Evolutionism leads to moral decay

And yet these bogus claims form the soul and substance of posts from UTEOTW.

Good thing the atheist quoted above is reluctant to make the same wild-eyed bogus claims. We are glad for the voice of reason wherever it is found in the camp of the evolutionists. Even if it can only be found among the atheists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But clinging to their "gods of evolutionism anyway" these devotees to a failed doctrine on orgins boldly promote the gay agenda in Christian denominations (Episcopalian comes to mind) and promote the human-rat combination resulting in rats with human brains.

And where is the voice of reason? What is it saying - note that in the article given in the OP it is the voice that appeals to GOD's view of Origins - CREATIONISM, with MAN MADE in the IMAGE of God. The argument against the crimes against nature -- is the argument from Creationism!!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Thanks UTEOTW for serving as the poster-child for the point I made in response to this quote where I show that objective critical thinking would SEE the bogus flaws, blunders and foibles of the atheist author "immediately" but the mind so steeped in the myths of evolutionism would simply "go on to drink the koolaid".

Your innability to admit what EVEN the author of that quote admits - simply serves to show my point about the fact that often the tiny whimper of the voice of reason can be heard in the volutionist camp - but when heard it is only among the atheists.

Now you have to ask yourself - why are the evolutionist atheist MORE inclined to confess to truth than the Christian evolutionists. Would you like to take a stab at solving that one?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since UTEOTW continues to dodge this point - I bring it back "again".

Notice the "truth" forced from the lips of the atheist evolutionist icon UTEOTW quotes below --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series.

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

Indeed - as has already been noted they have FEWER places where they CAN make such grandeose claims TODAY than they had in DARWINS day!!!

And "this" confessed from their OWN atheist icon sources!!

In fact the trend is consistently that - WITH MORE DATA comes the fall of MORE early assumed examples to the contrary!

So there is the dying system of smooth transition claims.

But what about just blue-sky GUESSING the origin of a species -- "forget" not having smooth step wise transitions?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The origins of many groups are still not documented at all...

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

Fascinating confession from an atheist that was willing to make massive grandiose claims WITHOUT the smooth links and transitions needed to SUPPORT them!!

What is the rationalization embraced by such atheist devotees to evolutionism in view of their confessed lack of fossil support?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do.

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

How wonderful! "ASSUME" Evolution is true AND THEN remark that the non-EVIDIENCE you have today is MORE than you can possibly expect!!

(Which is ANOTHER conflicted statement for evolutionists SINCE they are already on record as saying that we DO NOT find the transitions IN The fossil record that WE WOULD REASONABLY EXPECT were evolutionism TRUE!)

No wonder with such compromised evolutionist reasoning they can so quickly embrace the mice-with-human brain experiments and the gay agenda in certain Christian denominations.

The evolutionist has here been show to take such wild and unsupportable twists and turns of logic to make his case from non-case data that one wonders how anyone could fall for the error of evolutionism today.

And yet among those who do fall for it - can be found the efforts to establish the gay agenda in Christian denominations and rat-human brain experiments.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Whatsa-matta - you don't like the "light of day"?

Surely the myths blunders and gaffs of evolutionism can survive the light of day for a "few" minutes!

(you should hope).

The point remains.

Wrong "again" UTEOTW (as usual on this topic).

I gave the test case. In your blind devotion to the myths and doctrines of evolutionism - you simply miss out on science and objectivity (all at the same time).

I stated the test clearly - NO GROUP embracing the blunders of human-animal species corruption (can you say "rats with human brain"?) does so without FIRST falling into the error of evolutionism.

Get it? Yet?

Now - should you actually HAVE objective evidence to the contrary - please present it.

I also gave another test - I stated that NO GROUP embraces the gay agenda WITHOUT first embracing the foibles, blunders, myths and errors of evolutionism.

Get it? Yet?

So IF you HAVE some "objective" evidence to the contrary -- please present IT instead of your hand-waiving and grandeose assertions.

Hand-waiving and wishful thinkig are prime sources of "proof" for its devotees within the walls of evolutionism -- but it just doesn't work the same here.

To the contrary - I remain on topic - on subject "in spite of the tired tactics" you use to obfuscate and misdirect.

Surely, that does not escape your notice. Come on - I know you see this.

Your faith in evolutionism is indeed "strong" UTEOTW and I don't doubt that you "believe" as you have stated above.

