Evolutionism leads to moral decay

I really do appreciate your efforts to formulate an objective rebuttal - but here again you get low marks.

IF I had made an argument like the one "you claim" -- then it should have gone like this... (Please try to embrace an ounce of objectivty in thinking "this one" through).

"You have to be a Christian BEFORE you can bring yourself to kill someone and the PROOF is that a Christian killed an abortion doctor".

HAD I actually made my argument in that form - THEN you (being the objective person that you are ) would simply point to all those murderers in the world that ARE NOT already Christian. AND then you would have SUPPORTED you wild claims so far with AN ACTUAL fact!

However - to date you have NOT responded to my argument with a single supportable fact.

And HERE I am actually having to FIX your bungled illustration so that it actually FITS the case of this argument.

(You are so devoid of objective thought here in your anxious attempts to prop up evolutionism - I am getting worried about you).

Please try harder to show at least the smallest degree of objectivity in your arguments. Otherwise it is embarrassing.

Yes but the PROOF that the argument failed was to SHOW murderers that were not FIRST Christians.

The PROOF that your argument holds any water at all was to SHOW Creationist-Christian groups engaged in rats-with-human-brain desacration of the image of God. It was to SHOW Creationist-Christian groups promoting the idea of instituting Gay Priests!

You don't "actually" support your wild claims with actual facts - so it is hard to do anything but try to assist you in making your own argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well at least you see the argument. And THE PROOF I give is that ONLY someone who FIRST falls for the blunders and myths of evolutionism would go on to desacrate the creation in such a way. The "IDEA" of the species originating by random combination - is KEY to the COMBINATION model they pursue.

Get it? Yet?

Here "again" you show your failure to embrace objective thought. In the link the BASIS for the argument AGAINST the experiments was an appeal to GOD MAKING MAN IN HIS IMAGE!!

What part of "every atheist evolutionist biologis" that you know - do you find going around arguing that "GOD MADE MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE"??!!

When was the last time you saw THAT as the PRO EVOLUTIONIST side of the debate??

Let me guess - "never" comes to mind.

Ask Dawkins, or Patterson (if you are Catholic) when they are thinking of using the idea that "WE ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD" as one of their evolutionist topics!!

What part of "rats with human brain" crime against humanity do you find me "agreeing with"???

How can you claim to be confused on my position on this one?

???

This is either your classic obfuscation and misdirection or you really don't understand the material.

The "pigs with human blood in their veins" example in the article IS NOT an example of just pumping human blood into pigs!!

Your gross fallacies of equivocation don't hold up at all!!

This thing of providing an objective "applicable" counter argument is really proving to be challenging for you - much more than I would have guessed.

When you say that I should not be complaining about rats-with-human-brains because after all -we have insullin today - you are again engaged in gross equivocation between things that are not alike.

In Christ,

Bob

 

More to the point - how can you claim the Gospel at all - John prefaces the Gospel with the role of Christ as CREATOR.

By STARTING the game with open denial of the Creator as HE describes it in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 and John 1:1-4 HOW in the world can you ever get to the Gospel while dumping Christ the Creator in favor of the Atheist's own doctrine on origins?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well - 100% of the scientists in the teaching institutions of my church are Bible believing Christian Creationists!

I suspect this is true with the Southern Baptists as well.

And we have already had an exhaustive thread on the many Christian Creationist scientists on record to date.

Hard to believe anyone is still so closed minded as to think that these scientists "don't exist"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Philip the point is that it is JUNK science!

Notice that in the quote the ATHEIST evolutionist will "admit" to the NON-SCIENCE nature of it - but our Christian friend can not bring himself to that level of objectivity!!

Speaking of the Wild blue-sky grandeose guesses of evolutionism's devotees - Patterson said

quote]Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:

There is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).[/quote]


Another source confesses it in this way.

 

Here is 'yet another' classic case of UTEOTW suppressing fact to the "extreme twisting logic" so as to deny objectivity AND rational thought all in the same response!

Such a poster-child for the "tactics" of the devotees to evolutionism.

Exhibit A.

Objective reader -- Notice carefully.

I THEN SHOW with DETAIL examples how this was actually the case.

A gross equivocation between Bible statements about what "enemy claims to be true" (ie. not what the Bible AUTHOR claims to be true) VS ACTUAL ATHEIST statements about what they REALLY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE about evolutionism's blunders.

Those two types of quotes have NOTHING in common except that the ENEMY in the Bible is the EVOLUTIONIST in real life!!

Notice that UTEOTW's tactic is

A. - NOT to respond to the ACTUAL details given in my response. (So as NOT to progress the argument).

B.- To simply REPEAT himself. (So as not to progress thought).

C. To "pretend" that he does not understand the simply reply given (so as to embarrass himself).

How in the WORLD can evolutionists live with that kind of thinking!!

Is it any wonder that the OP post points out that it is ONLY FROM AMONG THESE that you could ever find logic so befuddled as to engage in "rats-with-human-brain" experiments, AND efforts to promote the gay agenda in Christian clery - in the form of pushing for gay Bishops!!

UTEOTW seems to content himself with serving as the "poster child" for this problem in evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the point "already made" and then repeated above - and STILL not responded to by UTEOTW!! (All he does is "repeat himself")

Still waiting for a cogent reply - rational compelling thought in the form of a repsonse to the actual detail of the point above.

