Search This Blog

Friday, August 23, 2013

Confused and Baffled Creationists? Guest Post by Bob Sorenson the blogger and Question Evolution Project Leader, followed by a Ken Ham article...

Bob Sorenson is a fine researcher and blogger.  I was quite happy to have a guest post submitted by him this week.   His tremendous posts and hard work as a researcher and writer make him worthy of more than one link on my sidebar.  He heads the Question Evolution Project and writes Piltdown Superman and Stormbringer's Thunder as well.

This is an appropriate time, as the blog has been hit again recently by a wave of commenters who do not understand the rock layers or how organisms actually work, are completely brainwashed to the point they are unreasonable and unreasoning and are therefore trolls.  Such men and women are hardened to any hope of seeing truth and therefore represent a threat to the young people and those who DO want to know truth.  I am dedicated to informing those who have not seen evidence for Young Earth Creation, dialogues with those who want to genuinely discuss things and scolding the trolls for their ignorant and evil belief system.  Our society is under attack from every side from Atheistic Atheopaths who wish to destroy the old order and morality and cast aside the US Constitution in the process, especially the Bill of Rights!   But that subject is for another day...

Christianity is under attack in many ways.  One area of attack is the so-called "Progressive Creation" postulated by Dr. Hugh Ross.  The problem with this Theistic Evolution is that it is completely illogical and totally a compromise, an attempt to mix oil and water.   You just cannot mix evolution and creation.  

Evolution claims that things become more complex and sophisticated by lucky mistakes, mutations, and that somehow remarkably and irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships just happen all at once, happily and luckily, despite all statistical and chemical and observational evidence to the contrary.   First, let me give the floor to Bob and then I have more to follow...



Confused and Baffled Creationists
By Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Too many creationists are lazy. That’s right, I said it! Christians might attend a seminar, read a book or two about creation science, watch some videos and then try to badger atheists into repentance. When atheists and evolutionists give responses, these unprepared creationists stammer with wide eyes. The evolutionists think that they have the truth and the facts, and nothing has happened to dissuade them. 

Evolutionists and atheists are often intellectually lazy, but many put a great deal of effort in stockpiling arguments against God, quote-mining the Bible and finding excuses to ridicule creationists and Christians.
There are some questions that I need to ask you. Very serious questions.
Do you care? If refuting evolution is an intellectual parlor game for you, there is something wrong. 
Creation is the foundation of the gospel. We are not to be trying to score points, but to win souls.
What is your worldview? The Christian’s worldview should have the Word of God foremost. Evolution can be a religion in itself, and it is a foundation for the religion of atheism, as well as being essential to liberal Christianity. We have the truth, but they have fanatical devotion to protecting “science”.
Can you think? Paul reasoned in his presentations of the gospel (in Acts 17, he started with creation when discussing with the pagan evolutionist Greeks), and we are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 1.3), as well as demolish strongholds of false philosophies that rise against the gospel (2 Cor. 10.4). We must be able to give “reasoned argument” (1 Peter 3.15).
Unfortunately, evolutionists and atheists have quite a few “arguments” against us. But with even a cursory knowledge of logic, their reasoning falls to the ground. One Christian read The God Delusion and committed suicide. The tragedy is compounded because Richard Dawkins is a terrible philosopher, and some logic lessons would have had that person laughing, not dying. You can learn some simple logic, especially common fallacies, starting here. The “wisdom” of the world fails miserably when it is used against the truth, but we can use reason to present our case.
Are you willing to put some work into it? Not only creation science and theology, but the Christian life requires putting effort into it: Reading, praying, watching videos, interacting with other creationists and so on. It’s far more than learning cute slogans that are pasted on pictures.
There is no reason for us to be unprepared. The truth is on our side. Let’s use it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob's Logic Lessons are a great resource!!!

What’s wrong with ‘progressive creation?’

Ken Ham
The ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.
This brief summary of only some of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of the ‘Rossist’ position, including some that are not so well-known. We need to judge these against the absolutes of God's Word to see ‘whether these things were so.’ (Acts 17:11)
While Dr Ross is NOT an evolutionist per se, he does accept much of what evolutionists teach in astronomy and geology. We do not seek to pass judgment on his Christian character or commitment to the Lord.

