Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[POI]

So then I must ask... How were you able to conclude that the earth is (somewhere in the middle); a hunch?

Based on what I've come to know about reality.

Very vague... Let's see where this goes, if anywhere...

For me, it is the fact that all disciplines; astronomy, paleontology, geology, archaeology, biology, etc, ALL converge to the same ultimate conclusion that earth is ~4 billion years old. It's not like I opened up the 'Big Book of Science', and all words/information/knowledge in such "Book" was stated to be given to them by a higher power Multiple disciplines, completely unrelated to one another, all come to the same general conclusion -- that the earth is much older than you perceive it to be...

I wouldn't put too much stock into that.

Why not?

Again, Kent Hovind seemingly shreds all of the so called "evidences" from those sciences as it pertains to the age of the earth; he shreds it all to PIECES.

He held his own against Hugh Ross (who is a scientist and OEC), and has debated MANY SCIENTISTS from different fields, and he simply destroys evolutionists and the theory of evolution.

As you already admitted further down this exchange, we view the world from differing lenses.

YOU: the BIBLE first... If the evidence contradicts the Bible, ignore it.
ME: (Not) the BIBLE first... Instead, if the evidence supports the claim on it's own merit(s), then it's likely true.

- You scan all 'evidence', and see if it lines up with the assertions from the Bible or not.

- I scan the same evidence(s), and if it lines up with the Bible or not does not really matter too much -- (as the Bible is no longer an "authority" for me). Meaning, the Bible may be right about some stuff, and wrong about others... Just like any other book of claims.

In fact, that is where I get much of my gusto from, when it comes to evolution.

As I stated prior, I was an unbeliever before I ever delved too deep into the claims of evolution. Thus, for me, evolution is just (yet another nail) in the proverbial coffin of Genesis/etc...

I said all that to say this; between Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, I am no longer just jumping on the bandwagon of an old earth, because I watched countless times, BOTH of those guys go toe to toe with some of the world's best scientists on the subject, and they hold their own.

That being said, since I am an independent free thinker, I also cannot jump on the young earth (6k years) bandwagon.

So again, I am somewhere in between.

Okay. But your alternative conclusion is not based in anything, thus far, except a hutch. Again...

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?
2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

And more importantly, how were you able to navigate such a conclusion with the assertions in Genesis?.?.?.? Or did you even consider it?

I haven't considered it much, nope.

This may be your problem Because as you admitted prior, if Genesis is wrong, then the rest is questionable.

(YOU)
1. I have reasons to believe Christianity is true
2. Therefore, I believe

1. Most atheists have reasons to believe evolution to be true
2. Therefore, they believe

Again, I guess we are both (if you believe in evolution) indoctrinated then.

(ME)
1. Early indoctrination is hard to shake.
2. Therefore, here we are.

1. Okay?
2. Again, this is not me.

Again, I am no longer indoctrinated. Again, if evolution was turned upside down, I would still be an agnostic atheist. But on the contrary, if you were to accept evolutionary biology, like that of an evolutionary biologist, you would either have to reject Genesis entirely (or) modify Genesis translation. -- Maybe like Hugh Ross?

2. "warm sensations", "warm fuzzies", the feeling that God is watching you in approval when you do 'good' - which correlates to the previously discussed topic first brought up by Dr. Michael Shermer in his 'God debate' at Oxford. Where he speaks about the lack/absence in harm/punishment when presenting a possible type 1 error.

Which ironically, is driven by natural selection Which seems to better explain why the majority population believe in a higher power of some sort.

Congratulations, brethren.

You've just commited the great, the wonderful, Genetic fallacy.

How someone comes to believe X, has nothing to do with whether or not X is true.

This is proven, based on the fact that Dr. Shermers explanation as to why people have come to believe in a higher power, is completely INDEPENDENT of the actual arguments that have been given for the existence of God.

Even in the whole "indoctrinated" business; if Christianity is true, then I am being indoctrinated to believe in something that is actually TRUE and at that point, the connotation is wiped away, isn't it?



Yes, it is.

I think you need to read my sequence again.

