Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Johnv]

What is science? Science is knowledge. It is knowledge gained by observation; classified in an orderly manner.
The most important characteristic of science is that it needs an observer. If there is on observer it is not science. Science is knowledge gained by observation.

By that reckoning, then, you must also assert that creationism is not science.

 

[Darron Steele]

It just seemed odd that a person who believes the Bible would make a comment like you did.

A person who believes the Bible would not have any doubt that all truth should conform to the Bible.

The other type of person who would be comfortable with the comment you made is a non-Christian.

Maybe you are a Christian who does not believe the Bible. I have known some good ones. They are out there, and you might be one for all I know.....

I am not one of those. Not in the slightest.

Clearly, you are someone who does not believe the Bible:

.... In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

Even in books that are intended accounts facts do not necessarily line up ...

By your own words, both here and elsewhere, you deny that Scripture is the highest truth. Here, you are explicitly clear your denial that factual accounts are accurate.

You do not believe the Bible. Believing the Bible means just that: if the intention of the text is to tell us what happened, then that is what happened. If you say `not so' or `not likely so' then you do not believe it.

You are one of those Bible skeptics who does not want to admit it, lest Bible believers cease to give your attacks on Scripture heed. It is a very common strategy by those who seek to undermine Scripture: keep Bible believers listening by pretending to believe the Bible, while you make every effort to undermine Scripture.

Now, are these minor divergences important to the believer? No, because they're not important to the context of each account, and don't detract from scripture's inerrancy at all.

Nonsense.

If the intent was to tell us that something happened and give details of how, and it does not do so accurately, it is an error. Inerrancy = no error.

You are not being truthful when you claim to believe the Bible. Oh, and please do not go on the `I want respectful conversation' trip again. I have made no effort to be unkind to you, but that does not mean that I should not bring up observations that are relevant.

I doubted you the first time, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You have shown yourself dishonest. You ought to be proud of what you believe enough to not want to deny it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Darron Steele,

Your post is very conspiratorial. I'm almost suprised you didn't accuse our brother of being a Jesuit spy. At least you didn't accuse him of smut like you did me. Here is your accusation

You are one of those Bible skeptics who does not want to admit it, lest Bible believers cease to give your attacks on Scripture heed. It is a very common strategy: keep Bible believers listening by pretending to believe the Bible, while you make every effort to undermine Scripture.

So you don't take his or mine word that we believe the bible just not how you interpret it. Why don't we have your exact view? Maybe because we're being honest with our evaluation. Certainly, God's word can stand up to scrutiny! But can your interpretation? You state

By your own words, both here and elsewhere, you deny that Scripture is the highest truth. Here, you are explicitly clear your denial that factual accounts are accurate

When I challenge you to show where he has indicated Scripture is not the highest truth. And then you make some comment about scripture related factual accounts. Are you saying there is a monster with two horns and ten heads? Because in the context of the scripture verse to which he referred the scripture wasn't meant to be taken that way. This statement is a shameful one

You do not believe the Bible. Believing the Bible means just that: if the intention of the text is to tell us what happened, then that is what happened. If you say `not so' or `not necessarily so' then you do not believe it.

You generalize which is usually a bad method of debate. The fact is he doesn't believe what you do about a particular verse. Is the bible right here?

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ

Yet Matthew list 41 generations including Abraham and Jesus yet 14 times 3 equals 42. So is Matthew in error or was he making a point? Messiah = decendent from David Hebrew numerical equivolent to David is 14. Since, Matthew is writing to the Hebrews he's showing that Jesus is Messiah. Or according to you the bible is in error? Who believes the bible more I question you? Or how about these gems or accuracy:

According to Genesis, Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem (5:32). Noah was 600 years old when the Flood waters were on the earth (7:6). Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood (11:10). This is a mistake. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, then he should have been 102 years old.

Or ;
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign." 2Ch 36:9
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign." 2Ki 24:8
How long did Omri reign?
From the 31st to the 38th year of Asa's reign, Omri is said to have reigned twelve years. An impossibility. 1Ki 16:23,28-29
How long did Gad tell David he was to suffer famine?
Three years. 1Ch 21:11-12
Seven years. 2Sa 24:13
And many more like it. I don't thing you understand what innerrancy means. I don't question biblical inerrancy. But you can't always hold to the literralness for every verse.

