[_ Old Earth _] For the Christians... can you change?

[BobRyan]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

If the subject is atheist darwinism vs the Bible then --

1. The data for change you see would not be found in the junk-science religion that we know of today as atheist darwinism.

2. It would be something like - SHOWING that lower life forms today are in fact evolving in true darwinian saltation fashion into higher life forms. (Showing that Colin Patterson was wrong when he observed that STORIES about one thing changing into another are just STORIES easy enough to tell "but they are NOT science").

3. It would be in SHOWING that life arises "out of rocks" with two forms of proof.
a. That it CAN be ARTIFICIALLY manipulated
b. That it can be SHOWN to happen in nature.

Obviously mixing a very unlikely set of chemicals under unlikely conditions can be done to get a preciptant that is desired (Salt being made in outerspace for example). That is much different than showing that it HAPPENS in nature.

Be that as it may - you still need to artificually acheive what you claim can happen without your help at all.

--------------

If the question is "do Christians accept better Bible evidence" -- it is proven in that Catholics became Protesting-Catholics and then Lutherans and then Baptists over time.

Christians do change their views on Bible doctrine - become more correct over time.

Bob

Neither of those assertatons are correct.

Still waiting for you to prove that assertion of yours.

In the mean time I SHOW the facts in my "Christians DO change" their beliefs by giving examples of Christians changing doctrinal views and changing from denomination A to denomination -- B

I then point to the demonstrated weakness in "actual facts" being provided by the atheist darwinist argument that would provide PROOF of the wild claims they make -- as you point out -- the proof is not showing up for some odd reason.

The question is weather or not you would believe such evidence if it arose, not weather or not such evidence is likely to arise.

As I already proved -- Christians make doctrinal changes as well as denominational changes all the time -- change to an atheist based doctrinal system is much larger -- not sure I would leap off that cliff so quickly -- but I would take "actual evidence" seriously over "the wild story telling" that even atheist darwinists like Colin Patterson admit to being "Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

I would accept that my perception of gravity is wrong if I found an orb with a density greater than air floating there with no explanation (propulsion, bernoulli effect (sp?)) Would you believe that the bible has false information if it was ABSOLUTELY proven

Sure -- what kind of "absolute proof" are you thinking of??


In fact it is pricisely BECAUSE the Bible is so often PROVEN to be true that I find it reliable.

I happen to like "proof".

or would you consider to believe based on faith alone?

True faith needs some evidence -- some fact -- some "reason to believe"

The "fulfilled atheist" that "needs there to be no God" and then finds in Darwin's story telling at least some kind of rationale for continuing to "believe that way" is not exercising that faith in a vaccume.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Of course we know that the Himalayas arose from elevated seafloor. The mountains are made of marine fossils. And the uplift is still going on,

The fact that you go from New York to Chicago is not "proof" that you came from India.

The fact that geologic forces today move any mountain or land mass any direction is not "proof" that the landmass was originally buried under the earth's crust or buried in the sea or that it orginiated from half way around the planet.

you can not simply extrapolate the planet backwards and then imagine that everything was under the ocean as if that is some kind of "proof" of something.

All you know for a fact is that the mountains are currently subject to complex geologic forces - that they may have been different in the past and that at some time sea floor life was there.

How it got there -- is the question you are not addressing with data in your efforts to imagine - since there is more than one scenario on the table..

Bob

 

[Skavau]

You can't prove it wrong thats my point...They have been trying for thousands of years...

You also cannot disprove the Qu'ran or any proposition. You cannot disprove a negative.

If your implication is that Christianity is built upon a negative, then I suggest you look at your faith in a brighter light.

This has been aswered over and over again.. Ok lets say hypothetically we live in a world that has no evolutionist in it then this kind of question would not even exist.. Oh by the way someday we will....."faith"

Faith is not an indication of fact.

Yes "man" can and has.. but not God, Jesus said believe in me and also the Father and you will be saved... He did not mention anything about evolution, but did say there is deceivers out in the world to lead you astray..To know the word of God is the best defense against this Satan filled lie.

Of course, this all assumes that Jesus ever said "believe in me". It assumes that the Bible is factual. If you have in fact, believed the Bible to be true and made a false human judgment - then you would be wrong. Your argument is a fallacy. Remember, it is through your own beliefs that you assume God exists.

open my mind, no you mean turn my back on what I believe and have studied, just because you think its true,,, No, open you heart, stop trying to put everything in a nice neat little box. Because God will never fit in there...

