self-conflicted T.E. does not survive attention to details

[-57]

Good question. Does he think one human condemned all of his ancestors and contemporaries?

OR does he think God actually made one couple - man and woman - - and that they alone doomed all of their future children.

And does the text of God's Word change as soon as someone else comes along to 'make stuff up' ??

My bible says God made one couple... I don't know what the Theo-Evo bible says.
In fact Gen 3:20 tells us "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

I suppose the The-Evo bible must have removed "because she was the mother of all the living".

 

[BobRyan]

The problem I have with your comments on Scripture, Bob, is that they are pure propaganda

This - from someone who denies the virgin birth, the 7 day creation week, the world wide flood?

Please be serious.

In point of actual historical fact, Bible is the product of an ancient, semi-barbaric, racist, sexist, prescientific culture. Much of it has to be taken with a grain of salt

That atheist POV has already been stated here. The "gospel" you preach is not from the Bible.

The NT writers affirm that the OT is "inspired by God" in fact "ALL scripture is inspired by God AND to be used for doctrine, correction and reproof" 2 Tim 3:16 according to the NT writers. As opposed to your "taken with a grain of salt" condemnation of the same.

Old news when it comes to how it is that atheism views the Bible..

Yet as you point out -- your view is consistent with the dictates of blind faith evolutionism - as they contradict the doctrine on origins found in the Bible.

I am being very serious Bob. I guarantee you many other Christians agree with me. Maybe you don't, but you are not the only game in town, the sole form of Christianity available. Thank God.

Hold that thought - I would like a few of the christians on this board to read your "gospel" so they can see just where blind faith evolutionism is "taking them".

 

[BobRyan]

A sobering thought for T.E.'s

The exchange in that previous post - happened in response to this OP ...

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

Time to think about what "belief in evolutionism instead of the Bible" is doing to such souls as that - rather than playing fast and loose with the idea of taking scissors to the Bible and leading others down that same dark path.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A sobering thought for T.E.'s

The exchange in that previous post - happened in response to this OP ...



Time to think about what belief in evolutionism instead of the Bible is doing to such souls as that - rather than playing fast and loose with the idea of taking scissors to the Bible and leading others down that same dark path.

Or one could think how denying the reality of evolution and the ancient history of the earth result in many people concluding that the Christian Religion is false because its out of touch with reality. A result that actually happens time after time when such doctrines are proclaimed by such as you.

 

[Dre Khipov]

When approach Evolution subject, one should keep in mind the progressive nature of science in general.

Bob seems to be stuck in evolutionary criticism of the past, especially since he is bringing back Dawkins and Patterson as "pro" and "anti" Evolution spokesmen of some sort.

Patterson's criticism was directed towards the methodological dogmatism, something that should be quite ironic for Bob to debate against. He since actually wrote a textbook on evolution, so it would be rather dishonest to quote-mine the guy.

When all is said and done, this discussion is somewhat pointless when it comes to how one approaches personal and religious beliefs on this subject, because there's a dogmatic and a more comprehensive approach.

A more comprehensive approach will generally yeld to inclusion of some possibility of evolutionary development. I think even Bob would have extremely hard time explaining how we go the millions of species in terms of variety of these on Earth today from the sample he'd propose existed on the Noah's Ark (I'm assuming he would interpret the event literally). So, there would be some minor evolutionary magic going on in terms of rapid change and speciation to get all of the animals and incects we get to see today.

I guess the ultimate question to Bob would be of the danger that he ultimately sees in attempts to reconcile modern science and the Bible? If left separate, one side has to be delusional. Either religion would have to be delusional when it comes to its denial of science, or the opposite has to be true.

The problem is that science is the best method we have to derive consistent interpretation of reality. Of course, Bob may appeal to "Word of God to be more reliable", but in the end he'd only appeal to a personal interpretation of the subject matter.

So, the question would be... why should we take your word above scientific consensus on the subject matter?

 

[BobRyan]

When approach Evolution subject, one should keep in mind the progressive nature of science in general.

Bob seems to be stuck in evolutionary criticism of the past,

Any criticism of blind faith evolutionism that is not in the future -- is in the past.

So it would be impossible to refute that statement - and also impossible prove that statement answers the criticisms raised.

Patterson's criticism was directed towards the methodological dogmatism,

He was apparently opposed to the distinctively religious nature of the arguments for evolutionism - and I think the "all news is good news" ideas that you see in places like this - reflect the fact that there is real substance to his "lament".

