Straining at the JW yet swallowing Evolutionism

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, Dec 21, 2004.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    On the "Would you let an Evolutionist teach Sunday School" thread most people (even the evolutionists to be fair) said they would not let an evolutionist teach a Bible class on any Gospel topic IF the church had not already compromised on the doctrine of origins to the point of belief in evolutionism.

    Though a lot of attempts were made by the evolutionists to sidetrack that thread - that one point about Bible teachers seemed to be clear.

    There is also another thread about what doctrinal views would be least approved by Christians in which evolutionism is also mentioned.

    This thread I am now starting assumes those posting would not accept JWs as Christians.

    My question is about the comparison between the truths that JWs DO have and the error that evolutionism injects into the Bible and the gospel.

    At the end of the Evolutionist-teacher-for-Sunday-School thread the following point is made about Intelligent Design

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2900/21.html#000310

    It shows that our evolutionist bretheren NOT ONLY reject Christ the Creator as the REAL Creator in Gen 1-2:3 REALLY creating as it says -- but they ALSO reject Christ as leaving evidence of "Intelligent Design" in His non-act of not-creating.

    What kind of god is that??

    Christ mentioned a group that SAID they would not work for God but then they DID and He contrasted that with another group that SAID they WOULD obey but did NOT.

    He claimed that the TRUE servants were those that ACTUALLY did what was asked.

    The JWs SAY they don't believe in the Trinity BUT They DO insist that Christ the Creator NOT ONLY intelligently DESIGNED life but He REALLY DID CREATE the world JUST as the Bible says in Gen 1-2:3.

    So although they don't SAY He is God - they have to admit that HE IS doing all the BIG GOD things that Scripture SAYS He does.

    The evolutionists on the other hand - admit no such thing! For them NOT ONLY does the John 1 and Gen 1-2:3 Creator NOT "Create the World in 6 days and rest on the 7th" He ALSO does NOT even leave an imprint in nature of HIW OWN INTELLIGENT Design???!!!

    Their god - truly is miniscule when compared to the JW's confessed statements about Christ the Creator!

    How then - can Christians on this board view evolutionism as CLOSER to the light and truth than the JWs views? How can this board see LESS damage to the Gospel AND the text of scripture in what Evolutionist do to it - than in the mistakes of JWS???

    Straining at the JW but Swallowing Evolutionism as within the pale of orthodox fellowship seems like an upsidedown view.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want a thread about JW, why can't you merely start a thread about JW? I am not trying to sidetrack your thread, but since you misrepresent a statement of mine in the OP, it must be straightened out. (You might notice that as of this morning that on the thread who who should be allowed to post in the "Other Christian Demoninations" poll, that SDA is only leading JW and Mormonism. I also suppose that you want to quote me about as well as you quote scientists, which is to say not well at all.)

    Bob above links to his response to something I said. What I said was

    Bob took this to mean that I am "not a believer in Christ the Creator." You really must learn to read posts and quotes for comprehension instead of how you can twist them.

    There is no secret that I am opposed to YE. I find that the leaders who promote ID have been reduced to lying and misrepresenting in an attempt to make a point. I find their behavior un-Christlike. And I think that their actions bring great harm to the cause of Christ. People on the outside see the lies and want nothing to do with Christianity and people in the church can / do leave when the truth is revealed to them. That's my opinion and is not part of the debate for this thread.

    But to defend what I said... The Discovery Institute is the leading ID group. They had what is known as the Wedge plan leaked some time in the past. This is a strategy to over time replace the current public education teachings in "molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts."

    Now this is a strategy with which many here would agree. But you must consider the Machiavellian nature of the plan. You also must consider the implications of this wolf in sheeps clothing approach where the ideas cannot stand on their own so the backdoor must be used.

    None of this means that I reject Christ as Bob erroneous asserts above. It means that I do not see ID as exactly what they present themselves to be in the public.

    Now that this is out of the way, on with your thread...
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    1. That is in fact the quote that I GAVE of you in the link. So your "bad quote" rant - fails "again".

    2. In your transparent attempt to do "damage control" for the atheist's religion of evolutionism - you miss the point (as usual).

    The point was that you have come out of the closet - by attacking Intelligent Design.