1. indoctrination
2. Because of all these indoctrinated principles, you then draw felt connections as being from your perceived god, verses maybe merely only coming from yourself.

It's really no different then someone being indoctrinated (very early) in an alternative god(s). Every time they have strong feelings, they may assert that their indoctrinated god was behind such feelings/other as well.

3. Because of reasons 1 and 2, anything which could contradict an assertion made from the Bible MUST be discarded -- at all costs. Case/point, the reason a "flat-earther" will ALWAYS be a "flat-earther" The reason Kent Hovind will ALWAYS be a YEC

First off, again, it depends on what lens you are looking from..

What is that movie, where the guys trapped themselves in the room with the dude, and they said to the dude..

"Looks like you are locked in here with us"

And the dude responded..

"No, it looks like you are trapped in here with ME"

See, it depends on how you look at things lol.

I said that to say this; you look at it as the Bible contradicts science, implying that science is the superior one.

However, I (we) look at it as science contradicts the Bible, implying that the Bible is the superior one.

It is just one of those things, ya know.

No. It's not "one of those things."

(repeat from above):

YOU: the BIBLE first... If the evidence contradicts the Bible, ignore it.
ME: (Not) the BIBLE first... Instead, if the evidence supports the claim on it's own merit(s), then it's likely true.

- You scan all 'evidence', and if it lines up with the assertions from the Bible or not.

- I scan the same evidence(s), and if it lines up with the Bible or not does not really matter too much -- (as the Bible is no longer an "authority" for me). Meaning, the Bible may be right about some stuff, and wrong about others... Just like any other book of claims.

Your assessment does not apply to me. Why? I became an agnostic atheist before I ever started to look deeper into evolutionary biology or abiogensis. If these two disciplines were demonstrated false for me, I would still reject the Bible

Well, your admitted deism is still a defeater of agnostism/atheism.

So, hey.

You have misunderstood the labeling. I'm saying I am currently an <agnostic atheist>, as opposed to a <gnostic atheist>. The difference is that a <gnostic atheist> claims to know there is no god(s). An <agnostic atheist> does not believe in a god, but also does NOT make a claim that there is no god(s) Just like there exists both agnostic and gnostic theists.

So again, I stopped believing in god(s) before (evolution or abiogensis) ever came into the picture.

Then as you say, then why are you not just a deist? Why Christianity as well?.?.?.?

Because of the evidence I have for Christianity being true.

Honest question... If you were not indoctrinated early, do you think any such 'evidence' would resonate, or be inferred/apprehended, in the same way? An honest (YES or NO) will suffice here

Answer,... It began with indoctrination. Just like me.

Do you believe in evolution? Yes or no?

Irrelevant question, for me. For you, VERY relevant But I already know you don't.

I ask again... If it's fun, plug in your values of how old you think the earth is, and then again read Genesis. Make sense of that "mess'' At least the YEC's and the OEC's have a very small half-a$$ consistent case

TBH, I haven't gotten that deep in to it.

The main reason is due to the fact that I just cannot believe that dinosaurs cohabited the earth with human beings, and that is where I disagree with Kent Hovind, who does.

There was definitely a time gap somewhere in there. I need to think more on it, to give more precise answers.

Please do. As I stated above, this may be your problem?.?.? Not to beat a dead horse, but if Genesis no longer makes sense for you, then, well, the rest....?

As I stated prior, I'm likely not going to change your mind.

"I'd rather not talk in private, because I'm likely not going to change your mind".

"I'd rather talk in public, even though I am still unlikely to change your mind".

Makes no sense.

We can leave it there.

Makes perfect sense when you input back in the most important part.... Which is...

We are not going to change each other's minds. I already know that. This exchange is for all the others watching. Just like in a formal debate.

But I told you what would CHANGE my mind immediately. Pray for God to contact me According to the Bible, prayer works. I'm still waiting.... I would assume God has the ability to contact me in a way in which I will not be mistaken - unless he is a weak God, or cares not to... In which case, He really does not want me to know, for sure, of His existence anyways. So He cannot blame me then

Ok, tell me. Do you earnestly seek Jesus Christ?

I did for decades, yes... And I am right now. But He apparently does not respond to me, so I'm now asking you. So now it's my turn to ask a question....

Are you going to pray for God/Jesus to contact me, or not? If not, why not? The Bible tells the reader He answers prayer.

[Diogenes]

Kent Hovind seemingly shreds all of the so called "evidences" from those sciences as it pertains to the age of the earth; he shreds it all to PIECES.

He held his own against Hugh Ross (who is a scientist and OEC), and has debated MANY SCIENTISTS from different fields, and he simply destroys evolutionists and the theory of evolution.

In fact, that is where I get much of my gusto from, when it comes to evolution.

Kent Hovind?! You are not serious... are you?
You do know Hovind has been convicted of 58 counts of tax fraud (his wife for 43) and sentenced to 10 years in prison? He was also convicted of contempt of court.
An example of how thoroughly dishonest Hovind is came when he told the Court he didn't really understand English:

At arraignment, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges, telling the court: "I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me." The presiding magistrate judge asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded, "To some degree."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

As for his knowledge of evolutionary theory, it is nil. He cites his high school teaching experience as a credential. In his 'doctoral dissertation' in "Christian Education,' he doesn't discuss evolution technically, at all. After all, his 'degree' is not in science.
The closest he gets to discussing evolution is the usual quackery about 'macro' vs 'micro' evolution. He writes like an 8th grader. Despite the fact Kent has tried to keep it from the public, you can read it at:
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-ho ... tation.pdf

He actually claims evolutionary theory is an invention of Satan. If Kent Hovind is the best you can do, you have unintentionally admitted ignorance of the very theory you claim to debunk.

BTW, he got his 'degree' from Patriot University, an unaccredited diploma mill that admits their 'degrees' are based on "conservative self study." https://www.patriotuniversity.com/Patri ... y.com.html

Patriot Bible University (PBU), formerly known as Patriot University, is an unaccredited Independent Baptist correspondence school located in Del Norte, Colorado, which issues religious degrees only. According to the State of Colorado, Patriot's "degrees or diplomas have no state recognition". PBU is not accredited by any agency recognized by the Department of Education. It has been called a diploma mill, lacking sufficient academic standards to award degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University

[We_Are_VENOM]

Very vague... Let's see where this goes, if anywhere...

You can see. I'm fine with it either way.

Why not?

Already gave reasons why.

As you already admitted further down this exchange, we view the world from differing lenses.
YOU: the BIBLE first... If the evidence contradicts the Bible, ignore it.
ME: (Not) the BIBLE first... Instead, if the evidence supports the claim on it's own merit(s), then it's likely true.

- You scan all 'evidence', and see if it lines up with the assertions from the Bible or not.

- I scan the same evidence(s), and if it lines up with the Bible or not does not really matter too much -- (as the Bible is no longer an "authority" for me). Meaning, the Bible may be right about some stuff, and wrong about others... Just like any other book of claims.

Ok. You have your way, and I have mines.

As I stated prior, I was an unbeliever before I ever delved too deep into the claims of evolution. Thus, for me, evolution is just (yet another nail) in the proverbial coffin of Genesis/etc...

Ok. Genesis is wrong.

Okay. But your alternative conclusion is not based in anything, thus far, except a hutch. Again...

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?
2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

Because of warm sensations.

This may be your problem Because as you admitted prior, if Genesis is wrong, then the rest is questionable.

(YOU)
1. I have reasons to believe Christianity is true
2. Therefore, I believe

1. Most atheists have reasons to believe evolution to be true
2. Therefore, they believe

Again, I guess we are both (if you believe in evolution) indoctrinated then.

(ME)
1. Early indoctrination is hard to shake.
2. Therefore, here we are.

1. Okay?
2. Again, this is not me.

Didn't you just admit that you believe in evolution?

Again, I am no longer indoctrinated. Again, if evolution was turned upside down, I would still be an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic atheism is contradicts deism, which is what you claimed you were.

But on the contrary, if you were to accept evolutionary biology, like that of an evolutionary biologist, you would either have to reject Genesis entirely (or) modify Genesis translation. -- Maybe like Hugh Ross?