He since actually wrote a textbook on evolution

Which only further substantiates the serious nature of the facts leading to his lament. This guy is an atheist with 'no place else to go' and he is lamenting the religious nature of the so-called "science" he is "stuck with".

The argument that "he remains stuck" is much expected if he is a diehard atheist. Again - not a point that leads to addressing his actual concern.

A more comprehensive approach will generally yeld to inclusion of some possibility of evolutionary development.

No doubt that harmful mutations do exist - evolutionism lives in that arena.
No doubt the the epigenome can activate or shut down expression of existing genetic code. Evolutionism can live there as well.

But the mythology that a pile of dirt will after a magical period of time turn into a rabbit given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long "magical period of time" (And by "magic" I mean a long string of unlikely just-so story telling).

I think even Bob would have extremely hard time explaining how we go the millions of species in terms of variety of these on Earth today from the sample he'd propose existed on the Noah's Ark

Because people and animals are getting off Noah's ark onto a barren planet all the time and they are never observed to diversify
through effects in the epigenome, combined with mixing of existing groups??

Blind faith evolutionism progresses through one set of "stories" much-imagined to the enxt.

I guess the ultimate question to Bob would be of the danger that he ultimately sees in attempts to reconcile modern science and the Bible?

No danger at all.

But I think you might be thinking of the documented "junk science" in "blind faith evolutionism" being mixed with the Bible - and not "actual science".

Either religion would have to be delusional when it comes to its denial of science, or the opposite has to be true.

In the case of the junk-science of blind faith evolutionism - so corrupt that even its own practitioners and diehard true-believers lament the situation they are "stuck with" -- what we have is science being 'hijacked' by the devotees to the doctrine on origins found in blind faith evolutionism.

The problem is that science is the best method we have to derive consistent interpretation of reality. Of course hijacking and corrupting that system is the 'mission' for the junk-science that we know as evolutionism.

Bob may appeal to "Word of God to be more reliable" , but in the end he'd only appeal to a personal interpretation of the subject matter.

Again a "story" imagined for us on behalf of evolutionism -- and it is yet 'another story' that even the atheist and agnostic promoters of evolutionism admit to be totally false.



So, the question would be... why should we take your word on any of your stories??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin claimed that his faith in blind faith evolutionism eventually drove out every last vestige of his acceptance of the Word of God. Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers all claimed the same thing.

One thing is for certain - blind faith evolutionism is totally at odds with faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

There can be no logical and truthful marriage between the two religions regarding the doctrine on origins - as Darwin himself observed.



Reading the actual Bible even a few atheist evolutionists familiar with hermeneutics, the science of understanding how the original audience would have read this passage (I.E. "The kind of literature that it is") and they end up admitting to the VERY details that T.E.'s most fear to have exposed to the light of day.

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:
Tuesday at 5:12 PM #17

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

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.

 

[BobRyan]

however as sad as the case may be for atheist and agnostics who are stuck with the distinctively religious nature of the argument for junk-science evolutionism... the OP is actually about the problem and actual Christian would have clinging to both religions at the same time.

here is a perfect examples of it --

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

That cry for help comes to us from a Christian all tangled up in blind-faith evolutionism -- seeking to find some way to get his faith in the Bible - his Christianity to survive the junk-science mythology on doctrines found in blind-faith-evolutionism.

Notice what happens to that thread? It is almost completely taken over by atheists and agnostics - denouncing the Bible and praising the doctrines on origins found in "evolutionism" -- they could care less about the plight of the person and his specific request in the OP.

And notice that as that thread continued to be more and more distinctively atheist -- when the occasional T.E. stops by - they simply FURTHER ride the blind-faith all-praise-evolution train.

How 'instructive'.

how "predictable"

 

[Dre Khipov]

He was apparently opposed to the distinctively religious nature of the arguments for evolutionism - and I think the "all news is good news" ideas that you see in places like this - reflect the fact that there is real substance to his "lament".

He was opposed to certain methodological issues that can be problematic in any science.

The difference between science and religion is in methodology. What I find incredibly interesting is that you are decrying alleged blind faith approach on one end... and then you run as fast as you can .... to a blind faith approach

How can I take anything you say seriously?

The argument that "he remains stuck" is much expected if he is a diehard atheist. Again - not a point that leads to addressing his actual concern.

So, why would you be quotemining what he said back in 80s instead of actually see how his opinion progressed over the years? If you are going to use anyone, why not have them actually speak for themselves?

Patterson wrote several textbooks since then, and his minor problems with evolution methodology in PALEONTOLOGICAL area of evolution didn't have him abandon the whole theory.

