[_ Old Earth _] Atheist or Evolutionist?

[Gabe]

I think Bob is wedded to the No True Scotsman fallacy: it is impossible both to acknowledge evolution as strongly evidenced and also be a true Christian.

Seriously speaking: how does one ignore over 1 billion Catholic Christians who see no conflict bettween the Holy Bible and the theory of evolution? Thats half of the worlds Christian population!

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly. Bob continually excludes the middle (or at least contemptuously dismisses it): Christians (and followers of other faiths) who understand and accept the demonstrable fact of evolution without abandoning their faith. I think Bob is wedded to the No True Scotsman fallacy: it is impossible both to acknowledge evolution as strongly evidenced and also be a true Christian.

Actually I think that evolutionists like Dawkins, Meyers, Darwin and Provine "know what they are talking about" when it comes to the contradiction between evolutionism and Christianity. And this is where I differ with your view that imagines that darwinists don't understand darwinism.

True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism as did Darwin himself. They argue that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters and events! http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

I "suppose" that if we gloss over these details at a sufficient level -- we can just blame it all on "Bob" -- but the objective unbiased reader will probably click on that link and spend the 4 minutes to watch these Darwinists explain their point of view.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ The point, Bob - which you deliberately avoid as so often - is not about all those 'atheist darwinists' whom you inveigh against so vehemently and who regard evolutionary theory and religion as fundamentally incompatible and whom no one here doubts exists, but rather about that much broader group of Christians who look on the evidence supporting evolutionary theory (and evidence from other sciences and fields of study that suggest an 'old' Earth, an 'old' Universe and 'old' life) as both wholly persuasive and entirely compatible with their religious beliefs, such as the evangelical Christians of ISCAST, whose work and understanding can be followed here:

http://www.iscast.org.au/

What are these people? Dupes of 'atheist darwinism'? Or is it at all possible that their understanding is at least as well-informed as Richard Dawkins's, P Z Myers's (at least make the effort to spell his name correctly) Charles Darwin's and your own?

 

[BobRyan]

I have continually argued the point that there exists a group of christians unwittingly following the atheist darwinists in their anti-Christian agenda.

Where is the "news" there?

I simply point out the glaringly obvious point that the Darwinist ICONS that actually KNOW what it is at the core (including Darwin HIMSELF) have consistently pointed out the fact that treating the Bible as junk-Aesop's fables so as to cling to the doctrines of Darwinism is essentially to deny the Christian religion entirely.

Peter points this out in 2Peter 3 regarding the reality of the OT facts and those who willingly try to discount them.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Yet you continually argue that the OT text is corrupt - is filled with error and (in essence) you can be seen to make the SAME case against it as we see the atheist darwinists making against it.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&p=397922#p397911

Who could possibly miss this point?

Bob

 

[Orion]

1) what is your faith/belief?

I really don't know, at this point in my life. I started out my life, and the good majority of it, as Christian, full and firmly! Unfortunately, I came across questions, which caused me to question, leading to discovery, creating the situation I'm in, as a "spiritual life" goes. I still believe that there is a supernatural quality that exists, but something that may not be "test-able" at our current technology.

2) what are your beliefs regarding the origins of the natural world and of the Human race?

I do believe that what is called "evolution", or rather, adaption is very true and quite necessary. I once firmly believed in a young earth and a 6 day creation. I've come to realize that there is no way our earth and universe is young and that Gensis is metaphorical/poetic language not meant as an actual telling of a literal event. It is a concept of possible divinely created life. However, I am not a "Big Bang" believer, nor many of the "evolutionary steps" as suggested by some of the evolutionary biologist. I personally believe that too much reading is done into what they find.

3) are you willing to switch to the opposite sides viewpoint if it could be proven or do you see no point in even cosidering that as it could (in your view) never be proven? (honesty needed here )

Absolutely. If something was proven to me that, without a doubt, proved that this world WAS created just 6,000 years ago, and within a six day period, then I would have to rethink my current understanding. However, if that occured, then it would create questions in itself. If "the Big Bang" was completely proven (I don't see how it could be, really), then I may curve my thoughts on it as well.

4) what are your views of the people who have opposite views to you? (extreme honesty needed here)

As for the YEC, 6 days of creation people, I understand [fully] their side, and their need for it to be true. I was there myself, not that long ago.......sitting in a college level class room, offended by what the instructor was saying about "the ice age 70,000 years ago", thinking that it was blasphemy, since the world wasn't even that old. I even dropped that class when the instructor said that those who believe in a young earth should talk to him after class so he can show us why we were wrong about it. It was an "Art of the Ice Age" class, which I was just going to take to get another 300 level class for graduation.

I understand their side, firmly believed it myslelf for years, . . . even the crazy Hovind stuff, I'm embarrassed to admit. It was only when I started digging into the actual science of it all that I began to understand more. It was a painful time, but I now firmly believe that even "FAITH" can be a "little god" in our lives.

 

[BobRyan]

1
Absolutely. If something was proven to me that, without a doubt, proved that this world WAS created just 6,000 years ago, and within a six day period, then I would have to rethink my current understanding.

According to Exodus 20:8-11 that is exactly what happened.

And even by the obvious means of radio metrics we clearly see that the C14 influx from N14 vs the C14 outflux into N14 via Beta decay has not yet reached the 30,000 year equilibrium point -- which means we are less than 30,000 years old.

Bob

 

[Orion]

Uh, Exodus 20:8-11. . . . . . . .you're kidding, right? . . . . . . . That isn't evidence, Bob. :-?

Also, I thought that C14 was not a good dating method beyond a certain age.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have continually argued the point that there exists a group of christians unwittingly following the atheist darwinists in their anti-Christian agenda.

You seem very ready to accuse learned individuals who are devout Christians and with whom you are personally unacquainted of being 'unwitting' without any grounds other than that they appear to disagree with you. If you read the material they have published, it is very clear that they are not unwitting at all. Why do you prefer the conclusions of Richard Dawkins, P Z Myers, et al. over the conclusions of these devout Christians? Why should anyone value or credit your opinion over theirs?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Orion: As for the YEC, 6 days of creation people, I understand [fully] their side, and their need for it to be true. I was there myself, not that long ago.......sitting in a college level class room, offended by what the instructor was saying about "the ice age 70,000 years ago", thinking that it was blasphemy, since the world wasn't even that old. I even dropped that class when the instructor said that those who believe in a young earth should talk to him after class so he can show us why we were wrong about it. It was an "Art of the Ice Age" class, which I was just going to take to get another 300 level class for graduation.

I understand their side, firmly believed it myslelf for years, . . . even the crazy Hovind stuff, I'm embarrassed to admit. It was only when I started digging into the actual science of it all that I began to understand more. It was a painful time, but I now firmly believe that even "FAITH" can be a "little god" in our lives.

It is nothing to be embarassed about. I grew up in the environment were it was taught that evo=atheism, and if you disagreed with literal Genesis, you were rejecting God.

The school I went to never taught the science of evolution, and biology class left any theory relating to it out. Anyone who said anything positive in regards to evolution was looked down upon as not saved, therefore the Christians I knew who did not believe the YEC view never talked about it in or around school for risk of being looked down upon as not a Christian.

In fact I can recall many Weds. bible classes being built around the so called "atheist agenda in science and America" by the pastor who taught bible class. Atheism was a dirty word there and I never let anyone, not even the Christians that I was friends with, know about my unbelief for fear of it getting around at school and becoming ostracized or kicked out of the school.

This type of environment is not conducive to questioning if there is a middle ground, and unfortunately creates a fear of science as being guided by dubious forces.

 

[Gabe]

Bob, do you not think that your opinions regarding the Holy Bible and its compatibility with evolution are a little hypocritical? On one hand: you view Proffesor Dawkins and Myers views on the Bible as the opitomy of truth and on the other hand: you dismiss their claims that the Bible is junk-Aesops fables without a second thought! Pesonally, i do not think that their views on the Bible are relevant, they are scientists and that is were they are experts, YOU THINK THE SAME the only difference being that YOU ARE WILLING TO DENY THIS FOR THE SAKE OF WINNING A DISCUSSION. If you consider scientists personal beliefs to be of such importance to us Christians then why not aknowledge the fact that 40% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL GOD WHO ACTIVELY INTERACTS WITH THE WORLD AND TO WHOM ONE CAN PRAY TO IN HOPE OF AN ANSWER!!! Considering that most scientists believe that the theory of evolution is correct, then that would also mean that there are A LOT of Christian scientists out there with higher intelects than either you or i, who disagree with your judgemental point of view. The same survey was conducted among scientists a hundred years ago and the results were almost identical. Advancements in the understanding of evolution may have made many creationist Christian scientists into Christian scientists who believe in evolution to be fact, what it has NOT done is make them lose faith in God or the Bible, only interprate it differently

I would also like to point you towards this verse from the Holy Bible "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye"

Who would you rather listen to... Dawkins or Christ?

