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

[TLK Valentine]

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

You consider dismissing facts without looking at them to be a Christian trait?

Funny, so do we.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

You have not provided any facts. All you have posted is nonsense and you have copied and pasted the lies of others. You probably don't understand how they are lies, but if you did you would be hanging your head in shame. Once again, do not quote mine. By doing so you are essentially agreeing that the Bible says "There is no God". Again, I can quote mine the Bible and make it say that.

Let's deal with the actual evidence for evolution. Or if you think that you have any evidence against it bring it on. Again, no quote mines. You know better now, I hope.

 

[BobRyan]

Fascinating sequence here --

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

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???[

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

That would have been the place to put some actual evidence to go along with your false factless accusation. Instead you merely posted "accusation alone" because factless and faith in evolutionism are not at all strangers.

When you needed help for your factless accusation you "added more factless accusation" - as your "proof" as your "evidence".

What junk science religion like evolutionism could not do that all day long?? There is an endless supply of factless accusation in the world. That is not even debated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, that is not the only reason. It is an important one. But you can forget the hundreds of self contradictions, the failed prophecies, the bad if not outright evil acts of God in the Old Testament.

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.

No, you didn't. You quote mined. If you can't link to the original source you have nothing.

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

I know what the OP said. Now the question is can you accept reality or do you have to live in fantasy land to remain a Christian. It is not saying much about your faith if you have to reject reality to be a Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

You have not provided any facts.

Here is a fact already in evidence.

After the bold equivocation between junk-science evolutionism and actual science like the law of Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics - I pointed out the blunder - showing that in real life even you don't see world class scientists saying the sorts of thing about gravity as your own atheist scientists say about evolutionism.

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


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???

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

Thus the perfect contrast was given - exposing that sort of "equivocation" as was attempted trying to get evolutionism in the "legit box" of science - that has Gravity and Thermodynamics in it.

 

[BobRyan]

And we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"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.

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

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

 

[46AND2]

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.

The ironic (or perhaps not so ironic) thing here is that Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford is NOT A YEC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wrong, those quotes are taken out of context and are not honest representations of the point that people were trying to get across. It is dishonest to quote mine. You should know better than that. Seriously do you think that the Bible means it when it says "There is no God"?

 

[BobRyan]

I know what the OP said. Now the question is can you accept reality or do you have to live in fantasy land to remain a Christian. It is not saying much about your faith if you have to reject reality to be a Christian.

in real life - even our own atheist evolutionists are saying things about evolutionism that scientists do not say about real science.



Karl Popper (atheist philosopher of science) wrote that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense:


“some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring” citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242


Following this, the journal "Nature" came out with an article titled “How True is the Theory of Evolution?” in which the editors interpreted Karl Popper as having said that Darwinism is “both metaphysical and unfalsifiable” and then confessed that “This is technically correct ”


(Nature: Vol 290. p 75)

And then later tried to recover by adding the lame observation “the theory of evolution is not entirely without empirical support”.

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong, those quotes are taken out of context and are not honest representations of the point that people were trying to get across.

That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.

 

[BobRyan]

The ironic (or perhaps not so ironic) thing here is that Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford is NOT A YEC.

Probably why I keep referring to him as 'your OWN atheist/agnostic professors - such a James Barr'

When it comes to evidence against junk-science-evolutionism I am pretty consistent about using atheist and agnostic sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"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.

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

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

That is only because horse evolution is more complex than as shown at some museums. That does not mean that horse evolution itself is fraudulent. When you quote mine you tend to make rather stupid mistakes like this. Wikipedia has a rather thorough article on horse evolution and you will see that it was not that simple. That is all that he was complaining about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it.

yet.

Please don't tell falsehoods about me. Those were all taken out of context. The fact that you can't link the original sources tells us that my accusations are not false. If I took the time I could probably show you how each and everyone is a quote mine. One thing you will find is that it is a lot easier to tell a falsehood than it takes to refute it. That has always been a bad debating technique and a true Christian would never use it. Once again, do you think that the Bible means to say "There is no God"? Why do you run away from such an easy question. It shows that you know that what you are doing is wrong.

