Comment on Hope? Slim to none by BobRyan.
Ken: I read Genesis 1 KJV and could not find where it said ‘oceans’ covered mountaintops
hmm… so “you just don’t see it” ?? right?
What is the “other solution” for water covering the tops of all the mountains and all life on “the earth” dying in the flood —
If it is not an ocean that covers the whole earth – rising to 40 meters above the tops of the highest mountains – then please tell us – “what is it” that the Bible said?
Gen 7
4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
1. How is it that the “birds of the sky are blotted out from the earth” without the oceans “covering the earth”??
How can it be that just after claiming that God created every living thing on earth – we then find that God chooses to wipe out every living thing that He has made – without this being a world wide ocean?
4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”
Where did you get that “yes but not an ocean” statement from the Bible?
2. How is it that the tops of the highest mountains on earth are covered by over 20 feet of water and yet “this is not an ocean”?? What part of Genesis 7 gave you such a notion in your “I can’t see it” response to oceans covering the highest mountains?
3. More importantly – how in the world were you going to make the case that for all these thousands of years – those reading the Bible would join you in closing their eyes to the statements in Genesis 7 regarding all mountains on earth being covered by water??
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
ken: Thanks for your coomments Bob.
You seem to be saying that evolution is religion. Is that right?
In his 11 seconds of fame – and ceiling focused silence – Dawkins reminds us of “evolution that cannot be seen”. That is the evolutionism that is “by faith alone” and is what evolutionists need to get the Amoeba to eventually produce a horse (given a few 100 million years of course).
It is that aspect of evolution (change) that exhibits the religious attributes so glaring that even an atheist evolutionist like Collin Patterson laments the situation before his fellow atheist evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History.
in Christ,
Bob
Hope? Slim to none
The burden of proof is on the one claiming “birds did not used to have that set of genes and epigenome factors for migration”.
At least if we are talking about “Science”.
In “science” the guy that wants to claim “look here is what birds have” — only has to deal with science and “observations in nature”.
in Christ,
Bob
ken: “From the article the genes managing migration can “modify” slightly and change migration patterns – but the study did not show migration genes “coming into existence”.”
Thanks for your comments my friend.
Yes the article is very honest about its conclusions isn’t it? It states that much further work must be done. It doesn’t say it has all the answers does it? It doesn’t make blind leaps of faith does it?
What it does show is that the gene does evolve which is what I stated, and no more.
On the other hand you do not seem to have the same level of circumspection when it comes to making self evident biblical based conclusions about reality (obvious presence of telermerase in 900 year olds.). Yet you produce no science for such a proposition. Why the double standard?
1. I agree that the article tends to be a bit more balanced – not claiming to have all the answers – but it does express “hope” (faith) to some extent – hoping that information in the genes will one day help with the storytelling of evolutionism itself. Just a small amount of lip-service in favor of evolutionism in the article – but as you point out – not much by way of that.
In fact it provides no evidence at all that evolutionism is being observed in nature – outside of changes INSIDE the genome of the birds mentioned and not crossing to some other phyla etc.
2. I am more than happy to admit that my 7-days of creation week and 6000 year old life on earth idea comes from a by-faith acceptance of the Bible. I have always said that. My point is that YEC and YLC and Intelligent Design are based on observations in nature – not that 7 days of creation week are observed in nature.
I also affirm with Patterson that the by-faith-alone imagination among evolutionists “as if they were declaring revealed truth” is in somewhat of a parity with the Christian model.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
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!
george:
Gentlemen,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
