abiogenesis or special creation?

[BobRyan]

So, as always, we are back to fringe "science" that has been unable to gain acceptance among their peers.

So a group of "400" scientists is not "peers" because we don't have enough atheist darwinists in the group.

Did Stephen J Gould have such a large group promoting his "Fringe science" of "Punctuated equilibrium" at the start? No!

When the Alchemists argued FOR gold from lead - did they have a fringe group eventually coming out of that wrong-headed downhill?

The "Whatever is most popular for today' method has NEVER been the "scientific method" UTEOTW!

We all know this.

UTEOTW seems to argue that his frantic handwaiving should suffice to gloss over these inconvenient details.

But I have to give UTEOTW this much credit - in the realm of story-telling and bashing based on "popular opinion" nobody does it better than atheist darwinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

So a group of "400" scientists is not "peers" because we don't have enough atheist darwinists in the group.

Did Stephen J Gould have such a large group promoting his "Fringe science" of "Punctuated equilibrium" at the start? No!

What 400 scientists? I don't see 400 scientists supporting the electric universe.

But I am glad to see progress in one area. Gould had to convince other that his theory was correct. He did the work, he found the examples that showed PE as true, he wrote them up, he submitted them and he eventually convinced his peers.

New ideas can and do become a part of science. It is done by convincing the other experts that you are on to something. Gould successfully did this.

So far, no one in YE has been able to do this with any of their ideas. The experts see right through. They can only convince the lay people.

Perhaps Barry's upcoming paper will be convincing to the experts. Perhaps not. We'll see.

 

[Faith alone]

Just something to toss into the mix. Since according to the Big Bang the universe is expanding at tremendous speeds, at the time of the creation, would not the "center" of the universe - this singularity - have been much closer? Would not that have changed some things significantly?

FA

 

[Helen]

The Bible tells us twelve times that God stretched out the heavens. It is always past tense, completed action.

The data confirms that. The universe is not currently expanding. This might help:
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

 

[BobRyan]

Just something to toss into the mix. Since according to the Big Bang the universe is expanding at tremendous speeds, at the time of the creation, would not the "center" of the universe - this singularity - have been much closer? Would not that have changed some things significantly?

FA

In the story telling that goes with that there is the confession that an entirely new set of physical laws would need to be "imagined" to get the entire universe condensed down to a single "point". But we digress from the abiogenesis point here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What 400 scientists? I don't see 400 scientists supporting the electric universe.

Barry had already said -

This group of scientists includes Halton Arp, Antony Peratt, Donald Scott, Eric Lerner, and over four hundred signatories who signed an open letter to the scientific community that was published in New Scientist. These scientists hold that the effects that we are seeing have been adequately explained by a plasma model.

details.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But I am glad to see progress in one area. Gould had to convince other that his theory was correct. He did the work, he found the examples that showed PE as true, he wrote them up, he submitted them and he eventually convinced his peers.

New ideas can and do become a part of science.

But you claim to turn a blind eye to them as they are introduced calling them (in your words) "Fringe science".

You argue here that only the POPULAR view should be devotedly clung to -- and by popular I think it is clear that you really mean "popular among atheist scientists"

It is done by convincing the other experts that you are on to something. Gould successfully did this.

It is pretty impressive that an atheist scientist like Gould COULD argue the SAME point that CHRISTIAN scientists had ALREADY argued - which is that the DATA did not support gradualism's stasis doctrines - BUT by offering another ATHEIST alternative for origins instead of one that does NOT work with Atheism-- he finally get the majority of the Ahteist old guard to switch over to his views -- and then "obediently" the compromised Christian believers in atheist darwinism eventually followed as well.

So far, no one in YE has been able to do this with any of their ideas.

I agree that YE scientists are not offering OTHER atheist alternatives to the atheist darwinist old-guard the way that the atheist darwinist Gould did.

You finally have stated a morsel of truth as we sift through your post seeking it out.

Almost well done sir!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since we ARE on the subject of the atheist model (abiogenesis) vs the Bible model for the origin of Life Gen 1-2:3 that goes "evening and morning" by "evening and morning" for 7 days!

Questions that ARE worth asking.

#1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

#2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

#3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

#4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

#5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

#6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[grahame]

Well, if we insist on the Genesis accounts as historical, we have to choose which one, we have to reconcile light existing before the sun and moon, we have to explain how water was above the sky then but was not when space exploration began, we have to explain how there were women for Cain and Abel to marry, and so on.