Tell ya what, talk to Hugh Ross.

He will explain to you why he interprets Genesis the way he does.

I think you need to read my sequence again.

1. indoctrination
2. Because of all these indoctrinated principles, you then draw felt connections as being from your perceived god, verses maybe merely only coming from yourself.

I reread your sequence, and nothing you just said rebuts anything I said...so I stand by what I said.

It's really no different then someone being indoctrinated (very early) in an alternative god(s). Every time they have strong feelings, they may assert that their indoctrinated god was behind such feelings/other as well.

Assuming that their god doesn't exist, I guess so.

But assuming their god is real, then I guess not.

No. It's not "one of those things."

(repeat from above):

YOU: the BIBLE first... If the evidence contradicts the Bible, ignore it.
ME: (Not) the BIBLE first... Instead, if the evidence supports the claim on it's own merit(s), then it's likely true.

- You scan all 'evidence', and if it lines up with the assertions from the Bible or not.

- I scan the same evidence(s), and if it lines up with the Bible or not does not really matter too much -- (as the Bible is no longer an "authority" for me). Meaning, the Bible may be right about some stuff, and wrong about others... Just like any other book of claims.

I stand by what I originally said.

You have misunderstood the labeling. I'm saying I am currently an <agnostic atheist>, as opposed to a <gnostic atheist>. The difference is that a <gnostic atheist> claims to know there is no god(s). An <agnostic atheist> does not believe in a god, but also does NOT make a claim that there is no god(s) Just like there exists both agnostic and gnostic theists.

So again, I stopped believing in god(s) before (evolution or abiogensis) ever came into the picture.

You have misunderstood what you said prior. I suggested that based on what you were saying, you should be a deist.

You had confirmed that you are a deist, and at that point any agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist stuff is off the table.

Deism is incompatible with any form of atheism.

But, I will leave you to your ball of confusion while I rock with the Christian stuff.

Honest question... If you were not indoctrinated early, do you think any such 'evidence' would resonate, or be inferred/apprehended, in the same way? An honest (YES or NO) will suffice here

I don't know. William Lane Craig wasn't indoctrinated in Christianity early, and look what he turned out to be.

I have a question honest; if you were not indoctrinated early, do you think any evidence against evolution would resonate, or be inferred/apprehended, in the same way?

An honest yes or no will suffice here.

Please do. As I stated above, this may be your problem?.?.? Not to beat a dead horse, but if Genesis no longer makes sense for you, then, well, the rest....?

"If". That is a hypothetical that does not apply to me.

Makes perfect sense when you input back in the most important part.... Which is...

We are not going to change each other's minds. I already know that. This exchange is for all the others watching. Just like in a formal debate.

Gotcha.

I did for decades, yes... And I am right now. But He apparently does not respond to me, so I'm now asking you.

Care to describe your plight?

So now it's my turn to ask a question....

Are you going to pray for God/Jesus to contact me, or not? If not, why not? The Bible tells the reader He answers prayer.

I said I would, didn't I?

[POI]

Okay. But your alternative conclusion is not based in anything, thus far, except a hutch. Again...

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?
2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

Because of warm sensations.

When the proverbial rubber meets the road, you back peddle... Interesting. Do you care what is true, or do you instead want to be comfortable?

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?
2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

Again, I am no longer indoctrinated. Again, if evolution was turned upside down, I would still be an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic atheism is contradicts deism, which is what you claimed you were.

Please go back to post #81:

YOU - Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

ME - I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'.

And in post #88, I told you I have considered/pondered 'deism' before and now. And my findings observe that if deism happens to be true.... (i.e.):

"I have and do. But if 'deism' is our reality, such a "Being" could be inept (and/or) give a rat's a$$ about us. Heck, this Being could be long gone now... But yea, it would be nice to know."

Considering deism does not mean I proclaim to be a deist Just like considering Hinduism does not make me a Hindu.

I think you need to read my sequence again.

1. indoctrination
2. Because of all these indoctrinated principles, you then draw felt connections as being from your perceived god, verses maybe merely only coming from yourself.