    BECAUSE in SO DOING you SHOW that your god is soooo miniscule that NOT ONLY does he not actually CREATE in 6 evenings and mornings like the Bible tells us in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 HE ALSO leaves no hint of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in His Work.

    This is like saying that Pablo Piccaso leaves NO HINT of his geneous in his work but rather blends in perfectly with a bunch of 4 year olds doodling, as just another 4 year old on the block!!

    As usual you miss the salient point and so fail to even respond to it.

    My question here is for all who claim to understand the problem with JWs and the trinity - (it is a "given" that they are not accepted in the group) -- and to point out that they are swallowing the camel by opening the floodgates to evolutionism --

    Notice "the details" of those who SAID they would serve and did not - vs those who SAID they would NOT serve but did?

    Are any of these "details" registering during your unceasing efforts to do damage control for evolutionism?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here is another "hint" about the relative danger. Notice that there is no belief of JWs that atheists LEAP to as the ONE GREAT DOCTRINE and hope for atheists.

    But when it comes to evolutionism they can't HELP but express the centrality of that religion to their non-God views!!

    That is no "accident"!

    Christians who think they can embrace the heart of atheism directly in to the church unchallenged - and yet strain out the JW because they don't SAY Christ is God are making a mistake. It is obvious that JWs confess FAR MORE GOD-Attributes for Christ than any evolutionist -so those who strain out the JWs but swallow evolutionism into the fold as "one of the varying opinions" are indeed straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel.

    It would be far MORE consistent to strain at the gnat AND ALL THINGS gnat-sized and larger!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In UTEOTW's "Zeal for the atheist's religion of evolutionism" he brings up trinitarian groups like SDAs (and messianic Jews I assume) - but that only makes the PROBLEM WORSE because it is straining at an EVEN smallER GNAT while swallowing evolutionism!!

    The point remains - although UTEOTW is failing to grasp the details of the argument.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, I don't get to read many of your posts. Are you always this rude?
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is it your position that bringing up contrasts like this is "rude"??

    Would you prefer "Evolutionism? All is fine, all is fine. Just six of one and half-dozenn of the other" when what I really intend is to show the inconsistency of the group?

    How would you do it? (Assuming you are neither JW nor Evolutionist of course)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "1. That is in fact the quote that I GAVE of you in the link. So your "bad quote" rant - fails "again"."

    Pay attention here. OK. I said that ID has a hidden agenda. You said I said that I reject Christ. Not the same.

    "The point was that you have come out of the closet - by attacking Intelligent Design."

    No, ID is the group in the closet. They are the ones with a hidden agenda. They are the ones that are not honest with the public about their goals. Some things I have read said that heads rolled at DI when the wedge was leaked. Hearsay, yes, but very telling if true.

    No if you want to have a thread about JW, by all means go down that road. But don't try and drag me down it by misrepresenting what I say.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    UTEOTW - still floundering on the "Details"??

    The point is that by attacking Intelligent Design - you are attacking the last vestige of hope that normal non-evolutionist Christians charitably assume for Christian evolutionists.

    They assume you have a god with at least SOME ability and that you supose that while he is not capable of what He SAYS in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 with the 6 evenings and mornings -- yet you would leave his hand in nature as the God of creation. (You ARE a "Christian" after all -- they suppose)

    But HERE in your attack on ID they can SEE you attack Intelligent DESIGN ITSELF leaving your god so miniscule - sooo tiny that he can not be seen EVEN in what little of his own work of Creation that you "might" have been assumed to allow.

    Like Piccaso perfectly blended in with the 4 year olds - God does not even show himself to have put Intelligent DESIGN into His Work (as you would attack this truth)!!

    How "obvious" can this point be UTEOTW??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So we should all be out there supporting organizations with hidden agendas and Machiavellian tactics because you think they are the "the last vestige of hope?" That is an interesting admission.

    The obvious point is that you asserted that I said something different than whatI actually said. I don't know how you can miss that.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to discuss JW, why don't you go on about discussing JW? What exactly are you trying to prove here? Trying to start ANOTHER CvE thread and just putting JW in the title for some unknown reason.

    You want to talk about JW then go on talking about JW. Don't go down some strange sidetrack fight from the beginning.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The point "remains" you - have attacked not only the acceptance of the role of Christ in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 and John 1:1-5 that the Bible claims for him (and that the JWS ALSO ACCEPT FOR HIM) but you ALSO deny even the modest claim that God would show "intelligent design" in His creation??!!!

