@Mahabir Ramkhelawan: Anyone who reads the Bible will see that, …

Comment on Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux by BobRyan.

@Mahabir Ramkhelawan:

Anyone who reads the Bible will see that, especially under Moses and Joshua, the Israelites invaded, plundered, pillaged, took the lands of their neighbors and also took some of them as slaves! The Old Testament is FILLED with BLOODSHED–MAN’s INHUMANITY TO MAN! No matter what you choose to call it or however you choose to rationalize or justify it, the fact is that one group of humans were pitted against other groups and engaged in CRUELTY, BRUTALITY AND BLOODSHED just like that of the “pagans” THEY WERE ALLOWED TO EXTERMINATE!!!

Interesting “Bible is evil – stay away from the evil Bible” solution you are proposing. What brings you to that topic? Finding a defense for evolutionism?

Curious minds want to know.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
@Marta Thomas:

I’m just sad that this is even a subject of discussion at all. We need to believe a “Thus saith the Lord” without question. The Scriptures clearly tell us that God created the world in seven literal days, out of nothing. For the earth was without form and void. I believe that this whole
mess is just another of Satan’s attempts to get our minds off of what is really important, the fact the Jesus is coming soon and we need to be getting ready. We need to be telling the world to get ready.

In Mark 7 Christ says “in vain to the worship me – teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”.

Replacing the Word of God with manmade traditions, guesswork and supposition is an ancient art.

But Bible students need not be deceived by it – as you point out.

in Christ,


Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
@Professor Kent:

The irony here that so few of you recognize is that Clifford Goldstein is, himself, a most unwitting Seventh-day Darwinian.If he believes (as I am prone to) that the only living life forms (terrestrial life forms, at least) that survived the great deluge were upon Noah’s Ark (as stated clearly by the Bible and Ellen White) a mere 4,000 years ago, then he actually believes much of today’s extraordinary biodiversity has evolved at evolutionary rates far faster than any “evolutionist” has claimed.

As usual – Kent is shocked that the readers can easily observe that Irish Wolf hounds and Chihuahua’s “exist” and do not require millions of years for that level of diversity in body plan.

A little something we call “variation within a static genome” where “static genome” inolves a genome having essentially the same coding genes.

When the evoutionist tries the misdirection game in an effort to peddle the modern alchemy that “birds come from reptiles” he will often try to ignore the Irish Wolf Hound — – Chihuahua problem.

Oh well –

in Christ,


Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
Pauluc – Less heat – more light please.

A substantive point for discussion would be a good start.

Pauluc said:
4] On the science. Any science. I find it truly remarkable that you, Goldstein and others that flock around this site should know so much and the thousands of scientists…(Obligatory rant deleted here)

1. Hint: “Thousands of scientists” reject the mythology of evolutionism.

2. In fact – scientists like Colin Patterson are on record as deploring the distinctively religious nature of the argument for evolutionism so often parroted by those who accept evolution as if it were “revealed truth”.

Here is an interesting case in point —

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

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History


“…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 for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. “That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long…

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

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

Here is a case where evolutionists admit to “projecting” the flaws in their own by-faith-alone argument onto Creationists.

Patterson – again quoting Gillespie accusing that those “‘…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: ‘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…”

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind