See who is a Creation Scientist

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I am not a professed Darwinian evolutionist, nor am I a fan of Carl Sagan. What I am is one who is a student of near eastern language, culture and writing. I guess I can pretty well say you are not!

You quite obviously already have your mind made up before you do any research on anything - and that's OK. Evidently God has blessed you with a content heart and mind.

Let me ask you, honestly - do you really understand anything I have said - or do you simply recognize it as being a non-fundie stance and bash from there?

 

[BobRyan]

yes yes - all that is old news and tired ranting.

Lets get back to the text - you know "exegesis" the dread of those seeking to undermine it.

Why not actually use proven methods of Bible interpretation.

Here is what the NT Gospel writers SAY about that text you "So" want to bend around to some "easter bunny source"...

2 Peter 1 -

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

I already gave this before - and this is where you seem to fly off the handle into never-never land as if this is just "fundi-bashing liberals" to actually "believe" Peter.

How "odd".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But then evolutionists feel unloved when you tell them that you believe the text of God's Word instead of the junk-science doctrines of evolutionism.

So I guess it is really not that much of a change from those who ALSO try to get the Bible "Written by the easter bunny religions" of Moses' day.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Perhaps that's why Bob reacts so strongly to hearing about evolution.

Even if we don't buy your personal doctrines, it doesn't mean you are unloved, Bob.

We just prefer Genesis to the Book of Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm "Evolutionists prefer the book of Genesis".

Now that is a great myth! (I guess if you are in the business fo promoting myth - that is as good as any).

I think Dawkings gave an excellent observation about the claims of EVOLUTIONISM even though evolutionists here don't like what atheist evolutionists admit about evolutionism - ...

Too bad you can't edit his statements or declare him to be a "lesser evolutionists".

It is "no accident" that evolutionism is the one and only faith system left to atheists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Marcia,

They're certainly not identical but they are similar. The point I continue to make is that we as 20th century Christians have traditionally held that Genesis 1 should be literal. In fact I'd argue that most of us wouldn't even consider otherwise! I think that no one can prove it either way.

Your post obviously neither proves nor refutes anything. Rather it does show the similarities of the two. I do not fault one for believing that Genesis 1 is literally true, if he/she simply wants to take the bible at face value. What I do have a problem with is those that automatically insist (without knowledge of near eastern studies or language) that the literal way is the only way, often making accusation against those with whom they disagree, referring to them as "liberals" or "so-called Christians".

Let me ask you this. Have you made up your mind before doing the research?

Hello, Charles,

I know my posts did not refute or prove anything, but neither is there proof for statements that Genesis comes from pagan myths. I was just trying to show the other side.

As to your questions here, actually, I spent most of my life as a non-Christian and laughed at Christians who believed in Genesis 1 (along with all their other beliefs which I regarded as narrow-minded and uneducated). This issue of creation became an issue for me as a new believer and I studied what I could. I equipped myself with some info for my son who ended up in a debate in 8th grad English taking the "con" side on evolution. The students in the very liberal pro-evolution school then voted that my son presented the most believable and convincing argument! That is amazing if you knew what the school was like. (Okay, finished bragging on my son there ).

I agree that Christians should not call other Christians who do not believe that Gen 1 is literal names. I am against that.

In seminary, my prof (who teaches Greek, Hebrew, and OT) presented sound refutations of Hugh Ross' arguments. Actually, is boils down to Genesis itself and how I view the Bible that convinces me that Genesis is literal. This is quite a switch for me from my former beliefs and only God could do this.

 

[BobRyan]

Well then - Richard Dawkings is correct about one thing. The atheist's evolutionism and the Christian Gospel do not go together. They are 100% opposed to each other starting with Genesis chapter 1.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Richard Dawkins has no special expertice in the area of religion and quoting him on religious matters is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. If you wish to tell us what he thinks on science, that is germane. If you wish to tell us what he thinks of Genesis, that is his uninformed opinion and does not matter to the discussion.