I reread your sequence, and nothing you just said rebuts anything I said...so I stand by what I said.

Well, that's too bad then.

It's really no different then someone being indoctrinated (very early) in an alternative god(s). Every time they have strong feelings, they may assert that their indoctrinated god was behind such feelings/other as well.

Assuming that their god doesn't exist, I guess so.

But assuming their god is real, then I guess not.

All the indoctrinated folks think their god(s) exist. The ones, which is indoctrinated to an opposing God to yours, believes with every bit as much conviction as you. Heck, many will even die for their beliefs. Their feelings are just as strong, or maybe even stronger, than yours.

You have misunderstood the labeling. I'm saying I am currently an <agnostic atheist>, as opposed to a <gnostic atheist>. The difference is that a <gnostic atheist> claims to know there is no god(s). An <agnostic atheist> does not believe in a god, but also does NOT make a claim that there is no god(s) Just like there exists both agnostic and gnostic theists.

So again, I stopped believing in god(s) before (evolution or abiogensis) ever came into the picture.

You have misunderstood what you said prior. I suggested that based on what you were saying, you should be a deist.

You had confirmed that you are a deist, and at that point any agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist stuff is off the table.

Deism is incompatible with any form of atheism.

But, I will leave you to your ball of confusion while I rock with the Christian stuff.

I suggest you read post 81. Here's my response again:

"I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'."

Honest question... If you were not indoctrinated early, do you think any such 'evidence' would resonate, or be inferred/apprehended, in the same way? An honest (YES or NO) will suffice here

I don't know.

I'll guess for you then, until you engage here further. I'm willing to bet you would view such 'evidence' a little differently.

I have a question honest; if you were not indoctrinated early, do you think any evidence against evolution would resonate, or be inferred/apprehended, in the same way?

An honest yes or no will suffice here.

Again, irrelevant question. I've already explained why.

I did for decades, yes... And I am right now. But He apparently does not respond to me, so I'm now asking you.

Care to describe your plight?

Again, please pray for Jesus to contact me. Did you or will you? If so, when should I expect a response from Him?

[We_Are_VENOM]

When the proverbial rubber meets the road, you back peddle... Interesting.

Back peddle?

I've been honest and upfront about my position, and this is one of the very few times on this great forum that I've been unable to give a confident and definitive answer on a subject matter.

Either way, no one is back peddling and I stand firm in my convictions..and it isn't as if you've offered anything substantial enough to make me consider shifting my stance anyway.

All you've offered is probing questions and a side of "the science says X".

Well, not everyone agrees with the science.

Do you care what is true, or do you instead want to be comfortable?

Do you?

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?

Kent Hovind convinced me that the evidences presented for an old earth is hogwash and instead the earth is young.

What he didn't convince me with is the notion that the universe is only 6k years old.

2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

Simple. If the universe (according to perceived evidence), is less than 1 million years old, that means humans cannot be older than 1 million years old.

Obviously.

Please go back to post #81:

YOU - Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

ME - I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'.

And in post #88, I told you I have considered/pondered 'deism' before and now. And my findings observe that if deism happens to be true.... (i.e.):

"I have and do. But if 'deism' is our reality, such a "Being" could be inept (and/or) give a rat's a$$ about us. Heck, this Being could be long gone now... But yea, it would be nice to know."

Considering deism does not mean I proclaim to be a deist Just like considering Hinduism does not make me a Hindu.

I stand corrected.

However, you still believe in evolution...so you are right back to square one, unfortunately for you.

Well, that's too bad then.

Works for me.

All the indoctrinated folks think their god(s) exist.

Everyone believes in the reality of what they believe.

The ones, which is indoctrinated to an opposing God to yours, believes with every bit as much conviction as you. Heck, many will even die for their beliefs. Their feelings are just as strong, or maybe even stronger, than yours.

Yeah, and some people believe in evolution just as strongly than religious folks believe in their god(s).

I suggest you read post 81. Here's my response again:

"I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'."

That is your opinion which you are entitled to.

I'll guess for you then, until you engage here further. I'm willing to bet you would view such 'evidence' a little differently.