No.... he means 'open your mind'. If you believe that evolution is false, then why would documented evidence be a problem to your beliefs?

yes thats what science so be, but its not. When science takes a leap of faith to draw a conclusion that is pure speculation, well it just became a religion..... as in "evolution" and a 4.5 billion year earth etc...

Neither of these are based upon faith.

thats what faith is all about, believe in something that can't be 100% proven, but if I right "which I am, because God's word says so" then I have everything to gain... nothing to lose..If your right, I hope I evolve into a tiger... If your wrong and you are,,, there's everything to lose for eternity..... trying reading what Jesus says,

You already assume that 'God's word' even exists. That is where your faith begins. You assume yourself correct because you assume the doctrine you have faith in is God's word.

And Pascal's Wager is debunked assertion that is misleading at best and morally disgusting at worst.

 

[John]

yes thats what science so be, but its not. When science takes a leap of faith to draw a conclusion that is pure speculation, well it just became a religion..... as in "evolution" and a 4.5 billion year earth etc...

Neither of these are based upon faith.

O please, your lying to yourself man. There is no evidence suggesting the BB happened they way its depicted in the textbooks, There is no evidence that in billions of years the universe will squeeze back and form another BB.

 

[BobRyan]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no. Bible prophecy is coming true right before our eyes.

What you're really arguing is that we already HAVE evidence that the Bible IS TRUE - such as the prophecy of Daniel etc that came true over thousands of years for example.

Because we already HAVE so much evidence that the bible is true -- it is too late to start "imagining" that the Bible is not true.

freeway01
I've studies evolution before coming to Christ.. I even tried believing that we got here by spacemen a long long time ago..but no hard proof has been found of that either.

Interesting how even Dawkins can be SEEN to engage in desperate attempts to imagine "the space-alien did it solution" - in "Expelled the Movie". Truth is when the doctrine is "there is no god" then "space-aliens" are as good a solution as any other to solve atheist darwinist problems.

Just as in evolution we have drawings of the Nebraska man form a single tooth.

Indeed - data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Nebraska man.
Data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Simpsons 1951 horse series
Data fabrication (fraud) in the case of Neanderthal man age-dates.
Data fabrication (fraud) in the cause of Haeckles "Phylogony recapitulates ontogeny"
Data fabrication (fraud) the case of Piltdown man used to prop up the myths of Darwinism for 4 decades

At some point people need to "Wake up to the EVIDENCE" that atheist darwinism is PROVEN to be JUNK SCIENCE.

But can anything really dissuade a determined believer in atheist darwinism?

Freeway01
always saying there's tons of evidence but never showing it and closing the case. If evolution could be proven 100% without a doubt, then Christianity would be dead.

All true. In fact when nations simply ASSUME evolutionISM is true instead of insisting that it be proven -- THEN they enter the "post-Christian era" as Europe has done!

As the well-known atheist darwinist Colin Patterson admits about the stories of "how one thing came from another" - they are simply "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"

Men who oppose God have been trying to do just that very thing since, well since forever. Evolution just like Christianity is based mainly on faith bits and pieces of evidence

True it is an opposing "religion" to Christianity.

good points all!

Thanks for sharing them here.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no.

Biblical christianity is an unfalsifiable viewpoint you say? If nothing can prove it wrong how can you know it's right?
As a hypothetical situation, let's say you were living in a universe with no judeo-christian god ruling over it, and you asked yourself 'Was this universe formed and governed by a judeo-christian god?'

IF there were no God -- there would be no life and no way to have a MIND to "ask the question" to start with.

Rocks, dust, gas -- maybe even gravity and heat -- but no "minds asking questions" that you propose in your scenario.

That is the salient point that atheist darwinism "needs" to sidestep.

Starting with "gas and rocks" you don't get to "minds" at least not science! Not in the lab.

In fact -- starting with "gas and rocks" you don't even get to a single living cell!! At least not in science! Not in "the lab".

As Colin Patterson admits regarding "stories about how one thing came from another" they are "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

If the answer to either question is 'nothing' or the answer to both questions is the same, then the question 'does the judeo-christian concept of God exist' cannot be answered and thus cannot be known with any certainity or uncertainity.

It is true that IF we were able to easily turn gas and rocks into living cells and then human minds in the lab AND we could show that the steps used in the lab to get to those results are readily available in nature -- THEN we could imagine ourselves to THEN have a very difficult time justifying the concept of the creator-God we find in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

But such an easter-bunny flying-spaghetti-monster utopia for atheist darwinism DOES NOT exist!

Why is it that it is so hard for atheist darwinists to admit to the obvious on this point?

They constantly "imagine" a neutral scenario like the above AS IF it existed and THEN in that neutral environment evidence was found AGAINST a creator-God.

Yet that starting point -- that neutral (we can already see it all and do it all without God -- artificially in the lab and probably in nature) does not EXIST!


You can have your faith, but faith can't decide things. For example, if an atheist-beliving evolutionist made contradictory claims based on their faith alone against evolutionist-believing scientists that admit to intelligent design, would the the dogmatic atheist pursue the course of Dawkins in promoting blind censorship, politcal pogroms and character assassination to silence the science that "allows academic freedom to follow the data where it leads?" Yes they would.

Bob

 

[Patashu]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no.

Biblical christianity is an unfalsifiable viewpoint you say? If nothing can prove it wrong how can you know it's right?
As a hypothetical situation, let's say you were living in a universe with no judeo-christian god ruling over it, and you asked yourself 'Was this universe formed and governed by a judeo-christian god?'

IF there were no God -- there would be no life and no way to have a MIND to "ask the question" to start with.

I knew you were going to say this.
You are trying to say that in NO possible universe or set of universal laws there is a way for self replicators to arise other then by the hand of a divine tinkerer.
Does this mean the divine tinkerer himself cannot exist, if life cannot come from nothing?

Rocks, dust, gas -- maybe even gravity and heat -- but no "minds asking questions" that you propose in your scenario.

That is the salient point that atheist darwinism "needs" to sidestep.

Um, no it doesn't, since the theory of evolution concerns the origins in species and the change in species over time, not the origin of life nor the origin of stars/planets/chemicals nor the origin of universes? It's like saying relativity is bunk because it doesn't explain where energy came from.

P.S. Why are you not okay with such flawed and clearly naturally generated lifeforms as us coming to being on a planet with favourable conditions for life but a-okay with a perfect, infinite, omnipotent omniscient eternal God coming from absolutely nothing for no reason?

 

[freeway]

P.S. Why are you not okay with such flawed and clearly naturally generated lifeforms as us coming to being on a planet with favourable conditions for life but a-okay with a perfect, infinite, omnipotent omniscient eternal God coming from absolutely nothing for no reason?

well first off.. naturally generated lifeforms...yea, well that takes faith to believe that does it not???
a favorable conditions "planet" 4.5 billions years ago "you say" again we step into the realm of faith, if you are using the Miller experiment as proof... sorry debunked..
As for God.. yea faith again.. God said " I have no beginning and no end" can I explain that? sure God said it and that settles it for me....also to quote the Creator... "in their wisdom they become fools" :wink:

 

[BobRyan]

The question is, is there or can there ever be evidence to make a true Jesus believing Christian change his or her mind on God, creation, Jesus, salvation, and the living word of God the Bible. Well I can say from personal experience no.

Biblical christianity is an unfalsifiable viewpoint you say? If nothing can prove it wrong how can you know it's right?
As a hypothetical situation, let's say you were living in a universe with no judeo-christian god ruling over it, and you asked yourself 'Was this universe formed and governed by a judeo-christian god?'

IF there were no God -- there would be no life and no way to have a MIND to "ask the question" to start with.

I knew you were going to say this.
You are trying to say that in NO possible universe or set of universal laws there is a way for self replicators to arise other then by the hand of a divine tinkerer.
Does this mean the divine tinkerer himself cannot exist, if life cannot come from nothing?

Rocks, dust, gas -- maybe even gravity and heat -- but no "minds asking questions" that you propose in your scenario.

That is the salient point that atheist darwinism "needs" to sidestep.

Um, no it doesn't, since the theory of evolution concerns the origins in species and the change in species over time

You missed the point. In your answer you seem to say "assume whatever story evolutionists tell is true -- now how can we convince you of it".

I point out that the very existence of human mind - to even think about the problem PROVES evolution to be false because (as you admit in your response) there is NO storytelling among evolutionists that actually bridges the gap from gas-dust-and-rocks to human mind.

, not the origin of life nor the origin of stars/planets/chemicals nor the origin of universes?

Indeed - it's like placing your hand over the story telling gap where EVEN the story telling has no easter-bunny like solution and saying "ignoring all the flaws -- asume evolution is true now how can it be proven to be true?"

The entire scenario is illogical.

P.S. Why are you not okay with such flawed and clearly naturally generated lifeforms as us coming to being on a planet with favourable conditions for life but a-okay with a perfect, infinite, omnipotent omniscient eternal God coming from absolutely nothing for no reason?

