Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches

Knocking down Darwinian props one by one…

>>…Regarding your anecdotes about how the faith of individuals is affected by the origins debate, I don’t doubt the accuracy of those stories. However, for every one of those I suspect there are dozens to thousands that cut the other way. They are an interesting, and important, sidebar. But they aren’t pertinent to the basic questions.

Sure there are billions in the earth who now doubt the Bible because of the non-stop relentless indoctrination of their teachers who told them “science” (the ancient pagan Darwinian myth) contradicted it, versus dozens to thousands of SCIENTISTS confronted with real world facts that compel the willing to accept Biblical truth. Creationism is growing lots faster than the long-ages myths.

To say that is not pertinent to the basic question of either the “origins debate” or sharing our faith is a preposterous illogical declaration.

Creation-deniers provide an excellent catalyst for sharing the truth. I hate lies, and Darwinism is The Big Lie of today. Not for nothing Mao Tse-Tung’s first priority in schools when he took China was not Marxism, but it was Darwinian evolution. It is the denial of the God of the Bible, because the truth of the Creation and the Resurrection is dangerous to atheism, paganism, communism, socialism, and every other tyrannical philosophy.

“Neither give place to the devil”. Subtle sideswipes and bigger broadsides against YEC and YECs and at the Bible text at face value (despite the ritual obligatory disclaimers to the contrary) with me are like saying “sic’ em” to a dog. Arf arf. Protecting the gullible from the Big Lie.

>>You said, “You have to torture the evidence and cover up the physical evidence to say the earth is so many billions of years old anyway. That would be crazy!”… ..There is abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth. If there weren’t such evidence, the debate on this issue would not be sustainable. Possibly the current theories will prove to be wrong at some point in the future. But until they are it isn’t at all helpful to summarily dismiss them with inferences about conspiracy theories.

Using the old facile “conspiracy theories” canard gets you a loss of at lest ten points on the credibility scale.

And who told you “summarily”? It took me years of open-minded following of evidence to find out that the taxpayer-financed government indoctrination centers had been lying to me for sixteen years!

Using the same logic, without the abundant evidence for YEC and that old-earthers are torturing the physical evidence makes the debate sustainable against OEC.

–And if there were so much “abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth” as versus YEC evidence then tell us… Why do the most prominent scientists who believe in the ancient pagan old-earth myth pee in their pants in horror at the prospect of an actual fair debate with a YEC scientist?

In the anti-creationist book “Science and Creationism”, the editor Ashley Montague said he put together this anthology of essays by their “big guns” because he was totally humiliated in a debate he took with an unnamed creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way but that’s what he said. At the time I was still under some trepidation, thinking maybe there was some science unknown to me on the subject. The book actually took me from firm to rock-solid convinced in YEC.

>>As I said, “Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the gospel defined to include a particular view on the process or dating of material creation”.

Repetition is no argument against the fact that the first chapter of the New Testament and the 3rd chapter of Luke repeat the genealogies of Jesus Christ Our Lord straight back in linear fashion to Adam himself, and notes that Adam’s parentage points to God. This is a reference to the Garden of Eden as a real-world fact, and the reference to Noah in their points to the Flood.

Besides which, Jesus said God made male and female, he didn’t say it just happened.

And don’t give us the condescending clap trap about God had to speak in terms of the ancients. The Old Earth Myth is an ancient myth, one shared by Hindus and Buddhists and Humanists and many other such religions. But God chose to tell the truth, how about that.

Everything was created before Adam, when the genealogies began. There are very legitimate language questions about the time interval from verse 1 to verse 3, that is if you insist on an interpretation based on a modernist focus on material origins. But there is also a very credible interpretation based on the cultural context of ancient cosmology that focuses on functional origins. There are just too many open questions on G1 to take a dogmatic position on age.

The “Gap Theory” so-called is a totally new myth invented by men who preferred to put their trust in men whose breath is in his nostrils than to put their trust in the eternal God, even though the Bible has made fools of its deniers for millennia. It was invented to cover for God’s obvious YEC message in Genesis, for people who didn’t want to give up their faith, and it was “popularized” by Bible-hater Darby in England and Cyrus Scofield the convicted swindler in the United States, followed by too many wannabes.

The most important Christian dogma is that the Bible is the Truth, period, end of point, no if’s and’s or but’s. There is so much overwhelming real-world evidence of this that anyone seeking the truth will find it.

> My point in this entire discussion is not to take a position for or against the global flood interpretation, but to simply point out that there are sufficient interpretative and technical questions to caution against a dogmatic position. The word ‘world’ or ‘earth’, as I pointed our below is not determinative, due to its varied uses. There are the possibilities of land bridge collapses at the Bosporus or Gibraltar. The flood occurred prior to Babel, so it’s possible that all of life was still in a relatively concentrated ‘region’. And of course there are all of the many technical questions about water volume and population logistics on the ark.

Watch out when they claim to be arguing for a “neutral” point of view. There is no such thing. Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. The truth is not a neutral position between two opposing viewpoints.

It’s a dogmatic position to insist that the Bible is ambiguous where it obviously is not. Like trying to say “day” doesn’t mean “day”, or claiming that there is enough ambiguity between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 to cram billions of years in there! It’s laughable, and no wonder atheists have a field day rejoicing over how Christians are trying to put their own pagan myths into the Bible.

>>The bottom line is that the flood was what it was, and the biblical testimony is attesting to what it was in the linguistic and cultural context of the biblical authors and audiences. Whether the flood was actually regional or global has no bearing on the validity of that testimony. Either way, the testimony is true and accurate in its ancient context.

Whether the narrative of the Flood is true to fact or not has “no bearing on the validity of that testimony”??! Wow. That’s amazing. It exposes the bias of summarily dismissing anything the Bible says if some self-arrogant “scientist” says it’s wrong.

Anyway, why would one want to play the fool just because the smarter-than-thou” crowd does? Why deny the physical evidence and agree with the foolish idea that the world is billions of years old just because some people who hated the Bible invented their own new variation on ancient pagan myths? Myths that were discredited long ago? Why should we be like dogs and return to the same vomit of ancient pagan myths like Darwinism?

No matter how much indoctrination they foist on the unsuspecting, pretending that their origins myth is something new from science, they cannot escape the fact that long ages for earth, the universe, and life on earth are ancient pagan myths. The ancient Hebrews knew intimately of them. It is a historically illiterate argument to say they would not have understood long ages. God told them, and us, the truth.

1. What ‘yom’ means in terms of our literal concept of time. There is more than one reasonable option on this question.

It’s mind-boggling that anti-creationists still use the word “day” in Genesis to defend themselves.

But now they’ll have to explain why plants lasted millions of years on the earth before land animals, they have to explain how there was night and day for how many eons before there was a sun. Putting millions or billions of years for “day” in Genesis One makes it a much greater super-miracle than the Biblical one they deny. The real-world question is, why would God take so long to make everything?

Note that the proponents of billion-year “days” never bother with “the evening and morning were the first day”.. “…the second day..” and “the third day”… The emphasis on the 24-hour day is manifold and does not rest on the meaning of “day”. Ask a Hebrew scholar whether “evening and morning” are a 24-hour day or whether it’s a million-year epoch.

And add to all that the ordinal nature of the list! The “first day”, “second day”, and so on– just adds emphasis to the clear meaning of the passage.

Claiming that Genesis One is a literal description of long-ages universe is so ridiculous that it is a much better argument to try to claim it’s not about Creation, or it’s symbolic or something.

2. The grammatical structure for 1:1-2 is disputed around 2-3 possibilities. Individual Hebrew scholars may prefer one option or the other, but virtually all acknowledge we can’t know with certainty what was grammatically intended.

That assertion is clearly contradicted by the fact that virtually all Orthodox Jewish scholars, with the rare exception, agree among themselves that they are certain about “what was grammatically intended”. Apparently you’ve been reading too much anti-creationist stuff out there where they state things as if they are just-so and fall right into the same pit.

3. A compelling case has been made that Genesis 1 is written in the context of ancient cosmology because that is the way it would have made sense to the original author and audience.

Again, that is a historically illiterate Big Lie by the crowd that hates the Bible, and is so easily refuted it is incredible how many people love to buy into it, as I stated above.

It came straight from the mouths of the smarter-than-thou academics who hate the Bible with a passion and see things through their own religious dogma that the Bible is myth. Sounds like something the misnamed “Jesus Seminar” babblers would come up with, who only got notice because their fellow Jesus-haters in big-name magazines like Time just loved anything that contradicted the Bible.

That was before we had the Internet as a forum to expose the stark-naked emperor. That’s why they are trying to figure out ways to shut us down. Senator Lieberman the other day praised the law giving Obama (and any other president) the authorization to just shut down the Internet, which also includes a clause immunizing telecommunications companies from any lawsuit that arises from any cooperation with the federal government. Lieberman says China has that capability so we shouldn’t worry about it.

Maybe we’re closer to the global dictatorship of The Beast than many think we are.

