See who is a Creation Scientist

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

I've heard it said that billions of years is the evolutionist's magic wand. "If we give it enough time, anything can happen." Give me a break.

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!

God bless,
Jason

 

[Travelsong]

You are indeed a liar Jason, the 'guy you have been talking to' belives in a non-literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account in the same way he doesn't believe in a geocentric model of the universe as The Bible would also seem to teach.

None of us old earthers believe the Bible teaches evolution, we believe that evolution and an old earth are not in conflict with the Bible in the same way that the Copernican model of the solar system was not in conflict with the Bible.

 

[Travelsong]

And if you're so confident in your knowledge of science you shouldn't need to set the parameters of the debate to include what a plain text reading of Scripture seems to indicate. God's creation reveals it's age does it not? Go over there, confront a real scientist and prove it!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
None of us old earthers believe the Bible teaches evolution, we believe that evolution and an old earth are not in conflict with the Bible in the same way that the Copernican model of the solar system was not in conflict with the Bible.

This is another failed approach to evolutionism. To pretend that the Bible has no more to say about origins than it does about geometry or radiometrics is silly. The Bible STARTS with orgins and so also does the Gospel (John 1:1-3).

And that is the glaring blunder that we find in evolution as one tries to marry the atheist's model of origins to God's model in the Gospels and in scriptures O.T.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:

I've heard it said that billions of years is the evolutionist's magic wand. "If we give it enough time, anything can happen." Give me a break.

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!

God bless,
Jason

Very true. In fact the lab experiments "show" that abiogenesis is not happing in the lab or in nature. RATHER it shows that evolutionism's devotees will need entirely new laws of biochemistry to prop up the myth in this area.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:

I'm a firm believer in evolution. Evolution is a fact. I believe in every type of evolution that we have observed. That's science. What I don't believe in is all of the leaps and jumps and bounds in evolution that nobody has ever seen. Those are the things that evolutionists want you to believe and even try and pass off as fact. Tsk, tsk.

What we have seen is generally called micro-evolution. What we haven't seen is generally called macro-evolution. I have written a paper (more like some data and a list of hotlinks) on this as well: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/MicroAndMacroEvolution.htm .

God bless,
Jason [/QB]

I prefer to call the micro-changes "observed mutation" and the macro-myth macro-fabled-lists of unobserved changes -- "evolutionism".

That way I am free to speak of the fact that atheists view evolutionism as their one and only religion - their "belief" held in contrast to the Bible account of origins, and it is clear that I am speaking of the macro-myths known as evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This is another failed approach to evolutionism. To pretend that the Bible has no more to say about origins than it does about geometry or radiometrics is silly. The Bible STARTS with orgins and so also does the Gospel (John 1:1-3).

There's nothing failed about it at all. Both the old earth and the young earth creationist recognize God as the origin of all things, and both place the utmost importance on this fact. As a Christian, I do so because the Bible tells me God is creator. I do not however believe in a plain text interpretation of the creation account, just as I do not agree with a plain text interpretation of the earth's relationship with the rest of creation.

So?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by 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?

No point in going there because your flawed argument collapses SIMPLY by listening to the claims Dawkins makes about EVOLUTIONISM.

I suppose we "could" go to some area where He speaks on the text of John chapter 1 (if we looked hard enough) but that would only be the result of following your suggestings for misdirection and obfuscation.

Why not simply remain on topic? Stick with the quote that Dawkins gives about what EVOLUTIONISM claims?

Lets show some integrity and stick with the "details" without obfuscating and misdirecting. The claims that Dawkins makes FOR EVOLUTIONISM should be listened to - though they are embarrassing for your attempts to marry evolutionism to the Gospel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] This is another failed approach to evolutionism. To pretend that the Bible has no more to say about origins than it does about geometry or radiometrics is silly. The Bible STARTS with orgins and so also does the Gospel (John 1:1-3).

Originally posted by Travelsong:
There's nothing failed about it at all. Both the old earth and the young earth creationist recognize God as the origin of all things,

You are misdirecting. In the details of your previous quote you claim that the Bible no more deals with origins than it does with the Copernican model. That is an utterly flawed attempt at misdirection in a desperate effort to bolster the marriage of the atheist's religion of evolutionism to the Gospel of Christ.

As a Christian, I do so because the Bible tells me God is creator.

If the bible said that Christ was the Creator of nothing, or the great initiator that later resulted in creation given a few billion years of evolution then "maybe" you could actually support that speculative and imaginative position.

But "as it is " the Bible says "FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord God CREATED the heavens the earth the seas and ALL that is in them and rested the seventh day".

In fact it goes like this "God CAUSED... to appear and evening and morning were the ... day".

Very specific - to CREATIONISM not evolutionism. You will never find evolutionists using those terms to describe the origin of the SAME life that God describes in Genesis 1-2:3.

"Obviously".

