Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Not in the church I attend. He would teach what he doesn't believe fully to be the truth and would reduce himself to the level of a hypocrite. This would send out the wrong signals to students that reality is only what we want it to be.

Which leads to the question that I posted on another topic. Would you allow a KJVOist to teach Sunday School if your church was not KJVO? For that matter, would you allow a person to teach if they believe a woman must keep her head covered, or that a woman may not wear pants?

My $.02 is that, so long as the person agrees with the Statement of Faith of the church, and so long as a person adheres to the cirriculum of SS, their personal views on the above are of no serious matter, so long as they keep their views personal.

I, for one, do not adhere to a strict 6000yr 6x24 creation, but I was an elementary age Sunday School teacher for several years, when when the cirriculum was Genesis, I taught genesis. It would have been wrong for me to teach anything else.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Would you allow a KJVOist to teach Sunday School if your church was not KJVO? For that matter, would you allow a person to teach if they believe a woman must keep her head covered, or that a woman may not wear pants?

My $.02 is that, so long as the person agrees with the Statement of Faith of the church, and so long as a person adheres to the cirriculum of SS, their personal views on the above are of no serious matter, so long as they keep their views personal.

In the cases that you mentioned - it would be no problem at all for such a person to teach as long as they kept their out-of-bounds views off the table when it came to class time.

However - the whole point with evolutionism is that it is totally incompatible with sound doctrine. In compatible with doctrines regarding
#1. God's statements on origins,
#2. Christ the Creator,
#3. the fall of man,
#4. the origin of sin,
#5. the reason for the need of a savior,
#6. the context for redemption,
#7. the trustworthy status of scripture,
#8. the proper forms of exegesis,
#9 on sound logic, on acceptance of fact and good science over junk-science.

(OK I just had to add that last one.)

I, for one, do not adhere to a strict 6000yr 6x24 creation, but I was an elementary age Sunday School teacher for several years, when when the cirriculum was Genesis, I taught genesis. It would have been wrong for me to teach anything else.

Did you teach it as "Fact" as "story" as "myth" as "ideas that can be trusted but not the actual facts in the text?", Did you leave it open for interpretation? Did you show solid enthusiastic and creative imagination in promoting the idea of God who simply speaks and instantly it happens? Did you emphasize the perfect sinless, deathless, harmonious state of nature with man and God as the ideal that God created? Did you show Man in his highest, ultimate, most intelligent, most enlightened, most harmoneous condition walking with God in unparralleled avenues of enlightenment, and discoveries in science and nature?

Did you present a real tree of life intended to give the one who eats eternal life for real?

Did you present a real sin - a real fall, and the change that came over nature and mankind at the fall?

Could anything like a "trustworthy rendering" of the focus that God gives us in Genesis 1-6 be expected from evolutionists?

Just curious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, where is your citation for where the archy conference back in the 1980s decided that archy was just a "true bird?"

"I said that the Geolgoic column was SUPPOSED to have an AVERAGE of 100 miles. It is really between 100 and TWO HUNDRED MILES!"

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Yeah. This is the made up part that you are supposed to support.

Evolutionists by nature are not good with details so I understand how this is hard for you.

Did you read your own link? (Apparently not very closely).

Here is the salient quote (why is it I have to help you with your own quote???)

Woodmorappe said --
"There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real (in those cases).

Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field."

This is the standard that Woodmorappe used to determine "completeness" of what one would EXPECT to find if evolutionism mythologies were "True".

But a true devotee to evolutionism would not be satisfied with that - would they UTEOTW? Surely such a common sense approach would not satisfy the person who "assumes evolutionisms doctrines to be true".

The pro-Christian pro-Genesis article your link is intended to refute starts out saying


In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions


It is the "expected" finding vs the "Actual" finding that is such a glaring blunder for evolutionists.

And this article points that out - very well.

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

But could you trust a believer in evolutionism to point this out to your Bible class?

Surely not!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said "3. The entropy problem where EVEN atheist evolutionists PUBLISH that what we SEE in the local system is INCREASED entropy - and then they admit that evolutionism NEEDS us to have found "massive DECREASE" instead of the observed INCREASE."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Your own expert in this disagrees with your conclusion in the very quote you hatchet down to get your snippet. If you trust him as an expert, then your should trust his conclusion that entropy is not a problem.

Can a true believer in evolutionism be trusted to represent this simple point in our debate accurately? I had hoped him to be capable of such a small task. But I guess not.