That is your opinion which you are entitled to.

Again, please pray for Jesus to contact me. Did you or will you? If so, when should I expect a response from Him?

I will pray for you. The Bible say God shows himself to those who earnestly seek him.

So work on your "earnestly" game.

[POI]

I've been honest and upfront about my position, and this is one of the very few times on this great forum that I've been unable to give a confident and definitive answer on a subject matter.

I appreciate that! I asked a couple of important questions, and you merely gave me a snarky answer instead Moving along forward and below, in a fruitful manor, hopefully.

it isn't as if you've offered anything substantial enough to make me consider shifting my stance anyway.

I haven't tried to argue FOR or AGAINST 'evolution' or 'abiogensis' really. That's you As I've told you, many times now... MY current position was made before I ever explored such topic(s).

I'm trying to get you to try and connect the dots --- about your own 'free thinking' position, as it relates to Genesis. I asked you if you put in the work to reconcile your position, as it relates to Genesis? And I appreciate your honesty. You say you haven't.

This is me, now, asking you to do so; before me and an audience. If you should convince me and/or the audience that your 'free thinking' assessment somehow also aligns with Genesis, then there is a feather in your cap So 'dazzle' me.

Many scientific disciplines converge and state the earth is very old (~4 billions years), via peer review, etc... - You say NO.

Kent H. states the earth is (~6K years old), based upon Bible interpretation. You say NO here as well.

So besides a HUNCH/ASSUMPTION, on what actual evidence, basis, and/or merit do you infer such a conclusion of 100K to 1 million????

Do you?

Of course I would like to know what is true. If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Evidence and facts do not care about anyone's feelings. How about you?

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?

Kent Hovind convinced me that the evidences presented for an old earth is hogwash and instead the earth is young.

He presents "evidence" to support that the earth is ~6K years old. You do not buy that assertion. Hence, what specific evidence does Kent H. present, which you reject as demonstrating 6K years, but instead supports 100K - 1,000,000?.?.?.?

2. WHY are humans no older than (100K) years old?

Simple. If the universe (according to perceived evidence), is less than 1 million years old, that means humans cannot be older than 1 million years old.

Obviously.

You have over simplified. Please remember, you already admitted you have not done the work. Thus, you are merely, thus far, placing the cart before the horse.

What evidence(s) suggests humans are no more than 100K years old?

And while we are at it, I'll go ahead and add in another question, in which I have not yet followed up on....

When did this global flood take place?

Please remember, we are focused on the claims from Genesis. If your logic does not support Genesis, then not only must you reject Genesis, but then also question the rest Remember?

Please go back to post #81:

YOU - Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

ME - I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'.

And in post #88, I told you I have considered/pondered 'deism' before and now. And my findings observe that if deism happens to be true.... (i.e.):

"I have and do. But if 'deism' is our reality, such a "Being" could be inept (and/or) give a rat's a$$ about us. Heck, this Being could be long gone now... But yea, it would be nice to know."

Considering deism does not mean I proclaim to be a deist Just like considering Hinduism does not make me a Hindu.

I stand corrected.

Thank you!

However, you still believe in evolution...so you are right back to square one, unfortunately for you.

Doh! You keep going backwards here... Again, I was a skeptic/doubter/unbeliever/other BEFORE I explored evolution/abiogenesis. Yet again, if evolution is turned on it's head, it changes virtually NOTHING about my current assessment about the Bible going against my logic and "morals".

(YOU) That is your opinion which you are entitled to.

(ME) I would still like a (yes or a no) here.... I'm merely asking for a 'gut reaction' answer.

IF you were not indoctrinated, and were never exposed to Genesis, would you assess the evidence for evolutionary biology any differently? (yes or no). I'd wager the answer would be yes, assuming you have thoroughly studied evolutionary biology.

I will pray for you. The Bible say God shows himself to those who earnestly seek him.

So work on your "earnestly" game.

This response is quite typical of many apologists, when held to the fire. You too are claiming I did not truly try BTW, tell that to Saul of Tarsus. He wasn't seeking Him. But Jesus presented Himself anyways. Again, the Bible tells it's readers that He answers prayer.