But I have never given any indication that I am infavor of cross-species amalgamations such as "rats with human brains" (see the OP LINK 'again' in case you are far off topic).

NOR have I given any indication that I favor the gay agenda of those groups ordaining gay Bishops.

My point "remains" that EACH of these groups had to FIRST swallow the myths, blunders, and half-truths of evolutionism BEFORE falling so far as to take the positions outlined above.

You are free to give "objective fact" to the contrary "when" you find it.

Indeed - your "game" is obvious and flawed. You "pretend" to believe that your practice of extreme bias and "zero objectivity" is the best scientific method around so you "continue" in that shadowland by ONLY quoting fellow devotees of evolutionism to make your case.

I ON THE OTHER HAND - have chose to EMBRACE objectivity - which means I AM FREE to quote BOTH creationist AND atheist-evolutionist sources!!

You "keep pretending" that you don't understand the basic concept of objectivity on this point. You do this by "observing" that the EXTREME case of objectivity that CAN quote an opponent - IS not valid SINCE the one quoted is an opponant!!

How blatantly failed is THAT!!??

I can't believe you still want to drag your past failures on this issue of objectivity back up every time you get a chance!

I would be embarrassed.

In the mean time - my objective TESTS for this OP on this thread - remain unchallenged.

Less heat and more light in your responses would prove to be more effective UTEOTW. Why not actually post a fact that challenges one of the tests I have given??

(It "seems" like an obvious approach -- but when dealing with evolutionists...)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed. He argues that you CAN NOT know that ONE THING gave rist to ANOTHER.

Think about it!!

What does that do to "descent with modification"?!!

Get it? Yet?

Time's up!

Every one of your responses circles back "AS IF" you KNOW that A gives rise to B or that BE is an offspring of A.

"Stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP.. but this is NOT science" PAtterson!

The fact that you must pretend not to notice the connection between "your stories" and the fact that they are "not science" is just another little embarrassing point for you to work out of your convoluted positions so far.

The fact that you are in such a fog - may help explain the problem that people have who embrace the atheist's model of origins - "evolutionism" only to find that more errors soon follow.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is it any wonder that these "story tellers" then go on to violate the image of God as the OP Link points out in the case of trying to get "rats with human brains"?

They are "used" to passing off "stories easy enough to make up" AS IF they were actual "science" and EVEN the Atheist evolutionist quoted above admits to seeing some of that among the "devotees" to evolutionism.

It has been "instructive" to wath UTEOTW fall again and again into the trap of "telling stories easy enough to make up" and then trying to pass off those stories as "science" when EVEN the ATHEIST Scientists will occassionally ADMIT to the difference between biased-wishful-stories told by these evolutionists and actual "science fact".

Had that statement above been a quote of a creationist - "ohhh" how UTEOTW would enjoy saying that the degrees earned are not real degrees or that the one quoted has no understanding -- but here we have an ATHEIST! The highest standard for our evolutionist bretheren - HOW can they possibly impugne such a one!

Better for them to embarrassingly have to "pretend" not to understand the "objectivity" in actually FINDING a quote from the other side that EXPOSES the errors of the other side. And so UTEOTW pretends to do that very thing - pretends "not to understand objective methods".

I would just hate it if my own position were so flawed that I was reduced to such methods. How embarrassing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So if the atheist evolutionist is going to "confess" like that - what is left for the Christian Creationist to "prove"??

But THEN when the atheist "clings to evolutionism ANYWAY" is it any wonder that the the resulting "compromise" of integrity and thought could lead them to the "rats with human brain" experiments?

Is it any wonder that Christian groups that swallow such a Gospel-denying system of compromised science, logic and theology could then go on to promote the gay agenda among their bishops?

I mean really - is this point really that complicated? Is it really that hard to see?

In Christ,

Bob

 

We can all understand why a devoted atheist evolutionist who finds that the blatant facts of science has "forced" a confession from his lips or pen about the blunders of evolutionism - would "hate" to have that confession promoted by Christian Creationists as "exhibit C" in making their case.

That is "the easy part".

The "hard part" to "explain" is UTEOTW's tactic of "pretending" that the atheists resulting frustration and embarrassment is a kind of "argument" against the point they confessed or the use of that point so perfectly suited for the case FOR God's doctrine on origins -- Creation!

