Is Gen 1-3 "real" or is Atheist Darwinism "Real"?

[BobRyan]

Rew, you are quite intelligent, and very rational at the age of 19. You exhibit more reasoning ability than 100 literalists who think that their narrow interpretation of scripture is the ONLY true one. It is not up to them to define Baptist in a broad sense. They can do so for their own autonomous church congregation, but it is a shock for some to come on this board and be exposed to Baptists with viewpoints other than their own.

Keep questioning, keep thinking, keep exploring, and rejecting dogma if it is shown to be flawed.

God bless.

Your blind faith in the discredited doctrines and junk-science methods of atheist darwinism is beginning to show.

But I commend you on preaching style in service to your cause.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm rather confused by the whole Patterson deal, but one thing I did notice was the date. It is nearly 30 years old, .

My initial quote from him was 1993... or were you not really serious about the "30 year" argument above?

The point is - rather than simply being "confused" by an atheist darwinist who in fact DID have some moments of clarity - why not learn from him?

UTEOTW will slavishly ignore anything that Patterson says that does not conform to his own blind faith to all things atheist darwinist. But why should you swallow that same devotion to a discredited doctrine?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Well how about the latest example where we have TWO camps of EVOLUTIONISTS duking it out. One camp is on the "intelligent design" side of the fence and the other on the atheist darwinist side of the fence.

Bob, you definitely haven't done your research here. Intelligent design(ID) has NOTHING to do with evolution and it is the farthest thing from science as you can get. ID is an abomination of both Christianity and science, and I plan to fight in every way I can to keep it out of the public schools in my country. Here's a 1 hour lecture from Ken Miller on the Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Ken Miller IS a creationist arguing for intelligent design. HIS idea of it is to fit it into his world view of creationism.

But that is NOT what we find happening in most cases. Usually it is EVOLUTIONISTS that are debating IN FAVOR of intelligent design!

The brain-washing coming from atheist darwinists is that "only a creationist would argue in favor of intelligent design". But they RELY on the ignorance of their reader when they make such wild bogus claims.

Read the transcripts from the trial in Penn last year and you will SEE that BOTH sides were evolutionsts! One side promoting darwinism and the other the "intelligent design" model for evolutionism.

How can you even begin to study and understand these issues while just drinking nothing but koolaide from atheist darwinists???



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
And as Simpson proved to the world in his horse series - the fraudulent practices of evolutionists in the past have resulted in such glaring examples of story telling regarding a sequence "that never happened in all of nature" such that even atheist darwinists (acutal atheists in this case) all agree that it is "lamentable" - the way the fraud was promoted before school children.

Rew_10

Bob, please provide a link to your claims.

Are you serious? Would you actually let inconvenient facts get in the way of the atheist darwinist stories they are telling you??

If so -- you shall have your reference



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
"And then through starvation, carnage and extinction God eventually evolved both APE and Man on parallel tracks. But one day as hominids by the millions sat bashing in their daily catch of monkey-brains God decided to doom them all to hell because one of them -- lets call him Adam-- had a bad thought".

"And then as God observed them slinking about their caves - He decided to RESCUE them from that hell-to come by sending His Son after they all were sufficiently walking upright so that ONCE again they could be returned to that paradise from which they fell".

What a joke this makes of the Gospel itself!!

The Bible wasn't written and bound by God, Bob. Sounds like you're afraid to me.[/quote

No ... but 2Tim 3:15-16 "I do read".

BTW - you still did not address the point... where did you learn to do that? Let me guess - Atheist Darwinists again?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Can Darwin be trusted to KNOW something about Darwinism's naturalism -- when HE says at the end of it all - IT IS atheism??!!

Rew_10
Please provide a link to where Darwin states that "Darwinsim is atheism", or something of that nature.

And you would be interested in Darwin giving up on God stating that his own teaching on Darwinism was not compatible with the Bible -- and taking this stand at the end of his life --- because why??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
"The [b]ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be
. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . [b]As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net[/b], and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)

Quote:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

Quote:
"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

Quote:
"High school textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

Quote:
"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.[/b] For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

Quote:
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953),

 

[BobRyan]

The question for the "thinking reader" is "How in the world can a fossil SEQUENCE that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE be dug up and presented AS IF it were fact"??

But that would be the thinking, objective, well-reasoned reader of course. Not one slavishly devoted to the discredited doctrines of atheist darwinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I could have predicted that "that" is where we would get dead silence from the true believers in atheist darwinism.