It does not matter what philosophy anyone tries to apply to a scientific theory, they are wrong. The science come from the data. People do the same thing with Einstein. AE speaks of relativity and some people take that to mean ALL things are relative and go off on their philosophy about that. No matter. Does not affect the correctness of relativitiy.

Some people try to make philosophical or religious aspects out of evolution. They are incorrect to do so and it bears not at all on the validity of the theory. Just like we as Christians are not all condemned because some nut decides to blow up an abortion clinic in the next county over out of his supposed CHristian beliefs.

 

[BobRyan]

Richard Dawkings is a very good source for the "claims of evolutionism" and the claims made for and by evolutionsm.

This is so blatantaly obvious all our Christian evolutionists can do in response is try to obfuscate that obvious point by claiming that if he is not ALSO a Christian theologian then he can not possibly know what Evolution CLAIMS to be saying.

Now the strength of your oft-repeated argument in that area - has never been "solid", but you seem to enjoy repeating it as if you have made a point.

Yet... at the end... Richard Dawkings IS STILL a much better spokesperson for what evolution IS CLAIMING than you admit. IT claims to START with nothing and "explain it all" without needing "god to help it along". Indeed it is a perfectly "junk-science rich" alternative to the "origins" account God gives. The fact that Dawkings ADMITS that it is an account for origins AND that this account is the ONLY acceptable version for atheist evolutionists -- is simply his way of telling the truth clearly rather than obfuscating on that point.

And this simply continues "a trend" in that regard. Atheist Evolutionists seem closer to the truth in regards to the real claims and real flaws of evolutionism -- than Christian evolutionists.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I think that people like BobRyan - who fight against known truth - created the enmity of people like Dawkins, making it difficult even impossible for men like Dawkins to decide to seriously consider the God option. I think this the plan of our common enemy, to let each man claim part of the truth as he must, but turn him against other truth as much as possible, and keep men divided instead of cooperating in learning all of God's truth. Satan laughs as people who believe in God reject Science and people who believe in Science reject God.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Now the strength of your oft-repeated argument in that area - has never been "solid", but you seem to enjoy repeating it as if you have made a point."

Pointing out the informal fallacy of the appeal to authority IS a very valid and powerful argument against you claim. It shows that it is without justification.

And you should read what Paul says above. YOu have not listened to me, maybe you'll listen to him.

"I think that people like BobRyan - who fight against known truth - created the enmity of people like Dawkins, making it difficult even impossible for men like Dawkins to decide to seriously consider the God option. I think this the plan of our common enemy, to let each man claim part of the truth as he must, but turn him against other truth as much as possible, and keep men divided instead of cooperating in learning all of God's truth. Satan laughs as people who believe in God reject Science and people who believe in Science reject God. "

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
I think that people like BobRyan - who fight against known truth - created the enmity of people like Dawkins

Claiming that the fabrications and pure fictions of evolutionism are "known truth" is like an appeal to the Easter Bunny that is made "anyway".

You do this "in spite of the facts" not "Because of them".

As has been often pointed out, the debunked foibles of eovlutionis merely expose the flaws, failures and gaffs of the failed faith of evolutionists.

It is no accident that atheist evolutionists view that fable as their only viable option for "origins" the only counter-argument to God's Genesis account available to them. IT is no surprise that atheist evolutionsts cling to the myth "anyway". What is very surprising is that Christian evolutionists cling to it too - EVEN to the point of denying what little light Atheist evolutionists ADMIT to in the areas "real science".

Truly and instructive exercise for thingking, seeing, believing Christians.

Hence this thread showing the many scientists who DO embrace the light of real science AND the Word of God instead of the failed gaffs, flaws, foibles and blunders of evolutionism's prophets.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul of Eugene --
, making it difficult even impossible for men like Dawkins to decide to seriously consider the God option.

How interesting that our Christian evolutionist bretheren WOULD consider holding up Dawkins as if a quote from him would mean something!!