In summary, progressive creation/Rossism teaches:

  • The ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe occurred 16-billion-years ago; death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam & Eve.
  • The days of Creation were long periods.
  • Noah’s Flood was a local event.
  • Sin has only a regionally limited effect on the world.
  • Man-like creatures that behaved much like us—and painted on cave walls—existed before Adam and Eve, but didn’t have a spirit and thus had no salvation.
  • The record of nature is just as perfect as the Word of God.
  • Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.
Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are published by NAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’

Progressive Creation/Rossism teachings

(The following quotes are all taken from lectures or publications by Dr Ross)

1. Concerning the creation of life in the universe:

‘It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.
‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.(Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).
Our Comment: Read John 3:16 for yourself and compare it to the above!
Also: Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)
Comment: God is omnipotent—He could make a fully functional universe ready for life right from the beginning, for with God nothing is impossible. (See Matt. 19:26Mark 10:27)

2. Dr Ross defending his belief that Noah’s Flood was only local:

But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.
‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)
Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!

3. Dr. Ross defining what he calls the ‘sixty-seventh book of the Bible’:

‘Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.
‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).
Comment: Indeed God cannot lie, so when He tells us in Romans 8:22 that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin, then how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God?

4. Dr Ross’s Creation story for children states:

‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.
‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)
Comment: Dr Ross accepts and defends the evolutionist radiometric dating methods, so all evidence of humans, descendants of Noah, if given evolutionary dates of more than 25,000 years (eg., The Neanderthal cave sites) must be redefined as related to spirit-less ‘hominoids’ which the Bible doesn’t mention. However, the same methods have been used to ‘date’ the Australian aborigines back at least 40,000 years (some have claimed much older). By Ross’s reasoning, the Australian aborigines could NOT be descendants of Adam and Eve. However, read Acts 17:26. Interestingly, some scientists now date the American Indians’ ancestors at earlier than 40,000 years.

5. Dr Ross commenting on God’s knowledge and wisdom:

The Creator of the universe must be a Being that’s a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated, more intelligent, therefore more powerful, more creative, and even more caring and loving than we human beings.’ (Focus on the Family, radio broadcast, August 7, 1997)
Comment: Our Creator is NOT a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated! He is INFINITELY more knowledgeable. (See Col. 2:3;Job 21:2242:1–6)

6. Dr Ross defending death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin:

‘The spilling of blood before Adam’s sin in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a Creation scenario in which none of God’s creatures received a scratch or other blood-letting wound before Adam and Eve sinned … Even in an ideal natural environment animals would be constantly scratched, pricked, bruised, and even killed by accidental events and each other … Could it be that God’s purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the ‘random, wasteful, inefficiencies’ of the natural realm He created?’ (Creation and Time, Chapters 6 & 8)
God created a perfect world at the beginning—all the animals and man were vegetarians (Gen. 1:29). Plants were given for food—they do not have a ‘nephesh’ [life spirit] as man and animals do.
God killed the first animal in the Garden and shed blood because of sin—if there was death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, then the basis for the atonement is destroyed. Christ suffered death, for death was the penalty for sin. There will be no death or suffering in the perfect ‘restoration’—so why can’t we accept the same in a perfect (‘very good’) Creation before sin?

7. Dr Ross on Revelation:

We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997)
Comment: Look up Revelation 6:9 for yourself!

8. Dr Ross on space-time dimensions:

What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, Chapter 8)
Comment: Dr Ross bases much of what he says on ‘string theory,’ which is NOT universally accepted, and is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists. It is so vague and speculative, and without experimental support, that to use it to apply to defining attributes of God is foolish.
In the same book Dr Ross declares: ‘We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only for God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent of our own four.’(Beyond The Cosmos, chapter 3)
Comment: What about Hebrews 11:3,6? Whatever happened to faith? String theory is NOT proof for God’s existence. Remember Romans 10:17‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to bring people to Christ.
A detailed critique of many more ‘Rossist’ teachings is available in book form: Creation and Time—A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is even more to refute Hugh Ross, which I will post later.   My friend, Bob, wanted to put up a guest post so I decided to also address Hugh Ross, BioLogos and other compromising organizations and people who discard the Bible and make their own gospel.  
I read "Starlight and Time" back when it first came out.  I found a great deal of satisfaction in some portions of it, as it claims to "prove" that the Creator God created.  However, upon reading the entire book and reflection on the teachings, I had to reject it all.   Ross teaches things that refute the Bible based entirely on speculation and the popular teachings of the time.
In 2007, the year my wife and I first got to meet Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and many other fine teachers and scientists at a conference, there was a big debate scheduled between Jonathan and Dr. Hugh Ross.  Did Ross back out after watching Sarfati defeat I believe 10-15 chess opponents with Grandmaster points while blindfolded?!  Sarfati's personal best had been 12 at once as of 2005 and he was undefeated. 
He may have actually defeated 15 at once at that conference and THAT would have been his new personal best?  Perhaps.  In any case, the debate Hugh Ross agreed to in advance?  He backed out and demanded to debate someone else at the conference, a man who was a specialist in history and Constitutional law I believe.  That debate was interesting, but what was MORE interesting is that Ross backed out of debating with Jonathan Sarfati...one has to believe Ross was sure he would be routed!
There is now more to say about Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, their opposing views of Creation and who is Biblical and who is not.  But enough for now.  We'll see if any Ross defenders pop up first. 