ETA: Here is an offer to you. Pick one of your quotes that have taken out of context. You can choose the strongest one that you can find, I don't want to pick an easy one for me. Tell me what you think that it means, and I will see if I can track down the original and show you how you are wrong.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[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?

You consider dismissing facts without looking at them to be a Christian trait?

pretty funny.

I consider it to be a sign of a Christian that turned evolutionist. turning the direction is very different from simply being in that state from the start. Tell-tale signs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Like most atheists here I used to be a Christian. That is until I saw the light.

pretty funny.

I consider it to be a sign of a Christian that turned evolutionist. turning the direction is very different from simply being in that state from the start. Tell-tale signs.

By the way, I edited my previous post and made an offer to you.

 

[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???

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.

Wrong, those quotes are taken out of context and are not honest representations of the point that people were trying to get across.

That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.

Please don't tell falsehoods about me.

i have provided the complete trail of posts for that -- your factless accusation had not one fact posted - merely "more accusation". And you know it.

Those were all taken out of context.

That was your "accusation again" did you have a "FACT" to go with it.

OR is your "False accusation" all the fact you need for ... more false accusations??

The fact that you can't link the original sources tells us that my accusations are not false.

I gave you the source --

If I took the time I could probably show you how each and everyone is a quote mine.

You "could probably"????



All of those references are golden. They mean exactly what they say. And we can all read.

They are all atheist evolutionists and they are all pointing to some "unflattering detail" in the many-storied religion of blind-faith evolutionism where the true devotee argues 'all news is good news' -- but those guys point to a few "unflattering details".

 

[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..."

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

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???




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.



That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.



i have provided the complete trail of posts for that -- your factless accusation had not one fact posted - merely "more accusation". And you know it.




That was your "accusation again" did you have a "FACT" to go with it.

OR is your "False accusation" all the fact you need for ... more false accusations??



I gave you the source --



You "could probably"????



All of those references are golden. They mean exactly what they say. And we can all read.

Nope, you have only fallen for the lies of others. Once again, I made an offer. Pick your best quote mine. Tell me what you think that it means and I will show you that that is not the case. Just one, I know that you have a pile of them but it takes much more time to show you that the person that you got that from was lying than it takes to post that . As a Christian I am sure that you don't want to use the work of liars. At least I would not have when I was a Christian. I had standards, and I followed the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

ETA: Here is an offer to you. Pick one of your quotes that have taken out of context.

I don't have one of those.

I think I have been pretty consistent in stating that fact.

Tell me what you think that it means, and I will see if I can track down the original and show you how you are wrong.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

As posted previously - all of them are good and they all show that a diehard atheist evolutionist - a scientist, a well known scientist is pointing to some 'unflattering detail' where the true devotees usually want to sweep it all under the rug in the religionist's "all news is good news" fashion. You keep proving that point as you insist that these non-flattering statments surely surely must be in error - because... they..... are not ... flattering.

I don't mind that you are content to make my point.

 

[46AND2]

Probably why I keep referring to him as 'your OWN atheist/agnostic professors - such a James Barr'

When it comes to evidence against junk-science-evolutionism I am pretty consistent about using atheist and agnostic sources.

Quite right, what I meant to say, was that he was not an atheist/agnostic. I accidentally wrote YEC after reading a different argument about that quote.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope, you have only fallen for the lies of others. Once again, I made an offer. Pick your best quote mine. Tell me what you think that it means and I will show you that that is not the case. Just one, I know that you have a pile of them but it takes much more time to show you that the person that you got that from was lying than it takes to post that . .

I find your argument about 'the future' to be interesting. you keep talking about what you 'surely could find if you looked' -

I am posting what I found when I DID look.