If Americans don’t yell it down with a roar, we’ll soon enough get another Gulf of Tonkin incident that will provide an excuse to shut down the Internet. Bush said they would not tolerate any conspiracy theories, but they are looking for a way to quash them.

The hard dogmatic position is held by anti-creationists who dogmatically and stubbornly hold to the dogma of radioisotope dating. One creationist who happened to get a course in geological dating reports the professor saying that their radioisotope dating (of billions of years) requires a total of no less that 22 assumptions.

Dogmatic pronouncements against “aspersions on alternative views on the dating of the original material creation are unwarranted” indeed.

Simply repeating ad infinitum that Genesis One does not mean what it says, is no argument at all. YEC scientists in this debate are the ones that keep pointing to science, while it is the creation-deniers and design-deniers that want to keep talking about religion.

Creation-denying pagan scientists can censor creation all they want from the oligarch-approved publications, they can censor countering evidence all they want from government indoctrination centers, they can keep publishing blatant lies in biology textbooks, they can deny tenure and deny research funds from science concerns that are open-minded on the origins questions.

But they have a problem with the Internet being so uncontrolled.

Beware of sneak attacks on the Internet. Whether they are from the big players or not.

–trutherator

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches”

  1. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    Why would God say one thing in His creation if that contradicts His book? Perhaps your principles of interpretation need adjustment if Christianity isn’t to be confined to the dustbin (or loony bin) of history.

    Even if there were no fossils at all, there is enough evidence of many other types to clearly indicate humans share common ancestry with monkeys and other living things. Nested hierarchies of many different types of data produce the same tree of life predicted and explained by evolution. Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same locations in DNA of different species show the expected degree of relationship expected and predicted by other evidence.

    As for fossils, Tiktaalik is a spectacular example of the predictive power of evolution, found in rocks of exactly the right age and type expected to contain fossils of the fish to land animals transition. Going the other way, we’ve found fossils of whales with legs! Also, the older hominid fossils show more ape-like features with a clear progression to more human-like features the more recent the fossils are, exactly as predicted and expected. So much so, that even some creationists can’t decide whether particular hominids are of the ape “kind” or the human “kind.”

    • trutherator Says:

      God’s creation testifies to the truth of his book, including Genesis One, and there are zillions of evidences. Even a lot of things that the myth-gullible smarter-than-thou crowd thinks supports their favorite religious dogma actually is evidence against it. The evidence offered for “punctuated equilibrium” is just a case in point. All equilibrium in the fossils and no punctuation except the pattern established in the layers they call the “Cambrian explosion”. Most major body shapes died out. Dinosaurs also died out. Fossils are old dead things. e

      Fossils are just one thing but there is a big long checklist of things that should turn the most dogmatic Darwinian red-faced. The fact that the fossils collection are exactly what creationists would expect from a special creation event is just one thing.

      Polystrate fossils were another censored trade secret, so well kept in times past that evolutionary biologists have asked me what they were! The secret is out! One fossilized tree embedded throughout layers of sedimentary rock that are dated millions of years apart! There are thousands of these you can actually look at in the Grand Canyon!

      Then there is the soft tissue discovered at a fossil dinosaur graveyard in Montana, with the pattern of blood vessels still easily seen! Soft! Tissue! But like the song goes, “When will they ever learn?” They will not give up their radical dogma, so they marvel at soft tissue enduring 65 million years! Please!

      And another secret leaked out with the soft tissue news. That dinosaur dig stinks badly of rotting flesh. Rotting flesh stink!

      Another trade secret is the many places where the layers are inverted.

      On and on it goes. Like the Bible said, “Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth”.
      2 Timothy 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      And that’s just the fossils!

      –trutherator

  2. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    last sentence should read: …even some creationists can’t AGREE whether particular hominids are of the ape “kind” or the human “kind.”

    I will be very surprised if you publish my comment, since it more or less blows your whole argument out of the water. Scientists did not fabricate the evidence that indicates evolution happens. If your God is our Creator, then He’s the one who, if He didn’t use evolution, sure went to a lot of trouble to make it look like He did.

    • trutherator Says:

      Yeah, Darwinoids are forever getting surprised at how little they understand creationists think. That’s because they understand less about “evolution” than they think.
      Philosophically materialist scientists (aka Darwinians) didn’t fabricate the evidence that indicates evolution happens because they didn’t even try. They made it all up in their minds, fantasized some more, and now they just tweak the fairy tale every time real world science embarrasses them.
      He didn’t go to any trouble at all to “make it look like he did”. In fact, Eldridge and Stephen Gould, anti-creationists themselves, are the ones that blew the whistle on the trade secret of paleontology. Maybe they were victims of their own arrogant attitude toward creationists as country bumpkins and thought we wouldn’t read it. Their words were “It’s like it never happens!”
      They finally had to put out a reaffirmation of loyalty to the ancient darwinian myth, but even that statement acknowledges what they already said in effect. That there is nothing between the isolated islands of groups of similar forms.