 

[Johnv]

By your own words, both here and elsewhere, you deny that Scripture is the highest truth.

You cannot find one example where I've denied scripture as 100% truth.

Here, you are explicitly clear your denial that factual accounts are accurate.

I do no such thing. Scripture itself, in those examples, attests to the fact that differences in account do not detract from scriptural truth.

You do not believe the Bible. Believing the Bible means just that: if the intention of the text is to tell us what happened, then that is what happened.

Exactly. Emphasis on "if the intention of the text". Believing the Bible requires the reader to properly discern the intent of the author. That is exactly what I have consistently maintained. People who do discard the intention of the text are unbelievers of scripture. People who disagree on the intention of a text are not.

It is a very common strategy by those who seek to undermine Scripture

So let me get this staight. Pointing out that one gospel says Jesus' robe was red, while another says it was purple, is undermining scripture? Absolutely not! In fact, I noted expressly that this difference in account does not undermine scriptural truth at all. A person who undermines scripture is one who claims that those differences mean scripture isn't true.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron Steele,

Your post is very conspiratorial. I'm almost suprised you didn't accuse our brother of being a Jesuit spy. At least you didn't accuse him of smut like you did me. ...

Thinkingstuff: your smut was a persistent effort to make Annsi appear to be taking positions she did not.

I would say in light of your effort to make, add to, and keep up baseless accusations against her, you are not in a position to lecture anyone.

I think it is very telling that you will seek to do as you did against Annsi, a Bible believer, but when a detractor of Scripture is pointed out doing so, you rush to that person's support. It says a lot about your sympathies.

You cannot find one example where I've denied scripture as 100% truth.

Really? Emphasis mine:

.... In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

Even in books that are intended accounts facts do not necessarily line up (which is not a problem for the believer, because they're not meant to). For example, when Jesus was crucified, Matthew says he was given vinegar, while Mark says he was given wine with myrrh. According to Matthew, Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", Luke says his last words were "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", and John says his last word were "It is finished". When he was mocked and given a robe, Matthew says the robe was scarlet, while John says it was purple. At Jesus' tomb after the resurrection, Matthew records one angel, Mark records a young man, Luke records two men, and John records two angels.

Now, are these minor divergences important to the believer? No, because they're not important to the context of each account, and don't detract from scripture's inerrancy at all.

You are saying that the "intended accounts" where "facts do not necessarily line up" the "facts do not necessarily line up" -- well, a Bible believer would say that because the Bible is true, it is necessary that the facts line up.

You do not take that stance. In the "intended accounts" the "facts that do not necessarily line up" are "not important" but you maintain that the "facts do not necessarily line up" in the "intended accounts."

I have known Christians who do not believe the Bible, and they do not pretend to. I do not fully understand the detractors of Scripture who deny what they really believe: if your vision for the church is really so great, I would think you would want to disclose it fully. It is easier to promote agendas out of harmony with Scripture if you can cunningly convince church people to not always trust the Bible or to think what it says is "not important." The history of hijacked denominational organizations bears witness to the sort of thing you are hiding.

Fortunately, after a couple of hours, you cannot edit your own posts. Deny that you believe what you believe all you want -- your posts will not go away.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff: your smut was a persistent effort to make Annsi appear to be taking positions she did not.

I would say in light of your effort to make, add to, and keep up baseless accusations against her, you are not in a position to lecture anyone.

I think it is very telling that you will seek to do as you did against Annsi, a Bible believer, but when a detractor of Scripture is pointed out doing so, you rush to that person's support. It says a lot about your sympathies.

See you still use the term smut which I've already defined and showed that it was an inappropiate assertion. I on the other hand presented my case about what I understood annsi to be saying and I even replied to her cordially. You've taken it to the next level. I made no accusations to annsi. I think its very telling that you avoid the truth I've shown in my last post as to the state of confidence you have in your assertions. My sympathies are clear. Though by your statement you indicate that they are toward detraction. How very little you understand about my sympathies. I don't detract from scripture but up hold them in their context. I think people are in dangerous water when they ignore truth or are confronted by it and plug their ears. I remember witnessing to one man where I told him Jesus would forgive him of his sins if he would just come to Jesus. He handled the situation by plugging his fingers in his ears and stompped around the room shouting " I WILL NOT LISTEN, I WILL NOT LISTEN" In a way you seem like that to me. Too much rest on your interpretation (with regard to genesis creation account to make it very clear) that any challenge to it you behave similarily. You ever wonder why?