Everyone has a "god" for you it is the innexpelicable infinitely capable substance of matter and energy -- for me it is an actual intelligent being. I readily admit that the faith you put into storytelling and matter energy (in this case the story telling of how space time was folded in on itself to the point of nothingness -- something never done in lab -- just a thought experiment -- then unfolded from nothingness to a complete universe billions of lightyears in just 3 minutes -- and then hand waiving about how dust rocks and gas became a human mind over time) -- I put that faith into infinite God - creator of all - Savior of mankind.

(i.e - God created mankind perfectly -- mankind fell into sin -- God provides the Gospel so that mankind would not be destroyed in the lake of fire)

Bob

 

[KenEOTE]

OK here is the evidence I would need. I need to see a creature give birth to something other than what it is. Lets say a dog give birth to something more than a dog. Or a monkey give birth to something other than a monkey.

I need to see evolution continuing as it did for millions of years, then suddenly it appeared to have stopped. My question to evolutionist is what stopped evolution? I don't see mutations that are beneficial happening today.

 

[Snidey]

OK here is the evidence I would need. I need to see a creature give birth to something other than what it is. Lets say a dog give birth to something more than a dog. Or a monkey give birth to something other than a monkey.

I need to see evolution continuing as it did for millions of years, then suddenly it appeared to have stopped. My question to evolutionist is what stopped evolution? I don't see mutations that are beneficial happening today.

Your "evidence" would not fit the current model of evolution, so it's peculiar that it would convince you of its truth.

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution stopped, nor any reason to believe it has, nor does anyone reputable who thinks it has.

 

[KenEOTE]

So the model of evolution has changed. It is not what it was?

What was wrong with the original model? Will this new model stick?

Was there some wild speculation and theories that suddenly were not able to be proven?

So theories have changed, but the evidence has remained the same. That means new interpretation of the same things? How can we know that the new theories and models are correct? What is going to stop them from changing again?

I am asking seriously these questions, because any time a "Creationist" changes a view point evolutionist go crazy.

 

[Snidey]

So the model of evolution has changed. It is not what it was?

What was wrong with the original model? Will this new model stick?

Was there some wild speculation and theories that suddenly were not able to be proven?

So theories have changed, but the evidence has remained the same. That means new interpretation of the same things? How can we know that the new theories and models are correct? What is going to stop them from changing again?

I am asking seriously these questions, because any time a "Creationist" changes a view point evolutionist go crazy.

When did I imply that the model has changed? Our knowledge about natural selection has changed, but other than that I have no idea what you're referring to. Just because your prediction doesn't match our understanding of how evolution happens doesn't mean the model changed, it means you are uninformed (in this case, anyway).

Who says evidence stays the same? New evidence comes into play all the time. The fact that science is capable of adjusting to new information doesn't count as a strike against it.

In what way do you believe evolutionists have changed their viewpoint?

 

[KenEOTE]

Your "evidence" would not fit the current model of evolution, so it's peculiar that it would convince you of its truth.

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution stopped, nor any reason to believe it has, nor does anyone reputable who thinks it has.

Read what you wrote. You said it would not fit the current model of evolution. So that means the model changed. I took your word for it. That is why I was asking how it had changed. I didn't think it had.

 

[Snidey]

No, the model did not change, and I did not imply anything along those lines. The reason you feel this is so is because you are assuming that your idea of one member of a species giving birth to a different species actually fits somewhere into some model of evolution that exists, but it does not. No evolutionary biologist would ever suggest that you might see such a thing occur, because evolution does not predict that it will.

 

[KenEOTE]

But in order for evolution to work at some time in the history of the world, a creature had to give birth to something other then what it was. A single cell creature had to become a multi-cell creature.

Non-living matter had to some how become living matter all on its own.

How did that happen.

Why have we not seen another single cell creature change in that way?

I guess I am overly creative, but I would assume that if evolution were fact more new creatures would continue to be crawling out of the ocean. I'd expect to see Cloverfield come.

 

[BobRyan]

Patterson LETTER to Explain his former Letter and comments –

(Hint: Here is where many have supposed that Patterson would “undo†or “papally annul†his previous frank statements regarding the glaring defects and shortcomings of atheist evolutionism. One way many hoped Patterson would do it is to claim that the quote of him was not accurrate – but instead Patterson AFFIRMS the accuracy of the quote AND ADDs to the weight of evidence against atheist Darwinism when he says the quotes the Creationists gave “were ACCURATE†as far as what they printed.

Recall that Patterson is the one that argues that atheist Darwinist evolutionism has “done more harm than good†to systematics and in fact conveys "anti-knowledge" arguing for evolutionism as a tenant of faith -- as "revealed truth".