Notice what UTEOTW just claimed about any possible reference to Dawkins?

And I quote ...

UTEOTW
Pointing out the informal fallacy of the appeal to authority IS a very valid and powerful argument against you claim. It shows that it is without justification.

When Bible believing - Genesis trusting Christians quote the pointed statements of Dawkings - well it is just "an appeal to authority".

How sad that our Christian evolutionist bretheren must engage in such blind tactics.

Why not simply admit the truth?

Why not embrace real science instead?

Why not "See" that both atheist evolutionist and Bible Believing, Creator-trusting, Genesis believing Christians reject your approach of marrying the Gospel to the junk-science myths of evolutionsm?

You have been shown repeatedly the blunders of evolutionism when it comes to abiogenesis, entropy, the horse serious, and the so-called intermediate BETWEEN true bird and true reptile (Achaeopteryx) that evolutionism is "anti-science" and "anti-fact" - yet Christian evolutionists "cling to myth anyway".

Paul said
I think this the plan of our common enemy, to let each man claim part of the truth as he must, but turn him against other truth

Indeed. Christian evolutionists are caught in the trap of having to turn against the truth of science AND also against the truth of scripture - BOTH at the same time!

What an awful position to be stuck in.

The Bible believing, Creator-trusting, Genesis believing Christian can embrace BOTH - without reservation.


The long list of scientists posted here on this thread demonstrates that fact for all to read.

Why not take the easy way out?? The way that embrace BOTH Science TRUTH AND the Gospel? Why cling to belief in Christian-evolutionism that denies both in case after case?

Paul of Eugene--
Satan laughs as people who believe in God reject Science

Indeed - this is my complaint about Christian evolutionists. They claim to be Christian but then reject good science for the hollow form known as "junk-science" evolutionism.

Fortunately we can embrace BOTH "good science" and sound exegesis as Bible believing Christians.

We need not bend the exegetical method so that it bows to the junk-science whims of evolutionism. Fortunately the scientists listed on this thread demonstrated that fact in triplicate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Richard Dawkins has no special expertice in the area of religion

True enough. He DOES know what evolutionism CLAIMS however. You deny his field of expertise to cling to your myths. How sad.

I would not deny Billy Graham knowing something about the Gospel claims. I would not deny Dawkins knowing something about Evolutionism's claims. You deny both.

How sad.

UTEOTW
and quoting him on religious matters is the fallacy

The fallacy of your own argument. I quote him in matters pertaining to the claims of evolutionism.

And each time I do - you turn a blind eye and pretend that the details will be ignored by the reader - right along with your hollow claims.

But UTEOTW - the reader can STILL read! What will you do about that? How will your argument survive as the reader SEES Dawkins making claims ABOUT EVOLUTIONISM?

Will they simply twist it back into "I will ignore what Dawkins is saying about evolution and pretend he is trying to be a Gospel preacher"?

I think not.

of an appeal to authority. If you wish to tell us what he thinks on science, that is germane.

Excellent. Now lets "see" what he says about evolutionism (not science I admit - but as close as evolutionists get)...

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Note: the pointed Questions Dawkins brought up - have been posted numerous times - and yet - not a single compelling effort to actually "Answer them" by Christian evolutionists.

Notice that Dawkins asks questions BASED on the assumption that a Christian "thinks God DOES something" based on the argument that a Christian things God "contributes something".

Notice that though Dawkins claims to know nothing about the Gospel - yet these modest "obvious" points he argues for the Gospel are themselves "rejected" by Christian evolutionists.

UTEOTW's rebuttal is most instructive in this regard as he twists Dawkins simple assumption that "God does something" into a "false claim"

If you wish to tell us what he thinks of Genesis, that is his uninformed opinion and does not matter to the discussion.
...
Some people try to make philosophical or religious aspects out of evolution. They are incorrect to do so and it bears not at all on the validity of the theory.

This is the non-answer UTEOTW has been offering - rather than actually addressing the points Dawkins makes where the premise of the atheists argument is simply "Christians think God does something".