So, you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd authority of "even atheists have problems with it". Of course! There are some atheists who think that earth is flat. What does atheism have to do with whether a scientific theory is valid?

But the mythology that a pile of dirt will after a magical period of time turn into a rabbit given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long "magical period of time" (And by "magic" I mean a long string of unlikely just-so story telling).

There are plenty of scientific hypothetical when it comes to digging through history. Scientific theory will always be a model to improve on. You demanding absolute accuracy merely shows your ignorance of science and its process.

Because people and animals are getting off Noah's ark onto a barren planet all the time and they are never observed to diversify
through effects in the epigenome, combined with mixing of existing groups??

Blind faith evolutionism progresses through one set of "stories" much-imagined to the enxt.

Again, you don't seem to understand the issue. All of the species today couldn't fit on the ark, especially when it comes to insects. Likewise, their surviving post-flood environment that would be far different from the environments that sustained certain species... would be highly unlikely.

Again, you refer to evolution as myth, and then you run as fast as you can to Noah's ark story being literally true , and you make up reasons and stories as to why it was .

But I think you might be thinking of the documented "junk science" in "blind faith evolutionism" being mixed with the Bible - and not "actual science".

Giving odd labels to something else doesn't invalidate science. How about you pick ONE issue to discuss about evolution, and stick to it, explain why you think it's wrong without making up labels like "untrue and junk science", and actually show that it's untrue.

So, pick one issue that you have, and have people discuss it. You go all over the place, and talking to you on this subject is impossible, since you are not seemingly interested in anything other than validating your own presuppositions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

however as sad as the case may be for atheist and agnostics who are stuck with the distinctively religious nature of the argument for junk-science evolutionism... the OP is actually about the problem and actual Christian would have clinging to both religions at the same time.

here is a perfect examples of it --



That cry for help comes to us from a Christian all tangled up in blind-faith evolutionism -- seeking to find some way to get his faith in the Bible - his Christianity to survive the junk-science mythology on doctrines found in blind-faith-evolutionism.

Notice what happens to that thread? It is almost completely taken over by atheists and agnostics - denouncing the Bible and praising the doctrines on origins found in "evolutionism" -- they could care less about the plight of the person and his specific request in the OP.

And notice that as that thread continued to be more and more distinctively atheist -- when the occasional T.E. stops by - they simply FURTHER ride the blind-faith all-praise-evolution train.

How 'instructive'.

how "predictable"

You might as well get used to the fact that those of us who favor being in touch with reality are going to be heard wherever you suggest we don't have to bother with mere evidence and verified discoveries.

 

[BobRyan]

that all-praise-evolutionism response is the same response that was given to the T.E. seeking help on the thread you replied to "again".

Glossing over the details as you are doing "is not the solution to every problem".

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

however as sad as the case may be for atheist and agnostics who are stuck with the distinctively religious nature of the argument for junk-science evolutionism... the OP is actually about the problem and actual Christian would have clinging to both religions at the same time.

here is a perfect examples of it --

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

That cry for help comes to us from a Christian all tangled up in blind-faith evolutionism -- seeking to find some way to get his faith in the Bible - his Christianity to survive the junk-science mythology on doctrines found in blind-faith-evolutionism.

Notice what happens to that thread? It is almost completely taken over by atheists and agnostics - denouncing the Bible and praising the doctrines on origins found in "evolutionism" -- they could care less about the plight of the person and his specific request in the OP.

And notice that as that thread continued to be more and more distinctively atheist -- when the occasional T.E. stops by - they simply FURTHER ride the blind-faith all-praise-evolution train.

 

[BobRyan]

He was opposed to certain methodological issues that can be problematic in any science.

Until you read what he actually said and "notice the detail" that NO leading scientist in the REAL science fields of observable biology, chemistry, math, physics goes around with that sort of "lament" about their own field of study.

Details matter.

The difference between science and religion is in methodology. What I find incredibly interesting is that you are decrying alleged blind faith approach on one end... and then you run as fast as you can .... to a blind faith approach

It does not make sense to an atheist to appeal to faith when it comes to a doctrine on origins. I think that is true on the surface -- but then they themselves opt out for a blind-faith-option of their own on the doctrine that "a pile of dirt will most certainly turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a long enough period of time filled with just-so stories".

Hence the junk-science blind-faith-religion of evolutionism is held by them "at all costs" because atheism does not survive the alternative.

Again.. details matter.

Thus - How can I take anything you say seriously?