35 comments:

Anonymos said...

"a wave of commenters who do not understand the rock layers or how organisms actually work, are completely brainwashed to the point they are unreasonable and unreasoning and are therefore trolls."

Radar's blatant lie is explained here. His faulty logic regarding polystrate fossils is also explained clearly in that comment thread. Let the readers decide for themselves whether it is unreasonable and shows a lack of understanding of how rock layers work.

"We are not to be trying to score points, but to win souls.
What is your worldview? The Christian’s worldview should have the Word of God foremost. Evolution can be a religion in itself, and it is a foundation for the religion of atheism, as well as being essential to liberal Christianity. We have the truth"
(emphasis by Anonymos)

I put it to you, Bob Sorenson, that Radar lying about what other people say and misrepresenting logical arguments is not a persuasive way to win souls if one actually has the truth at one's disposal.

If Radar is trying to spread the word of God, he should not be violating one of the Commandments of that exact same God in the process, and he should well heed the word of God as expressed in Proverbs 6, 16 to 19.

Jesus never saw the need to lie, ever, but he did see the value in humility.

Radar is the polar opposite of that. I hope he is capable of introspection and self-improvement.

Anonymos said...

"Unfortunately, evolutionists and atheists have quite a few “arguments” against us. But with even a cursory knowledge of logic, their reasoning falls to the ground."

Unfortunately, that's the problem with what Radar has been presenting. He claims polystrates are proof of a global flood, but his "reasoning" was defeated with a cursory knowledge of facts and logic.

Piltdown Superman said...

I put it to you, anonymous, that you are quick to call someone a liar when you are deliberately disunderstanding what Radar has been explaining to you for a long time, and clinging desperately to your unscientific religion of evolutionism. Your libelous comments will not sway me to hate Radar. I respect him far more than anonymous Internet atheopaths.

As for you, Radar, thanks for posting and for the kind words. Hopefully, we can encourage Bible-believing Christians to get in gear.

Anonymos said...

First, nobody is trying to make you hate Radar. We know he's your friend, but even you can't pretend that his lie was not a lie. I note how you skip making any kind of actual argument and instead skip straight to emotionally charged accusations and unsupported claims.

Second, I did not call Radar a liar - please stick to the facts. You both seem very hung up on dismissing persons for who or what you think they are instead of separating the arguments and actions from the person.

Libelous implies untrue, and it is (unfortunately) true that Radar lied. His lie is very clear ("one troll instisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES") and is clearly explained at the first link in the first comment in this thread.

Actually, Radar didn't even need to lie to further his point. Unfortunately he achieved the opposite: by stooping to such behavior, he has reduced his credibility and reputation. On your own blog you reference 1 Peter 3:15-16:

"Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason s for the hope that is in you. However, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are accused, those who denounce your Christian life will be put to shame."

Radar's un-Christian behavior - while touting a supposedly superior absolute morality - does damage to his (and your) cause. If you and Radar don't want to see that, that's up to you.

Next, I am not "deliberately disunderstanding" what Radar has been explaining about polystrate fossils. If that's what you were getting at, it's a false accusation.

Radar's claims regarding polystrate fossils don't falsify long ages, since not one of the polystrate fossils that he has presented passes through layers that "Darwinists" claim represent long ages. As it is, polystrate fossils are simply a phenomenon that is easily explained by the same mechanism by both creationists and "Darwinists".

This doesn't score a point for either side, though it does mean that Radar can take polystrates off his list of supposed proof of YEC.

Piltdown Superman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Piltdown Superman said...

"nobody is trying to make you hate Radar."

Yeah, sure. This is a common Christophobe tactic, and then you do not even have the courage to admit what you are doing.

"I note how you skip making any kind of actual argument and instead skip straight to emotionally charged accusations and unsupported claims."

