The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

You are the one that keeps making the bogus claim of "a true Christian". Yet no Christian seems to be able to properly define what one is.

Wrong again! Some Christians define it differently than others, some are correct, some are incorrect. This is still not an NTS.

Pizza is bread, sauce and cheese, baked or microwaved. To say pizza is bread, feces and urine is incorrect.

Christians "follow Jesus", the etymology of the word "Christian". Jesus said, "Be born again, and you will be empowered to follow me."

Accusing every Christian of being unable to define what a Christian is, is a silly idea of yours.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Another bogus claim. "Truth" is another undefined term. It would seem that this would be demonstrable. Can you support this claim or are you merely flailing wildly?

"What is truth?" was Pilate's question, you are in bad territory here.

Something true is axiomatically, absolutely, always, fact.

Something untrue is sometimes false or always false.

Jesus is God, God always/only tells truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean the truth limited by human words? The truth written by humans long after the events? The truth written for only one group of people? The real truth is in the world not limited by human words. The real truth is there for anyone to learn not limited by language location or culture.

Jesus is God, God only/always speaks truth.

All men are liars and need correction from God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Was in Jesus or was in Saul / Paul who founded Christianity? How many gentiles did Jesus actually convert to his faith?

Paul agrees in content, OT analysis and doctrine, with the other 11 writers.

Jesus's words in the gospels, not Pauline doctrines in the letters as much, have converted several billion Gentiles.

 

[Bear Wild]

Jesus is God, God only/always speaks truth.

All men are liars and need correction from God.

Men wrote the bible and the testaments thus the bible and testaments contain lies

 

[Subduction Zone]

"What is truth?" was Pilate's question, you are in bad territory here.

Something true is axiomatically, absolutely, always, fact.

Something untrue is sometimes false or always false.

Jesus is God, God always/only tells truth.

Please, you are the last one that should imply that someone else is in "bad territory". You seem to believe that your God lies. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong again! Some Christians define it differently than others, some are correct, some are incorrect. This is still not an NTS.

Pizza is bread, sauce and cheese, baked or microwaved. To say pizza is bread, feces and urine is incorrect.

Christians "follow Jesus", the etymology of the word "Christian". Jesus said, "Be born again, and you will be empowered to follow me."

Accusing every Christian of being unable to define what a Christian is, is a silly idea of yours.

There are countless different ways to "follow Jesus". You will simply define it differently from other sects and then try to use your No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Bear Wild]

Paul agrees in content, OT analysis and doctrine, with the other 11 writers.

Jesus's words in the gospels, not Pauline doctrines in the letters as much, have converted several billion Gentiles.

But how many gentiles did Jesus convert to his religion? I cannot find an answer for that. Saul/Paul was not Jesus and the gospels were not written by Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

No we don't. But we do have "archaeologist", "geologist", "paleontologist", "anthropologist", etc.

Excuse me, but this list you have mentioned here, are the correct job descriptions or professions.

"Evolutionist" is not a professional position.

For instance, palaeontologist and archaeologist are not the same things.

Paleontologists would study in any life (be they be animals or plants) that have turned to fossils.

You won't find fossils of humans that are less than 10,000 years old, like in the Bronze Age, Iron Age, or the Middle Ages. So archaeologists most often ignored palaeontology, since in most cases, paleontology is irrelevant.

Archaeologists would only focused on man, particularly man-made objects they would leave behind (eg coins, pottery, tools, weapons, etc), or the structures that have been built (eg home, tombs, bridges, etc).

Anthropologists can be closely related to archaeologists, since they are responsible for the study of human cultures, customs, however, not all anthropologists would necessarily go to dig sites, like the ways archaeologists would do.

Each one of the above that I have mentioned might study more or little on geology, depending on their works they actually do, but geologists may not study fossils (palaeontology), human structures or artefacts (archaeology), or human customs and behaviour (anthropology).

For instance, when I was younger I did course on civil engineering, and my first jobs, were that of draftsman and surveyor, and few years later as engineer. One of my subjects was geology, and this subject never got involved with fossils or buried ancient cities or towns, so radiometric dating were never mentioned in the geology that I had studied, because they were not relevant to my course.

The line between archaeology and anthropology may blurred, because can be crossover, but not so for archaeology and palaeontology.

I don't think you are think clearly when you bring up these lines of works.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Men wrote the bible and the testaments thus the bible and testaments contain lies

Is it logical to say that no men can ever write anything that is 100% true?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But how many gentiles did Jesus convert to his religion? I cannot find an answer for that. Saul/Paul was not Jesus and the gospels were not written by Jesus.

Then you haven't read the gospels carefully, where it is described delegations of Gentiles coming to meet Jesus at the Temple outer courts... or the Wise Men who came to worship Him at His birth, etc.

Likely, you haven't heard much about the biblical progression either, where Jesus Himself said, per prophecy, He came unto the Jews, and then, later, the Gentiles would come to Him in great numbers. In fact, Christianity proves a number of Bible prophecies where the Messiah unto the Jews would be worshiped by Gentiles from around the world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are countless different ways to "follow Jesus". You will simply define it differently from other sects and then try to use your No True Scotsman fallacy.

