re: Will Howard and Jack Sawyer giving all the glory Jesus Christ

quote:

---

I think you’re pretty well entrenched in your beliefs - regardless of any evidence. And that’s perfectly fine. Keep on believin’, brother.

---

I should be entrenched in my beliefs. I have never been presented with a reason to doubt them. But it seems I can say that you're also quite entrenched in your own beliefs. You have made that abundantly evident.

quote:

---

I will say that I do admire your adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis because I do agree with your theology. Your “science,” though? Not so much - for more reasons than I care to list.

---

To the first part, thanks for the compliment. To the second part, I've been waiting this entire discussion for you to present something to show for your own convictions. But, instead, you've tasked me with answering all of your questions - which is fine, I'm happy to answer them - while not answering any of mine. You're right that I do adhere to scripture and a literal interpretation, so I'm not going to have any discussion with any person that leaves out the Bible. I believe the Bible speaks for itself quite well without my need to defend it, but I will certainly use it in my discussions, as well I should, and point to evidence that confirms it. However, I am well aware that you are interested in physical evidence, as we all are, regardless of what we believe. So it's not as though I've sat here only quoting scripture (not that I should apologize, if I had done that). I've discussed the numerous scientific fallacies within the evolutionary theory, as well as their dating methods, but you've responded to none of it. So, when you say you don't care to list the reasons why you disagree with "my" science (it isn't my science, it is readily available information), that really just tells me that you aren't aware of anything that would counter the specific problems I've addressed; but only that you don't believe in God, and so I must be wrong, and my reasons must be absurd.

quote:

---

I am just glad your beliefs are right where they should be - inside religious venues and outside of serious scientific circles.

---

My beliefs are inside of serious scientific circles. People who I can promise you are a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than you and I, have spent their lives studying these scientific disciplines, Many creation scientists were once atheists, who turned their lives over to the Lord, because in their efforts to disprove His existence, they found evidence of His hand at work everywhere. They found evidence of the Biblical flood. They found evidence of a young Earth. Archaeologists and geologists found evidence supporting Biblical events and timelines. And, at a certain point, they found Jesus, Who was always there, and they finally realized it.

I know I can't personally change your mind. I'm not the One who can bring about that change. But I pray that you will also find Jesus. Thanks for the discussion, take it easy, my friend.

quote:

---

Obviously anything I say that contradicts the Bible is futile.

---

And everything I've said to contradict evolution has been met with careful thought and consideration? No, I've been told that it is basically a waste of time and not worth the effort to engage my arguments for what they are, instead of just saying they're absurd and not scientific. I don't know very many people who claim so boldly to know so much, with such certainty, without having the least bit of interest in showing how are why.

quote:

---

Technical science aside, I consider someone telling me that T-Rex, Lions, Megalodon, Titanaboa, Saltwater Crocodiles, and all the other great predators in history once lived together as docile herbivores until their killer instincts were suddenly switched on by a deity because humans broke some of its rules and that some of these species were later saved by a 500-year-old man whose family built a boat for a flood that covered Mt. Everest to be the height of absurdity and reeks of primitive mythology.

---

So you believe in a theory that tells us that before we were humans, we were apes, and before that we were some kind of fish-like creature, and before that we were just chemicals boiling in some unobserved "soup", but you can't possibly imagine that creatures underwent a diet change? Simply because I said that God was behind it? And even though I gave you examples of animals even today who have sharp teeth, but aren't carnivorous, you ignore that and continue to assume to know that these animals you referenced were always carnivorous, because they had sharp teeth?

You equate your lack of belief with being logical, but you believe in something that is scientifically impossible by any natural means, as evidenced by the fact that science, itself, has never demonstrated that living things turning into different kinds can occur. The "anything but God" form of thinking is not reason or logic. We can't see gravity, but we know of its existence by observing its effects. No reasonable person denies the reality of gravity. Likewise, when there is something we can see, that we know couldn't have just got there by chance, no one feels the need to deny that someone made it. Yet, when we don't see God's face, even though we see all of the evidence of the effects of His design, people think it's crazy to believe in Him?

quote:

---

I was raised in a Christian family in the heart of the Bible Belt. Even decades after leaving the faith I took the time to visit the Holy Land. I have been to where Jesus was supposedly born, arrested, executed, resurrected, and ascended. I have even been to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. I have been to many temples and mosques in Asia and been immersed in very different cultures.

