Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

You're right, and I want to show why;Evidence here - must be according to the evo's scientific method. Now since we believe in a supernatural creator, it's always going to be impossible to have any evidence for God, who transcends the natural and can be invisible.This means the secularist atheist can always use the scientific stance that there must be evidence, testable etc.. So we are immediately into a fight with one hand tied behind our back, because the populas at EvC, is basically atheist/evo.Now if we find a toothe from the megaladon shark, and show it is identical to a modern white shark, except for in size. My question is - just how can't that be creation evidence IF the bible says things have degenerated?1. The shark hasn't evolved - he's just shrunk.
2. Animals such as these grow without limit. If the earth was "very good" like in Genesis, then the white shark would reach this size.So, please evolutionists - WHY should this evidence favour evolution when the bible answers the evidence fully?Thankyou.It's a blatant lie that there is no creation evidence - I've just provided one example.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 03:44 PM

Not "exactly". You missed my point. If you don't allow ANYTHING to evidence God - how can anything be acceptable to you? ANswer - nothing ever is. It's just a ticket for you guys, it's a rule I've found out, here is how you logically remove God, period;1. Science can't mention him (according to you guys)
2. The scientists opinion about God is worthless= You've succesfully guaruntees no God. Maybe it's psychological that you do this.There is evidence for God - even the universe. But that is not allowed because of the above, according to you guys.

Mike, I noticed similar such posts from you in Buz's thread.Calm down, take a stress pill and think things over. Really though - chillout man.

I apreciate the fact you are creationist, but what is misleading - is that this suggests you are for the biblical account. But you're not - you agree with the evolution account and seem to be fascinated with atheits and generally agree with them in every topic.

I indeed remember that particular post. I haven't changed much. The illusion is that the God of the OT is not the nice guy in the NT.It just seems to me, that you seldom post a defense of theism. You say we blow smoke - like you almost consider yourself an atheist.

These assertions have no proof.1. premise. You haven't proved I blow smoke - and that is offensive, because I basically consider myself to be honest.2. premise. Christianity is serious (how does this make me un-serious?) *baffled*., which is your second statement, though I haven't mentioned christianity. And now - you've concluded I want to convert people to christianity by blowing smoke up their ass.So this is pretty unfair of you Jar. Thesitic arguments are just as valid and worthwhile, and should be looked at. But for you - only atheistic arguments are acceptable.Atheists have this uncanny ability to judge me, yet they haven't the right.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:32 AM

Jar - my behaviour is the same as it ever was here. Who's Delbert and anne? What were my motives? Did you read why I done that? Maybe I wanted to say what I really wanted to say, without people judging mike. WHo knows.Yet being AdminJar has gone to your head. You've been assigned to watch over me it seems.Doesn't the scripture say "My power is perfected in your weakness"? . If I follow Christ, and act badly here - and go away and do what he said to do - have I done his will? If the father of a servant says "go work in the field, and he says - "no - I won't" - yet goes away and works in the field - has he done the will of his father?SO my words of creationism aren't that important - but those actions that we do in secret, and with God fully knowing them, testify to who we are. No one should be offended if I am creationist - nor start to judge me and say, "you can't spell, you're bull**itting us, you cannot read, your memory is bad, etc. etc. You have no strong faith". But rather they should apreciate that my beliefs don't incorporate that we are here because we are unplanned, as the scriptures certainly don't lead us to that conclusion.I think this is going nowhere now, There's no point in us arguing like this anymore. If I see evidence of theism - and know it is sound, how am I blowing smoke?

I stand by what I say. Evolutionists put science on a pedestal. Buz/Maestro, do you realize the two premise to which they can safely conclude that there is NEVER God in their own mind? Here it is; 1. Science doesn't mention God
2. What scientists say about God is irrelevant.

​

Conclusion; No God credence, or talk of him means anything according to our exalted philosophy, which is the modern authority, which is the only modernistic and accepted authority.What we need to show is that our theology can be backed up with valid and true epistemological and sound knowledge. Even if it doesn't meet the "scientific method" we need to show that that is not necessarily important, because we don't put science on a pedestal and worship it like others do.I mean, have you noticed how often they say, "That's not science," or, "mike - you're so right to not call that science".The real answer to that is; Why would I call it science? I don't need to - there is other ways to give credence to scripture. For example, me and Buz have proved biblical prophecy is true and valid and sound. EVen if you say God cannot be mentioned by science - the reality of evidence is still used.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 12:13 PM

That's true - unless you require I give you some evidence for my belief. Then I must take part in science unwillingly. And then you guys say - "no - get out of science", I mean for Dusku's sake! SO yeah - I mean, maybe u should have a mince pie eh and a beer, cos u seem to be clever enough to not take mike's bait concerning prophecy - which is more than I can say for that big fishy I caught that begins with "H".

Wow - this is absolutely true! Excellent logic - and I agree that this is what happens here.Welcome to the forum, and please stick around.

You have said what I wanted to - only clearer. I said to Dan that we are required to give science so we can be turned down by them. We're certainly on the same wavelength, because I made that comment to Dan before reading your other posts also. Lol.So it's interesting that there are all these buttons we must press before we hit the target they want us to hit. For example;First get the crationist to claim A - so we can lead him to b then c.A (get him to argue science) ---> B (show him that his science isn't good enough) - Or C (if he shows good science, they can lead him to the position D (that God isn't in science.Do they subconsciously do this without realizing it?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 12:36 PM