See who is a Creation Scientist

[Travelsong]

Yes, it's mostly athiests with a sprinkling of Christians who go there to debate them. Jason isn't interested in an objective evaluation of the evidence, he simply wants to rig another debate in his favor and chalk it up as a victory on his website.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The link provided to the other forum provides a good example of one of the major problems I see with YE. Over there, one of the responses to his challenge by someone who proclaims themselves as a "strong atheist" goes like this.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually, I would be very interested. It's one of the subjects I need to write an article about. If Mr. Gastrich should win, that's a point for me. My desire (with all due respect to Jason) is to show that Liberal Christian theology is wrong in its interpretation of biblical text, and that YECism is necessarily true, destroying any hope for any rational individual to uphold the Christian worldview

.

By so strongly insisting on a YE interpretation of scripture, yet being so weak on providing any physical evidence for their position, they open the window for people like this to reject God and to encourage others to do the same based on the impression for people like Jason that Christianity is at odds with reality.
</font>[/QUOTE]Many thanks to UTEOTW for posting this excellent example of the reason and logic behind the compromised position taken by Christian evolutionists.

Much like the "proof" that Muslim's give that Christianity is a hateful religion. Their "proof" is that "Christians want to convert all Muslims to Christ. They do not value Islam as an equal, as having just as much value as Christianity". In their view the worst thing in the world would be to accept Christ as their savior and oh how condemning the fact that Christians want to convert them.

In the same head-in-sand lost-in-fog way, the atheist evolutionist exchanges the truth for the junk-science of evolutionism calling it "reality" instead of the myth that it is. They then argue that failure to bend the truth of God's word to the dictates of atheist evolutionism would "prove" once and for all that Christianity is unnacceptable to an atheist!

How surprising! (Surprising that a Christian evolutionist would not be embarrassed to death by that "support" for their view).

How shocking that the neophyte quoted by UTEOTW is to be "believed" instead of Richard Dawkins when HE claims that EVOLUTIONISM starts with NOTHING and produces life.

Truly our Christian evolutionist brethren show themselves to be adversely disposed to "fact" when ignoring what Dawkins says ABOUT EVOLUTIONISM and clinging instead to what atheist neophytes use as reasons the Bible should be bent to the will and myth they know as "evolutionism".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Second, I want to draw a contrast here. Jason mentioned Ken Ham above. Now it seems that when people mention Ken Ham, even when the person is Ken Ham, it is to make use of Ham's statement that if there were a global flood that you would expect to find billions of things buried by water. Since we do find billions of things buried in water, then he must be right. But it is a fallacious statement, affirming the consequent I think. Basically there could be other reasons why you find fossils buried by water. It is also false.

This is EXACLTY the response we would expect from an atheist. Ken Ham points out consistency between the Bible account and the fact that we find sea shells at the tops of mountains etc as the Bible predicts. NOT as would be predicted by local flood mythologies in evolutionism.

The truly devoted atheists would desperately grasp for "other valid explanations" in fact "anything but God's Word".

Fascinating that UTEOTW takes the same approach!

How instructive!

UTEOTW uses as proof that he has indeed flooded a whole planet with water and has observed that no section of the planet would allow for fossils to form in that experiment. But no such experiment was ever done in all of science! In fact the turbidity currents WOULD produce fossils, the geothermal activity WOULD produce fossils, the land mass upheaval WOULD produce fossils and lots of them.

UTEOTW simply "ignores" the science that is SEEN every day.

How sad that evolutionisms devotees must go to such lengths in rejecting science AND truth in order to cling to myth, blunders and flaws found the junk-science we know today as evolutionism!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:

It's peculiar how atheistic evolutionists believe that life came from non-life BY ITSELF, but educated scientists can't even do this in a lab!

QUOTE]

Indeed. The abiogenesis myth is a glaring blunder and failure of evolutionists. Richard Dawkins claims this ground on behalf of evolutionism arguing that evolution "STARTW WITH NOTHING" and produces all life we know today.