Originally posted by Travelsong:

I do not however believe in a plain text interpretation of the creation account

Indeed - you complete abandon exegesis for that test. What about a "plain reading" for "John 1"? What about a "plain reading" For the virigin birth?

What about a "plain reading" for the resurrection?

What about a "plain reading" for the New Earth? Heaven? the Heavenly city? The Millenium?...

Or does it all go out the window in your view?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
You are misdirecting. In the details of your previous quote you claim that the Bible no more deals with origins than it does with the Copernican model.

I'm not misdirecting anything. I am making a comparison, and you are correct. The Bible no more deals with the mechanics of creation than it does with with the mechanics of the earth's relationship with, well, everthing else.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
That is an utterly flawed attempt at misdirection in a desperate effort to bolster the marriage of the atheist's religion of evolutionism to the Gospel of Christ.

It's not a desperate attempt at anything.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
If the bible said that Christ was the Creator of nothing, or the great initiator that later resulted in creation given a few billion years of evolution then "maybe" you could actually support that speculative and imaginative position.

Likewise by the same interpretive standard you have no reason to believe in the modern understanding of out solar sysem/galaxy/universe, because Scripture certainly doesn't teach these things, science does.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I was clearly talking about your beliefs and I was accurately representing them, too. You believe the Bible teaches an old earth for a variety of reasons; one being the fact that you think some passages shouldn't be taken literally."

So you think the above quote of me from our conversation indicates that I "[believe] the Bible claims that the earth is old and the evolution of species happened" as said by you on the link you provided. Yes, you are indeed misrepresenting my position. It is clear for all to see.

"You're a joke..."

You really ought to try something other than personal attacks. With that and the name calling, you sound like the grade school bully.

"If you think I summarized you as a different kind of chicken, then please go there and tell them what kind of chicken you really are."

Look at what we have seen. How many times have I already had to correct your misrepresentations. I think your reading comprehension skills function amiss as I have repeatedly had to quote to show where you have claimed one of us said one thing where in truth something else entirely was said. You call names. You want to come in here and find worthy debate, we can give it to you. If you are afraid to step out from behind your rules and your deadlines, then go find someone else to hassle. You have done nothing to earn the right to a formal commitment of time. In fact, you have shown you are unworthy of the effort, "doctor."

 

[UTEOTW]

"Why not simply remain on topic? Stick with the quote that Dawkins gives about what EVOLUTIONISM claims?"

Then why don't you give us the quote...again?

I think, once you ignore his religious claim which he is unqualified to speak on with authority, I think the reader will find that he says that science is fully able to explain the origin and evolution of life on earth. So, once again, your very own expert disagrees with your claims about the science.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:

I'm a firm believer in evolution. Evolution is a fact. I believe in every type of evolution that we have observed. That's science. What I don't believe in is all of the leaps and jumps and bounds in evolution that nobody has ever seen. Those are the things that evolutionists want you to believe and even try and pass off as fact. Tsk, tsk.

What we have seen is generally called micro-evolution. What we haven't seen is generally called macro-evolution. I have written a paper (more like some data and a list of hotlinks) on this as well: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/MicroAndMacroEvolution.htm .

God bless,
Jason

I prefer to call the micro-changes "observed mutation" and the macro-myth macro-fabled-lists of unobserved changes -- "evolutionism".

That way I am free to speak of the fact that atheists view evolutionism as their one and only religion - their "belief" held in contrast to the Bible account of origins, and it is clear that I am speaking of the macro-myths known as evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Some also prefer calling mircoevolution "speciation" or "speciation within the created kinds."

The theistic evolutionists don't seem to understand how their position (albeit wrong) undermines the entire Bible. If the earth is billions of years old, then current, secular science is right about the fossil record. This means that disease, suffering, and death, came before the first sin in the Garden of Eden; which CONTRADICTS scripture and God's entire plan of redemption.

The first sin brought disease, suffering, and death into the world. They weren't here beforehand. Furthermore, there was no pre-Adamic race and no mutant race around, either. Those theories are equally as laughable and destructive to the gospel; unless YECs do their homework and reveal how OEC is untenable if one wants to follow the scriptures.

God bless,
Jason

 

[UTEOTW]

Travelsong

A few things.

First, check your PM box. I sent you one a few days ago.

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. The circumstances in which we find that most fossils were buried is not consistent with such an event and many fossils are formed from causes other than running water.

But we can go further. Gup likes to post about the Baumgardner flood model. Well part of his work shows that such a flood would generate water velocities in the hundreds of feet per second. This would not leave any well preserved fossils, It would pulverize everything. (He does this to get millions of years of erosion in a short time, I think.)

To take this one step further, this is another reason that I enjoy when Helen posts with us, even though I disagree with her. If I am remembering her correctly, she says that there is a worldwide layer in the geologic column of rubble mixed with organic carbon. This is actually much more in line with what one would expect. She avoids all the wild conjectures you get from most other YEers about hydraulic sorting of fossils and all the coal being formed in the flood. I would extend her ideas to then say that index fossils are more a consequence of very low population numbers and isolation of groups after the flood. Again, I'm not buying it, but makes much more sense than most of what is out there.

