1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Straining at the JW yet swallowing Evolutionism

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

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, you really need to learn to read my posts for comprehension.

    "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"."

    Again, you fail to be able to accurately portray my position. The first time around you claimed that because I think the current ID movement has a hidden agenda that I am "not a believer in Christ the Creator."

    Now, I say that with regards to ID and evolution that the "mechanisms that are known and the data that is known seem to get along just fine without need for constant intervention." It is obvious that what I am saying is that in my view the mechanisms are fully capable of giving us what it is claimed they give us. I also follow that by saying that since God had a goal of creating us humans that He may have either intervened as necessary of that He may have selectively chosen a proper set of starting conditions. I also said specifically that I was going to "restrict [my comments] to evolution."

    Furthermore, I also gave an example of what I see as design in biology. The genetic code is arranged in a specific way that makes it very conducive to evolution.

    Why do you not understand this? It is obvious that you did not read closely because you claim that I said design "CAN NOT bee[sic] SEEN IN NATURE." I specifically directed my comments to one narrow slice, not the broad brush you imply. You also said that I claim design can only be imagined to have been present at a time "VERY CLOSE to the first instance of creation." Again, I gave a specific example of design in biology that got its start about 10 billion years after the first instant of creation.

    So, can you not read with comprehension or do you purposely change the meaning of what others say?

    "Misdirection "Again" UTEOTW?? How unnexpected!"

    It is misdirection to ask if you agree with something that you are criticizing me for not agreeing with? I think it was just checking for possible hypocritical actions.

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

    But I am not appealing to the fringe of ID. I think that most will recognize Dembski and Behe as two of the top IDers if not THE top two. Their opinions are important to the cause of ID. But you seem to think that it is OK to avoid answering a pointed question because there may be a range of opinion. Well these are the leading proponents of what you are criticizing me over. Do you accept what they have to say or not?

    The obvious answer is that you do not but that you cannot afford to say so. Then it would be crystal clear that you are trying to rake me over the coals for disagreeing with people with whom you also disagree.

    BTW, who were you quoting above as saying "very discussion,"
    "again,"
    "this time,"
    "point,"
    "instructive,"
    "nice,"
    "contrast,"
    and "obvious?"
     
    #21 UTEOTW, Dec 27, 2004
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    And in not ONE single case did you EVER show a mono-chiral result for amino acid chains that could be shown to produce the needed proteins for even on single cell.

    Not ONE single example!

    You keep "claiming victory over your own story" when all you have is a snippet story that never actually gets to a mon-chiral set of amino-acids for the Proteins needed in a single cell!!

    How can you keep "pretending" not to get the problem for your belief in evolutionism??

    You "never" show ANYTHING that gives the "mono-chiral results NEEDED FOR LIFE" -- rather you take ANY chiral result no matter how skimpy and insufficient for making the ACTUAL proteins in REAL life -- and claim THAT as "victory".

    How "instructive". How expected to find you simplyl "telling a story" and claiming that as "The mono-chiral results NEEDED for ACTUALLY building a single cell". You need ALL the amino acids monochiral in ALL types needed for ALL proteins that make up the cell. A "sliver on the side" is merely an interesting "diversion" in a long story told by evolutionists.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #22 BobRyan, Dec 27, 2004
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob

    YOu are going down a misguided adventure. You are stuck thinking that somebody declared that the first chemicals of life had to be proteins, all with the same chiral orientations in their amino acids at that.

    What I have done is shown you that your assumption is wrong and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

    One possible path I gave you was RNA. I HAVE shown you that simple chemical constituients can be formed into long chains of chirally pure RNA using common starting materials and common catalysts. RNA can perform both information storage and biological chemistry. I have even shown you how some extant life still used strands of RNA instead of proteins for sme of this chemistry.

    Once you have the RNA, in the correct chiral form, then it can simply make the correct amino acids and link them up to form proteins. Your problem is avoided.
     
    #23 UTEOTW, Dec 27, 2004
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    More specifically I said that you deny the hand of God SEEN by the OT and NT Bible writers as THEY CLAIM a level of ID that you deny.

    So far you have "ignored" the quote from Romans 1 and Heb 11 where WE SEE the level of ID that God's WORD claims ANd that YOU deny!

    How easy can this be UTEOTW??
    What part of your own statement is confusing you as it relates to Romans 1 and Heb 11?

    The nature that THEY DID SEE is the very nature that you claim for the god of EVOLUTIONISM. When you "limit" to you views to the handiwork of EVOLUTIONISM you are EXACTLY speaking to those things the Bible writers SAW in nature.

