Theistic Evol vs ID vs Hindu religion

[UTEOTW]

Bob, I am through with that thread. Patterson himself says that you are "wrong"

Patterson himself says that he interpretation that I gave you is "correct."

All Patterson says about the accuracy of the quote is that he really said those words. He does not say that his view was accurately represented. He, in fact, does the opposite and explicitly states that his views were misrepresented.

What was the word he used?

Oh yeah. "Wrong."

 

[BobRyan]

As usual you want to "claim you did well" without actually showing it.

Even when YOU Pick the test case and a thread is devoted to YOUR choice - you run away because the "inconvenient facts" continually expose the blunders you make with details in your fact-challenged assertions that have no substance in data.

Why should this be any different.

If you think you have a case with YOUR choice of Patterson's letter - then go to that thread and make it. Let's see if it stands up to the light of day. So far it is flaming out horribly for all to see on that thread.

in the mean time - this thread is about your peculiar objection to the ID evolutionists.

Peculiar for a Christian - not an atheist.

Or have you fled this topic as well?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I am through with that thread. Patterson himself says that you are "wrong"

Factless bogus assertion "again" -- how predicable.

Here we see "your own thread" in terms of the subject - being avoided "by you"!!

Meanwhile the last page of that thread summarizes just how horribly your assertions have flamed out. You won't even read your own posts on that thread as they are quoted and given back to you.

How sad.

But I don't have a burden to help you limp along with that argument you are trying to make against my quotes of Patterson.

If you are content to have your argument die as it did on that thread - so am I.

But when you use the same fact-challenged tactics on other threads I may reference the Patterson thread showing the pattern you are creating.

 

[UTEOTW]

Go ahead and reference the thread.

You and Sunderland are quoting the same passage. Sometimes you quote the same sentences as he does, complete with the text "as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102", and sometimes you quote the next couple of sentences in the passage.

In either case, Patterson was asked directly about the passage and said that the interpreation that you give is "wrong." He said that the alternate interpretation, the one that I give you, is "correct."

It cannot be any more clear cut. You have the author addressing the very passage which you are quoting.

Sometimes I think you would argue with a brick wall trying to convince it that it was not really hard.

I think I am beating my head against that wall now. How can you not accept the very word of the very person you are quoting about the very passage which you are quoting? Have you no shame?

 

[BobRyan]

go to that thread and try to make your failing case stand up again. On that thread I have highlighted Patterson's words IN RED for you -- the ones you are "avoiding" like the plague.

Do something there to prop up your argument or let it flame out as it is over there.

But here (on this thread) you need to address your problem with ID evolutionist and why you are taking the "distinctively Atheist" argument against them as THEY accept the Romans 1 statement about UNBELIEVING pagans.

Pick one (or both) of these threads and go to it and respond to details please.

 

[BobRyan]

While it is easy to see why I would object to evolutionists (even ID ones) it is not so clear as to why other evolution-believing Christians would object to ID evolutionists UNLESS they are taking the distinctively atheist arguement AGAINST I.D Evolutionists -- as you do UTEOTW.

When dealing with such low standards of Romans 1 tolerance by you UTEOTW -- That leaves me ENDORSING the modest step UP that ID evolutionists make as compared to atheist darwinism!

 

[BobRyan]

In either case, Patterson was asked directly about the passage and said that the interpreation that you give is "wrong." He said that the alternate interpretation, the one that I give you, is "correct."

It cannot be any more clear cut.

How nice it would be if that bit of fiction were true UTEOTW. Let's run with it for a second. Let's say that the closer we look at EACH DETAIL in Patterson's letter - his quotes -- the BETTER it is for you and that is why YOU SELECTED this as a test case to prove your point about my use of PAtterson's quotes.

How wonderful for you. How terrible for me. In that case we would have YOU DRAGGING ME to that thread and pointing out time after time each little detail that so supports your case and so devastates mine.

But that would be "revisionist history" because what is ACTUALLY happening is I am exposing your fact-challenged blunder on that thread IN THE VERY LETTER you brought up and you are continually running away from the details EVEN though they be in caps, and highlighted in many colors for you to view!

Details in YOUR OWN quote of Patterson UTEOTW!!

It could not be any worse for your case - because it is so obvious there!

I don't blame you for running away from your failed argument - but why do you keep trying to defend it HERE AS if you had done well over there??!!

 

[UTEOTW]

I don't care how much you put in red over there.