Explaining THAT compromised position is impossible for me, for all Christian Creationists AND EVEN for ATHEIST evolutionists like Dawkins!

(Quotes to that effect are available if UTEOTW wants to see them posted "again").

In Christ,

Bob

 

Patently false (as usual).

But in this case it serves to make my point so lets explore the fallacy of equivocation you make.

I have YET to quote A SINGLE atheist saying "Creationists say that evolution is a LIE" as MY claim For atheist's arguing that "evolution is a LIE". (And of course that is the OBJECTIVE proof you would NEED to support your wild grandeous claim of equivocation above).

INSTEAD I quote atheists giving THEIR REAL OPINION and not atheists mimmicking CREATIONIST opinions to mock us. Yet you "so need" that to be true - you simply "make it up" AS IF I ever did.

(Or else you are deliberately appealing to the fallacy of equivocation as a ploy to misdirect).

Hey - I think we agree on something!!

Patently "false" -- again.

My argument has always been that Atheists REMAIN as evolutionists EVEN WHEN THEY claim that the evidence IN the fossil record is NOT what we "reasonably should expect" if evolutionism were true! They then stumble all over themselves trying to back out of that hole.

But in YOUR view -- "any old story" will do to prop up evolutionism - so that you toss objectivity out the window and claim their embarrassing stumbling and bumbling over their OWN conflicted statements is some kind of "proof" that we should not be using the most damaging parts of their confessions.

What kind of "logic" is that that you are using when you do such silly stuff?

That is easy to show - it is the same confused, muddled and foggy logic that would take "stories easy enough to make up" and foist them as being "truth and science".

I think we have seen that "a few times" on your part so far.

So that leads back to the OP - isn't it amazing that these evolutionist source THEN GN to the "rats with human brain" epxeriments AND those who are in Christian groups go on to the "gay biship - gay agenda" errors?

Here again you follow your series of patently false claims and statements with "another one".

Having failed to show any error at all in my quote - you simply "pretend" that something is wrong with the quote - when in fact -- it is perfect.

I have repeatedly said that atheist evolutionists "have no other choice for a doctrine on origins - than the story of evolutionism" so when THEY THEMSELVES admit to the blunders, gaffs and flaws of evolutionism they must "be evolutionists ANYWAY" becuase they are in fact ATHEIST STILL!!

You then come along with the mind numbing argument "HEY they are still and evolutionist so you can't quote the CONFESSION they just made about the blunders of evolutionism" -- AS IF that is a compelling response.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I had to "keep doing that" only to have someone like me "keep pointing that out".

I already showed your efforts to be rife with patently false claims (David Raup's example comes to mind).

Your position is so obvious, exposed and compromised in this area UTEOTW that I enjoy your willingness to keep "bringing it up" - as it gives me the opportunity to show just how confused and befuddled your argument is on this point.

I encourage you to stay with it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong "again".

I set up the simple premise -- You have to have swallowed the myths and foibles of evolutionism BEFORE your mind is clouded and befuddled enough to publically promote Gay agendas - Gay bishops, or "Rats with human brain" defacing of the image of God.

THE CHALLENGE then for you is to show a Bible believing Creationist GROUP falling into the gross errors listed above.

So far you settle for name calling and wild claims but not ACTUALLY supporting your rebuttal to the OP premise.

Feel free to start being objective any time now.

Are you really that blind?

Do you "really" think that ALL biologists and chemists "accept the blunders and myths of evolutionism"????

I have already given you the scientists in Chemistry and Physics that are NOT swalling the junk-science "stories of evolutionism".

I have yet to tell you about those working on the Human Genome project that were ALSO not duped by the blunders of evolutionism - but you should disabuse yourself of the notion that these scientists "don't exist".

I just can't believe the patently and obviously false arguments that you are willing to make "in spite of facts".

This is astounding!

Your behavior is the poster child for my OP argument that the mind must first become befuddled by the junk-science contradictions of evolutionism before going into those other errors.

Misdirection and obfuscation - not an abjective rational response.

I claim that to be a square you must first be a rectangle - your respond back incoherently that I must first prove that all rectangles DO become squares to make my point.

Your argument is obviously flawed, obviously a blunder and obviously exposed here as it is every time you use these tired tactics.

When are you going to embrace more objective "and compelling" methods?

In Christ,

Bob