PS- you have somehow once again managed to turn another (and this one happens to be a non-debateble) thread into a: creationist 'Bible believing' Christian vs Atheist evolutionist 'non-Bible believing' Christian debate.

Thank you L.K for the link, it does indeed look interesting and i will be spending some time reading up on what they have to say.

God bless

 

[Orion]

Thanks, VaultZero. I know how difficult such times were for you. I live them even today, for example, I won't discuss religious issues with my mother because she gets SO upset (by my "no longer conservative christian responses") that she will go home crying and feeling like a failure as a parent. I'm not even denying anything, just speaking about certain topics and it will send her into a crying fit. . . . . . . . . So, other topics are discussed, such as who's house the family will go to at christmas.

However, what I posted above, is the way I have come to consider these questions. I have learned to keep my mouth shut, within certain circles, and know which circles would be okay. I'm doing fine with it all, now.

 

[BobRyan]

1
Absolutely. If something was proven to me that, without a doubt, proved that this world WAS created just 6,000 years ago, and within a six day period, then I would have to rethink my current understanding.

According to Exodus 20:8-11 that is exactly what happened.

And even by the obvious means of radio metrics we clearly see that the C14 influx from N14 vs the C14 outflux into N14 via Beta decay has not yet reached the 30,000 year equilibrium point -- which means we are less than 30,000 years old.

Bob

Uh, Exodus 20:8-11. . . . . . . .you're kidding, right? . . . . . . . That isn't evidence, Bob. :-?

Also, I thought that C14 was not a good dating method beyond a certain age.

Err... um... Ex 20:8-11 IS evidence that the Bible makes the claim in the form of "Legal code" that can not be spun-back as "poetry".

And the C14 equilibrium factor means that earth is less than 30,000 years old in general. You are not following the point. The C14 concentration continues to build until earth finally reaches it's 30,000th "birth day" so to speak at which point C14 in our atmosphere will no longer continue to increase. (This has to do with the fact that the Beta decay rate of C14 to N14 is at about 16.1 atoms per gram today and the rate at which cosmic rays generate C14 from N14 in our upper atmosphere is at a rate of 18.8 atoms per gram).

Hint: Has nothing to do with "dating fossils" though that is a good answer from the play-book of darwinists whenever the subject of C14 comes up for fossils. But that is not what we are talking about.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have continually argued the point that there exists a group of christians unwittingly following the atheist darwinists in their anti-Christian agenda.

Where is the "news" there?

I simply point out the glaringly obvious point that the Darwinist ICONS that actually KNOW what it is at the core (including Darwin HIMSELF) have consistently pointed out the fact that treating the Bible as junk-Aesop's fables so as to cling to the doctrines of Darwinism is essentially to deny the Christian religion entirely.

Peter points this out in 2Peter 3 regarding the reality of the OT facts and those who willingly try to discount them.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Yet you continually argue that the OT text is corrupt - is filled with error and (in essence) you can be seen to make the SAME case against it as we see the atheist darwinists making against it.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&p=397922#p397911

Who could possibly miss this point?

You seem very ready to accuse learned individuals who are devout Christians and with whom you are personally unacquainted of being 'unwitting' without any grounds other than that they appear to disagree with you.

Interesting that you would elect to gloss over every detail in that post of mine --

But getting back to the points you seem to anxious to ignore -- my point is that the Atheist Darwinists listed DO know something about Darwinism --

Hint that last INCLUDES Darwin himself!!

Why do you prefer the conclusions of Richard Dawkins, P Z Myers, et al.

good question!

Why should I pay attention to what DARWIN said about DARWINISM and the Bible?

Why should I pay attention to what Dawkins admits that Darwinism DID TO HIS own Christian values?

Why should we pay attention to the inconvenient points raised by Meyers and Provine and Dawkins AND DARWIN HIMSELF when it comes to the unwitting compromise some have elected to make between the "Aesops fable" view of the Bible listed in that link above - and actual Christianity?

Hmm -- answering that question could easily be left as an exercise for the reader -- don't you think?

Seems glaringly obvious enough to me. Just "click the link" and let yourself be informed.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have continually argued the point that there exists a group of christians unwittingly following the atheist darwinists in their anti-Christian agenda.

Where is the "news" there?