One can trust that God is the Creator of all tings, seen and unseen, without having to make a theological/literary text jump through historical and scientific hoops.

Sorry for being a bit backward here. But why do we have to explain these things before we accept the Biblical account of creation? Genesis was written long before anything called science appeared on the scene. These things were written for the learning of all believers and for our spritual growth.

(Rom 15:4) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

They were not written for the curiosity of the unbeliever, who is always ready to slander our God as a lier. The Bible is not a science text book. But is first and foremost a spiritual book written by men who were born along by the Holy Spirit. Why someone should use such words as "we have to explain" before we are prepared to accept the Biblical account of anything confuses me. Why, I wonder do we not see our Lord or the apostles having trouble with these things? I fear we are beginning to see the meaning of our Lords words coming true as the last days draw nearer.

(Luke 18:8) "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

These scriptures, whatever the unbelieving world may do are not meant to be doubted and dismissed by the Christian believer. Rather they are there to strengthen our faith that

we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Why are there all these doubters here? We believe in the Biblical account of Christ's death, burial and resurrection as literal fact do we not? Then why do we think that God failed us in the very beginning of all things and has not conveyed to us the truth of how he created all things? What? do we believe have better understanding than the ancients, just because we fly airplanes and drive cars and use mobile phones and have telescopes and microscopes? What is it with the modern Christian? Do we somehow think that the original word of God is not worthy for our "refined" modern intellects. Have we somehow "evolved" into a more intellectually worthy creature than our forefathers, that we feel justified to put the word of God on trial before we will "accept" it?

 

[Helen]

Excellent response, grahame, and thank you. I get so deeply involved in the science itself that to be reminded of what you wrote there is a very good thing.

Thank you again for responding to him that way. God bless.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Bob,

Your repeated use of the mantra "atheist darwinist" seems to be an attempt at poisoning the well. Surely you know, not all people who subscribe to evolution or the ideas of Darwin are not atheists. Your arguments carry more weight without the ad hominems and unnecessary biased language. There are theistic Darwinists as well, hence the genesis of the term "Theistic Evolution".

Something for you to consider.

 

[BobRyan]

#6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Your repeated use of the mantra "atheist darwinist" seems to be an attempt at poisoning the well. Surely you know, not all people who subscribe to evolution or the ideas of Darwin are not atheists. Your arguments carry more weight without the ad hominems and unnecessary biased language. There are theistic Darwinists as well, hence the genesis of the term "Theistic Evolution".

Something for you to consider.

Not all models for evolutionism are "distinctively atheist" -- I certainly would agree with that statement - had you made it.

Not all who believe in atheist darwinism are themselves practicing atheists, some even claim to be Christian. I certainly would agree with that as well.

My argument is that "Darwinist evolutionism" as apposed to "I.D Evolutionism" is "distinctively atheist" and the distinction can be seen in this very subject - abiogenesis. As Richard Dawkins pointed out.

It is the obvious point that once you are willing to contradict the Bible to the extent that not only do you toss out Gen 1-3 but you also toss out the idea that God (not atheists) is the one who is capable of the creating life and that "The things that are MADE SHOW the invisible attributes of God" because they blatantly display intelligent Design" -- then you embrace "distinctively atheist" doctrines.

This is not an ad hominem comment - rather I am arguing the key point for this subject and highlighting its objective distinctive contribution to the entire debate. It is a uniquely atheist doctrine for evolutionism.

Suppose for example we COULD create life OURSELVES in the lab and the argument is "SEE the Word of God was wrong about God being the only one who CAN create life and now we propose that not only ARE there other ways for life to be created (i.e. man can also do it) but we propose that nature ITSELF can do it - even without man manipulating events in the lab to MAKE it happen". Such a direct challenge based on REAL evidence and SUCCESS in pointing to a viable mechanism for abiogenesis proven to work -- would be stiff indeed. Atheists world-wide would be rejoicing.