In FACT - the atheist evolutionist IS NOT a Creationist CHRISTIAN spokesperson - he is an ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST source. So the idea that this is someone from MY group arguing against evolutionism is totall silly and absurd. But it is exactly the kind of misdirection one "might" expect of a devotee to evolutionism's myths.

Secondly - I have stated repeatedly that Isaac Asimov REMAINS the devoted atheist evolutionist that he ALWAYS was INSPITE of the facts he exposed in his article. Like all true evolutionists he was not about to let inconvenient facts of true science (even if those facts are clearly stated BY HIM) get in the way of a good religion like evolutionism.

Thirdly - ASIMOV says that we SEE INCREASED entropy at the LOCAL level in human biological systems - and we NEED to SEE a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy in the those SAME systems to get evolutionism's mythological molecule-to-mind evolution to have happened.

Sad - but UTEOTW has to keep pretending "not to get it" and circle back to his starting point - each time I point out this glaring flaw, this horrible blunder in his argument so far.

I guess I am doomed to expose UTOETW's complete lack of a response here.

His tactic of continually pointing out that Asimov REMAINS an atheist evolutionist is NOT an argument for either one!

Finally - I already exposed the fact that Asimov NEVER ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM. He simply observed that in a fairtale land where we actually SAW the MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy at the local level that evolutionism NEEDED to have found -- we "could" have still argued for entropy being preserved by appealing to the brightly burning sun as part of our closed system.

A "solution without a problem" as it turned out - since we don't live in that wonderland where such "massive decrease" was actually observed.

How sad that UTEOTW must "pretend" not to see this point.

But lack of clear thinking may be another reason not to let devoted evolutionists teach Bible class.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
How do you stop them from teaching in public school?

I don't stop them from teaching it. I stop my grandson from learning it. I homeschool him.

 

[BobRyan]

2. Simpson's Horse series where EVEN SIMPSON admits that what he published never actually happened.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

No, Bob, that is your misquote about Simpson.

Once again you fail "the details". The above quote from me where I GAVE the EXACT quote from SIMPSON -- so you simply "make up your response" anyway.

How sad. Better stick to the facts.

Here are few EXACT quotes you may want to read if you are Bible believing Christian.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.

"High school textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true.[/b] For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Additional points to keep in mind:
a) There is no site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress.

b) Bones of the supposed earliest horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.

</font>[/QUOTE]But these are NOT the kind of quotes or the data you would "Expect" to find from evolutionists - though they ARE exactly what Christians expect our atheist evolutionists to eventually be forced to admit - as real science fact - confronts junk science speculation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And just in case - UTEOTW needs more quotes for the Horse series ...

The WILD, Classic, Traditional (Darwinian) claim for Horse evolution:

Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

Sound familiar? It should -- How “LIKE” their efforts with Archaeopteryx and Bird evolution!!

No basis for such wild evolutionist SEQUENCES:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50, pg 24, 1979.

Fact: The certainty of change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

The above statement is a classic confession that data is never the friend of evolutionists – it merely unravels the twisted layers of guesswork and speculation built around skimpy data, wild guesses and evolutionist religious fervor.

Gould sees the same thing in the discrediting of the horse series sequence published by Simpson.

The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

[/quote]
In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have repeatedly pointed out the glaring failure of evolutionsts to produce the monochiral amino acid chains needed to comprise the proteins of a single living cell.

UTEOTW offerred us the "what if they were made in outer space" speculative rabbit trail and misdirection.

And then he offers this one --

The area of amino acid catalysis may hold significant clues to the evolution of prebiotic chemistry. That prebiotic building blocks such as sugars can be formed asymmetrically from such reactions has recently led to speculation about the evolution of biological homochirality through such routes.[4]

First of all - I never doubted or denied that the true devotee to evolutionism would frequently choose to "speculate about the evolution of biological homochirality".

I fully expect them to.

I also agree that going into outer space - or finding some rock some place - to produce your amino acids -- just "might" get you to something better than 50/50 distributions.

No doubt at all.

But so far - there are no 100/0 distributions in any lab experiment producing the amino acid chains needed for the proteins of even ONE living cell.

The more outlandish things they have to do to "improve their odds" for monochirality - the "less plausible" it becomes that such a thing ever occurred in all of time.

Get it? Yet?

Well "no" I suppose that being a "true believer" in the doctrines of evolutionism - this is probably going right passed you.

I am not trying to disparage the ceaseless efforts of dedicated atheist evolutionists to find a way to get monochiral chains that then form the needed proteins to make a single living cell. I know that at dedicated atheists "they have no other option" but to pound their heads against that wall.

Please don't think that I am making fun of them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Where is your support for your archy conference claims?

"Did you read your own link? (Apparently not very closely)."

Yes I did.

"Here is the salient quote (why is it I have to help you with your own quote???)"

I dunno. I seem to have to help you with all your quotes.

"This is the standard that Woodmorappe used to determine "completeness" of what one would EXPECT to find if evolutionism mythologies were "True"."

And if YOU would have read the whole thing, you would have seen the problem with Woodmorappe. He assumes that the largest rates of accumulation must be the only rates of accumulation.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Lessee now. BobRyan admits that fossils of horses exist that can be placed in an apparant evolutionary sequence. But he claims the fossil record does not support an evolutionary sequence, because . . . . uh ... because ...

What was that reason again? Surely he doesn't mean to forget that even though dogs came from wolves the wolves are still around, and the same thing could happen easily with any other lineage ...

 

[UTEOTW]

"Once again you fail "the details". The above quote from me where I GAVE the EXACT quote from SIMPSON -- so you simply "make up your response" anyway."

Are you going to go down this route AGAIN. You only embarras yourself when you do.

First the Rensberger quote. First off Bob seems to think that a newspaper writer should be a valid authority on evolution. Would you also go down to your local newspaper if you had a medical emergency? You are taking quotes about PE out of context. For instance, in the same article you also find

"Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes."

While talking about the controversy over PE, he later addresses exactly what you ar doing.

"No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth."

Also, a very similar article by the same author appeared in a different newspaper the previous day but without the quote you use. This suggests that the quote may not even be the author's.

Next you have a Gould quote talking about punctuated equilibrium. You know, how species stay similar for years and then undergo brief bursts of change. Simpson says the same thing in part of the quote you butcher out. Quoting Simpson "As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional."

You then have a quote from Berlinski. I do not think he is qualified to speak on the subject. (Not that this stopped you from using a journalist above!) Why don't you explain who he is and why you quoted him. I think the credibility will then go down.

You then quote Eldredge, who is upset that a museum still is using the simple A to B to C gradual horse series instead of the more complete series that is available. He is not complaining about the series itself.

Then you quote Simpson again. Again you dishonestly cut out all of the context in order to make it appear that he is saying something different than what he is actually saying. Here is the quote. AGAIN

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)

"There is no site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen."

And there is no site in the world where you can see my ancestors going back for even a couple of generations. I guess that means I do not exist!

"Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress. "

Ummm....No. They were found in North America. Try reading this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

You will find that "Most horse species, including all the ancestors of Equus, arose in North America."

"Bones of the supposed earliest horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils. "

Prove the Eohippus fossil have been found in the same layers are Equus. THis is a false claim.

Yes there is overlap between the genera. But, as has been pointed out to you many times, overlap is to be expected. One group does not automatically die out because a new group evolves.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus "

Yes, a good quote. What is the problem with this. I think you just admitted defeat.

"The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215. "

Yes, a good quote. What is the problem with this. I think you just admitted defeat.

You then have another Simpson quote where he is talking about rapid evolution, later to become known as punctuates equilibrium, and you present it as something else.

The you quote Raup as complaining about the horse when you should be able to tell that he was talking about how the simple model of horse evolution was later filled in with a more detailed view as more fossils were gfound.

The you have the final Gould quote that explains the problems with all your other attempts. The simple progression that was believed to be true early on has been replaced with the knowledge that actual evolution tends to be very bushy. We really would need some finely graded examples of transitional fossils to see this bushiness. Such a shame for your arguments.

 

[UTEOTW]

"But so far - there are no 100/0 distributions in any lab experiment producing the amino acid chains needed for the proteins of even ONE living cell."

And you have ignored that no one expects a fully formed, modern living cell to have been the beginning. You are asking for full on proteins when much simplier compounds would fit the bill for a beginning. I have given you one such path. RNA from simple compounds in pure stereoisomer form with the same orientation as in life. This would have been sufficient for for information and for most cellular function now carried out by proteins. In some extant life, RNA still performs some of these functions.

Of course you then complain that

"The more outlandish things they have to do to "improve their odds" for monochirality - the "less plausible" it becomes that such a thing ever occurred in all of time."