I simply point out the glaringly obvious point that the Darwinist ICONS that actually KNOW what it is at the core (including Darwin HIMSELF) have consistently pointed out the fact that treating the Bible as junk-Aesop's fables so as to cling to the doctrines of Darwinism is essentially to deny the Christian religion entirely.

Peter points this out in 2Peter 3 regarding the reality of the OT facts and those who willingly try to discount them.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Yet you continually argue that the OT text is corrupt - is filled with error and (in essence) you can be seen to make the SAME case against it as we see the atheist darwinists making against it.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&p=397922#p397911

Who could possibly miss this point?

Bob

Bob, do you not think that your opinions regarding the Holy Bible and its compatibility with evolution are a little hypocritical?

No - I prefer to think of them as "glaringly obvious".

1. Glaringly obvious that Exodus 20:8-11 argues for a literal week as ALL Bible scholars agree.

2. Glaringly obvious that the Darwinists quoted in that post above DO know something about Darwinism -- Hint: that includes Darwin HIMSELF.

On one hand: you view Proffesor Dawkins and Myers views on the Bible as the opitomy of truth

I think you may be falling into L.K's trap of glossing over the inconvenient details in the link above.

click on the link and follow the points.

In that video you SEE Dawkins testifying to his own experience in seeing Darwinism crush his own Christian beliefs.

In the link for DARWIN himself - DARWIN admits to the degree to which Darwinism - fully accepted and understood - negates the Christian acceptance of the Bible.

IN that video we see atheists making the SAME "Bible is aesop's fable fantacy" argument that L.K makes here on these threads.

What part of this is mysterious in the least?

What is "not to get"??

I would also like to point you towards this verse from the Holy Bible "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye"

Hmm - you defend their "Bible is corrupt" doctrine with "Judge not"??? Notice that in the same chapter of Matt 7 that says "judge not " we are told to beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing who use the terms of Christianity but in real life mimmick our atheist friends approach to scripture.

Notice what Peter said in that link above? That is in reference to the old "Bible is just aesop's fables" vs "Flood actually happened".

You got that point -- right?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism as did Darwin himself. They argue that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters and events! http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

I "suppose" that if we gloss over these details at a sufficient level -- we can just blame it all on "Bob" -- but the objective unbiased reader will probably click on that link and spend the 4 minutes to watch these Darwinists explain their point of view.

As "we all saw" when we clicked on that link and spent the 4 minutes to watch the atheist darwinists making their case...

They argue that ONCE you decide to take a slash-and-burn approach to the Bible dumbing it down to nothing more than "Aesop's fables" mythology in an all-praise-to-darwin style burnt offering to darwinism then it is really pointless to THEN argue that you are "holding firm to Christianity" because you have pretty much tossed it into the rubbish heap by trashing the Bible in that way.

Most Bible believing Christians see the idea of dumbing down scripture in service to darwinism as essentially undercutting Christian faith.

But "there are those" who WOULD attempt that very thing -- dumbing down scripture to the point of "Aesop's fables" while at the same time pretending that the result is still "Christianity".

As Dawkins points out in the link above - he had enough integrity down to reduce himself to such a compromised position -- and Darwin himself argues the same thing.

In Mark 7 Christ condemned the Bible scholars of his day that had trashed the OT text and replaced it with their own traditions -- now today there are those who would try to use Christ's own words about judging others -- and bend His words so as to defend anyone who wishes to dumb down the OT text so that it is nothing more than "Fables with a moral attached".

A more compromised position can hardly be imagined.


Romans 1 says that even "barbarians" (having no access to the Bible at all) can see "the invisible attributes of God -- clearly SEEN IN the things that have been made

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Bob, I do not understand how you have come to the conclusion that I have somehow bent Christ's words in the verse I have quoted you. I find it a very fitting response to the disrespect you show fellow Christians, Atheists and Agnostics alike. When debating or discussing Christian 'evolutionists', constantly referring to them as 'unwitting' and accusing them of pandering to the needs of Atheist Darwinist dogma is rude, judgemental and very unchristian.

Something that has been explained to you many times before is the fact that Christian 'evolutionists' do not doubt that a great flood took place, what they do deny is that it was world-wide, as the Hebrew word for world can also be translated as 'the land' 'known world' or 'Israel'

As for your quote from Romans: I do not see the relevance as Christian 'evolutionists' have never denied being able to see the invisible attributes of God in all things that have been made.

