Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Hey, Christian? Do you really want to know the Truth? When God calls your name...

Ask yourself this question. Is knowing what is right more important to you than being right? Are you willing to know/discover a truth that is unlike what you have believed before?

Here you can post a comment that completely disagrees with what I write and I let it be published. On the other hand, I found a Darwinist blog that was speaking to the concept of Geomythology and tried to comment. The moderator did not allow anything I wrote. So I then commented again suggesting he was afraid of discussion and disagreement and went away...after I gave him three days to allow my comment.  Not that I was surprised.   Darwinists/atheists generally are afraid of discussion, which is why it is very hard for Jonathan Sarfati to find anyone willing to debate him on origins.   They are afraid to be exposed I guess?

Even among Christians there are disagreements on certain subjects and a literal six day creation is one of them. I am not afraid of discussion and you shouldn't be either. Right?   There are many calls on the life of the Christian.   This is a post about the calling of God!

   
The Newsboys "When You Called My Name" from the Going Public Album.

Here are the words, if you do not care to listen to the YouTube:


I want to preach the Word
They want massages
I check chapter and verse
They check their watches
I spy another yawn
I might as well be gone
Let's stand and say "Amen"
Some days I must admit
I still don't get this
Could be it's time to quit
When days get like this
I slip into the night
Then stumble towards the light
Wake up and try again

Chorus
When You called my name
I didn't know how far the calling went
When You called my name
I didn't know what that word really meant
When I recall Your call
I feel
So small

Could be I'm losing touch
Could be they don't care
Lord knows I don't know much
Lord knows I've been there
I trip toward my retreat
I fall down at Your feet
Get up and try again

Chorus
When You called my name
I didn't know how far the calling went
When You called my name
I didn't know what that word really meant
When I recall Your call
I feel
So small
Lord, what did you see
When you called out for me?

I start losing heart
And then
It comes again
Lifted from despair
By the prayers of someone
Lifted form despair
By the prayers of someone

Chorus
When You called my name
I didn't know how far the calling went
When You called my name
I didn't know what that word really meant
When I recall Your call
I feel
So small

When You called my name
I didn't know how far this calling went
When You called my name
When You called my name

There is something about the Christian life that will always be mysterious to those who do not become Christians.   It is the matter of following the Will of God beyond the default setting of Matthew 28:18-20

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"


Yes, all Christians are called upon to share the Gospel by the means and methods they do best.   Some evangelize, some are helpers, some are teachers, some are leaders, some are singers, some are most effective doing the grunt work behind the scenes and some are best behind a pulpit and leading a congregation.   No one man does it all nor does one woman do it all.   But all Christians have been given gifts to use in service and talents to go with them.   It is a temptation to try to do things in your own strength and decide what you are meant to do without turning to God every single time for direction.   

To the non-Christian a paragraph like the one above doesn't make sense because you think to yourself, how the heck does anyone know what God wants them to do?   Well, He wants you to do one thing first - receive forgiveness and salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.   That is the only thing you can do to obey God before you do anything else.  You can give money to charities and feed the hungry and every good thing you can think of but until you humble yourself and accept salvation from God you cannot be His child and know and do His Will.

Once you have chosen to follow God and accept Salvation through Christ and not in any way of yourself, you are now eligible to hear from God.


Philippians:3:8-14 (ESV) expresses the goal of the call-directed Christian:


"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ  and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—  that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,  that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.  Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,  I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

It is to this mindset that I aspire to retain and follow.   The God's Will for my life is what I need to do, anything else is not good enough.  Yes, I will go to Heaven when I die.   Yes, I belong to Jesus Christ and God's Spirit is alive within me.   No, it has nothing to do with how good or bad I am compared to any other person.   I should only compare myself to Jesus Christ and aspire to be like Him.   Jesus came to Earth as a man but lived every second by the Will of God, being obedient from beginning to end.

Al Mohler explains the Call-driven Christian life below:

Has God Called You? The Calling of the Christian Minister



Has God called you to ministry? Though all Christians are called to serve the cause of Christ, God calls certain persons to serve the Church as pastors and other ministers. Writing to young Timothy, the Apostle Paul confirmed that if a man aspires to be a pastor, “it is a fine work he aspires to do.” [I Timothy 3:1, NASB] Likewise, it is a high honor to be called of God into the ministry of the Church. How do you know if God is calling you?