As has already been pointed out - for this part "of their story" there is no "Amino Acids evolved to some magical point where they assembled" there is no "evolution of the molecule via natural selection" or survival of the fittest or mutation... rather we HAVE those SAME molecules today. The same amino acids available to us in the lab as are imagined to have existed billions of years ago. NO missing link NEEDED here - just plain old chemistry that ALREADY exists today with great ability to "manipulate it" in the controled environment of the lab. Having utter atheist-darwinist failure in this exercise in chemistry - is a glaring FACT telling us that the FAITH the Atheist Darwinists are manifesting is seriously misplaced. But THEY have a good excuse for placing faith in it no matter what the facts -- THEY have no other choice! THEIR starting point is "there is NO GOD". No other option but abiogenesis for the atheists NO MATTER WHAT the results in the lab!

So what we have is the UNIQUE act of ATHEIST FAITH in a bible-contradicting process that HAS NEVER been shown to take place in nature NOR to be POSSIBLE to manipulate in a controlled environment! This is PURE atheist faith starting with "THERE IS NO GOD" and going to "SO How did life GET here to start with IF GOD is not the answer"... They provide the answer in the form of "Story telling". They then seek out devotees to believe in the stories EVEN though the SCIENCE done in the lab SHOWS that the amino acids in question CAN NOT BE MADE to assemble as required for the first eukaryote cell to come into existence!.

It is one of the purest forms of "Atheist" vs "God" doctrinal statements of faith given by Atheists on one side and Believers in God on the other.

Those Christians that take the illogical leap of placing FAITH in the Atheist stories are demonstratably compromised as BOTH the Atheists and the Bible believing Christians have been stating all along!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

The Bible tells us twelve times that God stretched out the heavens. It is always past tense, completed action.

The data confirms that. The universe is not currently expanding. This might help:
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

Funny thing happens whenever I read these kinds of things on your website. Oh they sound so good to begin with. All sorts of equations and jargon and quotes and references. And many of the references are from top names, the big guns.

But then, when I start looking closer, something curious happens. It turns into a big cafeteria science project. You take a little bit from here and a little bit from there and you build a case. Never mind that you are drawing wildly different conclusions than those you reference. And then it gets worse. I go to the references and start looking them up, and the ones that you draw upon most heavily and those that are the furtherest from the rest of science, those on the margins and the fringes. And even these you just pick and choose and ignore whatever is inconvenient.

Let's take the case of the first major point in your link. You want to establish that the universe is not expanding so you bring up a guy named Sumner who says that the accepted expansion would produce a blue shift. There is a little bit of dancing around with other ideas in order to hand wave away the science of the field. But in the end, the point is made by resting on the claims of this guy Sumner.

My question is, who else has he convinced?

He sits out of the fringes and I have a hard telling if he has convinced anyone at all that he is right.

But it gets worse.

You use him in a standard bit of cafeteria science. You don't want there to be expansion. He says that there is not expansion so he becomes your source. But let's look further into this.

You are trying to avoid a 13.7 billion year old universe, so you pluck a reference from this guy about no expansion. But let's look him up and see what the consequence is.

Well, you are in luck. He does not calculate a 13.7 billion year old universe. Problem for you is that he calculates a universe over 100 billion years old! You are perfectly happy to snap up one little piece from him, but you then discard the rest. How can you in good faith take a little snippet from him, then discard the consequence of that snippet! The reader is not told of what conclusion Sumner draws from what you reference. No attempt is made to explain to us why you think part of what he says is good but why you think that his consequence / conclusion is false.

For a little more fun, I grabbed my copy of The Fabric of the Cosmos. This seemed like something that would come up. According to Greene, and I feel confident that this is the opinion of most scientists in the field, on the scale of a galaxy and anything smaller, the current expansion is too slow to have any noticeable effect. The forces produced are much, much weaker than the forces that hold atoms and stars and galaxies together.

 

[UTEOTW]

By me...

What 400 scientists? I don't see 400 scientists supporting the electric universe.

Now I have found it. I was looking for Bob to have said this.

But it allows for the same point to be made again.

The suggestion was made to read The Electric Sky.

I find his web page, or at least one promoting the book, and the first thing to notice is that the guy is an engineer. He seems to be stepping outside his area to talk about cosmology and physics authoritatively. But let's move on.

The first question would be, then, what are his conclusions on the age of the universe? I never found an answer, though I did not look for long. In an interview, he claimed that just about every area of physics and cosmology you can think of were completely wrong. But I did not see anything that would indicate that he comes to the same conclusion as you do about the age of the universe.

The next question is who has he convinced.

Well, at least here we have a list of over 500 names. But who are these people? The list tells us nothing about the areas of expertise of those listed. For a few, it can be inferred that they may be from a relevant field based on their associations. But the list is divided into categories.

The first are the original signers. About 30 people. No indication who they might be.

The next, a bit more than 1/3 third of the list, are the "scientists and engineers." What did I tell Bob about such lists being dominated by engineers and others outside of the relevant fields? Just who are all these people and why should I listen to them? We are not told, but it is curious that you have to exclusively list the engineers.

Next, comprising more than another third are the "independent researchers." Who are they and why do I care? Never told.

Finally, about 1/4 of the list is in a final category of "other." I guess even the makers of the list do not consider these people relevant except to make the list longer.

 

[UTEOTW]

Which brings me to the final question about the linked article.

Who has Barry convinced?

Convincing others who have the expertise to judge is where we ultimately decide which theories are good and which are not?

According to the note at the top, even the creationist rag to which it was submitted rejected it. Doing the work and writing it up is good and all, but it is only the first step. There is no indication that anyone of note has been convinced by the writing and the logic of it.

And that is not to pick on y'all. It is a general comment on the state of YEism writings in general. More often than not, the writings are by folks who do not have the required background to be a recognized authority, so we start out with a fallacious appeal to authority to refer to them. More often than not, the writings are targeted at the layperson who lacks the background to judge the claims or to compare it to what others say. Rarely do the writings even attempt to convince those who actually know something about the subject.

In other words, why are so many people open to accepting the writings of people who do not always have any standing in the field in which they write and who are unable to convince the people who actually understand the subject?

 

[UTEOTW]

And I am still curious about those superspeedway islands racing across the landscape and whose speeds have an exact proportional relationship to the speed of light.

Let us consider the Hawaiian Islands. When we examine these islands, we see that the lie in a chain. At the east end of the chain, we see islands still being built up by active volcanoes. The furtherest east, Hawaii, remains very rocky. As you move west, the islands show progressively greater signs of weathering and the activity of the volcanoes reduces and ends. Continue to move west and you find islands crumbling under their own weight and even more weathering. If you go far enough west, the islands no longer even poke above the surface, many having turned into ghostly atolls.

In other words, simple observation shows that they lie over a hot spot, that the ocean crust is moving relative to the hot spot and the eastern islands are the youngest.

It is even possible to accurately measure the current rate of movement of the islands.

Now here is where it gets interesting.

You can also go gather samples from the islands and date them. At the same time, you can observe just how far apart the islands are.

With a little simple math, you take the difference in ages between the islands and their physical distance from one another and calculate just how quickly the islands are moving over the hot spot.

As it turns out, the islands of various ages give results that closely match the currently observed rate of motion. That rate happens to be about 10 cm/yr.

If you wish to assert that the rate of decay of radioactive materials has changed in the past, then you must also explain just how it is that the motion of the islands has varied in lock step with the variation of decay rates. (4.5 billion years in 6000 years. You want to suggest that the islands moved at hundreds, even thousands of kilometers per year and have slowed down to 10 cm/yr and they slowed down at exactly the same proportion as the change in radioactive decay rates. Good luck.) Throw in the collapse and weathering rates that are consistent with the measured ages and distances while you are trying to explain this away.

Simply put, there is a linear relationship between age and distance for the various islands of the Hawaiian chain. If, as you assert, the speed of light was vastly different in the past and that the decay rates change in direct proportion with the speed of light, then it follows that the speed of the plate over the hot spot must have also varied exactly with the speed of light.

The Hawaiian Islands are just an example. We can do this for other hotspots as well. For example, there is a series of datable formations across the middle of the US that trace the passage of North America over the Bermuda hotspot. These show the same pattern. There are a series of formations related to the Yellowstone hotspot extending back into northern Utah.

Apparently plates all over the world varied their speed in lockstep with decays in the speed of light.

How interesting.

And we have not even considered the consequences of such compressed volcanism, all of the world's volcanic formations forming in an extremely compressed period of time. What about the heat. What about the CO2. What about the sulfur. Really, really what about the sulfur. What about the dust? What about the earthquakes.

But I really want to know if you expect us to believe that the earth's plates were once racing around at great speeds and slowed down to today's feeble pace in exact lockstep with the decay in light speed? How do you explain such?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

But then, when I start looking closer, something curious happens. It turns into a big cafeteria science project. You take a little bit from here and a little bit from there and you build a case. Never mind that you are drawing wildly different conclusions than those you reference. And then it gets worse. I go to the references and start looking them up, and the ones that you draw upon most heavily and those that are the furtherest from the rest of science, those on the margins and the fringes. And even these you just pick and choose and ignore whatever is inconvenient.