I'm asking you to pray for me. If He does not answer, then the Bible is again WRONG. Your only defense could be that I am either too stupid to see His contact, or a liar. Apparently, you are going with the liar position, thus far...

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This should not be obscure, hidden or difficult. What God wants, He should do. Free Will is a feeble excuse as the Bible itself is as much a revelation as God turning up on a News channel. And at need he overrode Free Will when he needed to anyway, as with Paul- as you pointed out.

Inviting Jesus into your heart clearly requires more that just saying 'I'm open' and some faithful bod praying for Jesus to appear to the receptive non-believer (1). But No, Noo noo noo; one had to undergo a brainwash before Jesus appears. And of course if the brainwashing is administered along with the baby -food, then they grow up swearing that there was never a time when they did not know Jesus.

I know him too. Or rather the voice of God. It is a voice i hear in my own head, talking, debating, correcting and advising me. Just, I know that it's me. A mod on one of my former Forums, put it this way, speaking of her deconversion:

"I thought so long that I was talking to God, but then I realised that I was talking to myself."

I know this is true because of the 'God hates the same people you do" meme. I have seen this work when a believer on the last forum changed from ET to UR - and God changed with him. So why didn't I point this out to him? Why didn't he then see clearly that he was just deluding himself?

I did, a couple of times. He just didn't listen.



He said nothing about it and just carried on as before. I know how this works because I have seen it working.

(1) and of course this is being receptive, not 'putting God to the test'. Though that particular Thou shalt not' suggests an excuse for God being likely not to show up, perform or deliver. Notably in not making good on his guarantee to answer prayer.

[Diogenes]

1. WHY is the earth (100K - 1 million) years old?

Kent Hovind convinced me that the evidences presented for an old earth is hogwash and instead the earth is young.

How?
How did the convicted non scientist felon fraudster convince you? What are the actual "evidences" [sic] he presented?
Other than simply agreeing with this convicted liar, what is the evidence he presented that was convincing?
What is your rationale for 'splitting the difference' and arbitrarily coming up with 100k as the age of the Earth?
Do you have ANY actual evidence for this sinking raft of nonsense you suggest as an alternative for facts?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I appreciate that! I asked a couple of important questions, and you merely gave me a snarky answer instead

The questions are cool, but when it gets to the point where the questions become pesky as you start this business of probing after I've answered the same question in different ways...and then it STILL isn't enough.

That is when the answers become snarky.

Moving along forward and below, in a fruitful manor, hopefully.

Yeah, hopefully.

I haven't tried to argue FOR or AGAINST 'evolution' or 'abiogensis' really.

That's you As I've told you, many times now... MY current position was made before I ever explored such topic(s).

Whether or not you are arguing for or against evolution/abiogenesis is irrelevant.

I am simply attacking a position that is held by my debate opponent (you), and I could care less when you decided to believe in the falsehood (evolution).

The point is; you believe in a falsehood, and that is and will continue to be the point being made here as it pertains to this discussion.

I'm trying to get you to try and connect the dots --- about your own 'free thinking' position, as it relates to Genesis.

Yeah, and I'm trying to get you to try and connect the dots -- about the eternal destination of your own soul, as it relates to your salvation or lack thereof.

I asked you if you put in the work to reconcile your position, as it relates to Genesis? And I appreciate your honesty. You say you haven't.

Honesty is the best policy.

This is me, now, asking you to do so; before me and an audience. If you should convince me and/or the audience that your 'free thinking' assessment somehow also aligns with Genesis, then there is a feather in your cap So 'dazzle' me.

My free thinking assessment aligns with Genesis in the sense that; I am freely thinking about the truth value of "God created the heavens and the earth", and that certainly aligns with Genesis.

Many scientific disciplines converge and state the earth is very old (~4 billions years), via peer review, etc... - You say NO.

When they say the earth is that old, it isn't necessarily a hard, definitive answer of NO from me.

But more of a "I don't know about all of that" kind of "NO".

But, nevertheless, a NO.

Kent H. states the earth is (~6K years old), based upon Bible interpretation. You say NO here as well.