There was a passage.

You quote various parts of it.

Patterson was asked about the passage and the interpretation of Sunderland. (Your quotes often include the phrase "as quoted in Sunderland.")

He said that the interpretation of Sunderland, and you by extension, is "wrong."

The person asking gave a different interpretation, the same one I give you.

Patterson said that interpretation is "correct."

You continue to try and tell us the Patterson is incapable of telling us what he meant.

Does anyone know of an icon of someone beating their head against a wall?

 

[BobRyan]

If you actually "have" a point - then you can take YOUR OWN test case that is supposed to really expose any flaw my quote has -- and USE IT to SHOW that you actually have a point.

You know --- go there - SHOW that IN THE DETAILS your wild claims "have some substance". (Hint: This is where you WOULD be dragging ME to the thread dedicted to exploring YOUR point about Patterson -- instead of running from it like the plague)

Now back to this topic. Your opposition to the ID EVOLUTIONISTS on the VERY point where Atheists oppose their acceptance of the truth of Romans 1 -- is "instructive".

At some point - you have to stop running from inconvenient facts. If you are so afraid of the other thread - then fine - stick with this one and have a turn at trying to defend your innexplicable choice to make the distinctively atheist argument against ID EVOLUTIONISTS!!

 

[BobRyan]

When the atheist darwinist view is exposed on a point of a purely atheist argument against ID EVOLUTIONISTS it is hard to hide. It is like having the light shining everwhere with no place to duck under.

That is the problem with this thread.

 

[UTEOTW]

I am not afraid of anything on that thread.

Let's examine the facts, again. Maybe you can tell me which one of these steps you find to be false and why.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Sunderland quoted a couple of sentences from that paragraph.

Bob sometimes quotes the exact same sentences and Sunderland, including adding "as quoted by Sunderland" to the end. Some times Bob quotes the next couple of sentences of the paragraph.

Sunderland gave an interpretation of the quote. Bob gives the same interpretation of the quote.

Someone wrote to Patterson and asked him about the Sunderland quote and gave what he thought Patterson meant which happens to be the same interpretation that I give you for the passage.

Patterson wrote back saying that he had said that and gave the rest of the paragraph to complete the passage. So now Patterson is addressing both halves of the paragraph which you quote.

Patterson said that the the creationists interpretation is "wrong."

Patterson said that the interpretation which I have given you is "correct."

Now, how hard is that to see? Patterson himself has addressed your quote and declared the spin you try to give as "wrong."

Would you have us believe that you are better at interpreting Patterson than Patterson himself? YOu have completely deluded yourself and provide us an excellent example of the moral dangers of YEism.

 

[UTEOTW]

As far as the IDist go, I have told you the answer already.

The ideas presented thus far by the IDists cannot stand up to scrutiny. I would be forced to give up intellectual integrity to accept their specific claims for they are without support.

But I have also made clear that I would have bno trouble accepting their claims or similar ones if they were to be able to stand rigorous examination. None can at this point.

 

[BobRyan]

At some point you have to stop dodging the point of the ID AGREEMENT with Romans 1 and your outright contradiction of it in making your "distinctively atheist" argument against it.

Is NOW a good time for you to respond to the points of page 1?

 

[BobRyan]

I am not afraid of anything on that thread.

Let's examine the facts, again. Maybe you can tell me which one of these steps you find to be false and why.

Patterson wrote a paragraph.

Instead of turning THIS thread into that one (and so having to repeat all the data there - that you need to gloss over - on THIS thread) I will post your point for you on that other thread and pick it up there.

I certainly am glad to see that you might even remotely consider taking a detailed point by point walk-through of your own selected test case.

This is a real step up for you UTEOTW - I hope to see it last for a little while.

See you there.

 

[UTEOTW]

At some point you have to stop dodging the point of the ID AGREEMENT with Romans 1 and your outright contradiction of it in making your "distinctively atheist" argument against it.

Is NOW a good time for you to respond to the points of page 1?

Oh, Bob, I responded on page 1.

I told you where it is that I personally see the handiwork of the Lord.

I told you how I could easily be persuaded to accept ID like claims if they were valid and that I even expect that there must have been supernatural intervention to get us to where we are today.

And I told you that the specific claims put forth by IDists to date cannot standup to scrutiny. To accept their claims despite the evidence to the contrary, would be intellectually dishonest.