So, why would you be quotemining what he said back in 80s

Good news - I am not quotemining.

Again..,. "details matter" So far ... you have none.

instead of actually see how his opinion progressed over the years?

You provide no evidence that he ever changed his mind other than vagaries absent all detail.

If you are going to use anyone, why not have them actually speak for themselves?

Hint. --- I did -- that was a quote of him.

Patterson wrote several textbooks since then, and his minor problems with evolution methodology in PALEONTOLOGICAL area of evolution didn't have him abandon the whole theory.

I have always referred to him as a blind faith atheist evolutionist - a diehard evolutionist scientist -- never as anything else ---

"details matter". He laments the religion he is stuck with.


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?
...
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.]

In your response we can see that you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd detail that you in fact never identify.

What does atheism have to do with whether a scientific theory is valid?

outside of junk-science? nothing. Take for example atheists in Math, chemistry, physics, observable dendrology etc. The fact that they do not inject their religion into those sciences means we will never see scientists in those fields offering this lament -

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

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..."
=======================================


That is not the sort of lament we have in "real science" over the past 150 years.

Neither is this --


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism 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 fortwenty 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 evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

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

But as you point out - you can gloss over every single detail in that statement and circle back to -

There are plenty of scientific hypothetical when it comes to digging through history. Scientific theory will always be a model to improve on. You demanding absolute accuracy

Interesting "spin" --- but lacks all attention to detail in the statements made and the comparison to "real sciences"

Again, you don't seem to understand the issue. All of the species today couldn't fit on the ark

No one claims there has not been any speciation over the past 4500 years -- why makes stuff up??

Again, you refer to evolution as myth, and then you run as fast as you can to Noah's ark

I am a Christian that chooses to "Believe the Bible" rather than "deny the Bible" placing the junk-science-religion of evolutionism ahead of the Bible.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

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

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.’

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

Giving odd labels to something else doesn't invalidate science. How about you pick ONE issue to discuss about evolution, and stick to it, explain why you think it's wrong without making up labels like "untrue and junk science", and actually show that it's untrue.

Please be serious about what you are asking for a second.

Explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

Explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

Explain why "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

Explain why "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

Explain why "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

Explain why "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

Explain why that sort of junk-religion is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The OP and the thread is about the "lack of attention to details" that you see practiced by devotees to the <staff edit>-science religion of evolutionism --

The "demonstrated proof" of that claim can be found in many instances - one of them is right here on this board - no attention to the details raised when those details are not "all good news about evolutionism".

For example - details in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

And those details include --

Christians have known for a long time that T.E. survives only by ignoring the details in the serious questions that expose it's flaws.

Here is a case in point. The author of this post is asking a serious question as a "believer" in T.E.

Leevo said: ↑
For those of you who hold to theistic evolution, what do you believe about Adam and Eve?

If you believe they are only mythological to explain human tendency to sin, then how do you reconcile verses such as Romans 5:12?

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

If there was no literal fall of humanity, then there would be no need for Christ to have come, no?

If you believe they are literal humans, do you believe that they were the first of the homo-sapiens or only the first two with a soul? I still can't reconcile the Fall of humanity if they were not the first two human beings...

DISCLAIMER: I believe in evolution, just can't find a suitable way to reconcile these.

The question is raised because in fact - there is no bridge between the religion of blind faith evolutionism and the religion of the Bible. Marrying these two religions results in myriad of Bible denying conflicts.

Here is another serious T.E. effort to address that question - that exposes a key flaw in the T.E. paradigm.

Papias said: ↑
OK - what if, hypothetically, I called that first creature to conceive of deities, "Adam"? I don't have to put a finger on exactly when - I can say that whenever it happened, I'll call that person "Adam".

IF God punished all mankind - and Christ had to be tortured on the cross - because "some hominid bashing in his daily ration of monkey brains - happened upon a bad thought one day" - then the atheist's mocking of the gospel is amplified 1000 fold and it is all nonsense.

The idea that all mankind must burn in hell because of some dunderhead barely-able-to-imagine-deity-exists "Adam" ate an apple or "had a bad thought" or "Bashed in the monkey's head the wrong way" -- is the most cruel and unjust unGod-like action thinkable for dooming the entire planet. Which fits the TE paradigm perfectly!

TE makes a mockery of the Bible, of God, of the Gospel - and logic.

This is irrefutable.

And what does TE gain by such a horrific sacrifice? They claim they are gaining friendship with the atheist's "religion" of blind faith evolutionism.