      And that’s just one example of how the Darwinian thought police keep the lid on the truth. And that’s just one little problem with the fossils. They said it not me. You get “forms” (that’s equivalent to the Bible’s “kinds”) that “appear suddenly in the fossil record” –meaning without any evolutionary precursor– and then disappear just as suddenly.

      –trutherator

  3. More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists « Truebook Says:

    […] Truebook Just another WordPress.com weblog « Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches […]

  4. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    Wow, you call yourself “trutherator” yet you spread so many lies.

    You seriously think that scientists made up the evidence in their minds? Wow, what powerful minds those scientists must have to manifest so much PHYSICAL PROOF that evolution happens. Anyone who is really interested can check the evidence for themselves. It is NOT imaginary as you claim, and there is so much of it of so many different types that to deny it is akin to insanity.

    You are not telling the truth, so-called “trutherator.” Do you think you are honoring God or helping Christ by spreading lies? The truth will out. Sooner or later, those denominations of Christianity (and those of other religions too) that deny the fact of evolution will either have to admit they were wrong or fade into obscurity as another failed crackpot cult on the lunatic fringe of society. Do you remember that the official position of Christianity USED to be that the sun goes around the earth because “It says so right here” (pointing to a page in the Bible).

    There is at least as much proof that humans and chimpanzees are biologically cousins as there is that the earth goes around the sun. Educate yourself please.

  5. trutherator Says:

    You’re caught. You answered with no answer to the facts, and of course deliberately missed the point.

    Another showcase example of how much evidence it takes to make a darwinian: Lots and lots of indoctrination. Lots of bluster and balllyhoo, and most of all, hot air.

    > You seriously think that scientists made up the evidence in their minds?

    You apparently know how to read, but need a little work on comprehension. The fossils are separate islands of forms, like Stephen Gould called them, with nothing in between. That’s what he offered as evidence for punctuated evolution. There is nothing to connect the groups in the fossils. You have rodents, canines, felines, bovines, and nothing in between.

    >>..It is NOT imaginary as you claim, and there is so much of it of so many different types that to deny it is akin to insanity…

    Blowing wind like that does not count for evidence. What is insanity is to keep on with a failed theory, after its most important “predictions” having been contradicted by evidence. With each real-world discovery, darwinian hurdles get bigger and more numerous, but they keep going blithely babbling about how the evidence against it as if it were for it. Backwards.

    I mentioned the fossils, and you just throw epithets. Epithets are cheap, but they do not count for evidence. Stephen Gould is the one who has blown the cover off all the imaginary “evidence” in fossils, their “trade secret”.

    > You are not telling the truth, so-called “trutherator.” Do you think you are honoring God or helping Christ by spreading lies? The truth will out.

    It sure will. I used to be a Darwinoid, and the truth won out. I followed the evidence. Are you afraid to admit what Stephen Gould and Miles Eldridge already admitted?

    Christ is the truth. With the evidence, even if I were an atheist, I’d have to say the spontaneous development of all life was a stupid proposition based on about a zillion facts.

    >>Do you remember that the official position of Christianity USED to be that the sun goes around the earth because “It says so right here” (pointing to a page in the Bible).


    Here we see more historical illiteracy taught in the historically illiterate government indoctrination centers. Not even Steven Hawking claimed that, just that the entrenched “scientific” establishment told the church what to believe.

    I was a victim once of the same ignorance. It was the secular intellectuals who beat up on the church.

    > There is at least as much proof that humans and chimpanzees are biologically cousins as there is that the earth goes around the sun. Educate yourself please.

    Way past you buddy. They have a lot of common DNA molecules, so what? Used to be 98 percent, which has gone down to 92 percent, –so–they–say. But now they are realizing they bamboozled themselves because they had no idea that “junk DNA” was not actually junk! And epigenetics might trump genetics! One biologist said it was depressing, they now have to start all over again!

    DNA and the machinery that makes it work in the cell puts to shame the most sophisticated systems that man can make.

    You didn’t speak to any facts, just spewed spit. I left your rant intact so people could see it for themselves. Thank you for your illustration.

    That was me once upon a time though. So there’s hope for you and others.

    –trutherator

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: