Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Revmitchell]

.If you hold the belief that the facts in scripture must line up as a prerequisite for scripture bring true, then you as a believer have a problem, because in the examples I cited, the facts cited in scripture do not necessarily line up. I, on the other hand, have no problem with the facts not lining up, because I do not require those facts to line up in order for scripture to be true. Hence, my faith in scripture as 100% truth remains secure.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Did they teach you that in apologetics?

 

[BobRyan]

The problem with science as the last word is that it leaves out a very important component......the supernatural.

The very "essence" of the atheist doctrinal position is "there is no god" i.e. no supernatural.

Therefore Christianity, intelligent life, life in all it's forms, the solar system etc ALL have "non-supernatural origin" according to atheist doctrine alone.

That is before they even get to the subject of "science" or what we can "see proven" in the lab. It is a by-faith-alone position that they take.

How "instructive" then that we have Christians JOINING WITH THEM in that foundational position??!

Dawkins finds it shocking.

Darwin found it shocking.

We find it shocking.

Yet as we see -- it is true. Some Christians make that illogical leap of blind-faith in an all-for-darwinism departure from logic and reason.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You're being disingenous. IN fact I do believe the creation account as expressed in scripture and summerized in the Law.
.

I see -- what a refreshing and sudden turnabout in your position.

Hmm that means we can now summarize your view of creation origins as "SIX days you shall labor ... FOR IN SIX DAYS God CREATED the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them"

Funny (I mean just down right hillarious so far) that we NEVER see you summarize your own position using the very words you now CLAIM to fully believe!!

Hint: The twists and turns of your argument is compromised and transparently self-conflicted.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

I think a course in honesty would be needed as welll

Agreeing or disagreeing on the topic is perfectly fine. Calling one's honesty into question is inappropriate and insulting, not to mention disingenuous.

Of course, he does not "require those facts to line up in order for Scripture to be true" because somehow, he claims he can believe the Bible to be true without believing it to be true.

Your logic is flawed. It is a fact that scripture gives differing accounts on the color of Jesus robe, on the number of angels at the tomb, and when the stone was rolled away. I assert that these differences do not compromise scripture truth. You assert that those differences do not exist. It is you, not I, who can't have it both ways, because both ways do not exist.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Did they teach you that in apologetics?

I love the way people make idiotic comments like that, but no one has addressed the textual discrepancies in scripture. All one gets is KJVO-esque arguments: Scripture is true, therefore, scripture is without discrepancy, therefore, if someone point outs a discrepancy, it must not be a discrepancy, because scripture is true.

The problem with science as the last word is that it leaves out a very important component......the supernatural.

You make a very good point. The job of science is to discover how something was done. It is not the job of science to find out whodunnit. That is the job of pholisiphy.

 

[BobRyan]

Also note BobRyan,

that there are many things I've mentioned in my post that challenge your view. The fact is that you haven't touched them. Why?

Hint -- that would have been a good time to actually point to one.

In the mean time I CAN point to something you have been ignoring --- it is called the Opening Post.

There we see a former atheist evolutionist turn to actual acceptance of the Bible account for origins (not an actual denial of the Bible account that he then innexplicably would "label" as being "acceptance" the way you have done).

There we see a well accepted science professor arguing the science case for intelligent design. (A point that even barbarians can accept according to Paul in Romans 1).

And we see you deny the legal summarized statement of the Genesis event -- we see you trying to lable "rejection" as if it could be twisted around to "full acceptance" and we see you ignoring the science arguments made in the OP and we see that you failed to escape the problem of a static Genome for your amoeba-to-man storytelling.

It is hard to imagine a worse state of affairs for your argument at this point.

Unable to? Most likely you will use a non argument that states well, I didn't even do that because its not worth talking about. When in fact that statement is a ploy to indicate you don't have reasonable answer to them.

It is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader that in that statement you point to no actual problem -- you simply resort to "hand waiving" and energetic speech. Try using actual facts instead. Try responding to the Opening Post. Try rescuing your failed argument from the static genome problem.

Something other than "pretending to have done well" is needed at this point to keep your point afloat.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here I argue the case from the OP

Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no example of so-called speciation where genome is actually seen to change by adding a new coding gene. This point was shown in the link given in the OP.

Here is the response showing only failure -

I haven't argue that specifically. But I did say evolution on a macro level is non observable.

At this point the term "macro level" must address the "new coding gene" example - and that is simply preposterous. To argue that the addition of even ONE coding gene to a genome is "a macro level that can not be seen" is to utterly destroy amoeba-to-man genome evolution storytelling. It leaves the salient point in the evolutionist's argument "unverifiable"!!

How can you miss that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

A
I love the way people make idiotic comments like that, but no one has addressed the textual discrepancies in scripture. All one gets is KJVO-esque arguments: Scripture is true, therefore, scripture is without discrepancy, therefore, if someone point outs a discrepancy, it must not be a discrepancy, because scripture is true.

