Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Subduction Zone]

A. those texts quoted were not from the Bible.
B. "What the Bible says" is the subject and title of the thread.
C. I am not arguing to dissuade someone from believing whatever their bias inclines them to believe. I am providing evidence for the "alternative" when it comes to Christianity and the Gospel - which is not exactly a math equation. Rather it is an appeal to the fact that God is right about the doctrine on origins. Some may prefer evolutionism as their doctrine on origins - but they should at least "know" what the alternative is.

I know, they were quoted from a confused person. They still had nothing to do with the thread as presented.

Creation vs evolution --> "
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT.."

Is all about the 'text' you say you should not have to know about or read, to discuss the topic of this thread?.

Seems counter intuitive.

Yes, the person was complaining about how the theory of evolution disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. The simple fact is that when your interpretation is wrong you need to let it go.

Most former Christians don't have as much detail on Gen 1-3, and Gen 6-8 as I posted. Details that answer a lot of questions about 'and so how is that being a loving God' . In any case for the tiny few that might have read those texts before (which is almost zero) - I grant that I am more focused on the life-long atheist benefiting from knowing what the other POV is before rejecting it out of hand. I have stated this a few times already.

You mean nonsense. And again, if you want them to read that nonsense you need to find some salient points to quote. And repeating your mistakes does not stop them from being mistakes.

Those "on the other side" may choose not to allow themselves to look at the alternative.

Most of us have. Much more so than you have.

You just used circular reasoning.

Next comes self-conflicted reasoning.

If you are going to be a jerk how do you expect to learn. I used no circular reasoning, I pointed out an error of yours. Be nice. You are also supposed to be honest if you are a Christian. Tsk, tsk.

Evolutionism is a religion about the doctrine on origins - Christian Bible starts off with the doctrine on origins. As Darwin observed they are competing. They are incompatible.

Sorry, you can't make up your own religion if you don't follow it. In the theory of evolution there are no doctrines. Scientists simply follow the evidence. You might consider doing that some day. And Darwin made no such observation. Again, most Christians accept evolution. Creationism is the minority view worldwide. Are you going to say that half of Christians are not really Christians? If you do that then you put Christianity as a the third or even fourth most popular religion in the world. If you keep kicking people out of your club you will soon be the only member.

 

[BobRyan]

I know, they were quoted from a confused person. They still had nothing to do with the thread as presented.

Only if you re-imagine the thread so that responding to atheist comments about God and Genesis 1-3 or God and Genesis 6-7 has nothing to do with the thread.

For now we will admit that those posts - even by your fellow atheists -- "exist" and can be answered. EVEN when the answer involves a Christian POV. (As surprising as that may sound at first).

Yes, the person was complaining about how the theory of evolution disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. The simple fact is that when your interpretation is wrong you need to let it go.

Your own atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies - at "All world class universities" recognize that your speculation on that point is not supported by the "kind of literature that it is" --

If even your OWN atheists see your speculation as mere fluff "not to be taken seriously" how much more would actual Christians who read the Bible as if it were true - "notice" the problem in your speculation??

As already quoted in my previous post
Today at 10:27 AM #1434
-- as follows

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the theory of evolution there are no doctrines. Scientists simply follow the evidence. You might consider doing that some day. And Darwin made no such observation.

Darwin did in fact argue that his Christianity - his acceptance of the Bible was entirely destroyed by his faith in evolutionism. (So also does Dawkins, Meyers, Provine go on video to ... make that same claim.)

And of course evolutionism does have its own doctrine on origins for its devotees - and it is a doctrine that even Darwin admits - does not fit with the Bible.

Are you saying that this can be redacted from history ??

And out of curiosity - what is the atheist interest in denying these facts of history?
How does that help atheism??.

IS T.E. another form of atheism??

Evolution and atheism -- sure.

But T.E. must also marry it's beliefs to the Bible for atheism to be promoted??

I know why I would think you should do such a thing - but why would you think you should do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you re-imagine the thread so that responding to atheist comments about God and Genesis 1-3 or God and Genesis 6-7 has nothing to do with the thread.

For now we will admit that those posts - even by your fellow atheists -- "exist" and can be answered. EVEN when the answer involves a Christian POV. (As surprising as that may sound at first).

It has something to do with the thread, but you went overboard. And again, there is no one Christian POV.

Your own atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies - at "All world class universities" recognize that your speculation on that point is not supported by the "kind of literature that it is" --

If even your OWN atheists see your speculation as mere fluff "not to be taken seriously" how much more would actual Christians who read the Bible as if it were true - "notice" the problem in your speculation??

This point is irrefutable.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't even understand one word of the nonsense that you just posted. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin did in fact argue that his Christianity - his acceptance of the Bible was entirely destroyed by his faith in evolutionism. (So also does Dawkins, Meyers, Provine go on video to ... make that same claim.)

Sorry but if you use nonsense phrases you automatically lose. There is no such thing as "evolutionism" and you misunderstood Dawkins. Please quote and link properly and I will explain your error to you.

And of course evolutionism does have its own doctrine on origins for its devotees - and it is a doctrine that even Darwin admits - does not fit with the Bible.

Once again since "evolutionism" does not exist and there is no doctrine in evolution you could not be more wrong. Would you care to try again. A little honesty this time. No fake made up term, no false claims about doctrine in science when you can't show any. Remember, the Ninth Commandment applies to you too.

Are you saying that this can be redacted from history ??

And out of curiosity - what is the atheist interest in denying these facts of history?
How does that help atheism??.

IS T.E. another form of atheism??

Evolution and atheism -- sure.

But T.E. must also marry it's beliefs to the Bible for atheism to be promoted??

I know why I would think you should do such a thing - but why would you think you should do it?

No one is denying any history. The problem is that you cannot get history right. And no, theological evolution is not part of atheism. You should have been able to tell by the first word in that was said.

The theory of evolution is no more "atheistic" than the laws of thermodynamics, or the theory of gravity (GR in case you did not know). You don't like the facts so you label it "atheistic". That is not an honest approach to a subject that you do not like.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is no more "atheistic" than the laws of thermodynamics, or the theory of gravity (GR in case you did not know).

Its gross 'equivocation' of that sort that will be the death of faith in evolutionism.

a. We can "SEE" gravity in the lab -- and so also for the laws of thermodynamics. So then -- no debate over that.
b. Evolutionism is a blind-faith fiction not at all reproducible in the lab. And that include the purely mechanical bits like abiogenesis that require NO zilliion-generations to get the magical mutation!! That's right even the most basic mechanical bits - amino acids -- are not observable self-organizing into existence in the lab!. So then "debate" follows.

Even among evolutionist atheists themselves -

So while we NEVER see top-level scientists saying "Gravity -- never happened in nature" or "laws of thermodynamics - never observed in nature" -- or "Gravity - only accepted on the basis of religion not science" . "law of Gravity - conveys anti-knowledge. Knowledge that is harmful to physics".

We never see top level scientists saying "I used to believe in the bible but then I found out that rocks fall to the ground due to gravity and I had to stop being a Christian"

YET - we CAN see those very things said about blind-faith-evolutionism EVEN by athiest scientists themselves!!.

sweeping the whole thing under a rug as if by doing so these little "inconvenient details" will never get noticed - is another fiction.

 

[BobRyan]

In the theory of evolution there are no doctrines. Scientists simply follow the evidence. You might consider doing that some day. And Darwin made no such observation.

Darwin did in fact argue that his Christianity - his acceptance of the Bible was entirely destroyed by his faith in evolutionism. (So also does Dawkins, Meyers, Provine go on video to ... make that same claim.)

And of course evolutionism does have its own doctrine on origins for its devotees - and it is a doctrine that even Darwin admits - does not fit with the Bible.

Are you saying that this can be redacted from history ??

And out of curiosity - what is the atheist interest in denying these facts of history?
How does that help atheism??.

