Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 8, 2025, 4:42 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Observational Science vs. Historical Science?!
#5
RE: Observational Science vs. Historical Science?!
(April 26, 2014 at 4:29 pm)FreeTony Wrote: The "you weren't there" line is particularly ironic when the entire Christian religion is based on an old book.

I am going into a long winded explanation but bare with me.

There is a reason why they don't worry about us using it is because they have two things. The first is "witnesses". To them people where there to witness the events of Jesus. They ask you weren't there as a statement referring to homo sapiens in general. This can be refuted by simply referring to human evolution before we became homo sapiens sapiens but after we were homo sapiens. They can argue no written history but cave drawings.

Second is faith, which is just a cop out they know we can't use do to our intellectual honesty.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Observational Science vs. Historical Science?! - by Duke Guilmon - April 26, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 5415 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  British Non-Catholic Historian on Historical Longevity of the Roman Catholic Church. Nishant Xavier 36 3493 August 6, 2023 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 9467 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)