UTEOTW:

Not to derail this thread, but I feel your frustrations. On other threads regarding Catholicism I have corrected numerous times false representations of quotes that were cut and rearranged just to push an agenda. All it took was a simple, effortless fact-check on my part to expose this propaganda.

I used to be of these people who would refuse to review any other source (or simply verify the references) except the ones that fit my agenda. It’s like I was being told what to think and I wasn’t learning how to use my critical thinking skills and think for myself. The majority of fundamentalists don’t know how to think for themselves.

While I was a fundamentalist, I started taking college courses and had to take a ‘critical thinking’ class and I never realized just how closed mindedness and biased I was. My Sunday school teacher, associate pastor at the time told me that I wouldn’t remain a fundamentalist long taking such a class. He was right…

 

[BobRyan]

Not all models for evolutionism are "distinctively atheist" -- I certainly would agree with that statement - had you made it.

Not all who believe in atheist darwinism are themselves practicing atheists, some even claim to be Christian. I certainly would agree with that as well.

My argument is that "Darwinist evolutionism" as apposed to "I.D Evolutionism" is "distinctively atheist" and the distinction can be seen in this very subject - abiogenesis. As Richard Dawkins pointed out.

It is the obvious point that once you are willing to contradict the Bible to the extent that not only do you toss out Gen 1-3 but you also toss out the idea that God (not atheists) is the one who is capable of the creating life and that "The things that are MADE SHOW the invisible attributes of God" because they blatantly display intelligent Design" -- then you embrace "distinctively atheist" doctrines.

This is not an ad hominem comment - rather I am arguing the key point for this subject and highlighting its objective distinctive contribution to the entire debate. It is a uniquely atheist doctrine for evolutionism.

Suppose for example we COULD create life OURSELVES in the lab and the argument is "SEE the Word of God was wrong about God being the only one who CAN create life and now we propose that not only ARE there other ways for life to be created (i.e. man can also do it) but we propose that nature ITSELF can do it - even without man manipulating events in the lab to MAKE it happen". Such a direct challenge based on REAL evidence and SUCCESS in pointing to a viable mechanism for abiogenesis proven to work -- would be stiff indeed. Atheists world-wide would be rejoicing.

As has already been pointed out - for this part "of their story" there is no "Amino Acids evolved to some magical point where they assembled" there is no "evolution of the molecule via natural selection" or survival of the fittest or mutation... rather we HAVE those SAME molecules today. The same amino acids available to us in the lab as are imagined to have existed billions of years ago. NO missing link NEEDED here - just plain old chemistry that ALREADY exists today with great ability to "manipulate it" in the controled environment of the lab. Having utter atheist-darwinist failure in this exercise in chemistry - is a glaring FACT telling us that the FAITH the Atheist Darwinists are manifesting is seriously misplaced. But THEY have a good excuse for placing faith in it no matter what the facts -- THEY have no other choice! THEIR starting point is "there is NO GOD". No other option but abiogenesis for the atheists NO MATTER WHAT the results in the lab!

So what we have is the UNIQUE act of ATHEIST FAITH in a bible-contradicting process that HAS NEVER been shown to take place in nature NOR to be POSSIBLE to manipulate in a controlled environment! This is PURE atheist faith starting with "THERE IS NO GOD" and going to "SO How did life GET here to start with IF GOD is not the answer"... They provide the answer in the form of "Story telling". They then seek out devotees to believe in the stories EVEN though the SCIENCE done in the lab SHOWS that the amino acids in question CAN NOT BE MADE to assemble as required for the first eukaryote cell to come into existence!.

It is one of the purest forms of "Atheist" vs "God" doctrinal statements of faith given by Atheists on one side and Believers in God on the other.

Those Christians that take the illogical leap of placing FAITH in the Atheist stories are demonstratably compromised as BOTH the Atheists and the Bible believing Christians have been stating all along!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since we ARE on the subject of the atheist model (abiogenesis) vs the Bible model for the origin of Life Gen 1-2:3 that goes "evening and morning" by "evening and morning" for 7 days!

Questions that ARE worth asking.

#1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

#2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

#3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

#4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

#5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

#6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

In Christ,

Bob