EvC Forum: Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

Nice rant there ray, but what does evolution have to do with Biblical Literalism?

Comment assumes the atheists at issue would accept evidence for God. The evidence proves they won't and will utilize all their ability to suppress it.

What world would that evidence be from? it can't be this one, because if there is honest to-goodness evidence for god, not someone saying "Hey I met god yesterday" I think most atheists would believe it

The blinding is corroborated by the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no evidence for macroevolution, except by assumption. Assumptions are not evidence. Macroevolution is one of two most extraordinary claims of all time, yet all the "evidence" is by assumption AND the fear of speaking up and saying the ToE/Emperor has no evidence/clothes.

Amazing ranting and yet OT as can be, just for fun though, You don't see anything science points to as evidence for macroevolution, not that there isn't any, i mean people have shown you tons of evidence, but you still do not accept it, that is preception not lack of evidence

The blinding penalty drives the assumption; the blinding penalty exists in the same context that the world accepts the existence of Christ on and all that

science accepts that jesus existed in some form or another, whether as the son of god or the messah is debatible, but only a minority believe he didn't exist at all

My up-coming article will show how YOUR view (TEism) leads the way in suffering the penalty. Either way the Bible is/will be proven true.

I look forward to it, though i am not holding my breath as to it going anywhere

This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 11-23-2005 12:05 AM

3 online now:	PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0