Note the posters in this thread using the same wall-of-assertions tactic Ham does, to make claims like "The Bible is an infaliable source" and then bury said claims under heaps of other nonsensical garbage.
What qualifies The Bible as an infallible source? It says it is, but it's been shown to be an inaccurate source repeatedly.
So it's not only a fallible source, but if divine in origin, is also an intellectually dishonest one. If mundane in origin, an outdated, untrustworthy source, shown to be mistaken repeatedly by empirical observation.
#Hashtagging #Godsez onto an assertion doesn't make it reasonable, no matter how strongly you believe it does.
What qualifies The Bible as an infallible source? It says it is, but it's been shown to be an inaccurate source repeatedly.
So it's not only a fallible source, but if divine in origin, is also an intellectually dishonest one. If mundane in origin, an outdated, untrustworthy source, shown to be mistaken repeatedly by empirical observation.
#Hashtagging #Godsez onto an assertion doesn't make it reasonable, no matter how strongly you believe it does.
