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/

[We_Are_VENOM]

I then feel compelled to ask you further questions, out of complete curiosity

Where do you stand "scientifically"? Meaning--- Based on the Bible...

... Roughly how old do you think the earth and our universe might be?

... Did a literal flood happen? If so, when? And was this flood local or global?

Props to you for asking great questions.

Before I answer, though, I think it is necessary for me to preface a few things so you get the full gist of where I am coming from...

1. My stance on these questions is not meant to be taken as "Gospel". Meaning that, this isn't something that I can Biblically prove nor is it something that I'd be preaching to the congregation. Rather, this is just my opinion based on simply going with my gut feeling, based on everything I've come to know on the subject matter.

2. That being said, and to piggyback off #1, a person's stance on those questions has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel, or on Christ (in general). So whether or not a person is a YEC or OEC, has nothing to do with their salvation.

3. To piggyback off #2, these questions aren't necessarily up for debate in the church, as most Christians (that I know of) aren't interested in the nitty gritty details of science and the universe, but are more focused theological aspects of the religion.

Now, with all of that being said...to the questions..

Roughly how old do you think the earth and our universe might be?

Great question. As far as I can remember, I always took the Biblical creation account as 7 literal 24 hour days, without knowing what the science said pertaining to this matter.

However, after Dr. William Lane Craig came into my life, it appeared that he had no problem accepting the science behind the age of the universe being some 14.7 billion years old.

So, the way I looked at it, if WLC could accept the science and remain a full blown Christian, then so could I.

But then, Kent Hovind came into my life, and he challenged the notion of the universe being that old...he not only challenged the notion, but he challenged the science as well (along with Ken Ham).

Kent Hovind was arguing that the universe is 6,000 years old, just as the Bible says it is.

Not only that, but Kent Hovind (YEC) had a debate in the early 2000's with physicist Hugh Ross (OEC), and it was a very intense, engaging, and stimulating debate, with both making strong cases for their sides (check out the debate on youtube)

Now, what does this have to do with me? What is my stance??

Based on all that I've come to know, I tend to take a "middle ground" approach.

Middle Ground Approach

I am skeptical of any notion that the universe is only 6,000 years old (that seems much too young).

However, I am also skeptical of any notion that the universe is billions of years old (that seems much too old).

So, I tend to take a middle ground approach; that the universe is no less than 20,000 years old, but no older than 1,000,000 years old (that is the extremely high end, my absolute guess is around 100,000 years old).

I certainly have reasons for believing this, and I stand by those reasons.

But, that is just me and I understand that I may be the only one in the world who thinks that way...but I can live with that.

Now the question becomes; what about the Genesis account? My answer; I don't know.

Did a literal flood happen?

Certainly.

If so, when?

I don't know, I haven't looked into it yet. Maybe I should.

And was this flood local or global?

Global.

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.

Perhaps this is a convo for another day.

But apparently, He is either too busy to let us know, these days, of his absolute presence; or does not care. I guess He only cared when there was virtually no way of proving it, 1000's of years ago, and also giving clumsy advice to boot -- (which was re-translated time and time again for centuries)

Lets have a private convo.

Or maybe He only reveals Himself in ways which can be mistranslated. (i.e.) How you feel God communicates with you now, where-as I would translate those same feelings/experiences as merely coming from myself alone.

Sounds like you want to believe, just need more. Lets have a private convo.

[POI]

I then feel compelled to ask you further questions, out of complete curiosity

Where do you stand "scientifically"? Meaning--- Based on the Bible...

... Roughly how old do you think the earth and our universe might be?

... Did a literal flood happen? If so, when? And was this flood local or global?

Props to you for asking great questions.

Thank you!

Before I answer, though, I think it is necessary for me to preface a few things so you get the full gist of where I am coming from...

1. My stance on these questions is not meant to be taken as "Gospel". Meaning that, this isn't something that I can Biblically prove nor is it something that I'd be preaching to the congregation. Rather, this is just my opinion based on simply going with my gut feeling, based on everything I've come to know on the subject matter.

2. That being said, and to piggyback off #1, a person's stance on those questions has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel, or on Christ (in general). So whether or not a person is a YEC or OEC, has nothing to do with their salvation.

3. To piggyback off #2, these questions aren't necessarily up for debate in the church, as most Christians (that I know of) aren't interested in the nitty gritty details of science and the universe, but are more focused theological aspects of the religion.

1. Gotcha. The reason I ask these questions is I like to converse with people whom hold differing viewpoints, verses myself. Another reason I ask these questions is that I see the Bible to be in direct violation of later human discovery, in a multitude of ways. I'm aware you are not stomping your feet saying this or that here. My point is that. regardless of the view you hold, contradiction exists -- when compared to to multiple disciplines in the realm is 'science'. Thus, I simply wanted to know what your starting point is?