The following question was not aimed at me but I'll tell you why I think you should not be putting so much weight behind the conclusions of Atheist Darwinist scientists like Meyers, Provine, Dawkins and Darwin himself (who, which has also been pointed out many times before, was not an Atheist) The reason being that 40% of scientists believe in a personal God who interacts with His creations and who may be prayed to in hope of an answer. Seeing that this survey was conducted in America, I am assuming that a large proportion of that 40% were in fact Christians. These Christian scientists have concluded that there is no conflict between the Holy Bible and the Evolution theory, so why do you continue to ignore the conclusions of these scientists while whole-heartedly embracing the conclusions of a scientist like Dawkins who is undeniably hostile towards Christian beliefs? I'll tell you why: His bigoted views of Christians who accept both the Bible and Science match yours perfectly.

Finally, I would like to point out that the accusation you constantly throw at Atheists and Agnostics on this forum of 'glossing over' points and questions about evolution raised by you is ridiculous, it is you who constantly fails to answer or even acknowledge the questions asked by others and when you do answer, you refuse to explain yourself or sight reliable sources.

 

[lordkalvan]

You seem very ready to accuse learned individuals who are devout Christians and with whom you are personally unacquainted of being 'unwitting' without any grounds other than that they appear to disagree with you.

Interesting that you would elect to gloss over every detail in that post of mine --

But getting back to the points you seem to anxious to ignore -- my point is that the Atheist Darwinists listed DO know something about Darwinism --

Hint that last INCLUDES Darwin himself!!

Bob, I am beginning to seriously doubt your ability to read for comprehension. If anyone here 'glosses over...detail' it is you. No one doubts the conclusions that Richard Dawkins, P Z Myers, et al. draw from their understanding of the consequences of evolutionary theory. This does not make their conclusions incontestably persuasive over the opinions of others. What I am asking you to address is what reason you have for preferring their conclusions to those of devout Christian scientists who study evolutionary theory and other aspects of science that point to an old Earth and old life and find them entirely compatible with their religious belief. Do you think their opinions are worthless? If so, why? Are you arguing that these scientists know nothing about evolutionary theory? How arrogant is that, may I ask?

Why should I - or anyone else - prefer your opinions about evolutionary theory over those of the devout Christian scientists you have been referred to and whom you do nothing but disdain?

 

[BobRyan]

True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism as did Darwin himself. They argue that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters and events! http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

I "suppose" that if we gloss over these details at a sufficient level -- we can just blame it all on "Bob" -- but the objective unbiased reader will probably click on that link and spend the 4 minutes to watch these Darwinists explain their point of view.

As "we all saw" when we clicked on that link and spent the 4 minutes to watch the atheist darwinists making their case...

They argue that ONCE you decide to take a slash-and-burn approach to the Bible dumbing it down to nothing more than "Aesop's fables" mythology in an all-praise-to-darwin style burnt offering to darwinism then it is really pointless to THEN argue that you are "holding firm to Christianity" because you have pretty much tossed it into the rubbish heap by trashing the Bible in that way.

Most Bible believing Christians see the idea of dumbing down scripture in service to darwinism as essentially undercutting Christian faith.

But "there are those" who WOULD attempt that very thing -- dumbing down scripture...

Hint: this is where it helps to actually click on the link above and pay attention to the points listed in the 4 minute video.

Bob, I am beginning to seriously doubt your ability to read for comprehension. If anyone here 'glosses over...detail' it is you. No one doubts the conclusions that Richard Dawkins, P Z Myers, et al. draw from their understanding of the consequences of evolutionary theory.

How odd that you now try to argue both sides at once. Their conclusion is that after dumbing the text down to "suit darwinism" it was pretty silly to still claim that as "Christianity" -- a point on which all Bible believing Christians also agree.

L.K.

This does not make their conclusions incontestably persuasive over the opinions of others.

I guess you have to actually follow the obvious points in the argument then.

What I am asking you to address is what reason you have for preferring their conclusions to those of devout Christian scientists

Those christians that unwittingly allow themselves into being duped into following after the atheist practice of dumbing down the text in service to their faith in darwinism -- have not "benefited" Christianity as all Bible believing Christians know and apparently as even these atheist darwinists know.

Can't get much more obvious than that!

L.K.
Why should I - or anyone else - prefer your opinions

Classic obfuscation - gloss over of the facts and misdirected revisionism on your part L.K as you try to spin the argument of all of these Darwinists and all Bible believing Christians down to "it is just Bob's opinions -- no one else".