    (And of course you seem to be very desperate to sidetrack and misdirect on this thread as well.)

    My point is that you take erroneous positions about what Christ the Creator is NOT doing - that EVEN the JWs don't fall into!

    The question therefore is a valid one -- if your god is so much smaller than the JWs view of Christ how in the world can anyone defend straining at the JW but swallowing Christian Evolutionism as simply a kind of "diversity" within the Christain community?

    If one is going to be strict enough to exclude the JWs because their view of Christ the Creator is not BIG ENOUGH - then how in the world can they accept your miniscule version of the same?

    It is a question that should be considered objectively.

    (I don't suppose that is going to be "a problem" is it?)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    First of all "think" about how the premise for intelligent DESIGN controverts the foundation points of NATURAL selection as it appeals to random variations with some succeeding better than others depending on environmental factors.

    The gap is huge. Mixing ID into the evolutionist box of errors would eventually unravel natural selection becaues ID is continually trying to SHOW the genius of God in nature AS IF the creature in question was not "just going to happen anyway due to natural causes".

    ID unravels Natural Selection as the mechanism for creation the same way evolutionism unravels the Gospel as the explanation for why we are here and who God is and whether He is just in condemning all mankind to hell.

    Whether the ID people realized the leathal nature that ID has to Natural Selection remains to be seen.

    On the one hand - you are being very consistent as a devotee to evolutionism in your opposition against allowing Christ the Creator to show in His creation "Intelligent Design". On the other hand - coming out of the closet so clearly leaves evolutionism exposed to the light of day, in terms of Christian values and the reduction evolutionism requires of its god.

    You are exposed on this one UTEOTW.

    I look forward to your finding some escape from it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "...but you ALSO deny even the modest claim that God would show "intelligent design" in His creation??!!!"

    Nope. I said that the ID movement has a hidden agenda and I do not believe them to be what they proclaim based on this. If it is not secret, why do they not plaster the Wedge document front and center on their website so we can all know what they are doing? You are making a link from me saying this to something totally unrelated.

    "And of course you seem to be very desperate to sidetrack and misdirect on this thread as well."

    Uh...No. When you do not tell the thruth about something I said you had better expect me to defend myself.

    I'll also point you to the following statements by me above.

    "Now that this is out of the way, on with your thread... "

    "No if you want to have a thread about JW, by all means go down that road. But don't try and drag me down it..."

    "If you want to discuss JW, why don't you go on about discussing JW?"

    "You want to talk about JW then go on talking about JW. Don't go down some strange sidetrack [r]ight from the beginning."

    So go on with your thread. I'll gladly leave you alone with it. But if you misrepresent me then you should expect me to be back.

    "Mixing ID into the evolutionist box of errors would eventually unravel natural selection becaues ID is continually trying to SHOW the genius of God in nature AS IF the creature in question was not "just going to happen anyway due to natural causes"."

    So do you agree with IDist Behe when he says

    "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. ...Although Darwin’s mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life."

    Do you agree with IDist Dembski when he says

    "...intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. [On the contrary, intelligent design is] fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as “common descent.”"
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    More pointedly - do YOU agree with Intelligent Design????

    Have you not already entered into debate on the subject of Intelligent Design on this very forum??

    ID is the antithesis of Natural Selection because ID claims to SEE intelligent -- "directed" energy, planning, forethought in what is "supposed" by evolutionists to be nothing more than "natural cause and effect".

    Like ice melting when exposed to heat - for the evolutionist this is not "intelligent design".

    But given the fact that water expands to get to its solid form so that it can float and life in the oceans can survive - is taken by many as a sign that God - alone is the cause of this "fortunate attribute" of water.

    The Christian claims that the designs of the butterfly are not simply "random blotches of color" but are intelligent designs and variations.

    Christians claim that the complex DNA code is a masterful example of directed energy, amazing planning forethought design, intelligence.

    The eolutionists is stuck with amino acid experiements that lack the mono-chiral results needed for life - much less "evolving useful DNA" into existence.

    Are you really going to "embrace both" now - or remain consistent and attack the ID proposals posted here?