First, there is an inward call. Through His Spirit, God speaks to those persons He has called to serve as pastors and ministers of His Church. The great Reformer Martin Luther described this inward call as “God’s voice heard by faith.” Those whom God has called know this call by a sense of leading, purpose, and growing commitment.

Charles Spurgeon identified the first sign of God’s call to the ministry as “an intense, all-absorbing desire for the work.” Those called by God sense a growing compulsion to preach and teach the Word, and to minister to the people of God.
This sense of compulsion should prompt the believer to consider whether God may be calling to the ministry. Has God gifted you with the fervent desire to preach? Has He equipped you with the gifts necessary for ministry? Do you love God’s Word and feel called to teach? As Spurgeon warned those who sought his counsel not to preach if they could help it. “But,” Spurgeon continued, “if he cannot help it, and he must preach or die, then he is the man.” That sense of urgent commission is one of the central marks of an authentic call.

Second, there is the external call. Baptists believe that God uses the congregation to “call the called” to ministry. The congregation must evaluate and affirm the calling and gifts of the believer who feels called to the ministry.. As a family of faith, the congregation should recognize and celebrate the gifts of ministry given to its members, and take responsibility to encourage those whom God has called to respond to that call with joy and submission.

These days, many persons think of careers rather than callings. The biblical challenge to “consider your call” should be extended from the call to salvation to the call to the ministry.

John Newton, famous for writing “Amazing Grace,” once remarked that “None but He who made the world can make a Minister of the Gospel.” Only God can call a true minister, and only He can grant the minister the gifts necessary for service. But the great promise of Scripture is that God does call ministers, and presents these servants as gifts to the Church.

Consider your calling. Do you sense that God is calling you to ministry, whether as pastor or another servant of the Church? Do you burn with a compulsion to proclaim the Word, share the Gospel, and care for God’s flock? Has this call been confirmed and encouraged by those Christians who know you best?

God still calls . . . has He called you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I received Christ as Savior on March 13th, 1978.   I was 25 years old.   I'd worked hard at living life very hard - hard partying, drinking, drugs, hard rock, living to "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Once I knew Jesus was indeed the Savior I immediately knew something had drastically changed on the inside.  Dr. Charles Wood, who had helped me meet Christ, told me that reading the Bible would teach me all about Christianity and was the most important thing a new Christian could do.  He didn't say a word about the beer I had been drinking, the cigarettes I smoked or the smell of marijuana that hung about me.   He simply told me to read the Word of God prayerfully.   I did.   I am a book vacuum, so I read through the New Testament speedily and then read it through again within the first month of my new life in Christ.   Later I read the entire Bible through and have read every book a few times and some of them many, many times.   I study the Word.   I meditate on what it says to me and about me and about God.

Very early on I read a part of the Book of Ephesians that grabbed me by the virtual collar and stopped me in my tracks. Back then I was reading the King James Version:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

I was called to teach and preach.   Not to be THE pastor, but to be a minister of Jesus Christ in the way He leads me.   If you are a Christian, this is what you should seek to do.   Discover God's will for your life and then do it.   When He leads you, you follow His direction.   It is as simple as that.   It will take everything you've got but it will mean everything to you to do it.   One day you will hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant..."    It is more than enough!

Truth be Known - Everybody Gets A Shot- The Newsboys

Everybody gets a shot
it'll cost you everything you've got 
if the truth be known
do you really wanna know?

 

26 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Here you can post a comment that completely disagrees with what I write and I let it be published. On the other hand, I found a Darwinist blog that was speaking to the concept of Geomythology and tried to comment. The moderator did not allow anything I wrote. So I then commented again suggesting he was afraid of discussion and disagreement and went away...after I gave him three days to allow my comment. Not that I was surprised. Darwinists/atheists generally are afraid of discussion, which is why it is very hard for Jonathan Sarfati to find anyone willing to debate him on origins. They are afraid to be exposed I guess?"

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

1. You yourself have committed censorship on this very blog, as any regular reader knows. So it's a mystery why you want to keep bringing up this subject. Latent guilt feelings perhaps?

2. Are the Darwinists/atheists that comment on your blog afraid of discussion?

3. William Dembski is one of the most notorious suppressors of opposing comments on his blog. Would you say he's afraid to be exposed?