Yet you continue to insist for some strange reason that there is a problem with me rejecting specific claims which have basis in fact even while stating that I could accept similar claims if they had a fatual basis. You ignore that last part and keep pretending that I said that I would forever reject all such claims.

How convenient for you to continually miss those details.

And, BTW, again, I am through with the other thread. You hung yourself out to dry pretty well and there is nothing more to add. Even your last round of posts does nothing more than to continue your insistance that you feel that you can better tell us what Patterson meant than Patterson himself. Are you really that delusional on this or is it hubris?

But thanks for copying my words from this thread over there. They do a very good job of outlining your errors in a very easy to follow form. You then contrast that with your typical strange post which ignores the details and instead tries to spin some tale where you can better interpret Patterson than Patterson can.

 

[BobRyan]

As far as the IDist go, I have told you the answer already.

The ideas presented thus far by the IDists cannot stand up to scrutiny. I would be forced to give up intellectual integrity to accept their specific claims for they are without support.

But I have also made clear that I would have bno trouble accepting their claims or similar ones if they were to be able to stand rigorous examination. None can at this point.

First of all I applaud you for "knowing" that the high ground here would be for you to actually be objective unbiased and freely accepting of obvious fact.

But sadly you claim has already been falsified in two blatantly obvious test cases here on this thread.

#1. It was shown that you were totally exposed when confronted with teh Romans 1 fact that God SAYS this basic foundational "invisisble attribute" (basic to ALL OTHERS) is "CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been made" EVEN by unbelieving pagans! You have had NO ANSWER at all for that except "I have not seen it even once!".

You have demonstrated your own claim in contradicting scripture and claiming there is NOTHING "clearly SEEN IN THE THINGS that have been MADE - that shows God's invisible attributes to UNBELIEVING pagans" -

Then when the obvious perfidity of your argument as it contradicts scripture is pointed out - you simply gloss over and "flee" as if "well no I pretend not to know what you are talking about".

Kinda like your "dumb it down for me" fishing expedition - was "exposed".

So your integrity in dealing with facts that CLEARLY expose your flawed position - has been called into question in fact clearly falsified.

#2. THEN we introduced the TEST case of abiogenesis -- a place where only FAITH ALONE has you holding to the atheist opinion "ANYWAY". Here is another OBVIOUS and blatant test case where you have NOTHING but HOPE that atheist darwinists will one day "prevail".

And EVEN HERE you do not admit to this obvious blatant gap -- instead you claim something like "I can not see even one example" of something not completely covered by "story telling" among atheist darwinists. You go so far as to place PURE STORY TELLING above the EVIDENCE in the LAB that these cells do not just FORM nor can they be MADE to do so ARTIFICIALLY!!

With such clear DATA before you to demonstrate your own integrety - you failed and thus falsified you claim to it -- again.

CONCLUSION:

So having these CLEAR cases where you truly have no place to obfuscate or hide your argument before us - your claim that you WOULD be unbiased and objective - is totally falsified.

Why would I go to LESS clear ground with MORE VARIABLES when EVEN in the simple cases you are failing?

 

[BobRyan]

Bump for a PM to one of the Bible believing members here...

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast - if we go to The statistics thread -- where a door has been opened for UTEOTW to paste obfuscation after misdirecting obfuscation - he LOVES to post ...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=813901&postcount=5

But on a thread like this where we look at the OBVIOUS facts in a context that allows for NO hiding - UTEOTW presents a few failing arguments and then slinks back into the shadows.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well that was short lived.

Not only does UTEOTW turn a blind eye to the truth for ALL mankind (even unbelieving pagans) in Romans 1 regarding "What is CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been made"

He turns a blind eye to the actual science of statistics on the statistics thread.

He turns a blind eye to HIS OWN argument using PAtterson as his example to bash Christians.

He turns a blind eye to HIS OWN atheist darwinists saying that the debunked discredited horse series was "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER HAPPENED In Nature" and "HAD to be DISCARDED" and "LAMENTABLE that it is still in text books"... as being UTEOTW-ized into "YES but nothing fundamentally wrong with it"

Now here is the question - WHERE on these threads has UTEOTW shown himself to be trustworthy with the facts? EVEN in the case of HIS OWN selection of an incident with Patterson - HE RUNS AWAY.

How much more on a thread like this one dealing with ID and the Romans 1 problem for cultic followers of atheist darwinism --

 

[BobRyan]

Running away from Romans 1 seems to be a habbit with UTEOTW