Christian evolutionists shudder to accept Dawkins as an expert on what EVOLUTIONISM claims. Yet they must.

You are right - science is utterly opposed to such a myth. It knows that the mono-chiral problem would never work, so as UTEOTW has done, they desperately "hope for" entirely new laws of biochemistry and where a poly-chiral solution might work. NO experiment today produces all the proteins needed to make a single celled organism where they are composed of mon-chiral chains!

Science! Science! Fact! Truth! not Evolutionism's myth, blunder, gaff and falsehood desperately swalled by atheists that have no other choice!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
"No cell known to science could survive if it was limited to the results you site."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

That is the chief fallacy of your argument. The cells that are "known to science" have had 4 billion years to evolve. No one seriously proposes that a modern cell just popped into existence.

That is the primary fallacy of your many fallacies on this topic of abiogenesis.

Lacking science and emperical data you simply "speculate" entirel new laws of biochemistry ONLY BECAUSE they are NEEDED by those desperate to prop up the myths
of eovlutionism "anyway".

How obvious.

How instructive.

How sad that Christian evolutionists would abandon science, truth and emperical data SEEN in the lab for junk science "speculation" about the unprovable past and entirely NEW laws of of biochemistry that might hopefully possibly prayerfully one day be found in support of the myth.

Your evolutionism takes factless, fact-void, pointless speculation on what we DON't SEE and calls it "very probable"

But what my reference does show you is a very probable way that life could have started. You must combine it with some of the other references I have given you to have a complete picture, however.

What tripe! How can you offer this as science?!!!

Surely your "faith" in the doctrines of evolutionism is fully exposed here EVEN to you!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Many thanks to UTEOTW for posting this excellent example of the reason and logic behind the compromised position taken by Christian evolutionists."

Bob, I cannot believe that you fail to see the danger in your current situation. You make all these arguments about how you must interpret the creation account as literal. Yet I do not think I have ever seen you offer the first bit of physical evidence to show that the earth is indeed young. THis plays right into the hands of those who wish to discredit Christianity.

So, what is your very best piece of physical evidence for a young earth? (Read this as saying that giving us more junk that you consider a problem for evolution does not count in this question. Even if you could prove all that jusk, it still does not provide the first shred of evidence of a young earth. I want young earth data, whatever you can scrounge up. I bet I am left waiting, though.)

 

[UTEOTW]

"Ken Ham points out consistency between the Bible account and the fact that we find sea shells at the tops of mountains "

Bob, you are now committing the same fallacy. You ignore that there are other reasons to find shells at the tops of mountains. Reasons that we actually have data to support.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Lacking science and emperical data you simply "speculate" entirel new laws of biochemistry ONLY BECAUSE they are NEEDED by those desperate to prop up the myths
of eovlutionism "anyway"."

I don't know what you are toking about. I have presented to you a viable scenario, with experimental proof, that shows a potential path where common chemicals and common materials act as catalysts to produce properly chirally oriented RNA chains within a protective membrane and I have shown that RNA is capable of performing the chemistry needed to support life. Furthermore, I have shown you that this RNA would be capable of making the chirally correct proteins that you have sucha problem with and would be able to make DNA to take over for the genetic coding eventually.

 

[Born Again Catholic]

Two questions for the Christian Evolutionists that are posting

How do you believe the human soul evolved from animals?

What are your beliefs regarding original sin and the need for a savior?

(Without a literal Adam and Eve there could not have been original sin? Without original sin no need for a savior. No need for a savior then no need for the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. No Jesus no Christianity

One question for the literalists

Why don't you take things that are clearly meant literally, literally? (i.e."This is my Body, This is my Blood".)

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Ah, the human soul. There are two points of view about that: First, some view the soul as an "add on" issued by God to every person, an extra spirit that "inhabits" the human flesh.

Second, some view the soul as a dynamic emergent phenomenon from the developing capababilities of the brain.