James 4 says "friendship with the world is hostility toward God".

I believe the Bible.

Percivale said: ↑
I don't think science can say just how gradual the transition was from prehumans to humans. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand years ago God rearranged the DNA in a prehuman womb so that Adam (Eve likewise) was born with fully human intelligence while his parents had no real language and intelligence as close to that of chimps as to humans. I think what you believe about that has more to do with your view of miracles than of science. All humans descended from them, though at times some people interbred with pre-humans

Saltations where brute hominid morphs into Einstein or Moses or Solomon in a single generation are not "likely". More like "Big whopping miracle goes here". And if science were all about "big whopping miracles" - then the 7 day creation account of the Bible - would not be the problem for atheists that it is today.

Do you "believe in" the unscientific facts of the literal virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, literal bodily resurrection of Christ, literal bodily ascension of Christ, the 2nd coming, the miracles of the NT... the prophetic statements in the NT where NT authors claim God speaks to people and they write what God said... and the literal 7 day creation week... and the literal world wide flood?

Pretty hard to do that and still claim that all your beliefs are reproducible in the lab or agreeable to atheist scientists or that they do not contradict what science clearly shows to be the case in the lab.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Bob... again. Pick one you'd like to discuss instead of a flood of questions that you jump all over.

Pick one

 

[BobRyan]

The one I pick - is the one mentioned in the OP.

In the OP we explore the idea of accepting the Christian Gospel and the Bible doctrine on origins -- instead of the atheist's doctrine of origins found in evolutionism.

Evolutionism's doctrine on origins that Darwin himself admitted to be totally out of line with the Bible - and the Christian faith.

 

[BobRyan]

you said -- "Giving odd labels to something else doesn't invalidate science. How about you pick ONE issue to discuss about evolution, and stick to it, explain why you think it's wrong without making up labels like "untrue and junk science", and actually show that it's untrue."

I said

========================
Please be serious about what you are asking for a second.

Explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

Explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

Explain why "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

Explain why "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

Explain why "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

Explain why "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

Explain why that sort of junk-religion is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

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

The start of that list - tiny example - just given to accommodate your own request in that regard.

you said -

Bob... again. Pick one you'd like to discuss instead of a flood of questions that you jump all over.
Pick one

I like the OP - but if you really want to start with the list - fine we can do that -- take the first one. But before doing so - address the OP.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I like the OP - but if you really want to start with the list - fine we can do that -- take the first one. But before doing so - address the OP.

Ok. I'll address the OP

Your interpretation of Christianity is certainly not compatible with evolutionary science.
But I don't really understand why you'd pick on evolution when your interpretation of Christianity wouldn't be compatible with virtually any science out there... be it chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, history, geology, paleontology, archeology, and linguistics ... just to name a few.

So, zeroing in on evolution seems to be a rather choosy way to approach the subject, don't you think?

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, Bob, you reference to the NT has nothing to do with the actual authorship of the Pentateuch. The ancient Hebrews would not accept anything unless it could be project ted back into the time of Moses. In order for Christ to legitimate himself, he has to project himself back to Moses. Christ is following the custom of his people. What else was he to do? Also, in biblical times, they ere much more lax in how to exegete Scripture and attribute authorship than we are today. They could get away with that then, but we can't now.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok. I'll address the OP

Your interpretation of Christianity is certainly not compatible with evolutionary science.

You mean "Darwin's understanding of evolutionism and Bible Christianity dictated that evolutionism is not compatible with Christianity"?? well I agree that is exactly what he said - and it is what modern day evolutionists such as Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et. al. -- also admit.

hint: not only is your "just details that Bob notices" idea debunked by Darwin himself and the various other high priests of evolutionism - but here we have poor T.E. soul pleading for help as his faith is being dashed against the rocks of blind faith evolutionism.

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

And to prop it all up - you offer this factless accusation as if this would "help" -- having no fact at all - as the response to the OP.

But I don't really understand why you'd pick on evolution when your interpretation of Christianity wouldn't be compatible with virtually any science out there... be it chemistry, biology, physics

This would be a great place for you to demonstrate that the false accusation above - has a shred of fact to go with it.

or - is the "accusation your proof"? (the same way that "stories are their own proof" for blind faith evolutionism)

in the pure ad hominem defenses of evolutionism that we see so frequently on these threads - that is standard practice - but do you really want to adopt it so transparently as the start of your response?

Pick some actual fact to make your case about my claims regarding the Gospel, Christianity, the Bible vs chemistry, biology, physics - and make an actual point.