2. I asked, as it pertains to the assertions in the OT. Namely, the first few Books. The 'Gospel' is another matter all together. However, you do not get to excuse/exclude the OT. It's important too. If not, why not?

3. Well, I myself have tried to debate church leaders. Meaning, one being a YEC and the other being an OEC from the same congregation. Their remarks were clear. "They do not want to invite discord." My response was simple... "I'm after the truth, whether it hurts your personal feelings or not." It kind of goes back a couple of posts here... See post #87.

Roughly how old do you think the earth and our universe might be?

Great question. As far as I can remember, I always took the Biblical creation account as 7 literal 24 hour days, without knowing what the science said pertaining to this matter.

However, after Dr. William Lane Craig came into my life, it appeared that he had no problem accepting the science behind the age of the universe being some 14.7 billion years old.

So, the way I looked at it, if WLC could accept the science and remain a full blown Christian, then so could I.

But then, Kent Hovind came into my life, and he challenged the notion of the universe being that old...he not only challenged the notion, but he challenged the science as well (along with Ken Ham).

Kent Hovind was arguing that the universe is 6,000 years old, just as the Bible says it is.

Not only that, but Kent Hovind (YEC) had a debate in the early 2000's with physicist Hugh Ross (OEC), and it was a very intense, engaging, and stimulating debate, with both making strong cases for their sides (check out the debate on youtube)

Now, what does this have to do with me? What is my stance??

Based on all that I've come to know, I tend to take a "middle ground" approach.

Middle Ground Approach

I am skeptical of any notion that the universe is only 6,000 years old (that seems much too young).

However, I am also skeptical of any notion that the universe is billions of years old (that seems much too old).

So, I tend to take a middle ground approach; that the universe is no less than 20,000 years old, but no older than 1,000,000 years old (that is the extremely high end, my absolute guess is around 100,000 years old).

In doing so, seems you would need to reject the fundamentals of astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, biology, and maybe a few more?

Is this solely because you were indoctrinated in Christianity, or is there other reason(s)? Meaning, would you more freely accept the 'science' if you were never indoctrinated? The reason I ask, is that I hardly ever, if AT ALL, hear such an answer from a skeptic to religion

(YOU) Global

(ME) Before i even probe further here, I feel I need to ask... If you were to find out that the assertions, made in Genesis especially, did NOT happen, would you still adhere to the 'Gospel"? Meaning, would you be able to compartmentalize, or pick and choose, which parts of the Bible you accept, and which parts you hand-wave away or ignore? Because I can't If Genesis is dead wrong, then the rest is in question - Aside from the details that make the NT highly questionable upon it's own merit(s).

Sounds like you want to believe, just need more. Lets have a private convo.

I'd rather keep it all public. I'm aware I will not change YOUR mind. In a debate or an exchange, one side hardly, if ever states... "You know, you are completely right, I give up and accept your side."

These questions and exchanges are to show the readers how two starting points, (yours and mine), can vastly skew how we translate data/information.

I USED to be indoctrinated, and you still are....

[TRANSPONDER]

Good call. I am very wary of those who request private debates. The whole point is to have a public debate so that the browsers, doubters and those whom want to be sure their beliefs are justified can see it. Ten days of debating with a believer who ends up saying 'Well, I don't care what you say, I still believe the Bible' is 10 wasted days.

[benchwarmer]

Ten days of debating with a believer who ends up saying 'Well, I don't care what you say, I still believe the Bible' is 10 wasted days.

Exactly, assuming you are referring to a private debate. At least in a public debate, you can hope to show the flaws of the other position and/or correct the flaws in your own based on more varied feedback.

I'm not sure why some think a private conversation will be more convincing. We've seen this request in the past (I think from the same user). Some seem to keep forgetting that many of us used to hold their position so a private chat about where we used to be is hardly useful. In fact, even as a former Christian I would disagree with a great deal of what other Christian's and/or groups were going on about. It's not like a private chat is suddenly going to 'bring me to Jesus'. Unless of course that chat is with Jesus himself. Even then there would be some explaining to do

[Diogenes]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #94]
I try, frequently unsuccessfully, to avoid engaging with those who think the Earth is flat, that gravity does not exist, that the Earth is less than 4 Billion years old, or that all the species on the planet were created in a few days rejecting the facts of evolution. There is little point in arguing with people who put the points of their indoctrination ahead of reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #94]
I try, frequently unsuccessfully, to avoid engaging with those who think the Earth is flat, that gravity does not exist, that the Earth is less than 4 Billion years old, or that all the species on the planet were created in a few days rejecting the facts of evolution. There is little point in arguing with people who put the points of their indoctrination ahead of reality.

I came to realise quite a while ago that the one to one discussions got nowhere in terms of one side convincing the other. The only value was in an open forum where the curious and interested could watch the debate and see both sides. The way the Believers like to work is in only their apologetics getting heard. In my experience, skeptical apologetics can demolish them. Though Noob atheist apologists need to learn a few ropes. Christian apologetics have been crafted by some of the most cunning propagandists there are and must know their tactics and how to counter them.

I have long been aware of an aching need for organised atheism for support, information and funding, because atheism though it now has religious equality under the law, gets no tax breaks let alone no funding.

[We_Are_VENOM]

1. Gotcha. The reason I ask these questions is I like to converse with people whom hold differing viewpoints, verses myself. Another reason I ask these questions is that I see the Bible to be in direct violation of later human discovery, in a multitude of ways.

Then you and I don't see eye to eye.

You see things from these lens:

While, I see things from these lens:

I'm aware you are not stomping your feet saying this or that here. My point is that. regardless of the view you hold, contradiction exists -- when compared to to multiple disciplines in the realm is 'science'.

I'm fine with that.

Thus, I simply wanted to know what your starting point is?

My starting point is Gen 1:1.

2. I asked, as it pertains to the assertions in the OT. Namely, the first few Books. The 'Gospel' is another matter all together.

I agree.

But then again, you got guys like Kent Hovind who thinks that the idea of an old earth is so outrageous, that if you believe it then you must be worshipping a different God than that of the Bible...and that WOULD obviously affect the Gospel.

However, you do not get to excuse/exclude the OT. It's important too. If not, why not?

?

3. Well, I myself have tried to debate church leaders. Meaning, one being a YEC and the other being an OEC from the same congregation. Their remarks were clear. "They do not want to invite discord." My response was simple... "I'm after the truth, whether it hurts your personal feelings or not."

I agree with your sentiments here.

It kind of goes back a couple of posts here... See post #87.

I'm lazy.

In doing so, seems you would need to reject the fundamentals of astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, biology, and maybe a few more?

I accept what makes sense, and I reject what doesn't.

And again, I also reject the fundamentals of YEC, too.

So basically, I disagree with both sides of the equation.

Is this solely because you were indoctrinated in Christianity, or is there other reason(s)? Meaning, would you more freely accept the 'science' if you were never indoctrinated? The reason I ask, is that I hardly ever, if AT ALL, hear such an answer from a skeptic to religion

It would be nice if we can be careful tossing that "indoctrinated" word around, because it gives a "brainwashing/mind control" connotation.

Then, that is where I will point out how atheists were/are being indoctrinated in the classrooms to believe evolution, abiogenesis, and all the other nonsense that comes with naturalism, which is the atheistic religion.

So if we (Christians) are being indoctrinated, then so are you guys.

But anyway, even if I wasn't a Christian, I cannot see myself being an atheist...because the reasons for the existence of God would still be in effect and won't go away just because of what religion I was raised in to.

And again, the OE/YE debate is not a big one for me, as I don't really care either way. All I know is; God did it.

How much time he decided to do it in is borderline irrelevant to me. But it is a fun discussion, nevertheless.

Before i even probe further here, I feel I need to ask... If you were to find out that the assertions, made in Genesis especially, did NOT happen, would you still adhere to the 'Gospel"?

If you can conclusively prove that the assertions in Genesis did not happen, then I would not adhere to the Gospel.

The problem is, I do not believe you can do such a thing.

If you can, then dazzle me.

Meaning, would you be able to compartmentalize, or pick and choose, which parts of the Bible you accept, and which parts you hand-wave away or ignore? Because I can't If Genesis is dead wrong, then the rest is in question - Aside from the details that make the NT highly questionable upon it's own merit(s).

I agree, if Genesis is dead wrong, then the rest is in question.

I'd rather keep it all public. I'm aware I will not change YOUR mind. In a debate or an exchange, one side hardly, if ever states... "You know, you are completely right, I give up and accept your side."

The purpose of the request for a private convo was not to have a debate, but a discussion.

There are few people on here where I get a sense of a glimmer of hope...and those are the ones that ask genuine questions, where you can sense the genuiness and sincerity.

But no sweat, moving along.

I USED to be indoctrinated, and you still are....

I used to be indoctrinated, I still am, but I used to, too.

[POI]

In doing so, seems you would need to reject the fundamentals of astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, biology, and maybe a few more?

I accept what makes sense, and I reject what doesn't.

And again, I also reject the fundamentals of YEC, too.

So basically, I disagree with both sides of the equation.

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

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...

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

Is this solely because you were indoctrinated in Christianity, or is there other reason(s)? Meaning, would you more freely accept the 'science' if you were never indoctrinated? The reason I ask, is that I hardly ever, if AT ALL, hear such an answer from a skeptic to religion

It would be nice if we can be careful tossing that "indoctrinated" word around, because it gives a "brainwashing/mind control" connotation.

It would be 'nice'. But as I see it, and to be blunt, I see you falling into this camp squarely. Why? For the aforementioned reason(s) given prior. We had a rather extensive exchange in that other thread "Why Do You Really Believe?". You believe because:

1. Indoctrination
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.
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

Then, that is where I will point out how atheists were/are being indoctrinated in the classrooms to believe evolution, abiogenesis, and all the other nonsense that comes with naturalism, which is the atheistic religion.

So if we (Christians) are being indoctrinated, then so are you guys.

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

But anyway, even if I wasn't a Christian, I cannot see myself being an atheist...because the reasons for the existence of God would still be in effect and won't go away just because of what religion I was raised in to.

Then as you say, then why are you not just a deist? Why Christianity as well?.?.?.? Answer,... It began with indoctrination. Just like me.

All I know is; God did it.

Yes. I think many here are fully aware that is your view. But I must ask, WHY the God of the Bible? I'll answer preemptively... Indoctrination to this specific religion It's a hard thing to shake, even if you WANT to Which you don't... Which means it is even more futile to debate you. Your <a priori> indoctrinated beliefs leave you unavailable to any true scrutiny.

How much time he decided to do it in is borderline irrelevant to me. But it is a fun discussion, nevertheless.

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

I would not adhere to the Gospel.

The problem is, I do not believe you can do such a thing.

If you can, then dazzle me.

Thank you for answering my question. And it is not up to me to 'dazzle you'. It is quite the contrary. Please enlighten all of us as to how Genesis works <in harmony> with your assessment about the age of the earth?.?.?.?.?

Meaning, would you be able to compartmentalize, or pick and choose, which parts of the Bible you accept, and which parts you hand-wave away or ignore? Because I can't If Genesis is dead wrong, then the rest is in question - Aside from the details that make the NT highly questionable upon it's own merit(s).

I agree, if Genesis is dead wrong, then the rest is in question.

THANK YOU!

I'd rather keep it all public. I'm aware I will not change YOUR mind. In a debate or an exchange, one side hardly, if ever states... "You know, you are completely right, I give up and accept your side."

The purpose of the request for a private convo was not to have a debate, but a discussion.

There are few people on here where I get a sense of a glimmer of hope...and those are the ones that ask genuine questions, where you can sense the genuiness and sincerity.

Well, I am sincere. I would just rather have all our exchanges/debates/other be public. As I stated prior, I'm likely not going to change your mind. This is for the many others who read these exchanges.

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

I USED to be indoctrinated, and you still are....

I used to be indoctrinated, I still am, but I used to, too.

You are again mistaken.... I was no longer a believer BEFORE I studied the likes of evolution or abiogenesis I am not under the 'indoctrination' of 'science'. If all science was turned on it's head, I doubt it would be the Bible to do it

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It would be 'nice'. But as I see it, and to be blunt, I see you falling into this camp squarely. Why? For the aforementioned reason(s) given prior. We had a rather extensive exchange in that other thread "Why Do You Really Believe?". You believe because:

1. Indoctrination

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Do you believe in evolution? Yes or no?

Yes. I think many here are fully aware that is your view. But I must ask, WHY the God of the Bible? I'll answer preemptively... Indoctrination to this specific religion It's a hard thing to shake, even if you WANT to Which you don't... Which means it is even more futile to debate you. Your <a priori> indoctrinated beliefs leave you unavailable to any true scrutiny.

Because of the evidence I have for Christianity being true.

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.

Thank you for answering my question. And it is not up to me to 'dazzle you'.

Calm down, "dazzle" is just the word "impress", with swag.

You will indeed impress me by doing something that I don't believe you can do.

It is quite the contrary. Please enlighten all of us as to how Genesis works <in harmony> with your assessment about the age of the earth?.?.?.?.?

I cannot.

But even with my lack of being able to do so, it still doesn't follow that therefore, the universe is billions of years old, either.

So you may want to just calm your nerves a bit.

Well, I am sincere. I would just rather have all our exchanges/debates/other be public.

They always do.

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.

This is for the many others who read these exchanges.

......

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?

You are again mistaken.... I was no longer a believer BEFORE I studied the likes of evolution or abiogenesis I am not under the 'indoctrination' of 'science'. If all science was turned on it's head, I doubt it would be the Bible to do it

Reading comprehension. I was speaking about myself.

[Difflugia]

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.

Virtually everything Kent Hovind says about scientific matters is, to put it charitably, wrong and about half of what he says about the Bible is.

If the things he said were true, then "he shreds it all to PIECES." Unfortunately for creationists, they're not true. Fortunately for him, the people he's preaching to don't check.

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.

Held his own what, though?

The problem for Hugh Ross is that his target audience is too narrow. He's preaching to people that understand more about geology than they do about cosmology or biology. People that know less geology are young Earth creationists. People that know more cosmology or biology aren't creationists at all.

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

He does have gusto.