See who is a Creation Scientist

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"...

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 ...

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".

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?

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

 

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.

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.

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

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"

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

 

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?)

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

You know ... the "usual".

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?

 

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

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

Are you paying attention at all?

 

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.