4. Where is this "geomythology" blog you're trying to comment on?

5. If you're not afraid of discussion, then why do you run away from and evade so many questions?

radar said...

Ad nauseum for the censorship charges as they are false. No one is censored on this blog unless they use bad language or are a spammer. Any regular reader knows the the whole story and I stand by my right to make a completely different blog and put an assortment of information posts up as a monument to Darwinist's complete inability to deal with the topic.

If Dembski is suppressing comments for disagreement with him then I would say he is censoring, yes.

Whenever a commenter has a valid question I actually make an entire blog post to deal with the subject unless there is enough space in the comments threads to answer it fully.

To identify the geology blog would miss the point. I suspect if you look for a geology blog that did a few "geomythology" posts you could find it. The point is that most such blogs have blog owner moderation and they weed out comments they do not like, whereas I don't. Therefore I am not afraid of discussion. Just exactly what question am I afraid of, pray tell?

Anonymous whatsit said...

Ad nauseam re. your weaselly evasions and, frankly, outright lies. To wit, compare:

"You yourself have committed censorship on this very blog"

vs.

"No one is censored on this blog unless they use bad language or are a spammer."

To the uninitiated, Radar is leaving out the basic fact that he did delete a bunch of comments contradicting and exposing the poor logic in one of his posts that were not spam and did not contain bad language. Censorship, pure and simple. And every once in a while he'll complain about perceived censorship somewhere else and someone points out his hypocrisy.

"To identify the geology blog would miss the point. I suspect if you look for a geology blog that did a few "geomythology" posts you could find it. The point is that most such blogs have blog owner moderation and they weed out comments they do not like, whereas I don't. Therefore I am not afraid of discussion. Just exactly what question am I afraid of, pray tell?"

Well for starters, it looks like you're afraid of the question "Where is this "geomythology" blog you're trying to comment on?".

Or, wait... hm. Is it possible that you just made up this story, and you want to make sure we don't check it out?

Some other fun questions you like to evade were: "How can one re-calibrate dating methods (specifically C-14) so they don't falsify YEC but still line up with observable evidence?" - "Why are dolphins and ichthyosaurs never found together?" etc.

radar said...

The blog that did not let me comment? I will see if I can find it in my history after work today.

Whatsit, your version of what happened is your version. That I let you say it proves my point. I disagree because every post on that Ultimate post is still up on my blog to receive comments, it is only that particular website that has no comments. That is because I put it up as a monument or testament or however you want to say it to the inability of Darwinists to deal with information. Spin it as you like in your own head.

I did answer the questions you referenced. I covered the C-14 issue at length. If you paid attention, I also opined on the paucity of modern forms of some animals in the fossil record. Rapid speciation is built into the genetic code of organisms, therefore, many organisms have speciated after the Flood because of habitat and other factors (human predation, atmosphere, weather, post-Ice Age sea level rises). Also a great many have gone extinct. But at the same time some have not changed. Some Darwinists have different scientific names for the same organism they find in different sedimentary layers.

The sad thing is that fossils that harm the Darwinist cause are often hidden away. This is why Eastern Europe and China are so valuable to science, because in those areas Darwinism is not important to the local scientific community and they just reveal their paleontological finds as is. Therefore we have more mammals identified in layers once said to contain only dinosaurs, we have more fossils with remains (actual flesh/blood/sinew etc.) being revealed and so on. BTW the vast percentage of fossils is still bottom-dwelling marine life, around 95%, which is Flood-friendly information.

radar said...

After commenting on the blog about a site that did not post my comments, the guy turned around and did post them. Turns out he was traveling and that is why he delayed? Therefore I commended him for his First Amendment stand and retracted my disappointment comment made about his failure to post dissenting views.

Because he is NOT censoring I will therefore identify his blog:
Hudson Valley Geologist - Steven Schimmrich.

I completely disagree with the guy but I want him vindicated so I am doing so now and will make some mention in a blog post as well. As I told him, I am astonished at his viewpoint but do commend him for allowing comments.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit, your version of what happened is your version."

Do you deny deleting the comments on that post? Yes or no will do.

"I covered the C-14 issue at length."

Again, evasion. You talked about C-14 for some time, but when it turned out that C-14 radiometric dating falsified YEC, you claimed it could be re-calibrated so that YEC could survive as a thesis, but you never presented any plausible way to re-calibrate it and actually match observable evidence.