...

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said regrading the OP and the claim that ONLY an evolutionist could to the error of "rats-with-human-brain" and pushing for the gay-agenda among Christian Bishops --


"However - to date you have NOT responded to my OP argument with a single supportable fact."

Then "SHOW" it! SHOW that ANY rejection in the LINK used EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS ABOUT ORIGINS as a basis for rebuttal INSTEAD of the CREATIONIST theme that "GOD CREATED MAN DIRECTLY - IN HIS OWN IMAGE"!!

(I have asked for that objective approach from UTEOTW already - but he simply "repeats himself" instead of providing objective fact in his arguments... big surprise!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

As has already been stated - I am saying that all squares are rectangles and our "rebuttal" is that all rectangles are not squares. (I noted this point early in my responses - you simply ignore it and repeat yourself).

My point has not been that ALL evolutionists must eventually endorse gay rights or rats-with-human-brain experiments. My point is that these atrocities CAN ONLY come about after one has blundered into acceptance of evolutionism.

That is an easy claim to "TEST" or refute. All you have to do is find Christian Creationists doing the same thing.

But of course - you claim that earth has no Christians in scientific fields - (I mean not Creation believing Christians) -- which is just another myth you are clinging too so you can hold on to belief in evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So is this some kook-fringe of evolutionists?

hmm - sounds main-stream to me. And in the mainstream it is acceptable along with purely voluntary guidelines

There is the smoke screen issue of "parts" (like cat gut?) used to bind wounds (UTEOTW is quick to misdirect with that discussion) BUT the article is CLEAR - this is NOT the point!!

Get it???

Though clearly "Stated" - UTEOTW only give EXAMPLES designed to OBFUSCATE what is causing the uproar!!

How "unnexpected"?!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

There was only ONE "GROUP" example of rejection of this idea given IN the article.

It SPECIFICALLY identies that SAME salient aspect that UTEOTW tries to "obfuscate" in his list of questions of what we would tolerate and his wild-eyed blue-sky claims that I agree with these experiments so I should not complain about them!!

How sad that misdirection and obfuscation is documented on this thread as UTEOTW's first and primary reponse to any challenge to the false religion known today as "evolutionism".


Note of caution - it should be observed that even in this GROUP example of rejection - there is qualified acceptance of the criminal practice since there are still - evolutionists concepts eroding the core of values in those systems.

Life is still "just a toy to played with" in that system (For at the core it still embraces the evils of evolutionism) - but it does ratchet down the criminal abuse level a bit. (Nice going Canadians!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

So this DOES boil down to a matter of "morality" a matter of "moral values" and the fact that evolutionism REMOVES all markers for moral values established by God leaving only "relativism" to erode the faith and morals of the group "over time".

Notice the "my morals are as good as your morals so don't stop me from doing anything where the ends justifies the means IN MY VIEW".

What a perfect example of the slippery slope in the moral-decay-chain of evolutionism!!

Lest you delude yourself into thinking this is just pie-in-the-sky thinking that is immoral -- THIS moral decay - has "already" born fruit!

Hello! morally-numbed evolutionists!! Wake up!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The moral basis of this debate is one in which evolutionists are illequipped to participate. For them all is relative!

And limits are "arbitrarilyy set"

To understand the moral void of evolutionists when it comes to these experiments -- we must recall that evolutionism, at its very core, teaches rank error in the form of blashphemy against God's statement of origins.

In that system modification with descent - results in zillions of failed gross mutations that do not live long. New species come about through a pross of gross mutations, starvation, disease, random chance, predation and extermination.

By comparison these proposed experiments are highly exploitive, beneficial and benign as long as the "human results" are killed at some point. (At least in the minds of slipping and sliding moral-decay-chain-bound evolutionists).

All of them propose CONTINUING the experiments "in some form".

Having lost their moral compass when it comes to origins and the sanctity of life - the existence of the species - what else might you expect??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think you finally "get it"!!!

Wow that is great!

All squares are rectangles and this does not force all rectangles to BE squares!!

What an objective moment for you!

See the point was to show that TO GO down those failed morally-corrupt avenues ONE HAD TO FIRST embrace the doctrinaly corrupt teaching on origins embraced by evolutionists!!

That is the NECESSARY PRECURSOR for the realm of error being discussed on this thread!

Evolutionism destroys the ROOT of the argument for sanctity of the species due to origins!! (Obviously) and the RESULT is a relativistic moral decay chain protected and nourished by the the truth-decay-chain of evolutionim.

The fact that you might actually "grasp" the argument that I am making (though doubless arguing against it yourself) - is such a huge step forward for you in our discussions!

You are exceeding my expectations for you..

Nope. (Obviously not).

I have already given the example - whose DETAIL you continue to dodge.

The fact that SOME Christians murder abortionists does not SHOW that to be a murderer you must FIRST be a Christian.

This was the OBVIOUS exmaple I gave to derail your attempts to obfuscate and pretend that you do not understand the argument I am making.

Apparently you are back to "meeting" my expectations.

Well it was nice to think for a moment that you were finally allowing yourself not to have to "pretend" that you don't get the argument.

In Christ,

Bob