Just following your "standard", Skippy, since you did not show any desire to man up and use substance. Instead, you have been appealing to emotion all along.

"I did not call Radar a liar". Yes, you did. Unless repeatedly saying that someone that you claim keeps telling lies is not a liar. Weird logic have you. Your claims that Radar is "lying" about the polystrate fossils make YOU a liar and libeler. Yet, you have not substantiated that claim. Do you even know what a liar is? Hint: It's not simply because you disagree with someone's statements or conclusions, or even when someone makes a factual error.

Nice quote-mining of the Bible to pretend that Radar is engaging in "unchristian behavior", but the truth is, he is far more noble than you could ever be, and you do not even have a standard upon which to judge another person. Now, if you would bother to read the rest of the Bible and see that Christians are not called upon to be doormats and say, "Thank you for flinging dung in my face, Mr. Mighty Atheist. Please, Sir, may I have another?" Atheopaths love to take things out of all possible contexts and choose to disunderstand the meaning so they can twist it to their own ends. This is exactly what Satan (your father) and his minions do. Did Jesus, Peter, Paul and others ever speak strongly to others. You betcha.

Anony-mouse will not receive more of my time until he/she repents and learns the truth of the gospel.

radar said...

Anonymos or Mouse or whoever you are (not brave enough to identify yourself, are you?) just cannot admit his error.

You see, by his standards a tree that is, say. 80 feet long MUST be thrust through rocks of differing ages because it goes through a LOT of layers and Darwinists claim layers represent time.

By MY standards, the layers were all laid down (all but the uppermost) by the approximately 375 day Flood, especially the first 150 days of it. So the tree may have been buried in a few minutes, hours or perhaps at most days from my point of view, but from the Darwinist side? You either have to cast aside your belief system and agree with me that the layers formed quickly (putting the lie to Darwinism) OR you have to agree with me that by Darwinist thinking it had to stand there for several soil horizons to be formed and slowly bury it while it magically refused to decay? You cannot win either way, unless you are about to become a YEC?

radar said...

In my back yard is a huge willow tree. It is popular with the birds. We have a birdhouse sitting inside of it but it is so huge that you cannot see the birdhouse in the summer for all the leaves. The willow is only ten years old but is already far higher than our second floor and wider than any of our rooms.

We have a bird seed feeder for seed-eaters and a hummingbird feeder plus a honeysuckle vine alongside the deck to provide hummingbirds and other flying things nourishment.

I leave spiders alone, I leave bees alone...but if I see a wasp nest, I spray that sucker with wasp killer and I try to keep wasps away. My wife is allergic to their stings and nobody likes being stung by a wasp!

So it is with commenters. I do not moderate comments and encourage both Christians and non-believers to dialogue with me in the comments thread. But I have learned to identify the trolls and I spray them with words as I do not have troll spray and I do not know how to broadcast it online.

Trolls are Darwinists who will never change their evil ways, so I try to expose their lies and I do not have much patience with them. Jesus loved everyone but knew that the only way to get through to the money-changers and Pharisees was to heap them with contempt and point out to the rest of the people that they depended on lies and hypocrisy.

Representing Jesus, as both I and Bob do, we must decide how we deal with trolls. I let them post if it is not profane and I tell them exactly what their evil mythology is = evil. Darwinism drags people to Hell by eroding their faith in God and the Bible. Therefore people who are leading people to Hell deserve to be strongly warned.

If some hard-hearted troll were to repent, I would be tremendously happy because I do not want people to go to Hell. But real science reveals Darwinism to be a bunch of BS and a device to convince young minds to abandon God and worship themselves. Therefore I will continue to treat trolls as trolls and no, I will NOT do your research for you!

radar said...

One anonymous commenter accused me of lying but deleted his post. That did not mean I did not see it.

I am not lying about polystrates and stand by my statements. The Darwinist commenter had to resort to agreeing with me about rapid burial/submersion in order to preserve the tree in question. Worse for him, there are examples of polystrate trees, reeds and organisms all over the globe!!! So-called Petrified Forests have differing horizons and also the typical little-or-no branches or root systems anyway, therefore they are Flood-created fossils.

So when you trolls call me a liar, you are doubling down on your damnation by calling white black and black white.

When Jesus was baptized by John and the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:7-12, Jesus said within the verses:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

radar said...

Darwinists are the modern scribes and Pharisees, teaching a warped non-Gospel of Atheistic Darwinism and sending people to hell. To quote Jesus, Matthew 23:13-33

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

radar said...