Colin Patterson - Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History (atheist and darwinist)

Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes .
The passage quoted continues
[quote:ac5a4]
"... 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 to put them to the test."

[/quote:ac5a4]

 

[Snidey]

But in order for evolution to work at some time in the history of the world, a creature had to give birth to something other then what it was. A single cell creature had to become a multi-cell creature.

Non-living matter had to some how become living matter all on its own.

How did that happen.

Why have we not seen another single cell creature change in that way?

I guess I am overly creative, but I would assume that if evolution were fact more new creatures would continue to be crawling out of the ocean. I'd expect to see Cloverfield come.

Your first statement is incorrect, period. That is not required for evolution to occur, and demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the topic (which is saying something, because I am no biologist myself).

Non-living matter DID become living matter. Why do you find this so unlikely? While scientists don't understand how the process played out exactly, you can look at the basics and see how it might have. DNA is comprised of 4 different kinds of nucleotides. These nucleotides can form on their own. Hydrogen, cyanide, and ammonia placed in conditions replicating those of early Earth and left to their own devices have been shown to produce adenine, one of those four nucleotides. Nucleotides have been shown to form polynucleotides as well. DNA can adapt from RNA. The first amino acids to produce proteins for DNA have been demonstrated to form in the same conditions that adenine did. The formation of DNA is a mystery to us, but it's not a TOTAL mystery, and how it probably happened is not exactly complex enough to warrant divine intervention. I hope that sheds some light on the topic.

Your last statement is pure speculation. I notice a weird trend among creationists where they say "well then why doesn't (insert made up creature here) exist??" as if it's some kind of gotcha. You may imagine all sorts of things that could've evolved. Feel free to speculate, just know that it is not relevant to evolutionary biology.

 

[freeway]

This is what Snidey wants us to believe... well lets just see how much knowledge is used in his short statement... He is saying Ken has a lack of knowledge... so as to he must have knowledge, proof in his theory...but he does admit he's no rocket scientist either.. so again his understanding is based of what "faith" lets see...

Your first statement is incorrect, period. That is not required for evolution to occur, and demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the topic (which is saying something, because I am no biologist myself).

Non-living matter DID become living matter. Why do you find this so unlikely? While scientists don't understand how the process played out exactly, you can look at the basics and see how it might have. DNA is comprised of 4 different kinds of nucleotides. These nucleotides can form on their own. Hydrogen, cyanide, and ammonia placed in conditions replicating those of early Earth and left to their own devices have been shown to produce adenine, one of those four nucleotides. Nucleotides have been shown to form polynucleotides as well. DNA can adapt from RNA. The first amino acids to produce proteins for DNA have been demonstrated to form in the same conditions that adenine did. The formation of DNA is a mystery to us, but it's not a TOTAL mystery, and how it probably happened is not exactly complex enough to warrant divine intervention. I hope that sheds some light on the topic.

Your last statement is pure speculation. I notice a weird trend among creationists where they say "well then why doesn't (insert made up creature here) exist??" as if it's some kind of gotcha. You may imagine all sorts of things that could've evolved. Feel free to speculate, just know that it is not relevant to evolutionary biology.

and then he reverts back to bashing creationist because of their faith.... umh..
but I think Ken is on to something here.... why can't evolution today pop out something other than that species kind... or why aren't we seeing the process going on today...(wait we need million of years) how do you argue with that theory.. its kind of like God did it, but don't ask for proof.. double standard there....and like I say... where are the fossils... if evolution was 100% true and they had the fossils to prove it, hell we would be tripping over them in every museum.. but... 8-) 8-) this is just to show we all rely on faith in whatever we believe.....

 

[Snidey]

My statements are not based on faith, sorry. It doesn't take faith to believe in abiogenesis. It happened at some point, we just aren't 100% on how. I know that every single thing science doesn't know for certain is somehow evidence to you that God exists, but it's not the case. Instead of looking at the actual content of what I stated, you just highlighted aspects that aren't 100% known and pretended that the evidence thusly does not exist. What parts of the necessary steps in abiogenesis are unlikely to have actually occured, in your opinion, and why? I look forward to your answer (and how about one that uses actual punctuation?)

"Where are the fossils?" Seriously? Why don't you find the fossil of a species in the geological record that entirely defies our current understanding of how life evolved and disprove this pesky theory once and for all?

On one hand you all champion faith as something great and noble, but when its weaknesses are pointed out, rather than defending faith itself, you accuse your opposition of having it as well. That's a fine strategy, but maybe you'd be better off figuring out why you ever prefer faith to evidence.