IS T.E. another form of atheism??

Evolution and atheism -- sure.

But T.E. must also marry it's beliefs to the Bible for atheism to be promoted??

I know why I would think you should do such a thing - but why would you think you should do it?

Sorry but if you use nonsense phrases you automatically lose. There is no such thing as "evolutionism" and you misunderstood Dawkins. Please quote and link properly and I will explain your error to you.

Wow - I look at the data and you "don't need no stinking facts" at all - just your own devotion to blind faith evolutionism already tells you that no matter the facts/videos/articles by your own atheist scientists - I must always be wrong no matter what I notice in those videos -- err... umm... because I "believe the Bible"??? (sounds like an atheist religion to me. Probably sounds that way to you too when you read that post)

If you want to take a defensible objective position - feel free. I would welcome the change because right now you have left me holding all the cards.

You need to at least set your own POV up for something like 'success' - rather than issuing by-faith-alone statements that the data you have not seen will affirm you no matter what is found out to the contrary.

Once again since "evolutionism" does not exist

Just there - we do agree. Though we differ on almost everything else. In real life - evolution does not exist. Evolutionism is simply the "belief' that real life does not count when it comes to evolution.

and there is no doctrine in evolution you could not be more wrong. Would you care to try again. A little honesty this time. No fake made up term, no false claims about doctrine in science when you can't show any. Remember, the Ninth Commandment applies to you too.

Be honest - do you really think that the Bible promotes atheism or evolutionism?? Why would a Christian make an argument of the form 'sure evolution exists - even though it is never seen to happen -- "??? Do I rant against your posts claiming that God does not exist - or do I post that this is exactly what I expect you to say since you are a believer in atheism and the doctrines of evolutionism?

Certainly I differ with your view that God does not exist - but I don't whine that you post as if this is what you really think. Rather I fully expect that this would be your view. This is not the rocket science part of our discussion.

The problem is that you cannot get history right. And no, theological evolution is not part of atheism. You should have been able to tell by the first word in that was said.

"Theological evolution"???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the theory of evolution there are no doctrines. Scientists simply follow the evidence. You might consider doing that some day. And Darwin made no such observation.

Darwin did in fact argue that his Christianity - his acceptance of the Bible was entirely destroyed by his faith in evolutionism. (So also does Dawkins, Meyers, Provine go on video to ... make that same claim.)

And of course evolutionism does have its own doctrine on origins for its devotees - and it is a doctrine that even Darwin admits - does not fit with the Bible.

Are you saying that this can be redacted from history ??

And out of curiosity - what is the atheist interest in denying these facts of history?
How does that help atheism??.

IS T.E. another form of atheism??

Evolution and atheism -- sure.

But T.E. must also marry it's beliefs to the Bible for atheism to be promoted??

I know why I would think you should do such a thing - but why would you think you should do it?


So now - the first exhibit -- data that at least one atheist here would like to re-imagine out of existence.

======================= DARWIN

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

===============================

So then why are there some atheist evolutionists going out on the limb to argue that T.E's are right to marry blind faith evolutionism to the Bible when even their own buddy - Darwin knows that is bunk??

 

[BobRyan]

I know, they were quoted from a confused person. They still had nothing to do with the thread as presented.

Only if you re-imagine the thread so that responding to atheist comments about God and Genesis 1-3 or God and Genesis 6-7 has nothing to do with the thread.

For now we will admit that those posts - even by your fellow atheists -- "exist" and can be answered. EVEN when the answer involves a Christian POV. (As surprising as that may sound at first).

Yes, the person was complaining about how the theory of evolution disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. The simple fact is that when your interpretation is wrong you need to let it go.

Your own atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies - at "All world class universities" recognize that your speculation on that point is not supported by the "kind of literature that it is" --

If even your OWN atheists see your speculation as mere fluff "not to be taken seriously" how much more would actual Christians who read the Bible as if it were true - "notice" the problem in your speculation??

As already quoted in my previous post
Today at 10:27 AM #1434
-- as follows

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

I don't even understand one word of the nonsense that you just posted. Try again..

I believe you are sincere in saying that.

Thank you for being will to say it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its gross 'equivocation' of that sort that will be the death of faith in evolutionism.

Since there is no faith allowed in scientific reasoning you are wrong on multiple levels here.

a. We can "SEE" gravity in the lab -- and so also for the laws of thermodynamics. So then -- no debate over that.
b. Evolutionism is a blind-faith fiction not at all reproducible in the lab. And that include the purely mechanical bits like abiogenesis that require NO zilliion-generations to get the magical mutation!! That's right even the most basic mechanical bits - amino acids -- are not observable self-organizing into existence in the lab!. So then "debate" follows.

Since "evolutionism" does not exist of course it is impossible to test in the lab. But the theory of evolution has been tested almost everywhere and it has passed all major tests. It have been tested in the lab, in the field, with DNA, with morphology, the list goes on and on. You seem to be rather ignorant on how evolution is tested. By the way, not all scientific testing is done in the laboratory. There is no reason it has to be limited to that. People can help you to learn here, but you will never learn as long as you keep spewing your own made up nonsense. When you don't understand you should ask questions. You should ask them politely and preferably one at a time.

Even among evolutionist atheists themselves -

So while we NEVER see top-level scientists saying "Gravity -- never happened in nature" or "laws of thermodynamics - never observed in nature" -- or "Gravity - only accepted on the basis of religion not science" . "law of Gravity - conveys anti-knowledge. Knowledge that is harmful to physics".

And we never see top level scientists claiming that evolution never happened either. Only a handful of nuts and kooks oppose the idea in the world of science.

We never see top level scientists saying "I used to believe in the bible but then I found out that rocks fall to the ground due to gravity and I had to stop being a Christian"

But you forgot the mythical stories that Dawkins was raised on. Gravity does not go against those mythical stories. Being brought up with the Adam and Eve myth can be rather daunting. Once your mind is freed of that clap trap one can look at the whole Bible and find it wanting.

YET - we CAN see those very things said about blind-faith-evolutionism EVEN by athiest scientists themselves!!.

sweeping the whole thing under a rug as if by doing so these little "inconvenient details" will never get noticed - is another fiction.

Again, there is no blind faith in evolution. It is supported by literally mountains of scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. I and others can help you learn that. All you have to do is to want to learn.

And instead of making nonsensical claims, why don't you try to support your claims with evidence? I know, I know, you have none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now - the first exhibit -- data that at least one atheist here would like to re-imagine out of existence.

======================= DARWIN

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

===============================

So then why are there some atheist evolutionists going out on the limb to argue that T.E's are right to marry blind faith evolutionism to the Bible when even their own buddy - Darwin knows that is bunk??

You have it backwards. Darwin had blind faith in the Bible to start with. As he learned more he saw that faith was misplaced. He realized that the Bible was no different from the Vedas. Those others knew that the Bible was not the authority that they thought it was and that was why they laughed at Darwin at the time. Education frees you from the shackles of ignorance. Those are the shackles of your belief.

That is why so many Christians oppose education. They know that education is dangerous for their belief.

 

[BobRyan]

Once again since "evolutionism" does not exist and there is no doctrine in evolution you could not be more wrong. Would you care to try again. A little honesty this time. No fake made up term, no false claims about doctrine in science when you can't show any. Remember, the Ninth Commandment applies to you too.

No one is denying any history. The problem is that you cannot get history right. And no, theological evolution is not part of atheism. You should have been able to tell by the first word in that was said.

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

========================

Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".

AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

REALLY?? That is what you see happening???

 

[BobRyan]

You have it backwards. Darwin had blind faith in the Bible to start with. As he learned more he saw that faith was misplaced. He realized that the Bible was no different from the Vedas.

Is this you "agreeing with me" that Darwin rejected Christianity - because it was incompatible with his faith in evolutionism?