How sad.

Better to embrace logic, reason, science and sound exegesis than to go down the road of christian evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

You have been shown repeatedly the blunders of evolutionism when it comes to abiogenesis, entropy, the horse serious, and the so-called intermediate BETWEEN true bird and true reptile (Achaeopteryx) that evolutionism is "anti-science" and "anti-fact" - yet Christian evolutionists "cling to myth anyway".

What blunders of abiogenesis? You claims here have revolved around the problem of how to make other than racemized mixtures of organic compounds. I have given you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that preferentially make one isomer. I have even shown you how to make optically pure compoundsusing these common catalysts. YOu have yet to mount an offensive against these references, or even to really admit that you have heard of them, yet you continually make the same claims without refuting the science that shows you to be wrong.

Your entropy expert disagrees with you on your conclusion. So you just excise that part of his quote and pretend like it does not exist. I guess you think you know more about entropy than your expert.

Your problem with the horse series has been shown to be that you believe the YE leaders when they lie to you about what scientists have said about the horse series, even when I fill in the full quote for you.

The best example of this can be found here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

And if anyone is interested they can read all of your horse quotes here followed over the next two pages by my responses to them all. You are shown to be quoting continually way out of context.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163

Do you have any real objections to the horse series? There is a whole thread on it here if you want to contradict anything about it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/2.html?

Most interesting would be for you to explain why if there is such a problem with the horse series does genetic testing show that the fossil link between horses and rhinos is true.

"Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis", C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000

Finally, I have been waiting and asking for you to justify your claims about archy for a LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time now. You say that a 1980's conference said that archy was just a unique bird. But I have shown where the authors you cited presented information at the conference that shows that they think it was an intermediate. In fact, I gave you a long list of papers presented at the conference all of which showed that the scientists in question thought it was an intermediate. You have never even acknowledged this information nor have you ever given any justification for your claims.

So, as has been shown repeatedly, your four best claims are so demonstrability false that you no longer even try to justify them. You continue to make the same false assertions without even pretending to have any support for them.

And you accuse evolution of being a "junk science."

 

[UTEOTW]

I would not deny Billy Graham knowing something about the Gospel claims. I would not deny Dawkins knowing something about Evolutionism's claims. You deny both.

So you wwould not deny claims from Billy Graham.

Ah-hem...

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ...
whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

- Evangelist Billy Graham

I guess that settles it.

 

[UTEOTW]

So Bob...

If quoting Dawkins is not an appeal to authority, then why do oyu not enlighten us on his religious expertice that gives him standing to be quoted on his religious thoughts?

 

[BobRyan]

You have been shown repeatedly the blunders of evolutionism when it comes to abiogenesis, entropy, the horse serious, and the so-called intermediate BETWEEN true bird and true reptile (Achaeopteryx) that evolutionism is "anti-science" and "anti-fact" - yet Christian evolutionists "cling to myth anyway".

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
What blunders of abiogenesis?

The same ones you keep turning a blind eye to. The ones where "you" admit you have nothing to hang your faith on. The ones where you admit that the lab does NOT show mono-chiral amino acids forming (as needed) to build living cells - though this is 100% the requirement.

You know --- the "obvious" ones.

UTEOTW
I have given you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that preferentially make one isomer.

Indeed that was you way of confessing that you do NOT have any experiement resulting in the mono-chiral amino acids needed to make a single living cell -- not even one. No cell known to science could survive if it was limited to the results you site.

So "obviously" your way of confessing the point was merely a hopeful dodge.

UTEOTW

Your entropy expert disagrees with you on your conclusion.

Wrong again.

"My" entropy expert turns out to be the ATHEIST Evolutionist's expert -- interestingly enough. (A level of objective crticial thinking you have yet to master).

Asimov confesses "This is what the 2nd law is all about" when observing entropy INCREASING in human biological systems. And that in fact IS my point.

100% agreement.