I don't know anyone that I agree with 100% on everything.

Do you?

Of course I would like to know what is true. If I'm wrong, I would like to know.

Well then.

Evidence and facts do not care about anyone's feelings. How about you?

My feelings are based upon what I perceive to be facts.

He presents "evidence" to support that the earth is ~6K years old. You do not buy that assertion. Hence, what specific evidence does Kent H. present, which you reject as demonstrating 6K years, but instead supports 100K - 1,000,000?.?.?.?

Respectfully, correction; Kent presents evidence for/against the universe is billions of years old, and only justifies a 6k year old earth base on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The 100k-1,000,000 thang is all mines, sir.

You have over simplified.

No, I go where the evidence takes me.

Please remember, you already admitted you have not done the work.

I also admit that Kent Hovind has done the work.

Thus, you are merely, thus far, placing the cart before the horse.

Makes no sense.

What evidence(s) suggests humans are no more than 100K years old?

Kent makes a compelling case (in my opinion) that the modern dating methods used to justify an old earth (billions of years) is flawed...so your continual appeal to those methods is pointless.

Again, I do not believe that humans coexisted on earth with dinosaurs, so whatever timeframe we'd like use as a gap between the two is fine, just as long as it isn't billions of years or 6k or less.

Now, you can take from that what you may...but my answer will not change.

And while we are at it, I'll go ahead and add in another question, in which I have not yet followed up on....

When did this global flood take place?

I do not know.

Please remember, we are focused on the claims from Genesis. If your logic does not support Genesis, then not only must you reject Genesis, but then also question the rest Remember?

Yeah, and focusing on the claims from Genesis; if my logic doesn't support Genesis, then that could mean that my logic is faulty, not the Genesis account.

Doh! You keep going backwards here... Again, I was a skeptic/doubter/unbeliever/other BEFORE I explored evolution/abiogenesis. Yet again, if evolution is turned on it's head, it changes virtually NOTHING about my current assessment about the Bible going against my logic and "morals".

That is fine and dandy, but we need not speak in hypotheticals because the fact of the matter is; you DO believe in evolution and that is what I am focusing on...reality. Not hypotheticals.

(YOU) That is your opinion which you are entitled to.

(ME) I would still like a (yes or a no) here.... I'm merely asking for a 'gut reaction' answer.

You've been given either a "yes", a "no", or a "I don't know" answer. You just don't like the details of the answers..but that sounds like a personal problem.

This response is quite typical of many apologists, when held to the fire. You too are claiming I did not truly try

I am claiming to do what the Bible says.

BTW, tell that to Saul of Tarsus. He wasn't seeking Him. But Jesus presented Himself anyways. Again, the Bible tells it's readers that He answers prayer.

First off, two things can be true at the same time.

God can present himself to whoever he pleases (Paul), while also preferring you to seek him thus earning your reward.

Second, Jesus said (to Doubting Thomas) "You've seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believes". (John 20:29).

Be one of those who have not seen, and STILL believes...and in return be blessed and receive your reward.

I'm asking you to pray for me. If He does not answer, then the Bible is again WRONG. Your only defense could be that I am either too stupid to see His contact, or a liar. Apparently, you are going with the liar position, thus far...

I said I would pray for you. Spare me the other riff raff.

[We_Are_VENOM]

How?
How did the convicted non scientist felon fraudster convince you?

The convicted non scientist felon fraudster convinced me by destroying the theory of evolution (your religion) and the OE theory.

What are the actual "evidences" [sic] he presented?

When life has questions, Google (or Youtube) has answers.

Other than simply agreeing with this convicted liar, what is the evidence he presented that was convincing?

When life has questions, Google (or Youtube) has answers.

What is your rationale for 'splitting the difference' and arbitrarily coming up with 100k as the age of the Earth?

Perhaps you should pay more attention. I gave a timeframe for the age of the earth that you apparently missed because you were too anxious to get at Mr. Hovind with ad hominems.

Do you have ANY actual evidence for this sinking raft of nonsense you suggest as an alternative for facts?

I have evidence that is good enough for me. I can't speak for you.