---

Going to all of those places is all well and good. But none of that has anything to do with examining geological and archaeological evidence which supports events in the Bible. The Ark Encounter helps you to get a visual context of the scope of the Ark, based on its measurements in Genesis, but it's not the same as direct physical evidence that I'm talking about. I offered to leave you a link showing the geological evidence of the flood, as well, and that offer still stands. And you can think a 500 year old man building a boat is primitive mythology, but you are again placing limitations on God. And since I know you'll say "well I can't argue with your belief in God, I only deal with logic and reason", then I must ask what is so, I guess, "modern" about believing billions of years of time could allow chemicals to create life? Were you there to witness this? Was anyone? No. So where is the logic in trusting in an unobservable theory? You see, you keep calling a theory "evidence". But every given "evidence" is an assumption that something must be a particular age, or have done a particular thing, because the theory requires it to have been so. That's, again, circular reasoning.

quote:

---

I am a person who is skeptical of outrageous claims across the board without substantial evidence

---

As am I.

quote:

---

That goes for deities, ghosts, cryptids, alien visitations, etc. In a world full of deception, I consider this a good thing.

---

I agree, it is a good thing to be skeptical, because there are a lot of counterfeits. But there is a difference between being skeptical, and being biased. If you are truly skeptical, and demand evidence, then why do you continue to ignore the serious problems I've demonstrated to you? Why don't you question that, too? You've seen me call out fellow Christians for holding to inconsistent positions. Where is your skeptical integrity for your own side?

quote:

---

I find religion to be highly cultural (like most things) and that people cling to it for hope and because they fear death. I believe this leads to a lot of irrational thinking by otherwise rational people.

---

I believe that a lot of religions are ignorant, just like the religion of atheism. Each false religion is self-serving. Atheism didn't arise in the world until people started looking for a reason to not serve God, but themselves instead. The rise of Deism was probably the start, where people still accepted that there is Creator, but that He wasn't involved in anything other than kind of setting things in motion, and didn't intervene in our lives. In other words, they trusted their own wisdom over scripture. That eventually led to the theory of evolution and, ultimately, for many, atheism.

Other religions make "gods" that are basically there to serve them. They use these false gods to justify whatever means by which they choose to live their lives. I often hear the criticism that Christianity is guilty of the same. But what these critics fail to recognize, in their short-sighted attacks, is that calling yourself a Christian does not make you so. We've seen people kill their families and say that God made them do it. But doesn't the Bible say "thou shalt not kill"? Don't we hear of people committing horrible crimes who don't claim to be Christian, but who blame their crimes on someone else? People will say anything to justify themselves, but some religions (like Islam) call for killing others who aren't in line with their beliefs. We see all kinds of religions (and also people claiming to be Christian, who distort scripture) which allow behaviors that are forbidden in the Bible. Why? Arrogance and the need to serve themselves.

Point being, God is not responsible for the actions of people. He gave us instructions of how to live, but also free will to choose. He did not give us a choice of the consequences of not serving Him. Belief in God is not about a fear of death. If it were, there would be no atheists. And where would such logic end? What if I was afraid of the dark, so I just stopped believing in the dark, and told myself that it was always daylight? Would I be convinced? No, of course not. You can't believe something, unless you truly are convicted in your heart that it's true. I don't want to die, even knowing that Heaven exists, and yet I don't choose to believe that I am immortal.

The reason that people have always believed in God was precisely because it is rational. Because the notion of random chance processes creating anything, much less life, is irrational. Some heard from God directly. Others understood Him through the inherent rationality that He gave us, and it was self-evident to them that life, itself, had to have a Creator. Unfortunately, whether it be false gods or atheism, a belief in the one true God, over time, branched out into all of these other things because of man's sinful nature. The flood was necessary, because of the total corruption of mankind. And, as we can see, those sinful ways never went away, which is why Jesus came and died for our sins.