But it also raises the question of why Chrstians would take such giant leaps of faith in favor of atheist darwinism over what God says! How in the world did Atheists become the higher-authority to be sought out and believed in faithfully (no matter what the disconfirming inconvenient facts) - over God Himself!!!??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

The dishonesty of quoting scientists out of context and asserting meanings that they did not intend has been pointed out numerous times

It is obvious that you think that it is valid to argue by putting words in peoples mouths with which they would not agree.

It would be a waste time and electrons to go through your quotes again. They are useless and meaningless without context. And has been shown time and tiome again, when the quotes are put into the context of the whole writing and into the context of the other writings of the authors, your quotes are exposed for the trash which they are.

Any one who wishes to see so can simply use the search function.

But it is very telling that the best argument that you can come up with is quoting scientists out of context and asserting meanings with which the authors would not agree.

 

[Helen]

UTE, those aren't 'out of context' in the sense that they mean something different than what they seem to mean here as quoted. Be careful about your accusations. The quotes Bob used on Eohippus are pretty clear. The 'horse' series is totally false and is known to be. Why is it still used?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

The dishonesty of quoting scientists out of context and asserting meanings that they did not intend has been pointed out

Historic revisionism is not helping you make the case now that you failed to make earlier UTEOTW.

Recall that when you admitted to "inferring" false ideas into my posts that I have not placed there - and then trying to accuse ME of saying what you merely "insert" as your "proof" of me misquoting someone - I simply pointed out that such transparent tricks could never actually work outside of your imaginative thought experiments with reality.

How in the world can you keep coming back "pretending" to have done something successfully - when in fact the posts show that you failed??

Who do you think that is fooling? ME?

It is obvious that you think that it is valid to argue by putting words in peoples mouths with which they would not agree.

That discribes what you admitted to doing in the case of my posts - but you have YET to show that I have done it.

Why do you keep pretending that this little inconvenient fact keeps escaping you UTEOTW???

But it is very telling that the best argument that you can come up with is quoting scientists

Indeed I quote atheist darwinists -- your idols -- remember?

out of context

Your unproven accusation - oft-repeated but NEVER supported is "noted again". Recall that I have devoted an entire thread to giving YOU the opportunity to sustain you wild accusations with actual fact -- and you failed... in fact you RAN from that thread and had to be begged and pleaded with to come back to the thread created FOR YOU and support your own slander against me.

and asserting meanings with which the authors would not agree.

If I have "asserted a meaning" then show it --

If I have said "this atheist darwinist is no longer an atheist darwinis" (which is the mind-numbing argument you have used in the past AS IF I have ever made such a statement) -- then SHOW it instead of engaging in entertaining thought experiments where you simply "imagine it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

UTE, those aren't 'out of context' in the sense that they mean something different than what they seem to mean here as quoted. Be careful about your accusations. The quotes Bob used on Eohippus are pretty clear. The 'horse' series is totally false and is known to be. Why is it still used?

You are being serious?

You think that the scientists that Bob quotes are of the opinion that the "'horse' series is totally false and is known to be."

Every single time that Bob has brought up one of these horse quotes, it has been easy to show by going back to the wider context of the quote and to the context of what else the author has said on the subject that they mean something completely different that what is being asserted by Bob in the way that he is quoting.

And you now as well.

Each time, the quote has been describing how when there were few horse fossils that the assumption of a slow, gradual transformation was applied. When the wealth of horse fossils available today, in excess of fifty genera and many more species, started being studied it became apparent that the transition was any thing but gradual. It was jerky. It was highly branching. Some things remained unchanged for millions of years and then changed rapidly. Parallel lineages evolved for millions of years. Some changes may even have temporarily reversed. Migrations happened.

The evolution of the horse from Eohippus is still the accepted theory in science. To say otherwise is to misrepresent what the authors are saying. And it should also be clear that just because this theory is false in your eyes and for whatever reasons you may suppose, and I have read your "essay" on the subject, does not provide an excuse to suggest that the scientists he quotes also no longer accept the evolution of the horse from Eohippus.

And if the persons being quoted would not agree with the conclusions being drawn from the quotes, then it is out of context. Clearly.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
and asserting meanings with which the authors would not agree.

If I have "asserted a meaning" then show it --

If I have said "this atheist darwinist is no longer an atheist darwinis" (which is the mind-numbing argument you have used in the past AS IF I have ever made such a statement) -- then SHOW it instead of engaging in entertaining thought experiments where you simply "imagine it".

This is a "dance" that UTEOTW does time after time enviting me to expose his wornout false accusations.

