Joel Watts drew my attention to the fact that an individual named Tony Breeden, with whom I had been interacting on his blog, mentioned me on Facebook:
My response was to ask whether, if I gave a simple “yes” answer and said nothing more, he would be satisfied and would return to the topic, or would then ask about what I mean by bodily, and by historical, and use other follow-up questions to distract from the topic at hand.
Breeden has suggested that his reason for asking the question is that he wants to know whether he is interacting with a fellow Christian or an unbeliever. Clearly Breeden is looking for an excuse that can be used to dismiss things that I say and evidence I present. I find that reprehensible.Romans 1:19-20 shows how different Breeden’s “Christianity” is from that of St. Paul:
[W]hat may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Trying to distract from the discussion and the evidence is a common tactic among those who deny the truth. Yet according to Paul, the evidence from the natural world provides sufficient evidence even to discuss and deduce the attributes of the one who created those things. Yet young-earth creationists deny the evidence from the natural world even with respect to more mundane matters, such as their age and the processes involved in their formation!
It is frustrating when representatives of a viewpoint that is so thoroughly unbiblical set themselves up as though they themselves were the defenders of the Bible and of Christian orthodoxy.