In either view, the soul becomes an enhancement of the animal (fleshly) foundation. This is not particularly a problem for the evolutionary point of view.

Personally I believe that God created first man through the process of evolution and endowed him as a person; I think of God as taking first man (Adam) into the garden, set aside for the purpose, away from carnivors, thorns, etc and created Eve from his side.

I'm not sure why you think there wouldn't be original sin without a literal Adam and Eve, but hey, we can have a literal Adam and Eve!

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Bob: In the same head-in-sand lost-in-fog way, the atheist evolutionist exchanges the truth for the junk-science of evolutionism calling it "reality" instead of the myth that it is. They then argue that failure to bend the truth of God's word to the dictates of atheist evolutionism would "prove" once and for all that Christianity is unnacceptable to an atheist!

You're absolutely right, Bob. As I read nameless' quibbles, I thought the exact same thing. The "let's water down the Word and change it or people won't get saved" approach is pathetic and one that I'll never use.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
One question for the literalists

Why don't you take things that are clearly meant literally, literally? (i.e."This is my Body, This is my Blood".)

Touché!

The literalists are only "selectively" literalists, just like everyone else really. Though, they would rather bust than admit it.

I am not a diehard literalist, just a Biblicist. That is, I believe (or try to believe) what it clearly means, which is not always what it literally says. What it clearly means is open to interpretaton (with the help of the HS) because what it clearly means is not limited to what a particular verse here or there says. While you have made a forceful point in this argument, I don't agree with your particular interpretation, sorry. May God bless you anway!

 

[Gup20]

Bob, you are now committing the same fallacy. You ignore that there are other reasons to find shells at the tops of mountains. Reasons that we actually have data to support.

Yet in contradiction to the ultimate authority - God's Word.

I don't know what you are toking about. I have presented to you a viable scenario, with experimental proof, that shows a potential path where common chemicals and common materials act as catalysts to produce properly chirally oriented RNA chains within a protective membrane and I have shown that RNA is capable of performing the chemistry needed to support life. Furthermore, I have shown you that this RNA would be capable of making the chirally correct proteins that you have sucha problem with and would be able to make DNA to take over for the genetic coding eventually.

Yet your conclusion contradicts God's Word... therefore you should revise your pre-suppositions in light of the irrefutable evidence.

Personally I believe that God created first man through the process of evolution and endowed him as a person; I think of God as taking first man (Adam) into the garden, set aside for the purpose, away from carnivors, thorns, etc and created Eve from his side.

Unfortunately, for evolution to work, there has to be millions of years of death and struggle leading up to man. The Bible clearly states that death was a result of Adam's sin. Therefore how did nature 'select' anything if there was no death. Remember, God called each stage of creation leading up to and including man GOOD. Yet he abhors death and sin. He even equates sickness and death with sin when he says "which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or to say rise and walk".

Moreover, there are further problems with the thought of billions of years. If the earth is indeed billions of years old, then Jesus is a liar when he says "Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. " If man is truely only been around for a few thousand years when God created the universe billions of years ago, then we are not at 'the beginning of creation'. If, on the other hand, the earth is 6000 years old, and man was created during the first week... that would mean that man has been around since 'the beginning of creation'.

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Furthermore, we know that man is not the result of animal evolution because the Bible directly states this is not the case:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

I'm not sure why you think there wouldn't be original sin without a literal Adam and Eve, but hey, we can have a literal Adam and Eve!

Perhaps it's that pesky Bible again....

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If Adam and Eve were not the ONLY original persons... then there could have been other persons who would not require salvation because they would not have sinned. Adam and Eve did sin... the entire human population, therefore there was none found righteous.

The literalists are only "selectively" literalists, just like everyone else really. Though, they would rather bust than admit it.

Good exegesis is finding out the intention of what is meant by a passage. We have many available tools to do so.

See the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Excellent post, Gup20! Right on the money.

