aChristian

I don't have the time and the ICR website (or you can just look at the creation, it's obvious) gives you plenty of information if you are interested in the truth.

I re-read that thread. I made some pretty good (and clear) arguements. I also read some pretty wild comments that were made after I logged off. I hadn't read them before.

I don't think it is wishful thinking. The facts just show evolution to be nonsense.

I haven't read any convincing arguements against the Bible on this site or anywhere else for that matter.

I just think the facts support Christianity.

I hope to encourage someone here to think about their positions and see the obvious errors.

After the resurrection has been established, you can use the fact that Jesus put his stamp of approval on the OT ("not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fullfilled", "the law cannot be broken", etc.) which constantly claims divine inspiration ("the word of the Lord to ...". As for the NT, the authors who were taught by Jesus (ie., God) tell us that their writings are also inspired by God and on par with the OT scriptures. Divine inspiration is found throughout the Bible.

John A. Broussard

You made a claim.

I expected you to present evidence in support of that claim.

You failed to do so.

I can only conclude that you are unable to do so.

Needless to say I'm disappointed, since your claim (if true) has vast implications for amputees.

As it happens, I am very much interested in the truth of the claim you made but which you cannot support.

Do you often do this in your discussions? Give false hope to people?

John A. Broussard

Good. Then I can ask you to explain what happened on this day.

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

I look forward to your answer.

Antlerman

And you have knowledge of this through what means? My response is a simple one: no they're not. Christian doctrines must be taught. They are not "self-evident" as I assume you are trying to argue? Show me your polling data, not your ideas as you read them from the bible.

So are all of biology; anthropology; physics; astronomy; mathematics; and all other forms of critical analysis that disagree with how you read the Bible. Is that a true statement to you? Do you hate education because it contradicts your ideas, or rather what you think God says? There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with your statement.

I am always seeking reliable information that offers the greatest measure of confidence possible in any and all matters. You are of the belief that there is only one truth, and reject anything that challenges your conclusions.

I might become a Christian if I was convinced of the reliability of the information, but... it may not be your brand of "fringe" ideas about it. Or, I may remain an atheist because it offers the most cohesive explanation of the available knowledge - from ALL sources, including your Bible.

I don't see that same measure of fairness being practiced in your approach to knowledge. Do you in fact consider yourself open to being totally mistaken about everything you have been trying to convince everyone about? Would you reject your beliefs if you opened yourself up to the mountains of credible evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that shows your doctrine of a 6000 year old earth was purely irrational? If your reaction to that is a wall going up, there's your answer.

Dean Anderson

I believe this story, even if others don't.

On the contrary, there is another very credible explanation. You see, young children often have spontaneous regeneration of fingertips after surgical (or accidental) amputations. See here for example, for a PubMed article discussing the phenomenon.

It isn't as rare as you would think (and I am surprised that the doctor hadn't heard of it before). Young children still have a lot of growing to do, and still hold on to some growth processes that they used to initially grow limbs from nothing before they were born. These processes unfortunately fade as we get older, so it is only in the rare instance that a young child has an accident like this (and then it depends on the sort of injury and the type of amputation procedure done) that we see it in action.

Call it a "miracle of nature" if you really want to use the "m" word, but there's no need to retreat to some kind of supernatural explanation for the events. There's a perfectly reasonable natural one out there.

aChristian

Your responses just haven't given me enough confidence that you are interested in knowing the truth. If you want an answer, you'll have to put out the time and effort that I mentioned above.

aChristian

I already answered this. The sun stood still and the moon stayed in one position. If you don't understand my earlier references to the frame of reference, ask some of those who agree with you on this forum who have studied physics.

aChristian

Are you aware of your sin?

All the facts from those areas of science agree with my position. I actually like education. It is fun. Christian's who disagree with my statement on form criticism have a very weak position. It seems very hard to defend Christianity being true if you accept form criticism. Most who accept form criticism are not Christians (in spite of what they may claim) and those who are must blindly believe, which would make me nervous about what I was trusting in.

So you think there are two truths? Jesus physically rose from the dead (in the obvious meaning of that phrase) and Jesus did not physically rise from the dead? The moon exists and the moon doesn't exist? Washington was the first president of the U.S. and Washington was not the first president of the U.S.?

I hope that I would be honest enough to reject everything I believe to be true if the evidence was shown to me that I was wrong. I haven't seen any evidence like this (you may think I have, but I don't) so I can't say for sure how I would react.

aChristian

I don't think that this would explain it because there was such a short time period (a few days?) between the amputation and the finger restored completely except for the fingernail. From what I remember of the account, there was no evidence of scar tissue or any sign of the amputation as soon as it was discovered to have been healed. I just read the paragraph that you linked to, but it doesn't seem that babies even grow that fast and the lack of scar tissue seems to me to be a point against your explanation.

John A. Broussard

I accept the fact that you can't produce any evidence to support your story.