Yes. I think that the "outlandish" thing needed for the RNA to form was the presence of borax to act as a catalysts. Sort of a common compound, isn't it. So much for that being an "outlandish" requirement.

Now, where is our citation for your claims about the archy conference?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Before my career change, I was an evolutionary biologist who questioned some of the most extreme theories of evolution. Some years later I found myself at the senior pastor of a conservative, interdenominational church and my views of the biological and geological sciences never in any way challenged by conservative Christian views. However, when anti-evolution propaganda was brought by some of the church members into the church and I read it, I came close to converting to a full-fledged evolutionist. Why was that? It was because the anti-evolution propaganda was nothing but nonsense that made a mockery of the biological and geological sciences and proved to me that those who opposed the teaching of these sciences were ignorant fools who simply didn’t have a clue about these sciences. And I am not just talking about the “Big Daddy?” Chick tract, but the writings of so called scientists working for the so-called “Creation Science Research Center.”

Fortunately, the early writings and claims by these self-proclaimed scientists have been exposed to be the nonsense that they were and some of these men have been forced to either drop out of sight or become responsible scientists, and we are now seeing some vastly better science coming from true scientists who believe in creation (as I do), but unfortunately it is being overshadowed by more of the nonsensical propaganda trash being marketed in the name of Evangelical Christianity.

As for Sunday school teachers, when I was serving as the senior pastor, the subject of evolution never came up and was never a factor in assigning teachers to their classes. If I were to again pastor a church, I would certainly find it desirable to have a biologist who was a competent evolutionist among the teaching staff so that the Sunday school department could be kept up to date regarding evolutionary theory and data so that when the students had questions, they could get competent answers from their church. As it is now, very many local Baptist churches are setting themselves up against the local universities, and the local Baptist churches are staffed almost exclusively by uneducated laymen while the universities are staffed by research scientists, a number of whom are Nobel Prize Laureates. The consequence is that the churches are loosing a battle that they have no business being in, and thereby bringing a reproach to the gospel that is their business to in.

Evolutionary Biology poses no threat at all to Evangelical Christianity as long as the Evangelical Christians are clearly living and teaching the Gospel, but when our kids see their parents fighting and getting divorced and see how the pastor is eying the pretty young women in the church, then we have a VERY SERIOUS THREAT TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY!

Moral of the story: The Evangelical Church has lost its focus. Evolution in nature is not the problem—sin in the church is the problem!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] Lessee now. BobRyan admits that fossils of horses exist that can be placed in an apparant evolutionary sequence. But he claims the fossil record does not support an evolutionary sequence, because . . . . uh ... because ...

BEcause the evolutionists quoted above SHOW that the sequence was bogus and IN THEIR WORDS "NEVER occurred in NATURE"!!

WOW! A salient point for evolutionists here to "get".

This is really really easy guys

Time to grasp the concept.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sticking with the real science of empirical data IN the lap -- Bob states fact.

Bob observes
"But so far - there are no 100/0 distributions in any lab experiment producing the amino acid chains needed for the proteins of even ONE living cell."

UTEOTW shows us that he is forced to agree with that fact - but clings devotedly to pure mythical speculation about new laws of biochemistry that might be found one day - supporting entirely UNOBSERVED cell types.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And you have ignored that no one expects a fully formed, modern living cell to have been the beginning.

How in the WORLD - can devoted blind, fervent evolutionists cling to their faith that "Bob is not telling us the FACTS of real science" when you must constantly ADMIT your blunders as in the case above??

Come on evolutionists! This is the really really easy part!

Please show how all the "Bob lied" rhetoric is justified when you have to make embarrassing confessions like the one above?

Is there even an ounce of critical logic and objective thinking left in your hallowed temple of evolutionism?

Now "watch" as UTEOTW leaps "way out on the mythical limb"

UTEOTW

You are asking for full on proteins when much simplier compounds would fit the bill for a beginning.

The monochiral structures of all living cells today - not withstandig - eh UTEOTW??

I have given you one such path. RNA from simple compounds in pure stereoisomer form with the same orientation as in life.

Is it NOW your quagmire to argue that an RNA molecule is a living cell UTEOTW? Has it come to that?

UTEOTW
This would have been sufficient for for information and for most cellular function now carried out by proteins.

I take that as an embarrassing "yes".

Way to go! A tribute to the most ardent devotee of any religion when confronted with disconfirming fact EVEN while admitting that you have no such single celled organism NOR even the proteins to make one.

Bob observes the obvious fact that --
"The more outlandish things they have to do to "improve their odds" for monochirality - the "less plausible" it becomes that such a thing ever occurred in all of time."

Having failed to show a well reasoned path for monochiral amino acids to form as needed for the proteins of even one single living cell --

UTEOTW continues with his RNA MOLECULE "story" hoping not to let inconvenient science FACT interfere with evolutionisms story in science fICTION

UTEOTW
Yes. I think that the "outlandish" thing needed for the RNA to form was the presence of borax to act as a catalysts.

The outlandish examples UTEOTW has ALREADY given INCLUDE amino acid compounds IN OUTER SPACE that have a somewhat "more favorable" distribution that then totally loused up 50/50 that they get in the lab - but the fact remains only the 100/0 distribution (you know - monochiral distribution) works.

And of course as EACH of these focused examples becomes "too hot with actual FACT" UTEOTW desperately calls for a "change of subject".

Now, where is our citation for your claims about the archy conference?

You are just to funny my friend.

Having failed in the monochiral abiogenesis problem area - (even to the point of your confession at the start of this post) -- the faithful devotee to evolutionism's dogma seeks a change of topic!

Fantastic!

Who could ever be induced to become the mindless drone of evolutionism after reading the contrast in fact and fiction demonstrated here?

Come on! This is the EASY part!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

No, someone who believes in evolutionist mythology should not be teaching a Sunday School class.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Since God created life by using evolution to derive the species, and since He made the universe 13+ billion years ago, it is no dishoner to Him to mention those facts; it would be a dishoner to Him to deny those facts.

It is perfectly plausible to interpret Genesis to be consistent with the scientific truth, it would not be, however, a strictly literal interpretation. But God would not have us to interpret the Bible to be inconsistent with His creation; therefore the strictly literal interpretation is not required.

Well, there's as plausibly a bit of twisted logic as e'er I did read.

 

[jcrawford]

This thread is a good example of why evolutionism should neither be taught in Sunday school or public school.

It is too divisive and creates a great cultural and political divide in the country.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

Why was that? It was because the anti-evolution propaganda was nothing but nonsense that made a mockery of the biological and geological sciences and proved to me that those who opposed the teaching of these sciences were ignorant fools who simply didn’t have a clue about these sciences.

So I assume you are not talking about Answers in Genesis. Have you had a chance to read actuall scientists speaking out in favor of scripture's view of origins?

And I am not just talking about the “Big Daddy?” Chick tract, but the writings of so called scientists working for the so-called “Creation Science Research Center.”

Have you researched the credentials of those people?

Local to my own church I have a Chemist (PHD) and Physicist (PHD) that seem to have found a lot of fellow scientists in favor of the scientific support for God's Word on creation - including AIG.

forced to either drop out of sight or become responsible scientists, and we are now seeing some vastly better science coming from true scientists who believe in creation (as I do)

So do you have a view on things "like" the published statements by atheist evolutionists on the problems with the initial sequence that Simpson published for the horse?

As for Sunday school teachers, when I was serving as the senior pastor, the subject of evolution never came up and was never a factor in assigning teachers to their classes. If I were to again pastor a church, I would certainly find it desirable to have a biologist who was a competent evolutionist among the teaching staff

It is one thing to "know" the fairtale details of the atheist evolutionist theories that oppose God's Word - it is another to "believe" them.

Are you saying that you see now connection between God's view of Origins in Genesis 1 and in John 1 -- and the Gospel of John?

As it is now, very many local Baptist churches are setting themselves up against the local universities, and the local Baptist churches are staffed almost exclusively by uneducated laymen while the universities are staffed by research scientists

I agree with the need to be "informed". But being informed about a lie is not the same thing as believing it.

Evolutionary Biology poses no threat at all to Evangelical Christianity as long as the Evangelical Christians are clearly living and teaching the Gospel

And the evolutionaryu biologist is being witnessed to - so that they might one day accept the Gospel.

BUT IF the evolutionary biolgist is TEACHING the evangelical Christian about the Gospel that results from bonding atheist evolutionism to the John 1 Gospel statement on the creator and origins and the Gospel statements about the accuracy of the DETAILS in scripture's account of origins - you have a "problem for the Christians".

Your argument that the Christians have "other problems as well" but this is not a valid "either OR" case. It is a case BOTH-AND problems.

In Christ,

Bob