"I also opined on the paucity of modern forms of some animals in the fossil record."

Which according to YEC should be jumbled all over the place. According to YEC there is no reason at all why we shouldn't see dolphins mixed in with ichthyosaurs all over the fossil record.

And yet we don't.

As the theory of evolution predicts.

Yet another falsification of YEC.

"Some Darwinists have different scientific names for the same organism they find in different sedimentary layers."

Example please. And be careful when you say something like "the same organism".

"BTW the vast percentage of fossils is still bottom-dwelling marine life, around 95%, which is Flood-friendly information."

Why on Earth would that be Flood-friendly? According to the Noah's Ark scenario, living creatures including land creatures were overwhelmed by a global flood, so we should be seeing a much larger percentage of land creatures in the fossil record.

In a non-Flood scenario, you have water and land, with circumstances involving water being more conducive to fossilization, so 95% being bottom-dwelling marine life fits in nicely with evolution/old Earth.

"The sad thing is that fossils that harm the Darwinist cause are often hidden away."

Can you name one that hasn't been debunked?

Anonymous whatsit said...

You know, the last time you accused another blog of censorship, you couldn't demonstrate that either from what I recall.

And at the same time you deny your own censoring past.

And you don't wonder why William Dembski likes to censor on his blog. Not a sign of fear in that case for some reason.

But what I don't get is why it's a surprise to you that Steven Schimmrich was travelling. I mean, it's all over his blog.

Anyway, so where are these comments of yours. I'd like to make sure they're not censored.

radar said...

Oh, not the "debunk" thing again! You have not debunked anything. Whenever a Darwinist debunks a Creationist assertion I wind up with a laugh - like William Dipeso's so-called "debunking" of the Acambaro Figurines? It was good enough for talkorigins and yet it was complete and utter hooey. He made impossible claims and his "detective" work was refuted by the Mexican musuem officials, Earl Stanley Garner, the local police chief and the raw evidence. There were no kilns found nearby, the figurines were being dug up and sold for pennies when "discovered", so if someone had been making them locally, it would have been a losing proposition and there were no facilities found anyway.

If you want faked evidence, dial up Phil Gingerich or look up Ernst Haeckel or Charles Lyell. Darwinists have fake down pat.

radar said...

whatsit, anyone who sees you continually complain and claim I censor while you are allowed to ramble on unchecked is going to think you are daft? I do not censor, just get over it already! You are sounding a little obsessive now.

Maybe I need to find Dembski's blog and try to comment to see what happens. If you say he is censoring I need to take that with a grain of salt!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Oh, not the "debunk" thing again! You have not debunked anything. Whenever a Darwinist debunks a Creationist assertion I wind up with a laugh - like William Dipeso's so-called "debunking" of the Acambaro Figurines? It was good enough for talkorigins and yet it was complete and utter hooey. He made impossible claims and his "detective" work was refuted by the Mexican musuem officials, Earl Stanley Garner, the local police chief and the raw evidence. There were no kilns found nearby, the figurines were being dug up and sold for pennies when "discovered", so if someone had been making them locally, it would have been a losing proposition and there were no facilities found anyway.

If you want faked evidence, dial up Phil Gingerich or look up Ernst Haeckel or Charles Lyell. Darwinists have fake down pat."

Nice diversion. So can you name a fossil that harms the "Darwinist cause" that hasn't been debunked?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"whatsit, anyone who sees you continually complain and claim I censor while you are allowed to ramble on unchecked is going to think you are daft? I do not censor, just get over it already! You are sounding a little obsessive now."

On the contrary, I've made the facts quite clear. You have censored. That's a fact. You always come back with the evasive "I'm not censoring now, am I?".

When someone is in court for a crime, do they argue whether the person committed the crime or whether the person is committing the crime RIGHT NOW?

So, once again:

Do you deny deleting the comments on that post? Yes or no will do.

"Maybe I need to find Dembski's blog and try to comment to see what happens. If you say he is censoring I need to take that with a grain of salt!"

By all means. It's been a few years since I've tried it, but maybe I'll try it again this weekend.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"On the contrary, I've made the facts quite clear. You have censored. That's a fact. You always come back with the evasive "I'm not censoring now, am I?"."

