Confused on what to think

[GodLovesCats]

-Because that is just it, i do not let science cloud my Genesis understanding. The Bible interprets (or explains) the Bible, not the Bible and science.​

You do know Genesis 1 says God created science, right?: And that God created many people to be scientists? You choose to believe all science is a lie by being totally ignorant about the scientifically proven facts. Science does not contradict the Bible and the Bible is not a science book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

maybe we are agreeing. It's like saying that looking at the master's painting shows no sign at all of intelligent design employed in the painting.
You said its not like saying that looking at the painting shows intelligent design employed in the painting...
Those are opposing statements so then your "No it's not.. " statement works.

I think you are trying to differ with my statement at that point.

You need more than "accusation" to actually do it.

We see much more "intelligent design" in the DNA systems for error correction, translation, coding , encoding than we do "in a rock" or in a Picasso painting.

Do you find it inconvenient??

I already posted that the opposition to ID in light of the statement in Romans 1 - is a "disctinctively atheist argument" even when used by non-atheists who have not followed the details closely in the light of Romans 1.

Romans 1 goes far about that in its claims for what even the atheist and pagans can see in nature.

I suspect you would agree that the ID claim is far below the Romans 1 claim for what all humans see in the things that have been made regarding the invisible attributes of God.

I suggest more attention to detail.

Provine, Dawkins, Meyers etc all claim that they were in that very dilemma and their own testimony is contrary to your apparent claims about them. I point out that this is a far more logical argument that they are making than you apparently perceive to be the case.

I don't want your rhetoric. You're no geneticist, so I want your sources for your alledged "evidence." Either put up or shut up!!!!

 

[Aaron112]

You do know Genesis 1 says God created science, right?

Not at all.

 

[d taylor]

You do know Genesis 1 says God created science, right?: And that God created many people to be scientists? You choose to believe all science is a lie by being totally ignorant about the scientifically proven facts. Science does not contradict the Bible and the Bible is not a science book.

Science contradicts all of The Bibles creation accounts, and thank God The Bible is not a science book.

 

[Aaron112]

Science contradicts all of The Bibles creation accounts, and thank God The Bible is not a science book.

False (mankind, social, carnal) science contradicts all of the Bible....
Truth when available (rare) in science compliments/ proves the Bible True.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not at all.

Because God created everything in nature, He obviously created science. Duh.

 

[Aaron112]

Because God created everything in nature, He obviously created science. Duh.

So you made an assumption with no true evidence and stated something is in Genesis that is not..

Mankind is full of wickedness and sin, this includes the enterprises of mankind/ society , which includes almost all science and intellectual endeavors, if not all
.
christianity.com › wiki › angels-and-demons › who-was-azazel.html

Who Was Azazel? Angel/Demon/Goat in the Bible - Christianity​

Sep 19, 2023Azazel is a fallen angel who corrupted humanity and led rebellious angels.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I never made any assumptions without true evidence. You are refusing to accept the scientific proof that the word "day" in Genesis 1 DOES NOT MEAN 24 HOURS.

 

[Aaron112]

I never made any assumptions without true evidence. You are refusing to accept the scientific proof that the word "day" in Genesis 1 DOES NOT MEAN 24 HOURS.

What is false is still false and is opposed to truth.
What Yahweh Says is Truth, is Truth, as He Himself Reveals to infants and hides from the scholars, as this is His Choice and He Is Well-Pleased so to do, as also Jesus Declares.

 

[BobRyan]

The junk is believing all paleontology is an atheist science.

Which is not what Christians think about paleontology... rather we are able to admit what even the atheist paleontologist admit to as in the case of Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural history and author of their text book on evolutionism.

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

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

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 palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

"You say that I 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.]

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

So that is the frank confession of a true atheist believer in evolutionism as he confronts some of the "inconvenient details" about the limits of paleontology that many of his own atheist friends had hoped to keep out of sight.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't want your rhetoric. You're no geneticist, so I want your sources for your alledged "evidence." Either put up or shut up!!!!

Vitriol "noted".
you are relying heavily on "proof by vitriol" in your posts.