    The contrast between your appeal to the god of evolutionism as THE mechanism and intelligence behind what THEY SAW IN NATURE -- vs THEIR OWN claims for ID in those VERY SAME observable living things in nature - remains.

    As Dawkings said - your Evolutionism - accounts for ALL life that we see.

    Your attempts at misdirection and obfuscation have not been successful in clouding the point.

    How will you correct that?

    The point remains - the JWs claim for Christ the Creator are massive by comparison of the little god that evolutionism makes of Christ (when they will allow for Christ the Creator "at all")

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #24 BobRyan, Dec 27, 2004
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wrong. "again".

    I am stuck thinking that what we SEE IN THE LAB by way of an actual living cell IS IN FACT an actual living cell!

    I am stuck thinking that "making up stories about cells we don't see - is just that -- stories".

    I am stuck thinking that "stories easy enough to make up -- are stories but NOT science".

    Get it?

    I see the objective as real living cell - because that is what you NEED to start claiming the mechanism of natural selection for evolutionism.

    This discussion is simply the third leg of failure for Christian evolutionism.

    1. It fails to allow Christ the Creator to DO what He SAYS He does in 6 evenings-and-mornings in Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11. IT appeals to "Natural Selection" as the god that actuall did this creation of the species attributed in the Bible to Christ the Creator.

    2. It FAILS to allow Christ the Creator to show INTELLIGENT DESIGN as He says He does in Romans 1 and Heb 11 and in the OT. It appeals to "Natural selection" as the god that actually did this building of the complex systems in living animals.

    3. It THEN goes BEYOND its own claims for the god "Natural Selection" and jumps into the realm of ABIOGENESIS -- not EVEN allowing Christ the Creator the act of CREATING LIFE!!

    This third blunder of Chritian Evolutionists is NOT an appeal to NATURAL SELECTION -- NOR is it an APPEAL to ANY cell SEEN in the lab to be produced by the fabrications of science.

    It is PURE BLUE SKY MYTH that is NOW "more than Christ did" EVEN though The Bible claims that CHRIST the CREATOR is actively and directly CREATED all living things. (see John 1)

    You elevate your "own imaginative STORY" about what you DON't SEE in nature NOR in the LAB as "the fact that replaces the work of Christ the Creator"!!

    Fine -- show me the RNA cell wall. Show me the RNA protoplasm, show me the RNA nucleus - the RNA cell dividing etc.

    Show me an RNA organism spitting out all the mono-chiral amino-acids needed to ACTUALLY build a cell with REAL proteins! You declare "victory in story" but never in the lab!

    What did you say?

    Your "story could never do that in all of time"?

    Why not? Because it is "The fiction" upon which evolutionism is built.

    The "issue" is not whether RNA is used in real living cells today. The issue is an RNA-ONLY cell that you can then offer to the god of Natural Selection as a "population".

    And as said - that "story" is nothing by way of substance as compared to what EVEN the JWs will admit for Christ the Creator!!

    How obvious!

    How sad for the Christian Evolutionist!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #25 BobRyan, Dec 27, 2004
  6. A_Christian

    A_Christian New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    I might be wrong; however, I believe that JW's only send their children to PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Some may home school, but I do not personally know of any that do. There are no JW private schools that I am aware of. My point is that all they ever hear is evolution and yet it would seem that they are not impressed. They do make it hard for Born-againers though. They are shy of any open forums were various religions and scriptures are debated. They just go door to door and peddle THEIR literature.
     
    #26 A_Christian, Dec 27, 2004
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    True enough! The JWs are very zealous to promote their view of religion. Kinda reminds me of evolutionists in that way.

    But the JWs believe that Christ the Creator actually DID create the world in six evenings and mornings just as He said in Gen 1-2:3, evolutionists don't.

    JWs actually DO believe that there is obvious intelligent design IN nature as the Bible says in Romans 1 and John 1 and Job etc -- Evolutionists do not believe that Christ the Creator shows intelligent design in living things - they believe the creation of all species can be explained by 'natural causes alone' - Christ the Creator "not needed".

    JWS DO believe that Christ the Creator IS the direct Creator of LIFE on earth and that only Christ the Creator can Create LIFE. Evolutionists are arguing here that "if you tell enough stories you might be able to produce ALL the mono-chiral amino acid chains needed to build a normal fully functioning living cell -- naturally".

    The JW's view of Christ the Creator is HUGE by comparison to the miniscule god of evolutionists.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #27 BobRyan, Dec 27, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...