I have been arguing this point all along. Evolutionism cannot be married to the Bible - even Darwin knew it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you re-imagine the thread so that responding to atheist comments about God and Genesis 1-3 or God and Genesis 6-7 has nothing to do with the thread.

For now we will admit that those posts - even by your fellow atheists -- "exist" and can be answered. EVEN when the answer involves a Christian POV. (As surprising as that may sound at first).

Once again there is no one Christian POV. Christians run the gamut from accepting modern day science to believing in a Flat Earth. The question is can your beliefs hold up to reality? When you realize that life evolved can you still be a Christian. Some Christians can, some lose their faith when they can't believe Genesis any longer.

Your own atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies - at "All world class universities" recognize that your speculation on that point is not supported by the "kind of literature that it is" --

If even your OWN atheists see your speculation as mere fluff "not to be taken seriously" how much more would actual Christians who read the Bible as if it were true - "notice" the problem in your speculation??

As already quoted in my previous post
Today at 10:27 AM #1434
-- as follows

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

What supposed speculation are you nattering about?

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

Yes, there is no doubt that the writers of the Bible thought that the world was created in 6 days. So what? They were wrong. It is really that simple. Some Christians can live with that fact, some can't. All you have said by linking this is that the Bible is obviously wrong.

I believe you are sincere in saying that.

Thank you for being will to say it.

in Christ,

Bob

Even you should be able to understand how we know that there was no global flood. The simple fact that ice floats tells us that there was no worldwide flood since the icecaps have been in existence in Antarctica longer than mankind has existed. And if you want to discuss this matter there is a geologic structure that I am fond of that tells us that there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Sorry these are all quote mines and extremely misleading. It is not honest to quote mine. You may not know this but it is a form of lying. I now that you did not find these quote mines, you are merely copying them from a creationist site. Here is a very good rule when quoting someone. If you cannot find a valid source that can give you the quotes in context don't use the quotes. I can quote mine the Bible. Twelve times it says "There is no God", I won't do that because it is dishonest. I have to lift those quotes out of context. That is what was done in your quotes.

Do you understand how that is a dishonest thing to do? If you think quote mining is okay then by your standards the Bible does say "There is no God".

 

[BobRyan]

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. 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.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry these are all quote mines and extremely misleading. It is not honest to quote mine. .

For the true believer in evolutionism "all news is good news" even when it is not.

Thus the quotes that are most inconvenient can be blindly dismissed because.. err.. umm... "they are quotes".

Yep - that is why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this you "agreeing with me" that Darwin rejected Christianity - because it was incompatible with his faith in evolutionism?

No, since there is no such thing as evolutionism that cannot be done. Please do not repeat this falsehood again. He rejected Christianity because the scales fell from his eyes and he could see its countless flaws and contradictions. He lost faith because of evidence.

I have been arguing this point all along. Evolutionism cannot be married to the Bible - even Darwin knew it.

And again there is no such thing. So you are claiming that reality and Christianity are at odds with each other. You are essentially saying that the Bible is wrong because we know that evolution is right.

By the way, there is a big difference between belief, which is all that you have, and knowledge. I can demonstrate my beliefs so that others can understand them. You cannot.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you understand how that is a dishonest thing to do? If you think quote mining is okay then by your standards the Bible does say "There is no God".

Your dismissal of every fact without even looking - is well.. perhaps a sign that you were not always atheist.

Did you used to be christian?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, there is no doubt that the writers of the Bible thought that the world was created in 6 days. So what? They were wrong. It is really that simple. Some Christians can live with that fact, some can't. All you have said by linking this is that the Bible is obviously wrong.

You "or someone" recently came out with the fiction that the only reason anyone thinks the Bible is wrong in Genesis is because they don't know how to read.

But I pointed out that in fact your own atheist professors refute that idea. They too do not believe the Bible - but they "know how to read" and they can see that the author intended the text to be taken as an accurate historic account by his contemporary readers.

While your post is "easy enough" for an atheist - take another hard look at the OP.