressures of power and self-interest. (Judaism and Modern Man, Will Herberg, pages 91-92, as quoted in Jewish Wisdom, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, page 291)
As for Christians' refusal to approve of homosexuality, you will get no apology for our 'sticking to our guns' on that issue. The marriage bed is sacred, and is to remain so. Sexual immorality and impurity will not be countenanced. If that hurts some feelings, then that is a price that they must pay for their lifestyle.
We have a code of conduct which we are to live by, and as Christians we accept that code as both valid and pertinent to every aspect of our daily existence. This passage describes that code of conduct:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)
That is the code of sonduct which we as Christians have accepted as what we are to live by, and those who would have us reject that code are themselves rejected by us. We will not replace it with some 'humanistic' code that approves of what we know must never be approved of. If that makes us obstinate, then so be it. We will continue to be obstinate, and will be equally as obstinate with whatever code replaces the current one.
BTW, as for your argument's being detailed, I read more detail in the argument written by an 18-year old a few years ago than I have read in all your messages put together. That's why I still say your argument looks 'canned'.