Hello everyone

If you have witnesses to last Wednesday, and it would seem you have millions of them, then you have good evidence for the existence of last Wednesday.Maybe you DON'T know if witnesses were "there," in which case you don't have evidence do you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So good, you found some evidence of religious motivation. Good for you, Dr. A. You are a good researcher, I commend you.

By trusting the witnesses as well as your own experience. Which you can do with last Wednesday but not with the ancient earth. How do you know the witnesses were present? Newspapers, television, people you talk to every day who were there, your own personal experience of events of Wednesday. Same answer as above: you know by trusting the witnesses plus your own experience. Is this a sophistic question or what? [qs] Yes you are entitled to believe it grew on an apple tree because you trust the witnesses to apples growing on apple trees through your life who have told you so, and/or you believe your own experience of apples growing on that particular kind of tree. You might even be able, with diligent research, to find out which tree where, or at least which orchard, and even possibly which person or team of pickers picked it. Because all these things are traceable in the present within the range of personal observability in the present.What you are NOT entitled to believe is that Moses didn't really live in Egypt because archaeology has used dating methods to prove that Egypt is way older than the time frame given for Moses. Dating methods exist in the present and all you have is your own guess as to what they mean about the past. You do have good evidence for the time frame from the Bible, however, and lots of witnesses therein to that time frame.You also aren't entitled to believe that a particular fossilized impression of an apple is a certain age, because you have no way of verifying that, no witnesses to its burial, etc.

Yes, that's what you have, that's all you have, that's all any of us ever have. And what IS your point? Don't think so. Uniformitarianism is a theory that applies to a completely unwitnessed situation, a time in the past before any human beings existed.That's according to the theory that is. For me, I have lots of witnesses in the Bible, but all you have is your specuiations about an unwitnessed past, coupled with others' speculations, but all speculations, no witnesses, no testability, no replicability.

I don't have an EMOTION of hatred about any of this, for pete's sake, despite some people's desire to slather me with such things. The hatred is in the judgment of some things as evil, inhumane, cruel, devious, plotting, malevolent etc. and a desire to see them exposed, resisted, stopped if possible. If you don't have that you aren't a human being. My actual emotion is more like anxiety for people to know about evils they don't know about.And if I don't succeed it won't poison me though it will make me sad.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are at least potential witnesses in the case of criminal justice and there is evidence that can be checked against other WITNESSED kinds of evidence because it all goes on within the span of time in which witnesses exist, unlike the UNwitnessed past which is what evolutionism et. al has the effrontery to think they can know about purely by standing around and looking at evidence that exists only in the present.. And I have thought about it, a LOT. Do try to follow the argument.I consider the multiple witnesses reported in the Bible to be more than sufficient evidence myself, trustworthy human beings who were given by God to witness to unusual phenomena to testify to His reality and His word, I do think that's true verifiable evidence.But if you don't like that, which you don't, how about this: Spiritual things are known spiritually, not through the senses. You do, however, have to believe the Bible witnesses to the extent of believing that you must be born again, meaning you must be born of the Spirit through belief in God's word in order to have that spiritual knowledge. So really, one way or the other you need the verifiable witness evidence given by the many many many witnesses in the 66 books of the Bible over about 1500 years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. they don't involve history as the Bible does, which needs eyewitnesses to verify it. The Bible is about God acting in history before witnesses who tell us what they saw and why they believed in the God who did what they saw. There is nothing like that in the other religions which are mostly practices. and disciplines to develop "spiritual" powers. Or they require sacrifices to appease a local god. They don't try to prove the existence of God at all, they take God for granted, those religions that believe in God anyway. In the religions that worship local gods, sometimes people see them, sometimes they "manifest." The Bible tells us those are demons. Take it or leave it.Whoevern Hugh Ross is, he was right. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The totally fictional and perfectly silly Book of Mormon purports to be a history but not for the purpose of proving God's reality and character as is the Bible. But I'm sure you can make it appear otherwise if you have a mind to.

Wish to apologize for hijacking scienceishonesty's thread. Didn't intend to. Always forget how much zeal to argue with me I tend to attract. In any case I'm gone. Carry on.

Guess I'm not out of here yet. Oh well. Again you confuse persons with isms. You can't even bring yourself to hate a murdering ideology, how "nice" of you.However, Jesus did teach us to hate even our own families if they draw us away from the Truth, so your quote is a tad out of context. Also, there are psalms that teach praying for the restraint and even punishment of evil people. Not "carnal" retaliation on our part, since "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God..." but spiritual. That is, we are not ever advised to use physical force against even the wicked, with the exception of self defense in some circumstances.

Admiral Gaspard de Coligny was a Huguenot military leader who was killed at the start of the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, jar, as I already said. Funny how you never say anything yourself, you just harangue and harangue and harangue. Just lazy or what?

I feel very sorry for you that you can't tell the difference.

I didn't say the Bible was only about how God brought about creation, and there's certainly nothing in what you quoted to demonstrate anything more than what I said, that the other religions take God for granted. So you found some descriptions, you did not find them giving evidence for their belief though, did you?I said the Bible is about God's doings in the world that were witnessed by many people to demonstrate who He really is. Many of the nations round about are said in scripture from time to time to recognize that He really is THE God, the Creator God and not just one of the familiar idol gods of the nations, because of the miracles He did for the Israelites. Rahab recognized it and protected the Israelite soldiers, the midwives of Egypt recognized it and protected the firstborn sons of the Israelites and so on. God showed Himself in the plagues on Egypt along with the Passover protection of those who believed, and many Egyptians came along with the Israelites because they believed He was the true God and not just another little idol god. He showed Himself in the pillar of fire by day and smoke by night as the Israelites traveled. He showed Himself in the parting of the Red Sea. He showed Himself in the miracle of the sun standing still for Joshua, the miracle of Gideon's fleece, the miracle of Samson's strength, the miracles Elijah and Elisha did and so on and so forth, and then of course most dramatically in the miracles performed by Jesus. All to give proof of who He really is, who Jesus really is. Proof, evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead. It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same. Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.And so on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually they were not revolutionary at all, the military was for defense, same as the American military was originally conceived to be. When you have enemies it's a great blessing to have the capacity for self defense.And as I've already said, power and wealth are neither bad nor good in themselves, depends on how you get them and how you use them and they are a great blessing in the need of self defense.The French Religious Wars from what little I've read about them, were the usual Catholic persecutions of the Protestants, against which the Protestants defended themselves when they had the means. The Huguenots needed an army for that purpose and they used it for that purpose. Most of the Protestants persecuted down the centuries didn't have any form of self protection whatever, and in the end it didn't do the Huguenots all that much good either as they were slaughtered easily enough in the Bartholomew's Day Massacre which began with the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.