Appendix: Primary Source Archive (11 of 11)

but here is what the method cannot reach. you keep demanding a noncircular route from publicly assessable data to the atonement. you are right that there isn't one. i am not going to pretend there is, because pretending would concede your central premise — that the claim is an empirical hypothesis competing for evidential warrant under the rules of historical method. it isn't. it never was. the Incarnation is not a conclusion reached by reasoning from evidence. it is an interruption from outside the system. you cannot reach outside the system by examining the inside of it, and any argument that claims to has misunderstood what it is arguing about.

so your method works perfectly, and it works on nothing. it is built to expose claims that pretend to be empirical and are not. i am not making that pretense. i am telling you plainly this is received, not derived — the answer precedes the analysis and governs it. your instruments are calibrated for one kind of claim. this is a different kind. the failure of those instruments to register it is not evidence of absence. it is the wrong instrument held to the wrong thing.

you said it yourself at the end of both comments — we are not arguing over evidence, we are comparing frameworks. that is the truest thing you wrote. so let me be honest about mine. i did not reason my way into it and i cannot reason you into it. the door is a Person, not a proof, and the only test your method forbids is the one that would actually settle it — you would have to be willing to stand in front of him.

i am closing comments on this post, and i want to name why so it is not mistaken for avoidance. your method is built to turn a finished conversation into one that never ends — every answer becomes a new target, every constraint elastic, every exit a concession. that is the design. i am declining the regress, not the disagreement. the question i asked still stands whether or not it is answered here, and so does the invitation underneath it.

the maker came looking for you too. that is not an argument. it is an invitation. i hope you stand in front of it someday.

#BattleOfCivilizations #SoliDeoGloria #CoramDeo

[Hidden by Facebook]

A comment at this point in the thread was hidden by Facebook's own moderation system. Whose comment it was, and why it was hidden, is not established by anything visible in this capture.

Richard Swindell (repost of his earlier comment, with one addition):

[As reproduced above, with one added line at the close:] NOT after billions of years, at the BEGINNING of creation. Neither of those verses are in any way ambiguous.

CeleryKills (reply to Richard Swindell):

Richard Swindell Your comment reads less like an argument and more like a sermon layered with assertions that don't connect to what was actually being discussed.

I'll be candid. Nothing you just wrote engages the question I raised. That question was about how claims are justified and how competing interpretations are evaluated. Instead, you've shifted into testimony, institutional accusation, and selective history.

Take the National Academy claim. Even if it were accurate, which you don't demonstrate, it doesn't establish that scientific conclusions are false. It just tries to discredit them by association. That's not evidence, that's framing.

The same pattern runs through your comments about Hutton and Lyell. You assign motive, label them as hostile, and then treat that as if it invalidates geology. Where is the evidential chain between their alleged intent and the independent data from radiometric dating, stratigraphy, and paleontology? Motive does not override measurement (Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, 1991).

Then there's the scriptural appeal. You present verses as decisive without addressing the core issue I raised. Why should that text be granted authority over others making incompatible claims? Quoting it does not answer that. It assumes it.

So, I'll bring it back to the point you avoided. By what standard does your framework distinguish itself from other belief systems without presupposing its own correctness? If the answer is simply "because Scripture says so," then the reasoning is circular.

Right now, this isn't evidence-based argument. It's assertion reinforced by repetition.

References: Dalrymple, G. Brent. The Age of the Earth. 1991.

Mike Winslow:

https://docs.google.com/.../Pride_in_Tradition_v9.md — fully covered in this document.

The Origin of an Eternal God:

I am a YEC who believes in a young earth, moon, planets and sun, but I am convinced that the universe itself is billions of years old.

Chuck Purcell:

You can be Saved and still not know what's in the Bible. Those are usually the New Christians. If you read and study the Books you'll know what they say.

Stephen Watts:

[A lengthy AI-generated-styled comment addressing whether life on earth resembles "hell," citing Romans 8:36, Psalm 44:22, and a list of proverbs on wisdom, formatted with bracketed source markers characteristic of an AI search assistant's citation style.]

Glenn Ryzebol:

Honestly?? The age of the earth is not a salvation issue and i'm not that concerned about it. Either way, God is the designer and creator of everything. 6000 years?? God. Billions of years? God. I honestly don't know which. Jesus is still Lord. He still went to the cross 2000 years ago as a sacrifice for our sins. THAT's the important part.

Richard Whitbourn:

Christianity says "Believe on the Lord Jesus & thou shalt be saved". No other qualification required. It doesn't say be a genius to be saved or be an idiot to be saved. Neither will disqualify you. The big warning is about the difficulties of a rich man entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe some people's efforts have been misdirected.

Carl Bergevin:

Angels on the head of a pin.

[Facebook interface text, visible only to the post's owner]:

You turned off commenting for this post.

End of Primary Source Archive.

Michlaude Discipleship Project · Coram Deo · Soli Deo Gloria All materials are free.