I always thought that a significant aspect of Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong) was that a person became aware of what they did wrong, confessed it and then atoned for it. Frankly, I thought it was one of the more admirable parts of that religion.

Would you disagree with that, Radar?

radar said...

I have also made the facts crystal clear. I have NOT censored. Your opinion is your own but it is a bit obsessive. What I did wss put up a group of posts from this blog up at the top of my links list which consists of posts from the radaractive blog that cover the information question thoroughly in detail so that I can refer folks to it (and do) as a reference/monument to Darwinist futility on that subject. But it is not a blog post per se and it has its own URL.

Anonymous said...

"I have also made the facts crystal clear. I have NOT censored."

Sadly, no you have not. Check the facts.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"What I did wss put up a group of posts from this blog up at the top of my links list which consists of posts from the radaractive blog that cover the information question thoroughly in detail so that I can refer folks to it (and do) as a reference/monument to Darwinist futility on that subject. But it is not a blog post per se and it has its own URL."

Funny how you think this is related to the (rightful) censorship accusation. So you're aware of the context.

But still, somehow you forgot that BEFORE you did that you deleted a post from your blog, along with a number of comments? Slipped you mind?

So do you deny doing that?

Anonymous said...

"Any regular reader knows the the whole story and I stand by my right to make a completely different blog and put an assortment of information posts up as a monument to Darwinist's complete inability to deal with the topic."

I'm a regular reader and I know you censored.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. Because "the whole story" includes something that Radar so desperately wants to avoid talking about: him deleting a bunch of comments that he couldn't answer. He even admitted later on that just once he wanted to have the last word. And I guess censorship was the only way he could do that.

radar said...

Here are the facts. I decided to cull together several posts into one long article detailing the history of Darwinist futility concerning the information question. I cut out one post to use as the basis for an entire article which serves as a site I can point people to read on the information question and it is like a publication and is not a blog post.

Darwinists are so angry because I don't let them put a comment on the publication even though I still allow comments on every single linked article within the confines of that publication. It is like an online book and nobody sells books with a set of blank pages at the end for the readers to fill in.

All blogposts on this blog remain uncensored AND if there is anything anyone wants to say on any of the linked articles inside my online publication they may.

The only thing that was lost was a few comments that were on the one blogpost I moved over to the !Ultimate site. Whoever wrote whatever they wrote can write it again on any linked post BUT you cannot carry over the blogpost AND the comments and therefore I only ported over the post itself and encapsulated it within that online publication.

Censorship is banning comments or only choosing to post comments you are willing to see displayed. Unless Blogger detects you as a spammer OR you do use bad language OR you are actually a spammer who slips through the cracks your comments remain on this blog, even going back to 2004. The only exception was whatever whoever wrote on that one blogpost and whatever they wrote they can write again.

You may not like the process I used and you may hate the fact that I made an online publication I can direct students to so they can study the information question with various links, all of which are still active. But that is too bad, because I have the right to publish a dynamic online book if I want to do so. To call that censorship is ignorant and misleading. So be ignorant and call me a censor and I will keep letting you do it which, by the very act of allowing it, puts the lie to your charges.

I do not censor on this blog. I have never censored on this blog. All I did do it take one blog post and convert it to an online publication and complete it with links to still-active blog posts on this blog to stand as a monument to a long discussion between me and Darwinists. It is like a DVD or VHS recording of a debate. There is every chance that I will publish another online book on another subject concerning the utter paucity of explanation for Darwinist thought on another subject someday. But for now that is the only one I have culled together.

radar said...

Therefore I will continue the policies that have always been in place on this blog and, if you want to spend your time continually making false charges about censorship then, hey, Blogger hosts blogposts and they will keep your complaints up and so will I. But I categorically deny your accusations and that is that.

Anonymous said...

Well, as a regular reader I have learned that the longer Radar's replies are, the less substance they have.

You could have saved the effort, Radar. The facts are the facts: you censored. We know it. You know it (though you just don't admit it).

End of story.

radar said...

To call me a censor is to lie.
To continually do it is to cry.
To be babies crying is fine.
For adults it's out of line.

Keep on disproving your point by the existence of your false claims on the comments thread. You put the lie to yourself.

Why don't you admit the truth? You all know you cannot answer the information question, you literally had years to try and now I have put up a monument to your futility and you find that frustrating. There is no natural source for information. For that reason alone Darwinism falls down, naturalism falls down, materialism falls down, atheism therefore also falls down. I have that at the top of my links list and it apparently frustrates you no end.

