Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[BobRyan]

the atheist's own Collin Patterson tells us this

" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Here is how one "sticks with the stories easy enough to tell" and doubles-down on them no matter that such proven frauds as we have with Marsh's horse series are exposed as "lamentable" even by atheists.

(sigh) Just because we can't tell which of the similar cousins was the actual ancestor based on the bones alone doesn't mean we haven't established evolution

(sigh) just because we cannot actually SHOW the chain via observations in nature does not mean we cannot "BELIEVE IN" the chain instead of the Bible statement on God creating all the kinds of animal life in that 7 day week - including mankind.

We get that all the time from atheists.

And it is stories "easy enough to tell" such that Marsh happily used your imagination-station-principle for his "lamentable" fraud.

, no matter how much you try to claim it does.

And you still have a coccyx.

With all of the tendons and muscles attached - which you would be sorely at a loss to do without -- and only your 'imagination' left to "wish it away".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well this is going no where. Evolution is one big assumption. None,of the,fossils prove anything because no one can prove they were not their own creatures fully formed from an identical ancestor. Evolution uses similarities to propagate the fraud. Whereas it cannot prove it by testing or observation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

True --



Allow me to illustrate -- evolution fossil record "stories easy enough to make up"

in fact the atheist's own Collin Patterson tells us this

" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

 

[BobRyan]

We have tested and verified, your story that we made it all up was easy enough for you to make up.

Notice that no matter how many atheist evolutionists condemn the exposed fraud and junk-science that went into stories such as the Marsh's horse series -- the attempt is made to claim I am the one that did it -- and then to "double down" on confirmed fraud methods?


And what response do we get from evolutionists 60 years after the fraud was discovered? "still doubling down".

The "emotional effect" of arranging something that "looks like" it would go in a certain sequence if one were trying to tell a certain kind of "story" is just too tempting from the evolutionist.


=========================================================================
Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"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.


"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.

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

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.



Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because your Urantia preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.

Lets get it straight what happened with the horse series. There was no disproof of evolution with further fossil finds. Rather, we found so many fossils that tracing an exact path for evolution between them was difficult

False.

"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.


Your fictional revisionism claims that Eldredge thinks it is 'lamentable" that "so many proofs of horse evolution are now known"
- as IF that was the case with Othaniel Marsh's fraudulent horse series.

The fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.

It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.

Thus even the atheist evolutionist can admit "it was LAMENTABLE"

Meanwhile the T.E. is stuck at "all news is good news! err... umm... right?"

The revisionist history your are attempting with this confirmed fraud does not hold up.

And what is more - junk-science should be expected to employ many decades long frauds to tell it's stories and then continue with that same story after it was exposed - simply for 'emotional effect' - a pleasing sequence to view. The much-predicted result seen over-and-over again so far.

 

[BobRyan]

the atheist's own Collin Patterson tells us this

" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"

So... for example -- cartoon pictures and Othaniel-Marsh style "arranged fossils" that 'double down' on the fraud method already exposed as "lamentable" when done by Marsh.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that when you bring up a subject like Ex 20:8-11 -- what is the response of blind faith evolutionism.

1. Deny the Bible - Colter will explain that to you, Hoghead1 will explain that to you.
2. Talk about anything-BUT Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 2:1-4 (except to condemn it) -- ALL the evolutionist believers will help you understand that this is what they do - just read the thread.

So then those who live by "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and traditions - have a clear picture.

So also those who are not science-deniers - those who are not fossil-deniers have a clear picture of how science condemns blind-faith evolutionism - when even the atheist evolutionists themselves condemn their own fraud as "lamentable" and as having "never happened in nature" and as "stories easy enough to tell"

 

[Colter]

1) I study of radiometric dating techniques will help you understand why you don't need to fear living anywhere near a nuclear power plant. http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

2) The God who created life via the process of evolution. There is only one and his subordinates.

Notice that when you bring up a subject like Ex 20:8-11 -- what is the response of blind faith evolutionism.

1. Deny the Bible - Colter will explain that to you, Hoghead1 will explain that to you.
2. Talk about anything-BUT Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 2:1-4 (except to condemn it) -- ALL the evolutionist believers will help you understand that this is what they do - just read the thread.

So then those who live by "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and traditions - have a clear picture.

So also those who are not science-deniers - those who are not fossil-deniers have a clear picture of how science condemns blind-faith evolutionism - when even the atheist evolutionists themselves condemn their own fraud as "lamentable" and as having "never happened in nature" and as "stories easy enough to tell"

The fossil record, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, all do not conform to the Hebrews story about themselves. I've exposed your bluff. Now you can repost Collin Patterson again from 1979.

 

[BobRyan]

1) I study of radiometric dating techniques will help you understand why you don't need to fear living anywhere near a nuclear power plant. http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

2) The God who created life via the process of evolution. There is only one and his subordinates.


The fossil record, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, all do not conform to the Hebrews story

how do you know? via guesswork???

how do you know the amount of daughter-product in the earth at the time earth was formed?

how do you know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at creation week?

How do you know that the much-expected 100 mile thick (on average) sedimentation layer that would result from 3.5 billion years of life on earth - and that is missing in all but 1 or 2 miles of it - is not evidence of evolutionism's failure.

How do you know that when in Genesis "God divided the earth" that He did not actually DO something?

Is all your "guesswork against the Bible" supposed to be compelling for actual Christians?

How do you know that 50,000 generations - observed generations - where the organism DOES NOT change to any other species at all - is not PROOF in "observations in nature" that the much shorter number of generations speculated to create humans - is not total bunk!!??

How do you know that the idea that "an amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a talented enough amoeba plus a long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories easy-enought-to tell" is not total bunk? Myth! Fiction, "Stories easy enough to tell"???

Your suggestion is that piling up mere-guesswork against the Word of God should be sufficient reason for Christians to toss their Bibles out the window as did Darwin - whenever blind-faith evolutionism conflicts with the actual Bible - is not at all science... is not at all compelling.

Of course -- it is totally consistent with Urantia. I grant you that.

 

[BobRyan]

2) The God who created life via the process of evolution. There is only one and his subordinates.
.

Once again you merely quote "you" as if you are our source text. Why keep doing that?

 

[BobRyan]

Now you can repost Collin Patterson again from 1979.

Gladly - and also Niles Eldredge - and also Darwin, and also Dawkins,, and also P.Z. Meyers, and also Martin Rees, and also Leonard Susskind, and also Karl Popper, and also ....

Lets take another simple example showing that your by faith-alone "certain" confidence in what you do NOT observe in nature is utterly misplaced.

If you were not evangelizing for blind-faith evolutionism on purely religious grounds -- THIS is the "Best" you could have said about it --


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

1Hawking, S. W. (1988). A Brief History of Time: From The Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam: New York. p. 10.

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

Thus the argument for evolutionism is purely for science-deniers.

 

[Colter]

Gladly - and also Niles Eldredge - and also Darwin, and also Dawkins,, and also P.Z. Meyers, and also Martin Rees, and also Leonard Susskind, and also Karl Popper, and also ....

Lets take another simple example showing that your by faith-alone "certain" confidence in what you do NOT observe in nature is utterly misplaced.

If you were not evangelizing for blind-faith evolutionism on purely religious grounds -- THIS is the "Best" you could have said about it --


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

1Hawking, S. W. (1988). A Brief History of Time: From The Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam: New York. p. 10.

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

Thus the argument for evolutionism is purely for science-deniers.

The argument for YEC from bible worshiping science deniers doesn't even have visible proof. To the contrary, everything observable by mind using common sense discredits the YEC story of the Hebrews.

 

[-57]

You know, you're right, if the term "false Christ" is synonymous with a false Jesus then you are right and I was wrong. I was thinking about the term "false prophets." When you said a false Jesus I didn't ever remember Jesus saying a "false Jesus". But still, you are right.

We've had people throughout the ages think they are Jesus, there is one now in Russia. He has followers all over the world apparently. We could probably go to Time Square today and find someone who thinks he's Jesus.

The Jesus of the Urantia Book is the same Jesus that you quoted, only he sent us his entire life story. With the Urantia Revelation we now have much more information about Jesus, who he is, where he came from, what he taught and where he is now. We also have much more information about the history of our world, the double default etc.

"With the Urantia Revelation we now have much more information about Jesus,"....seeing how itcontradicrs scripture....I would say false information.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for YEC from bible worshiping science deniers doesn't even have visible proof.

To the contrary

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

 

[BobRyan]

"With the Urantia Revelation we now have much more information about Jesus,"....seeing how itcontradicrs scripture....I would say false information.

At least the Urantia war against the Bible is overt - is plain to see and fully confessed.

So then credit where credit is due.

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

 

[Colter]

"With the Urantia Revelation we now have much more information about Jesus,"....seeing how itcontradicrs scripture....I would say false information.

You haven't read it so your opinion is from silence in addition to being wrong.

 

[-57]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.
.

You might enjoy this video. Don't know if the concept is new to you...It from Russ Humphreys and called Starlight and time.

It shows there was no big bang and how he thinks the universe came about and how the starlight got to earth in 6,000 years.

 

[-57]

You haven't read it so your opinion is from silence in addition to being wrong.

I read some of it the other day. Enough to show me I don't need to read anymore of it to know its bunk.

 

[-57]

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

Can you explain this one?

 

[BobRyan]

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

Can you explain this one?

Heb 11:1-3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 1
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Back in the day - physicists and cosmologists - all claimed that "we have no evidence at all that there are any other planets in the universe except in our solar system".

The idea was that the conditions to form a planet were so rare - so unexpected that many scientists did not believe they existed at all.

Then we found other planets. Lots of them.

Then it was speculated that maybe in our life-time - now that we find find planets -- well just maybe in our life-time we might find ONE "goldilocks" planet that was right size, in right orbit so that it would at least be a "candidate" for life.

Then wham - we find lots of them!!

God is the Creator according to Heb 1 and 11 - not just of this one world - but of "Worlds".

We could read Hebrews and know that they were wrong about no other planets, and wrong about no other worlds - but finally now - at this late date -- they are catching up!

This is the only world - that has sin on it. It is the 1 one 99 so-to-speak. It is the only one with the Gospel - the only one where Christ has come and died for our sins. Here is another prediction - but in this case man's science won't find this out -- until it is too late.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Colter]

At least the Urantia war against the Bible is overt - is plain to see and fully confessed.

So then credit where credit is due.

Its a revelation to correct the ignorance of evolved religion and restore bits of lost knowlege.