Post by Radrook Admin on Jun 14, 2022 10:59:26 GMT -5
During a YouTube discussion venue, I was recently accused of using the Bible as evidence of the existence of a creator. Well, I never offered a book as evidence of a creator. In fact, neither have I ever heard of any creationist ever offering a the Bible as evidence of a creator. Neither does the Bible itself offer itself as evidence of a creator. Instead, it points to creation itself as evidence.
So my firm believe in a creator is based on hard evidence offered by nature of a mind at work as Paul wrote to the Romans. In contrast, atheistic concept of abiogenesis followed by evolution is based on a phenomenon never observed to have happened in nature, and one that cannot be forced to happen even in a laboratory.
In short, atheistic belief is based upon a mere assumption that life springs magically into existence from inanimate matter, followed by the equally illogical idea of thousands of extremely improbable happy accidents that mimic a planning mind occurring?
LOL! Sorry to burst their joyous bubble, but that definitely not science. That's the antithesis of science, a mere wishful thinking backed up by utter nonsense.
You claim that your belief is based on fossils? Well, please note that fossils are open to various interpretations. Of course, the interpretation that atheists choose supports their atheist preconceptions. Anything that contradicts that notion is argued against, and eventually shelved and then very conveniently ignored because it doesn't fit into their pet idea.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.
- Romans 1:20
So my firm believe in a creator is based on hard evidence offered by nature of a mind at work as Paul wrote to the Romans. In contrast, atheistic concept of abiogenesis followed by evolution is based on a phenomenon never observed to have happened in nature, and one that cannot be forced to happen even in a laboratory.
In short, atheistic belief is based upon a mere assumption that life springs magically into existence from inanimate matter, followed by the equally illogical idea of thousands of extremely improbable happy accidents that mimic a planning mind occurring?
LOL! Sorry to burst their joyous bubble, but that definitely not science. That's the antithesis of science, a mere wishful thinking backed up by utter nonsense.
Fossils
You claim that your belief is based on fossils? Well, please note that fossils are open to various interpretations. Of course, the interpretation that atheists choose supports their atheist preconceptions. Anything that contradicts that notion is argued against, and eventually shelved and then very conveniently ignored because it doesn't fit into their pet idea.