No natural source for information.

No natural source for life.

No natural explanation for a Universe and existence.


Now those facts are worth talking about if you could address them, which you cannot.

If you truly believed in evolution and carried it to the end, you would be determinists. You would see yourself as a randomly cobbled together mish-mash of atoms and firing synapses giving you the mirage of free will but in fact Darwinism purely expressed means you only do and think and say what you were evolved to to and think and say. Therefore you may think that you can reason but you have no underlying worldview to defend that idea. Relativisism is actually determinism.

If you have no omniscient source of knowledge that is a basis for a belief system then for all you know you have popped up for a microsecond with many years of perceived memories and in another microsecond you are *poof* gone just as you *poof* arrived. Now THAT is some truth for you...How can you even assert that you think when you claim that random chance made you? If you have no purpose and no absolutes then you really have nothing concrete to stand upon.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists are so angry because I don't let them put a comment on the publication even though I still allow comments on every single linked article within the confines of that publication."

The "Darwinists" that have commented on this issue on your blog have been pretty clear that that is not what they are "angry" about. It's that you deleted comments that you couldn't respond to (clear act of censorship, and if you saw this happening on a "Darwinist" site, you wouldn't call it any less) and then put the post somewhere where people couldn't comment on it (what are you afraid of), and then admitted shortly afterwards that you wanted to have the last word just once.

"The only thing that was lost was a few comments that were on the one blogpost I moved over to the !Ultimate site."

Finally you confess. Now was that so difficult?

You can spin it anyway you want, but you've lost all credibility when it comes to commenting on censorship.

Anonymous said...

"You all know you cannot answer the information question, you literally had years to try and now I have put up a monument to your futility and you find that frustrating. There is no natural source for information."

These points were addressed not just in the comments you censored, but also elsewhere on your blog - and in many other places on the Internet if you only look outside of your limited propaganda circles. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

radar said...

I am not finally confessing anything, I told everyone what I was doing when I did it and welcomed people to comment on the linked articles within the publication as they will. As an American I have every right to author an online book which is what !Ultimate actually is, a book of arguments from my side and from the commenters.

Go ahead and give us the argument I could not answer or I feared? The very reason I decided to put up the !Ultimate Information link in the first place was because commenters had nothing new to say and kept saying the same things over and over. I wanted to memorialize it and put it at the top of my blog links. It is a monument to all of the commenters who have failed miserably to come up with a natural source for information.

All commenters can still speak their minds on all my Radaractive posts including the ones linked inside of !Ultimate. But I did not start a new blog with !Ultimate, I put up a publication. It is a more or less a book made up of blogposts from several years of posting and commenting and answers to comments. Nothing was lost in the transition, there were no new arguments in the very few comments attached to the base article and I would be very impressed if ANY of you had a new argument now.

Like William Dembski, I came to the worldview I have now based on evidence and that evidence has fully convinced me. Also like Dembski I have now published an online article that is a finished work.

Do you have an argument that has not been posted or a comment you believe has been erased? If you do, say on right in this thread...if not then you are, as Bill said nicely, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!"

The ball is in your court. Rather than complaining, can you present an argument? Since 2004 I have yet to have even one presented that addressed the question with a natural source for information. Not one. Eight years. So enlighten us if you can?

radar said...

"Bill" in that last comment is Shakespeare, not Dembski, in case anyone did not know?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I am not finally confessing anything,"

Wrong, you did finally admit that "The only thing that was lost was a few comments that were on the one blogpost I moved over to the !Ultimate site." You've been pussyfooting around that part for ages now.

"I told everyone what I was doing when I did it"

Wrong, you didn't. Anyone can go back and look at the posts and comments from that time (apart from the ones you censored, of course) and see that you didn't tell everyone what you were doing when you did it.

"and welcomed people to comment on the linked articles within the publication as they will. As an American I have every right to author an online book which is what !Ultimate actually is, a book of arguments from my side and from the commenters."

Nobody's disputing that you have the right to "author an online book" (a high-falutin' way of saying blogpost, I suppose), but this is a mere deflection on your part. You only recently started calling it that. Back then, it was just a way for you to get the final word in without having pesky commenters contradicting you.