One final thing. I find it curious how we were able to go through what, five pages of name calling and threats when the answer I was looking for could have been handled in five minutes. It could have been either...

"If you will follow this link you will see where Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang, talks at length about his belief in a young universe and why he finds evolution to be false."

or

"You know you're right. He really doesn't belong on such a list. I must have overlooked something when putting things togther. I'll fix that right away."

Instead, we got pages of references to chicken man.

 

[Travelsong]

1) The death we suffer without Christ is first and foremost a spiritual one. The life we have in Christ is first and foremost a spiritual one. This is the cornerstone on which the Gospel message is built.

Luke 12: 4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

2) Wherever the Bible speaks of death as the consequence of sin, it is always in reference to man.

Romans: 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:

Have you ever wondered why the Bible nowhere stated that by Adams sin, death passed on to all plants and animals? Jesus didn't come to save fish, birds, and antelopes. He came for us, His people.

Your focus is all wrong. I'm openly willing to admit that a young earth is entirely possible and that evolution is false if the evidence bears that out. But either way it is ultimately not a big concern of mine, and it shouldn't be for any man of faith. Our life in Christ is the renewing of our heats, minds and souls, all of this other stuff is nothing in contrast to that fact.

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, Jason apparently does not wish to hang around and defend his original post. But since it was on topic, there still may be some value in going through it a little more deeply to see what we find. I have already shown, with references, that several of the members of the list are not what he claims. Perhaps we should just start at the top.

Remember that this is what he said about his list.

Were they gagged and bound? Were they forbidden to think openly? If your position is that they had "no alternative" you are essentially calling the greatest, scientific minds of all time fools. If your theory were correct, any one of them could have penned it. However, they all rejected it...Any one of those brilliant scientists could have affirmed the old earth theory, but they didn't. They rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/7.html#000103

The list is found at http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm.

First on the list is Robert Boyle.

Assertion - No where on the page or in the link to AIG is it shown where Boyle ever considered and "ejected" the evidence for the evolution of the species.

Appeal to authority - Boyle, known mostly for his contributions to chemistry and Boyles Law in the area of ideal gasses has no relevant expertise in the area of evolutionary biology to comment on it as an expert.

 

[UTEOTW]

Second on the list is Michael Faraday.

Assertion - No where on the page is it shown where Faraday ever considered and "ejected" the evidence for the evolution of the species.

Appeal to authority - Faraday, known mostly for his contributions to electro-magnetic effects and related areas, has no relevant expertise in the area of evolutionary biology to comment on it as an expert.

 

[UTEOTW]

Next on the list is James Joule.

Assertion - No where on the page or in the link to AIG is it shown where Joule ever considered and "ejected" the evidence for the evolution of the species.

Appeal to authority - Joule, known mostly for his contributions to thermodynamics, has no relevant expertise in the area of evolutionary biology to comment on it as an expert.

 

[UTEOTW]

Next on the list is Kelvin whom I have alredy shown to be an old earther, estimating the earth to be as old as hundreds of millions of years.

Following Kelvin is Johannes Kepler.

Assertion - No where on the page or in the link to AIG is it shown where Kepler ever considered and "ejected" the evidence for the evolution of the species.

Appeal to authority - Kepler, known mostly for his contributions to the mathematical description of the motion of the planets in orbit about the sun, has no relevant expertise in the area of evolutionary biology to comment on it as an expert.

Maybe this tactic is boring after all. Does anyone at this point have any doubt that if we continue through the list, that we will see that same pattern emerge for most of the scientists in question? Most will be shown to have never actually commented on evolution (mostly because it was not developed yet!) and / or will be found to not be experts in an area where their opinion actually matters. The few modern scientists examined so far have been shown to actually be old earthers and they also fail to have any expertice that would make their opinion in matters of evolution authoritive. (Though some of the modern scientists examined are qualified to comment on the age of the universe. These have been shown to believe in an old universe, however.)

 

[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.

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.

That thread also gives me additional doubt that Jason is really interesting in debating the age of the earth. He goes to what basically appears to be an atheist and agnostic forum and issues the following challenge.

I challenge someone to debate the following resolution:

"The Bible teaches the earth is young and the evolution of species did not happen."

I will take the affirmative. Will anyone offer to take the negative?

Sincerely,
Jason

If he was interested in getting a real debate, his challenge would have been more like "The physical evidence supports the view that the earth is young in accordance with Biblical evidence. I'll take the affirmative." It does no good to ask a bunch of non-religious folks to support any Biblical interpretation.

I'll admit that I could be wrong about that group of people. I am making a generalization based on the name "Internet Infidels" and I do expect that there are some Christians roaming around.