You responded to my post that has nothing to do with your repsonse. And I am not KJVO. But if that makes you feel better about your position then go ahead. But I do know that liberals like to create discrepancies where none exist to justify their :

.If you hold the belief that the facts in scripture must line up as a prerequisite for scripture bring true, then you as a believer have a problem, because in the examples I cited, the facts cited in scripture do not necessarily line up. I, on the other hand, have no problem with the facts not lining up, because I do not require those facts to line up in order for scripture to be true. Hence, my faith in scripture as 100% truth remains secure.

This could not be more idiotic.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Coding genes (those that code for proteins and enzymes) are always found at the same location on the same chromosome relative to the other coding genes on that same chromosome. Thus ALL members of the SAME genome (all humans) have the SAME coding genes and genomes are therefore static.

But each coding gene appears in the form of one pair of a fixed set of alleles (settings if you well) at that position. So for example the coding gene for eye color is always at the same position on the same chromosome for all humans. (Hint you will never find the coding gene for flower pedal color at that spot nor does the eye color gene hop around to different chromosomes. The human genome is static). When you damage your DNA (by radiation or through the aging process or some forms of abberant duplication) you suffer but you do not pass acquired damage on to your decendants.

The allele value for that gene determines how much melanin (brown color) is present in the stroma of the eye. If the allele form is set to little or no melanin - then the eye appears to be blue. If it is set for a larg amount of melanin (which is always brown) then the eye appears brown. Diploid genomes such as the human genome always have two alleles at a given position that combine to determine the phenotype expressed for that individual.

Alleles for a coding gene are NOT an example of evolution adding a new coding gene nor a new chromosome. All the allele pair does (in this case for the eye-color coding gen) is determine the amount of melanin for the stroma. Very hard to argue that as "evolutionism".

Thus the amoeba-to-man storytelling game does not even get off the dime since you MUST be able to ADD a coding gene to the amoeba genome to start your march toward "becoming man" over billions of years.

Coding genes "by definition" simply code for amino-acid sequences resulting in a protein or enyzme. If evolutionism FAILS to even add ONE to the genome - how does it ever expect to scientifically demonstrate it's "amoeba-to-man" story?

Notice that all we get in response to this is "more reasons why we evolutionists are failing to show that basic step in the story"

Its hard but not impossible. Note the very last part of the quote with regard to this issue. One of the things in this discussion with regard to the scientific method is predictability. Which the evolutionist point of view is capable of doing. We should be able to predict certain outcomes with regularity. The problem with the macro level again is time. yet we can do this on the micro level.

The problem with that disclaimer -- is that going BENEATH the level of actually adding a coding gene to an existing genome - is to drop down to the level of "variation WITHIN a static genome". As long as that variation never actually adds helpful NEW coding genes that get passed on to descendants - you are stuck with "Amoeba-to-amoeba" variation within genome - and not the transformation of Amoeba Genome to man Genome over time.'

The "other" glaring problem is that in the evolutioniary fiction - for most genomes TODAY the individual that you find reproducing is in fact the Billionth such event back to a point in time and also the millionth event back to a point in time and it is the thousandth and the 100th. Most genomes are said to have been around for millions of years. So the myth that we need to wait for the next 10 billion to occur is fiction because you ARE witnessing the 10billionth occurance back to a point in time AND the act of "adding a coding gene" is discrete! So either you see it or it is not happening.

But claiming that we will never see even the addition of a single coding gene -- is declaring an asymptotic event that puts a dead stop to evolutionism. The Creationist position is that you are going to find "variation WITHIN a genome but not genome amoeba evolving up the chain to eventually reach genome-man. Hence no violation of that principle to demonstrate in the science lab of verifiable objective observation.

It is like an asymptote on a graph - as long as you argue you can never show a crossing of the line (actually adding even one new valuable coding gene) you are stuck inside the box no matter how many billions and billions of tiny leaps you wish to make up that asymptotic line.

Basic math.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff View Post
Its hard but not impossible. Note the very last part of the quote with regard to this issue. One of the things in this discussion with regard to the scientific method is predictability. Which the evolutionist point of view is capable of doing. We should be able to predict certain outcomes with regularity. The problem with the macro level again is time. yet we can do this on the micro level.

If you are referring to extrapolation then it is not a fact that we "should be able " to do this. Such ignores the genetic boundaries set by God "each according to its kind". Holding to Macro-evolution is asking "hath God said".

 

[Johnv]

You responded to my post that has nothing to do with your repsonse. And I am not KJVO. But if that makes you feel better about your position then go ahead.

I never said you were KJVO. I said arguments like your are akin to KJVO arguments (the KJV is the only bible and contains no errors, therefore, if anyone points out an error in the KJV, it is incorrect, because the KJV contains no errors, therefore that person is not a bible believer).

But I do know that liberals like to create discrepancies where none exist...