Thanks for the scripture from Jesus in Mark. That's an important one to remember and I will use it if any OEC ever steps up to the plate and debates me.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Gup20]

No problem. You can further make your point by noting that Jesus is actually quoting the first Chapter of Genesis as a literal event (something old earth creationists don't want you to realize). That gives a direct connection between Jesus and the literalness of Genesis 1 - meaning, if you wish to dismiss Genesis 1 as non-literal, then you are also dismissing Jesus as non-literal.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Matthew puts it this way:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Not only is Jesus giving us information about Man being at the beginning of creation, but he is also giving credence to the creation week as a literal event that actually happened.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

I don't believe that every single scripture is to be taken literally (e.g. God spreading his wings over us as it says in the Psalms). However, I do believe that every time the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament it is referred to in a literal manner.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Gup20]

As to the literalness of creation -

Another 'gem' is if you take a look at 'when does the word DAY mean a literal day'. Genesis says the world was created in six days and God rested on the seventh.

For example, if I said "The 1st day I actually stopped and realized what it was like in my father's day was during the day in Forth Worth, Texas."

In that sentence, DAY is used 3 times, and means 3 different things. It means literal day, time, and light or dark, respectively. How do we know when Day means literal day? By context.

If you look in the Bible (outside Gen 1), EVERY time DAY is used with a number, it always means an ordinary day. Every time DAY is used with the word EVENING, it always means an ordinary day. Every time DAY is used with the word MORNING, it always means an ordinary day.

What do we have on EVERY day of creation? "And the EVENING and the MORNING were the NUMBER day."

To properly interpret when things are literal and when they are not you must use a logical liguistic interpretation of the written word (in it's orignial form - Hebrew or Greek). Language has rules and we can typically tell depending on the writing style and the context what the proper meaning (literal or not) should be.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

You're right, again. The "yom" argument is a drop in the bucket because each time "yom" is used with a number, it means a literal day; not a billion years or anything close to that nature. In fact, saying it does mean a billion years or even something other than an ordinary day shows either a lack of scholarship or a deliberate intention to deceive.

God bless,
Jason

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
I don't believe that every single scripture is to be taken literally (e.g. God spreading his wings over us as it says in the Psalms). However, I do believe that every time the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament it is referred to in a literal manner.

God bless,
Jason

That is true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Many thanks to UTEOTW for posting this excellent example of the reason and logic behind the compromised position taken by Christian evolutionists."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Bob, I cannot believe that you fail to see the danger in your current situation. You make all these arguments about how you must interpret the creation account as literal.

#1. No danger AT all from exegetical evidence. (The very thing that evolutionists abandon when it comes to God's Word). The great danger there is ONLY to believers in evolutionism.

#2. No danger AT ALL from science. Only those who cling to junk-science "As if" it were truth find risk here.

#3. Atheists already "Admit" that they have no other choice - only evolutionism fits their beliefs. I am not at risk at all of Atheists failing to be Christian because they discover that GOD does not believe in atheism's religion of origins.

UTEOTW
Yet I do not think I have ever seen you offer the first bit of physical evidence to show that the earth is indeed young.

Physical processes showing 10,000 years or less for earth.

Sedimentation rates of the major river deltas.

Helium accumulation rates vs measure amounts.

The Word of God (as if you would believe that one).

Accumulation of Nickle content from meteor impact in river deltas.

Earth's Magnetic field flux cycle.

The list goes on... and on ....

Most of this I have posted on this board in previous debates over evolutionism's failures.

UTEOTW

Even if you could prove all that jusk, it still does not provide the first shred of evidence of a young earth.

For once UTEOTW you are actually makeing a sound argument!! You are right that simply pointing out the flaws, blunders, gaffs and lies of evolutionism only discredits the Atheist's only hope but does not prove from science - the Christian's view of origins.

I agree fully that I can not simply expose the flaws of evolutionism as the only evidence, the only "science" shown.

There must also be the science that shows what God's view of origins as written in His Word would expect.

I bet you won't be left waiting for my examples of science supporting God's Creation account.

In Christ,

Bob