Why I do not have a firm position on origins

[BobRyan]

Some here may be wondering how it is that in my arguments on this area of the board regarding the subject of origins - I have not taken a firm position on the subject of origins.

1. It is because I do not have all the answers to every question that could be asked about the Creation account of Gen 1-2:3. Put simply I am not God - - I do not actually know how the Creator of all life makes things in 7 days. It is not as if I could say "give me 7 days and I will gladly show you how it is done".

I freely and humbly confess my being far short of infinite God on that count. As a result I gladly admit that the actual 7 day account given in God's Word is the best explanation for origins that we find in God's word and I gladly admit the the Intelligent Design science is the best science that we have explaining what we see around us.

2. It is also because I completely reject the fraud-rich history and nonsense that has gone into making evolutionism - fraudulent claims in behalf of evolutionism that have made it what it is today.

Your thoughts are welcomed.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

2. Lies

1. Intelligent Design is evolution with a slight modification. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob Ryan said:

Quote:

2. It is also because I completely reject the fraud-rich history and nonsense that has gone into making evolutionism - fraudulent claims in behalf of evolutionism that have made it what it is today.

The same could honestly be said in regard to Noah and the Ark. The history of the search for the Ark of Noah is full of nonsence and fraud. Do you therefore reject the story of Noah and the Ark as told in the Bible?

Yes, there is historical evidence for Fraud in the history of evolution. But, the fraud is such a small part of the story that it cannot be reasonably be claimed as justification to reject evolution.

Nonsence: That is a subjective term that hs little meaning in science. In one sense, the same standard used to call evolution nonsence could be used to call creationism nonsence. The bottom line is: Both creationism and evollution have aspects that are undetermined and in need of further development.

NOTE: I am a creationist. I am not a theistic evolutionist.

[BobRyan]

2. Lies

1. Intelligent Design is evolution with a slight modification. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

Hmmm "lies' and "dishonesty" accusations as the heart of your post Bravus?? What kind of spirit is that?

Deal with the statements and show something to be fact in your view - simply issuing hollow accusations against those who post on the thread does nothing for the discussion.

if you have proof for example that Haeckle's 50 year hoax or that Simpson's 50 year hoax or that the Piltdown 30 year hoax were never used to prop up the false religion of evolutionism -- then please show it.

Until then - we actually "have" claims that these were "the best examples of evolution" proving the myths.

As for I.D -- the ID statement does not require nor deny evolution. It merely adopts the academic freedom to "admit to design" when it finds it. Thus both evolutionists and creationists are participating in that science today. Atheist evolutionist however are notably absent from that effort.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan said:

Quote:

2. It is also because I completely reject the fraud-rich history and nonsense that has gone into making evolutionism - fraudulent claims in behalf of evolutionism that have made it what it is today.

The same could honestly be said in regard to Noah and the Ark.

[BobRyan]

One more component of my position on origins is my acceptance of Ellen White's statement on the literal 7 day week of creation week.

I know full well that God COULD have decided to make life on earth over a 3.5 billion year period of time - and He could have chosen to use words like "Eons and eons" as in the concept of "this age and the age to come" -- but apparently He chose not to do that.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Bob Ryan said:

Quote:

2. It is also because I completely reject the fraud-rich history and nonsense that has gone into making evolutionism - fraudulent claims in behalf of evolutionism that have made it what it is today.

The same could honestly be said in regard to Noah and the Ark.

I think not. The gross equivocation between SHOWING the fossil sequence that you claim to have found in nature -- and then having it debunked as "never having occurred in nature at all" is nothing like a claim from some guy that "I found the ark only you can't go there and can not see it".

In the case of Othaniel Marsh HE KNEW he was fabricating the data and those who promoted him also knew THEY had never found such a sequence in nature.

In the case of Piltdown man shown to the world - the one who fraudulently provided it for sale - KNEW he made it up.

By contrast nobody waltzed around with "Noah's Ark" on display.

Nobody highighted a "display of Adam and Eve".

The gross oversight necessary to try and "reach" for the level of equivocation you are so happy to imagine is not as subtle a point as you may have at first thought.

Quote:

Yes, there is historical evidence for Fraud in the history of evolution. But, the fraud is such a small part of the story that it cannot be reasonably be claimed as justification to reject evolution.

Grossly in error. These frauds were promoted for decade after decade as the most significant proofs for the reality/verified stated of the myths of evolutionism.

This system of fraud has completely hijacked our public education system. When the fraud is uncovered (as in the case of Simpson's horse series) it simply CONTINUES in the text books for decades more AS IF true!!

in Christ,

Bob

That's astounding Bob, it looks to me like these evolutionists could possibly be less than 100% honest. Is that the same thing as dishonest?

[Guest]

If you stay on that dishonesty road long enough, don't you end up with a big fat lie?

Just wondering.

[BobRyan]

Well they don't call it "junk-science" and "false religion" for nothing!!

[Bravus]

Ron Wyatt

[Guest]

Who's Ron Wyatt?

[Bravus]

Google is your friend

[Guest]

Ok but I think he's kin to them Earp boys.

[Bravus]

lol

[BobRyan]

Well they don't call it "junk-science" and "false religion" for nothing!!

[Bravus]

You believe Ron Wyatt found the Ark of the Covenant?

[Guest]

You believe Ron Wyatt found the Ark of the Covenant?

Oh that Ron Wyatt. Now I remember, he's not even kin to the Earps.

That story just kind of died away. What happened? Was it not the Ark?

[BobRyan]

You believe Ron Wyatt found the Ark of the Covenant?

[BobRyan]

speaking of examples of evolutionists pedalling fraud as if it was science.

Notice this classic example.

Dawkin treats us to an 11 second flummoxed response to an evolutionism 101 question demanding actual evidence of a genome getting a coding gene added. One that results in some significant feature added to the genome.

[phkrause]

Just a note on Mr. Wyatt. Not that I agree or disagree with him on anything. I think it should be noted that one of the top Archeologists in the world and from down under no less, John Gray, wrote a book about John Wyatt, called the Ark of the Covenant. I thought it was very interesting. John Gray was trying to disprove Wyatt but couldn't. I think many archeologist disliked Wyatt because he was not a legit archeologist, and he seem to always be in the right place at the right time. And also he was a very religious man.

pk

[olger]

Moses has a firm position on origins, and he is possibly watching this thread.

g

[Guest]

Never really thought about it that way, but I bet he is.

[phkrause]

Good one Olger, I also never thought about those in Heaven viewing us down here and saying, "how did they ever come up with that".

pk

[BobRyan]

Just a note on Mr. Wyatt. Not that I agree or disagree with him on anything. I think it should be noted that one of the top Archeologists in the world and from down under no less, John Gray, wrote a book about John Wyatt, called the Ark of the Covenant. I thought it was very interesting. John Gray was trying to disprove Wyatt but couldn't. I think many archeologist disliked Wyatt because he was not a legit archeologist, and he seem to always be in the right place at the right time. And also he was a very religious man.

pk

Good points. I don't have science evidence to prove what he claimed or to disprove it.

I do know this -- simply saying "harr harr" is not proof of anything.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Moses has a firm position on origins, and he is possibly watching this thread.

g

Hmm - now there is something to stop and think about my friend.

in Christ,

Bob