Respond with facts please.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Many Christians fully accept the undeniable proof of Earth's evolutionary biology. There is no reason to deny anyone is a Christian just because he or she is a paleontologist.

 

[Divide]

The Bible says that not only can Christians see intelligent design - so also can pagans and atheists see it. (though they love to deny it)

Rom 1:
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

It takes more than "vitriol" to get the Bible believing Christian to ignore those details in Rom 1. This may not seem apparent to some - but most people can see that this goes beyond even ID in what it says that even pagans and atheists can see in "the things that are made" about the invisible God.

Of course the ID position is a bare minimum that is actually far below what Rom 1 says that all humans can see in nature such that "they are without excuse" - but still it is a step in the right direction. Rom 1 is ID+ not just ID.

I don't think atheists have a very good argument here since the atheist view of origins reduces to "dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will come up with a rabbit given enough volume, time and chance". And that is a form of belief -- it is not science.

Even their fellow atheist scientists like Collin Patterson are on record lamenting the distinctively religious faith-based underpinnings of their claims.

Wow that was a direct hit with a Truth Bomb!

ID died in the bombing, lol.

 

[Divide]

ID is just a canal and logical way for the carnal people to try to (intelligently?) discuss the existance of God or not. But the carnal man can not comprehend the things of the Spirit. No Spirituality allowed in the logical scientist game, lol!

But the foolishness of God is more than man's best logic. You bet God des things that are illogical sometimes. But that don't matter because the Spirit is going to do what the Spirit wants to.

Before I walked with God, seeing God around me seemed hazy. After I began walking with God, I see the obvious fingerprints of God almost everywhere I look. Now, I didn't get that in a science textbook. It's the spiritual side of life. Not enough people are embracing it.

I am a spirit being. I have a soul. I live in a body. But that makes atheist types kneejerk and stuff because they dont get it. Cant. You have to reach for the Spirit.

Ye have not because you havent asked for it maybe hey?

 

[Aaron112]

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland: If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

Clear absence of evidence is clear evidence of clear mythology ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

you are relying heavily on "proof by vitriol" in your posts. Respond with facts please.

And you're relying heavily on "just so" statements in your posts.

P.S. ... if you're going to interrupt and impose yourself upon a dialogue I'm providing another person (which is the OP in this case), please only do so if you have strong scientific evidence AND sources to back that evidence up.

Thanks, bro!

 

[d taylor]

-
​

...Believing intelligent design, theistic evolution are ways to say one believes in God's creation.

...Is like saying hindu's, buddhist, muslims, mormons, new age, deist, etc.. are really worshiping God (of The Bible), but they are just doing this in their own way.

...Intelligent design, theistic evolution, is just as off about God's creation. As these listed religions (above) are about The true God of The Bible and do not equate to believing God's creation recorded in The Bible in Genesis 1,2 and other areas

 

[BobRyan]

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

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 palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

"You say that I 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.]

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

So that is the frank confession of a true atheist believer in evolutionism as he confronts some of the "inconvenient details" about the limits of paleontology that many of his own atheist friends had hoped to keep out of sight.

Clear absence of evidence is clear evidence of clear mythology ?

Yep. We are constantly subjected to the mantra that Bible believing Christians are compromised when it comes to "facts" , to "observations in nature" and yet look what they are admitting in the case above? And that is not even coming from a Bible believing Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

...Intelligent design, theistic evolution, is just as off about God's creation. As these listed religions (above) are about The true God of The Bible​

Intelligent design fits perfectly into theistic evolution and also into Biblical creation - in that it only argues that we can see in nature - the evidence of an intelligent designer.

That is the case under "normal" circumstances.

But the illogical case of theistic evolutionists insisting that what God has made gives no indication at all that the maker of all things has intelligence and a purposeful design -- is what call an "distinctively atheist argument" even when made by non-atheists.

 

[BobRyan]

And you're relying heavily on "just so" statements in your posts.

My posts show how "just so statements" are being made by the atheist evolutionists themselves and even they lament their own practices in that regard.

As Patterson noted: "You say that I 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 “

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

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

--------------------- Patterson said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

"I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

"It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

"about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."