Is "countless" an accurate word? Is it an NTS to AGREE with you and say, "Those who follow Jesus are Christians, those who don't are not Christians?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you haven't read the gospels carefully, where it is described delegations of Gentiles coming to meet Jesus at the Temple outer courts... or the Wise Men who came to worship Him at His birth, etc.

Likely, you haven't heard much about the biblical progression either, where Jesus Himself said, per prophecy, He came unto the Jews, and then, later, the Gentiles would come to Him in great numbers. In fact, Christianity proves a number of Bible prophecies where the Messiah unto the Jews would be worshiped by Gentiles from around the world.

You appear to be trying to reinterpret the Bible to meet your needs. What about the verses where it is clear that Jesus does not think his teachings are for Gentiles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is "countless" an accurate word? Is it an NTS to AGREE with you and say, "Those who follow Jesus are Christians, those who don't are not Christians?"

Since there are on the order of 40,000 different sects of Christianity by biblical standards the answer is yes.

 

[Audie]

Excuse me, but this list you have mentioned here, are the correct job descriptions or professions.

"Evolutionist" is not a professional position.

For instance, palaeontologist and archaeologist are not the same things.

Paleontologists would study in any life (be they be animals or plants) that have turned to fossils.

You won't find fossils of humans that are less than 10,000 years old, like in the Bronze Age, Iron Age, or the Middle Ages. So archaeologists most often ignored palaeontology, since in most cases, paleontology is irrelevant.

Archaeologists would only focused on man, particularly man-made objects they would leave behind (eg coins, pottery, tools, weapons, etc), or the structures that have been built (eg home, tombs, bridges, etc).

Anthropologists can be closely related to archaeologists, since they are responsible for the study of human cultures, customs, however, not all anthropologists would necessarily go to dig sites, like the ways archaeologists would do.

Each one of the above that I have mentioned might study more or little on geology, depending on their works they actually do, but geologists may not study fossils (palaeontology), human structures or artefacts (archaeology), or human customs and behaviour (anthropology).

For instance, when I was younger I did course on civil engineering, and my first jobs, were that of draftsman and surveyor, and few years later as engineer. One of my subjects was geology, and this subject never got involved with fossils or buried ancient cities or towns, so radiometric dating were never mentioned in the geology that I had studied, because they were not relevant to my course.

The line between archaeology and anthropology may blurred, because can be crossover, but not so for archaeology and palaeontology.

I don't think you are think clearly when you bring up these lines of works.

Hmm, some of that is kinda mixed up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since there are on the order of 40,000 different sects of Christianity by biblical standards the answer is yes.

I see! So the number of people who might get something wrong can exclude anyone from accurately defining a given term (face palm). A scary amount of people believe in a flat Earth and/or hoaxed Moon landings, however, a large amount of people still get their terms correct!

Of course, what you wrote is (again) partially true only, since the vast majority of those many sects are biblically-based, and taught that "true Christians" are BORN AGAIN.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You appear to be trying to reinterpret the Bible to meet your needs. What about the verses where it is clear that Jesus does not think his teachings are for Gentiles?

WHAT ABOUT THEM? You are biblically clueless, like when Christ told a woman "not for you, Gentile" and THEN HEALED HER!

We're talking Messianic Secret/unto the Jews first/the Jews wanted to force Christ to be King/He died on the Cross to save Jews AND Gentiles, EVEN ATHEISTS... stick to philosophical ramblings and not Bible exegesis, it doesn't suit you!

Bible 101, SZ!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see! So the number of people who might get something wrong can exclude anyone from accurately defining a given term (face palm). A scary amount of people believe in a flat Earth and/or hoaxed Moon landings, however, a large amount of people still get their terms correct!

Of course, what you wrote is (again) partially true only, since the vast majority of those many sects are biblically-based, and taught that "true Christians" are BORN AGAIN.

since they cannot come to one consistent definition, then yes. If you go by a plurality the Catholics would get to set the definitions, and they would disagree strongly with you. Most would not agree with your abuse of the phrase "born again" .

It is rather amazing that you would post such a self defeating post and then think that you are the one that should be face palming. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

WHAT ABOUT THEM? You are biblically clueless, like when Christ told a woman "not for you, Gentile" and THEN HEALED HER!

We're talking Messianic Secret/unto the Jews first/the Jews wanted to force Christ to be King/He died on the Cross to save Jews AND Gentiles, EVEN ATHEISTS... stick to philosophical ramblings and not Bible exegesis, it doesn't suit you!

Bible 101, SZ!

He had to be convinced. Or did you ignore that part? Once again you demonstrate your own failure.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I think the greatest weakness to the creationist argument is that creationists can't believe in predestination. Suppose God wrote the fossil record, then the fossils that we see were formed from things that never lived and didn't have a choice in the matter. Suppose God wrote the bible, then the words that we read were written by folks that never lied and didn't have a choice in the matter. Kinda ironic that creationists are predestined not to believe in predestination isn't it?