Can't imagine WHO that kind of gloss-over-details argument is supposed to appeal to...

me?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ And so your argument reduces to a near-libellous accusation that any Christian who disagrees with your narrow, idiosyncratic view is an unwitting dupe of 'atheist darwinism'. What a sad and sorry example for other Christians you provide and what a persuasive recruiting agent for atheism and agnosticism is your obstinately dogmatic approach to discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob [quote:esk1r2id]Gabriel Ali
I would also like to point you towards this verse from the Holy Bible "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye"

Hmm - you defend their "Bible is corrupt" doctrine with "Judge not"??? Notice that in the same chapter of Matt 7 that says "judge not " we are told to beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing who use the terms of Christianity but in real life mimmick our atheist friends approach to scripture.

Notice what Peter said in that link above about those who are willingly ignorant of the fact of the destruction of the world by the flood ?

That is in reference to the old "Bible is just aesop's fables" vs "Flood actually happened" debate we see here.

You got that point -- right?
[/quote:esk1r2id]

Bob, i do not understand how you have come to the conclusion that i have somehow bent Christ's words in the verse i have quoted you. I find it a very fitting response

No doubt.

But you can not use Christ's words to defend the atheist's dumbing down of the Bible in service to their faith in darwinism.

That is not exegesis.

Something that has been explained to you many times before is the fact that Christian 'evolutionists' do not doubt that a great flood took place, what they do deny is that it was world-wide, as the Hebrew word for world can also be translated as 'the land' 'known world' or 'Israel'

In Genesis one "ALL life on land with breath " perished and God promised NEVER to do that again.

Either you think all life on earth lived in one local area and it was a local flood OR you believe that there has only been one local flood. Both of those options would not be supported either by scientists or by Bible believing Christians.

As for your quote from Romans: i do not see the relevance as Christian 'evolutionists' have never denied being able to see the invisible attributes of God in all things that have been made.

On the contrary these so-called "Christian" darwinists are following their atheist darwinist leaders in denying the ID argument that something can be "seen to be the result of something OTHER than undirected natural causes" -- I.e "the things that are seen to have been MADE".

Thus they "claim" to take a position even lower than the "Barbarians" in Romans 1.

Contrast their distinctively atheist solution to the more enlightened reaction of both non-Christian evolutionist AND Bible believing Christians that WELCOME this science fact SHOWINg evidence of DESIGN..
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266

The following question was not aimed at me but i'll tell you why i think you should not be putting so much weight behind the conclusions of Atheist Darwinist scientists like Meyers, Provine, Dawkins and Darwin himself (who, which has also been pointed out many times before, was NOT an Atheist)

As has already been pointed out many times on this section of the board Darwin himself admits that once he had dumbed down scripture enough to satisfy atheist darwinism what was left logically lead to what Darwin called "total disbelief" in Christianity.

The same argument also followed by Dawkins, Meyers, Provine etc.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

The point remains.

The reason being that 40% of scientists believe in a personal God who interacts with His creations and who may be prayed to in hope of an answer. Seeing that this survey was conducted in America, i am assuming that a large praportion of that 40% were in fact Christians. These Christian scientists have concluded that there is no conflict between the Holy Bible and the Evolution theory

I never doubted that there were a group of Christians that had unwittingly allowed themselves to be duped into attacking the very idea that "things can be SEEN to have been made even by Barbarians" such that they willingly downsized the Bible -- willingly are ignorant of the 2Peter 3 fact that by Water the world was created and by water that same world CREATED - was destroyed.

Notice that L.K.s own argument that the Bible is untrustworthy - fable, fiction and a product of efforts to "tell a better story" by unknown authors is PRECISELY the means that these atheists would use to dumb down the text.

I keep pointing to things like Ex 20:8-11 that AFFIRMS the literal 7 day sequence of creation week in LEGAL CODE (not poetry) and of course -- the atheists and those who follow their same arguments only ignore the points raised.

Not too surprising that they would seek that method of escaping the point when you stop and think about it.

, so why do you continue to ignore the conclusions of these scientists

I don't. I keep pointing to it over and over again.

Finaly, i would like to point out that the accusation you constantly throw at Atheists and Agnostics on this forum of 'glossing over' points and questions about evolution raised by you is ridiculous,

Hint: you have to follow the arguments and then SHOW that your accusation has merit at some point - simply issuing wild accusation after wild accusation is not "proof of something" other than your own dislike of someone's position.

More substance, less generalized accusations please.

Bob