I do not "create" discrepancies. It is a fact that one passage says Jesus' robe was red while another says it's purple. It is a fact that one passage says there was one angel at the tomb while another says it was two. It is a fact that one passages has the stone rolled away before people arrive, while another has the stone in place after people arrive. By your own definition, if you deny those passages say what they do, then you deny scripture, which makes you the liberal, not me. It is the conservative position that says scripture is true, despite those passages.

 

[Revmitchell]

I never said you were KJVO. I said arguments like your are akin to KJVO arguments (the KJV is the only bible and contains no errors, therefore, if anyone points out an error in the KJV, it is incorrect, because the KJV contains no errors, therefore that person is not a bible believer).

I do not "create" discrepancies. It is a fact that one passage says Jesus' robe was red while another says it's purple. It is a fact that one passage says there was one angel at the tomb while another says it was two. It is a fact that one passages has the stone rolled away before people arrive, while another has the stone in place after people arrive. By your own definition, if you deny those passages say what they do, then you deny scripture, which makes you the liberal, not me. It is the conservative position that says scripture is true, despite those passages.

Yea you do. Two different eye witnesses with different perspectives do not make discrepancies. And your previous wrangling does not lend to this explanation. Let me let you in on something the conservative world already knows to include my children. Facts are always true and if something is not true it is not fact.

 

[Johnv]

Two different eye witnesses with different perspectives do not make discrepancies.

So, let me get this straight. Your position is: one person saw a red robe, and another a purple, and that isn't a discrepancy in facts. One person saw the stone rolled away before the women arrive, and another saw the stone rolled away after they arrive, and that isn't a discrepancy in facts.

It actually requires wrangling to make your claim. It takes no wrangling at all to claim that a discrepancy in scripture does not detract from the idea that scripture is true.

Let me let you in on something the conservative world already knows to include my children. Facts are always true and if something is not true it is not fact.

I worked for a police agency for several years, and an can attest to the fact that you're dead wrong. Fact and truth are two different things. Just ask an accident investigator. There are discrepancies in facts all the time, but those discrepancies don't detract from the truth.

Here's a simpler, and a much more fun, example. Song of Solomon states that his lover is the most beautiful of all women. That might be true, but it is not fact. The fact is that my wife is the most beautiful of all women. Any married man who wishes would agree that his wife, not Solomon's lover, is the most beautiful of all women (especially if he wishes to stay married).

 

[Tom Bryant]

JohnV, so is your position that Scripture can contain errors, what you have called "discrepancies", in facts but be inerrant in it's purposes and general teachings?

 

[Johnv]

JohnV, so is your position that Scripture can contain errors, what you have called "discrepancies", in facts but be inerrant in it's purposes and general teachings?

It is my position that, wherever a discrepancy in Sctipure exists, Scripture remains, as you said, completely inerrant in purpose and teachings, and solidly remains 100% truth.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I am not trying to be a lawyer at all. But just trying to find answers. If there are discrepancies, how is it 100% truth? I am really asking for your words not mine.

 

[pilgrim2009]

It is my position that, wherever a discrepancy in Sctipure exists, Scripture remains, as you said, completely inerrant in purpose and teachings, and solidly remains 100% truth.

Will you please tell me where these discrepancies are in the bible so I will know which part of the bible to believe and which part to cut out of my bible.I dont want a bible full of errors.

Thank you so smart.

 

[Johnv]

Will you please tell me where these discrepancies are in the bible...

Although your post was intended to be belittling and insulting, I've lmentioned a few of them earlier in the thread.

If you require an inerrant scripture to be devoid of them, then yes, you can either cut them out of yoru bible, or you can keep them in and adopt the concept that scripture is inerrant despite such discrepancies.

 

[Johnv]

If there are discrepancies, how is it 100% truth? I am really asking for your words not mine.

I understand completely your question. It lies with the context. For example, one gospel says Christ's robe was purple, another says it was red. The truth of sctipture is not the actual color, the truth is that he was wearing a robe that denotes royalty, in an attempt to mock him. The color doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what order Jesus said or what the last thing he said on the cross was. The truth of scripture is what he said and why.

Whether the stone was rolled away before the women got there or not is not important. The truth is that the stone was rolled away, and the tomb ws empty.

It doesn't matter how many angels were there. The truth of scripture is that angles announced and confirmed that Jesus was risen.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Although your post was intended to be belittling and insulting, I've lmentioned a few of them earlier in the thread.

If you require an inerrant scripture to be devoid of them, then yes, you can either cut them out of yoru bible, or you can keep them in and adopt the concept that scripture is inerrant despite such discrepancies.

All I can say is apostate and get your stinking feet out of my drinking water.


http://www.lovethetruth.com/king_james_bible.htm

 

[Tom Bryant]

Thanks. I don't agree at all. I think you are opening the door for all sorts supposed "discrepancies" about other issues that you would consider important. But I was looking for a specific answer and you gave it to me.