The quotes stand and can be easily understood EVEN though UTEOTW imagines they can not.

The quotes DO NOT claim that atheist darwinist stopped being atheist darwinists. Obviously -- but this always comes as a surprise to UTEOTW who considers that ANY TIME Atheist Darwinism is not shown in a good light - he must be having a bad day and BobRyan must have done something amiss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In UTEOTW's continual quest for "revisionist history" we get him to climb out on THIS limb -- time after time

UTEOTW

Each time, the quote has been describing how when there were few horse fossils that the assumption of a slow, gradual transformation was applied. When the wealth of horse fossils available today, in excess of fifty genera and many more species, started being studied it became apparent that the transition was any thing but gradual. It was jerky. It was highly branching. Some things remained unchanged for millions of years and then changed rapidly. Parallel lineages evolved for millions of years. Some changes may even have temporarily reversed. Migrations happened.

In all of UTEOTW's "stories" some key inconvenient fact is covered up.

In the case of this bit of revisionist story-telling UTEOTW PRETENDS that the issue for atheist darwinists is "that they told a story using model-A when they later all agreed to imagine that story using model-B instead".

How pathetic (to borrow one of UTEOTW's summaries).

The inconvenient "detail" is that THEY DID NOT simply "tell a story" in this rare case... (for normally they WOULD simply confine themselves to story telling)... but in THIS case they claimed to have DUG UP A FOSSIL SEQUENCE SHOWING the very DETAILS of the story they were telling.

When they say "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" they are referring to their own BOGUS manufactured fraudulent fossil SERIES that was simply ARRANGED by their own DEVOTEE to FIT their story telling!

In other words - telling a story then UPDATING the story (as UTEOTW would spin it for us if only he could) is NOT their problem. Their problem is in claiming to have FOUND the very fossil sequence IN THE FOSSIL record that SHOWED THE DETAILs of that failed story - the VERY DETAILS they NOW assert are utterly false!

But there is something far more facinating here than the dishonesty, perfidity and junk-science methods of atheist darwinists like Simpson and others who now ADMIT to the mistake... of FAR more interest is that ANY CHRISTIAN could POSSIBLY cling ON to the old discredited lies of those atheist darwinists - WHILE THEY ADMIT to their mistakes and move on to more story telling!

How in the world can it be that a Christian is "left behind" faithfully defending the abandoned fort of Atheist Darwinists on that debunked, discredited horse series SHOWN in their text books????

This causes me to feel some sense of saddness for UTEOTW.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And if the persons being quoted would not agree with the conclusions being drawn from the quotes, then it is out of context. Clearly.

Here at last is perhaps the very saddest part of UTEOTW's downfall in the junk-science candy-store of atheist darwinism. He now makes the totally discredited argument that IF an Atheist Darwinist ADMITS to any flaw in the story-telling or methods of Darwinists -- that could possibly be used by a bible Believing Christian to SHOW to the world that the FLAW they ADMIT to actually EXISTS -- then by definition it MUST be some kind of fancy "misquote" SINCE the atheist darwinist will not view their OWN MISTAKE as a reason for THEM to become a Bible believing Christian!!

If UTEOTW were not so sincere about this blunder it would be laughable!!

I SHOW where Atheist DARWINISTs admit to their OWN blunders and I conclude that their methods are NOT sound -- but rather that the statements of Atheist Darwinists prove that they are using the methods of junk-science and blind-devotion. Proven because they in some cases will ADMIT to what has been done wrong for ALL to see and explore.

UTEOTW argues that IF THEY would not ALSO agree with that conclusion - then ANY statement they have made no matter how easily seen and read by all - MUST have been taken out of context!!

If I had not seen him circle back to this dead argument so often - I would be tempted to think that he was just having a bad day.

Were I to stoop to using UTEOTW's own failed argument against him - I could easily claim that every quote he ever made of anything I said was "dishonest and taken out of context" as he repeatedly tries to accuse me of doing when I give EXACT QUOTES of his atheist darwinist icons. But as I said - I can not use such methods.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Are you going to continue to defend Bob? Do you really think that the scientists that he quotes do not think the the modern horse evolved from Eohippus or something very similar?

 

[BobRyan]

Each time UTEOTW "quotes himself" when trying to complain about my argument - you JUST KNOW he is up to his old tricks!

Reader beware!

The junk-science methods of darwinism used here by UTEOTW as we see in his transparent effort in the previous post should be warning to all that -- accepting junk-science for-fact in one area will ultimately spread to other areas in your life as UTEOTW is demonstrating.

In Christ,

Bob