You on the other hand keep insisting that YOUR expert is wrong.

How "insructive".

UTEOTW
Your problem with the horse series has been shown to be that you believe the YE leaders

Wrong again. (not surprisingly).

Rather I DO believe Simpson when HE says the series never existed in all of time.

Another obvious gaff, blunder, flaw and outright foible for true believers in evolutionism.

UTEOTW
The best example of this can be found here.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

And if anyone is interested they can read all of your horse quotes here followed over the next two pages by my responses to them all. You are shown to be quoting continually way out of context.

Sadly - that is not true at all. You simply revert to the rather vaccuous argument that says "Yes Bob - but atheist evolutionists are STILL evolutionists in spite of these problems. Surely these atheists would become Christian if they really saw a problem with the flaws exposed in the horse series".

Such vapid responses are hardly a basis for hanging your new-found evolutionary-faith on wouldn't you agree? It is surprising that you offer them up again. (OR do you hope the reader will get lost in your misdirection?)

UTEOTW
Do you have any real objections to the horse series?

Just that it never existed in all of time as Simpson confesses.

You know ... the "usual".

UTEOTW
Finally, I have been waiting and asking for you to justify your claims about archy for a LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time now. You say that a 1980's conference said that archy was just a unique bird.

Actually I said that the atheist evolutionists were in agreement (finally) that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD. I then point out YOUR quote that you think it is a INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN true birds and true reptiles.

Then I point out these obvious flaws in the blunder that you have fallen into with that argument.

#1. You can not have TRUE-C as the intermediate BETWEEN True-A and TRUE-C rather you need to find TRUE-B.

#2. You have TRUE-C (true birds) OLDER than the FIRST archaeopterix. That is found in LOWER geological column layers. So if you KEEP arguing that fossils only found at HIGHER layers are older than follils found at LOWER layers - you destroy your entire mythological system of evolving life based on the column.

Surely these arguments are not so complex that you are not following them. Surely your responses are due solely to your desire to obfuscate and misdirect the discussion. Wouldn't you agree?

I mean the point is blatantly clear by now.

The papers you cite show that some desperate atheist evolutionists continue to cling to notions that Archaeopteryx had characteristics similar to reptiles (like a duck with webbing on it's feet, or modern birds with teeth).

But that is far from showing TRUE-C to be intermediate BETWEEN true-A and TRUE-C. (A pure impossibility in fact).

But more amazing than all of this - is that you get yourself into a state where you actually "believe" that your efforts to misdirect and obfuscate the point are "compelling". In fact they only serve to passify your fellow believers in evolutionism. They are only pablum for your own group. They do not actually form objective, compelling arguments addressing the salient points I have raised so far.

Why then do you find it surprising that I see through the vapor being offerred by you as a response?

 

[BobRyan]

I would not deny Billy Graham knowing something about the Gospel claims. I would not deny Dawkins knowing something about Evolutionism's claims. You deny both.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

So you wwould not deny claims from Billy Graham.

Ah-hem...

On the subject of "Gospel claims" (you know-- the details in the quote above??!!).

UTEOTW
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ...
whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

- Evangelist Billy Graham

I guess that settles it. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Was that a quote of the Gospel from Graham UTEOTW?

Are you paying attention at all?

 

[BobRyan]

Here again - we saw UTEOTW using obfuscation and misdection to make his Point.

I argue that Dawkins is a believable source when it comes to HIS claims about what evolutionism is saying.

UTEOTW strongly objects.

I also argue that Billy Graham is a believable source when it comes to HIS claims about what the Bible is saying.

UTEOTW then "reaches" for a quote from Graham that gives NO exegetical review AT ALL of the text of Genesis and claims this is a doctrinal discussion of the Gospel from Graham showing the fables of evolutionsm embedded in scripture.

But when we actually read the quote we find no indication at ALL that Graham is addressing a exegetical or doctrinal review of the text. Rather he merely shows his confusion on the claims of the junk-science known today as evolutionism.