By the way, I hope you didn't interpret this quote - "You're right that I do adhere to scripture and a literal interpretation, so I'm not going to have any discussion with any person that leaves out the Bible" - as meaning I won't have a discussion with a person if they leave out the Bible. I'm saying I won't leave out the Bible in any discussion I have with any person (regarding creation, theology, or some related topic). Obviously, I wouldn't be talking to you if I required that you include the Bible in order to do so.

quote:

---

This discussion is not about evolution. It is about your position that there was no death in this world before humans were capable of committing what you call sin. There are forms of creationism that contradict your position all the same.

---

You've already said this, and I debunked that by reminding you that you brought evolution into this discussion. You deny that humans were around before animals, and you deny that sin came before death, because you believe in billions of years of evolution. So yes, this discussion is about evolution, every bit as much as it is about what I said. It is about both of those things. And I have already said that it doesn't matter that other forms of creationism "contradict" my position. Those people aren't actually creationists. They are the camp who says that God set evolution in motion, and they call that "creation". But they do not follow the Biblical account logically, so why would I take their position seriously? Atheist evolutionists have countless theories about what happened, because all they can do is guess, and there is very little consensus other than that they don't believe in God. So what difference does it make that some disagree with me? I asked this the last time you made that same comment.

quote:

---

"Simply"? You say that like it is a trivial point.

Saying "God was behind it" to explain something as nonsensical as the most vicious carnivores in the history of life on Earth originally living together as docile herbivores until a deity changed their instincts because humans made a mistake is quite a statement.

I mean, maybe sloths were once able to run up to 50 mph until one of them ran into Zeus white he walking around one day, it angered him, and he made them all slow out of spite.

We can all have a lot of fun with supernatural explanations.

---

No, I am not saying it as though it's a trivial point. You ignored everything I said leading up to that, as though it were trivial. As I said in the quote you included, you believe in a theory that makes all of these wild assumptions about huge changes; changing from one kind of creature to an entirely different one, and another entirely different one, all by the miracle of "lots of time", but for some reason you find it impossible to believe that a creature could undergo a diet change. And it seems quite apparent to me that you only object to this because I said God is behind it. If I had said "billions of years of evolution lead to diet changes" you would have thought nothing of it. Or would you have? You believe in all these other changes, so why not add in some more? Is that not what evolutionary "scientists" do all the time? You have no actual physical evidence of what dinosaurs used to eat because you weren't there, any more than I was, but you presume to know based on their teeth. But I have given you examples multiples times of animals today with sharp teeth, who are not carnivores.

Even if you don't believe in God and that He was behind these changes, you have nothing to say that these changes nevertheless occurred. All you have is a theory, and you assume that it is right, because it isn't God. You mock anything I say on the basis that God was behind it, but you have no problem clinging to non-scientific theories. At least be consistent. If you claim to be all about science and evidence, be willing to call out the issues with your own theories.

quote:

---

And venom and blood-sucking mouthparts and poisonous skin and horns and claws and constriction and baleen and stingers. Animals are well adapted to killing each other, including in defense. Even some plant species are toxic and carnivorous. And then viruses and bacteria.

---

I'm sorry, but where in that paragraph was the contradiction to my point that there are, today, non-carnivorous animals with sharp teeth? "Well here's some other things that exist and do other things", is not a rebuttal, whatsoever, to what I said. Here is the only point that matters about non-carnivorous creatures: They do not eat meat... Because they are not carnivores. It doesn't matter if they have claws, sharp teeth, poisonous saliva, venom, or anything else. They eat plants and fruit. Period. To say that all living things were always attacking each other is an opinion, not supported by facts.

quote:

---

All the species in the history of the world existing together for a period of time and nothing dying, even by accident? Nothing trampled by an elephant or brontosaurus? Nothing getting entangled with a box jellyfish? Nothing getting speared by a fast-moving swordfish? Nothing ingesting a poisonous plant? Nothing falling from height or freezing or choking?

---

The only reason that death exists, and all the various ways that it happens, is because of the curse of sin. When you are the God of the universe, it is not difficult to design a world without danger. The same way that there is no death and no pain or sadness in heaven. But you don't believe that, and there isn't a single thing that I, myself, can do about that. Try as I might, I can't make you see or believe what you aren't willing to.