    And in your attacks against ID - does this not expose you to a view of Christ the Creator that is miniscule by comparison to JWs claims about Christ the Creator???

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So I guess this means you do not really want to talk about JW.

    Sigh.

    Why did you ever start the thread the way you did if not to try and drag out this very discussion?

    "Have you not already entered into debate on the subject of Intelligent Design on this very forum??"

    I have briefly discussed specific aspects I think.

    "More pointedly - do YOU agree with Intelligent Design????"

    What do you mean? If you restrict it to evolution then I see very little in the results that suggests that God needed to intervene anywhere. The mechanisms that are known and the data that is known seem to get along just fine without need for constant intervention. To get humans here, God may have intervened somewhere but I imagine that He is smart enough to have set the initial conditions such to achieve His will.

    Beyond that, ID as it related to ToE becomes a God of the Gaps hypothesis. It becomes invoked where something cannot yet be uxplained or where something remains unknown. As more gaps are filled in, the need for God is reduced. That is not what I believe.

    "Christians claim that the complex DNA code is a masterful example of directed energy, amazing planning forethought design, intelligence."

    You might have something there. Not what you think, though.

    DNA seems amazingly designed to evolve. In each three leter codon, changes to the last letter lead to very minor changes in the function of the protein. These changes are unlikely to disable the protein but may make it more or less adapted to its function.

    Changes to the second letter make more moderate changes. These are more likely to be deleterious but are also more likely to make larger step changes in function.

    Changes to the first letter are major changes and are usually harmful. The new protein is unlikely to have the same function though it may have a completely new function.

    "The eolutionists is stuck with amino acid experiements that lack the mono-chiral results needed for life - much less "evolving useful DNA" into existence."

    Dude, you still stuck on that? How many times have I shown you the ability of very common materials to take simple components and make chirally pure building blocks including long chains of proper RNA? You really should read some of the things I post for you.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    More pointedly - do YOU agree with Intelligent Design when some of its leading proponents say that they "find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it" and that ID is "fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as “common descent.”"

    We ARE talking about Behe and Dembski here. Two of the best known advocates of ID.

    Do you accept ID as they envision it or are you criticizing me for objecting to something to which you also object? That is somewhat funny if you think about it.
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This "very discussion" as in the subject title that you are avoiding??

    Here it is "again" in triplicate -- maybe you will respond to it "this time".

    The focus is on the faith in God that is "Basic" to Christianity particularly as it relates to the role of Christ the Creator.

    The "point" is that by COMPARING the views of the JWs regarding Christ's having REALLY created JUST as the Bible says -- agains the views of evolutionists who claim that NOT ONLY Did Christ the Creator NOT do all that in 6 "evenings and mornings" in "6 days" as the Bible says - but Christ ALSO did not LEAVE in HIS Creation -- "Intelligent DESIGN" -- then we have a fact "instructive" for the objective reader.

    Notice how "BASIC" this point is --

    I see so IF we could ever go back far enough in time to a simple scenario we MIGHT find that God MAY have left some evidence of HIS intelligent work, directed thought and energy going INTO something that we see.

    How "nice".

    What a far cry is that miniscule-god view of Christ the Creator as compared to the JW saying that Christ the Creator REALLY DID EXACTLY what Gen 1-2:3 says He did IN 6 EVENINGS AND MORNINGS and exacty what Exodus 20:8-11 says He did IN SIX DAYS!

    I refer the reader back to the Bible from Heb 11.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    And by "contrast"

    What a far cry is that miniscule-god view of Christ the Creator as compared to the JW saying that Christ the Creator REALLY DID EXACTLY what Gen 1-2:3 says He did IN 6 EVENINGS AND MORNINGS and exacty what Exodus 20:8-11 says He did IN SIX DAYS!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Misdirection "Again" UTEOTW?? How unnexpected!

    The fact that different authors will claim to varying degrees of ID - is pointless.

    It does not change the level of ID that the BIBLE is claiming as SEE IN NATURE SINCE the CREATION.

    Your view on the other hand is the EXACT NEGATION of the text. You claim that God's INTELLIGENT design CAN NOT bee SEEN IN NATURE SINCE the creation - rather it must be "imagined" as a time VERY CLOSE to the first instance of creation - at a time far beyond anything the Bible writers or readers could go "SEE".

    How much more "obvious" can this be?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...