 

[BobRyan]

No. Facts are facts. There is no debating the existance of a fact. Science views observable phenomenon (a fact) and attempts to learn something from it to provide a general principle that can be repeated.

Which is why the doctrines of evolutionism can not be classed as actual science. They are simply 'bad religion' -- though you might call them junk-science since usually those doctrines are expressed in hijacked science terminology.

Dinosaurs cannot be explained satisfactorily by the 6 day creation account nor in the Noah story.

Yes they can.

I just don't believe the creation account...

The fact that you do not believe the creation account as expressed in scripture and as summarized in LAW in Ex 20:8-11 is already obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now given that Thinkingstuff has already admitted that he does not actually believe the creation account as it is written -- it is much easier to see why he objected to the former atheist evolutionist science professor below - becoming Christian and debunking the flawed junk-science myths of evolutionism.

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

However it has taken one or two pages of dialogue for that truth to unfold.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

By that reckoning, then, you must also assert that creationism is not science.

Your right. It isn't science. The Bible is not a science book. It is book of God's revelation to mankind meant to be taken by faith. However it is backed up by fact. Thus my faith is not blind faith. For example I was saved because I put my faith and trust in Christ--the risen Christ who paid the penalty of my sin. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most historically attested facts of all of history. It is the cornerstone of Christianity. All that Christ said and did, he demonstrated as true because he rose from the dead. He continued to say on earth: "Believe me for the very works sake." But his greatest work was his resurrection, something that no man can duplicate.

The Bible is not a science book; but science does not contradict the Bible. In fact it proves over and over again the Bible to be true. Before they practiced blood-letting on Washington, and killed him, they should have known that "the life of the flesh is in the blood." (Lev.17:11).

Yesterday they came out with new research.
"There is no nutritional advantage of eating "organic foods." I've been saying that for more than 30 years, and wrote a paper on long ago, since all foods are organic. The Bible also says that God created all foods and that they were good, and nothing was to be refused. This is nothing new. It was written in the Bible 2000 years ago.

New research says that people with a happy countenance live longer.
The Bible says "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
That was written more than 3,000 years ago.

The corollary of that same truth is written this way:
People with much stress live shorter lives. Duh!

There is so much archeological evidence that support factual scientific evidence that is overwhelming.
It is not a book of science; but science supports the Bible, and it supports Creation, the Flood, the dispersion in Genesis 10,11, and many other great events.

 

[DHK]

Not true DHK. Has anyone seen an atom? No, but it can be derived at scientifically and have testable results. Thus we know atoms exist.

Are you sure that no one has seen the atom?
What was man doing when he "split the atom"?
What does man see when he looks at molecules?
Why does he know that they are made up of atoms?

Everything he knows about molecular biology, he knows by observation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is why the doctrines of evolutionism can not be classed as actual science. They are simply 'bad religion' -- though you might call them junk-science since usually those doctrines are expressed in hijacked science terminology.




Yes they can.



The fact that you do not believe the creation account as expressed in scripture and as summarized in LAW in Ex 20:8-11 is already obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

That last quote is misleading. You need to quote it in its entirety. In fact, its deceptive and leads to your next post which is also desceptive. You're being disingenous. IN fact I do believe the creation account as expressed in scripture and summerized in the Law.

Days 1-3 General outline
Days 4-6 more specific
Law challenges all other gods.

But you can't debate fairly can you? You have to take a partial quote and fit it to your ends. disingenous.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you sure that no one has seen the atom?
What was man doing when he "split the atom"?
What does man see when he looks at molecules?
Why does he know that they are made up of atoms?

Everything he knows about molecular biology, he knows by observation.

Yes we have not seen the atom. And we see the effects when we put the atomic theories to the test which verifies our belief that it exist in the forms we suggest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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? 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. Your argument If it is indeed the one you want to submit falls short. So you have to do your best with ad hominem attacks with out reasonable reply. You have to believe that we don't believe the bible or yours is in question. See how slim that type of faith is?

 

[DHK]

Yes we have not seen the atom. And we see the effects when we put the atomic theories to the test which verifies our belief that it exist in the forms we suggest.

I haven't seen the wind either.
Neither have I seen the electricity that turns on my lights.
I know its there by its results. If I want to feel, I can always stick a fork into one of the outlets. One of my children did that when they were small. That is called observation. We have five senses. (Some claim to have a sixth, but don't believe it).

Take a science lesson from Jesus:
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

There is more than one sense.
The blind person also learns by observation.

 

[Johnv]

You are saying that the "intended accounts" where "facts do not necessarily line up" the "facts do not necessarily line up" -- well, a Bible believer would say that because the Bible is true, it is necessary that the facts line up.

That argument is similar to the KJVO argument: "The KJV contains no errors. Therefore, if someone who is not KJVO finds an error, then it must not be an error, because the KJV contains no errors, and anyone who believes the KJV has an error is not a bible believer."

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

It is not a prerequisite John.
I believe that the Bible is God's revelation to mankind. Because it is God's revelation; God's words, it therefore contains no errors. (I am not speaking as a KJVO as in grammar, OE words, spelling, etc.)
When skeptics point out supposed errors, I research them, knowing that there must be a reason for any supposed discrepancy. There are no contradictions in the Bible. This has been shown over and over again throughout the ages. Books, numerous of them, have been written on this subject. Apologetics is a popular subject among some Christians. I accept the Bible by faith that it is the inspired Word of God. That is the prerequisite to my faith. When I accept that much, everything else falls in order.

 

[Johnv]

It is not a prerequisite John.
I believe that the Bible is God's revelation to mankind.

As do I, And I don't believe anyone disputes that. I'm relieved to hear someone as your self confirm that the belief that the facts in scripture must line up is not a prerequisite for scripture bring true (even if we do't necessary come to the same conclusion).

When skeptics point out supposed errors, I research them, knowing that there must be a reason for any supposed discrepancy.

Very good so do I. Be aware that I'm not a skeptic. I likewise research them in hopes of uncovering the reason for the discrepency. The discrepency is typically not in what is written, but in our interpretation of what is written. If scripture describes an immovable earth, but science says the earth moves, it means that the passage wasn't intended to describe an earth that doesn't move. If scripture describes a flat earth, but science says the earth is round, it means that the passage wasn't intended to describe an earth that if flat. Hence, if scripture describes an earth that is 6000 years old, but science says that the earth is older, then it is within the realm of possibility that the passages weren't intended to describe a 6000 year earth.

Apologetics is a popular subject among some Christians.

You speak with wisdom. I am well-versed, and formally trained in apoligetics, and highly recommend the same for others interested in the topic. Learning apologetics is incredibly spiritually rewarding.

 

[Jedi Knight]

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

 

[Revmitchell]

You speak with wisdom. I am well-versed, and formally trained in apoligetics, and highly recommend the same for others interested in the topic. Learning apologetics is incredibly spiritually rewarding.

What class did you take for your humility?

 

[Darron Steele]

Written to Johnv

What class did you take for your humility?

I think a course in honesty would be needed as well.

It just seemed odd that a person who believes the Bible would make a comment like you did.

A person who believes the Bible would not have any doubt that all truth should conform to the Bible.

The other type of person who would be comfortable with the comment you made is a non-Christian.

Maybe you are a Christian who does not believe the Bible. I have known some good ones. They are out there, and you might be one for all I know.

I am not one of those. Not in the slightest.

Then we see this.

...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.

As we can see, he denies being "Christian who does not believe the Bible" and says "Not in the slightest" and asserts
a) "facts cited in scripture do not necessarily do not line up" and
b) that I "as a believer have a problem" because he asserts "the facts cited in Scripture do not necessarily line up."

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.

He wants to have it both ways: claim to be a Bible believer, all the while discouraging belief in the Bible. This is typical of Bible detractors who want to hijack the church: they often claim to have a high view of Scripture, even that they believe it to be true and the Word of God, but they redefine those terms to allow inclusion of their beliefs to the contrary. He seems to be educated in ways to claim to value and believe Scripture while trying to convince others to adopt the opposite.

If he admits his intentions of undermining Scripture among Bible believers, his efforts will fall on `deaf ears.' Therefore, like many before him in church history, he is untruthful, dishonest about this.