Repent of Darwinism and realize that God made all things, therefore you are responsible to Him. You KNOW you are a sinner and the only recourse is to repent and ask Jesus to forgive you and cleanse you of your sins and be your Savior. If you truly repent and want to become a son of God, you will admit your sins, humble yourself before the Messiah and then Jesus will cleanse you on the inside, the Holy Spirit will make your dead apirit alive and you will be a new creature.

Nicodemus, a Pharisee, asked Jesus about the mystery of His Gospel and Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again. Nicodemus had been born once from his mother, but his dead spirit was damned to Hell because of the sin inherited from his fathers all the way back to Adam and the sin nature that lives in the flesh.

Nicodemus became a believer, because he allowed himself to believe in Jesus and repent and be born again spiritually.

I was a hardcore sinner but Jesus was willing and able to forgive all my sins and amazingly change me on the inside. I know where Darwinists are coming from. I lived in your selfish, self-satisfied and self-centered world. I know EXACTLY what you seek to do and your lies are not a surprise at all. I understand Darwinism and I can clearly see how ridiculous it is.

Those who want to know truth, I seek to give them truth and help them find for themselves the awesome wonder of being able to have a relationship with God. Those who work on the side of Satan, I have harsh words for them when they expose themselves. Maybe it makes them mad, but maybe one in one hundred will actually do some soul-searching? The odds are way higher than those of a Universe or organisms just popping into existence!

Anton Q. Mouse said...

One anonymous commenter accused me of lying but deleted his post. That did not mean I did not see it.

In which post? The one from 10:41 in this post was from Bob... and none of the previous dozen posts has any visibly deleted comments whatsoever.

So, either you're mistaken about the deleted post, you're lying about it, or all that noise you made a year or so ago about deleted comments leaving visible records was nothing but smoke and there is a way to delete completely. Which is it?

Better yet, if you have a record of the comment in question (email notification or such), why don't you post it for all to see?

radar said...

Mouse, you already accused me of lies, which makes you a liar.

The commenter decided to withdraw his comment and I only mentioned it in case someone saw an erased comment. Apparently only I can see those. I am courteous enough to let a commenter withdraw his words. Perhaps he repented of his malfeasance and you would follow suit? Otherwise I think Bob and I have both explained the position you are in, an evildoer leading others to Hell along with you. That is my informed opinion and I can state it without resorting to bad language and I have backed it up with scripture. 'Nuff said, if an anonymous commenter wishes to delete his comment I am not going to publish it. Now I know you cannot see such events so I have no need to announce further incidents of that nature.

radar said...

By the way, Bob is a more prolific blogger than this guy...His Piltdown Superman and Stormbringer websites are full of great information.

I could just do posts for a couple of years by just cherry-picking things from his blog. Since his blog does not allow for copying properly, I had asked him for his guest article, and I hope he will do more in the future.

Truly, Bob is a fantastic blogger and I am grateful for his input, thanks, Bob!!!

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Lemme get this straight: comments actually can be deleted without any public evidence that they ever existed?

Which means you were lying all those times in the past when you argued otherwise after being accused by commenters of deleting comments?

Anonymos said...

"Your claims that Radar is "lying" about the polystrate fossils make YOU a liar and libeler."

It appears you haven't taken the time to read the actual claim in question. You really should be a little more careful about that if you want to seem credible. For ease of reference, here it is again.

The claim is NOT that Radar lied about the polystrate fossils - about that, he's merely mistaken, as was pointed out to him multiple times, and so far neither he nor you (nor any other YEC) can actually demonstrate why a polystrate fossil through layers NOT separated by long ages would be a problem for mainstream science. Do a bit more open-minded reading on the subject and you will find that this is an area on which mainstream science and creationists actually pretty much agree.

His ACTUAL LIE - and this, too, has been presented very clearly multiple times, even verbatim in the comment that you responded to, it's surprising that you missed it - is that he accused others of having changed their demands when he gave them what he wanted, when the truth is that he failed to back up his claim as was requested from him from the beginning.

"Yet, you have not substantiated that claim. Do you even know what a liar is? Hint: It's not simply because you disagree with someone's statements or conclusions, or even when someone makes a factual error."

The claim was objectively substantiated, as you can easily find out by reading the above link that has now been posted several times. It has nothing to do with whether I disagree with Radar's statements or conclusions about polystrate fossils.

If, after actually reading the link, you still disagree, please present a reasoned argument why you think he did not. So far neither you nor Radar have made such an attempt.

Anonymos said...

Bob, if you think I'm engaging in quote mining by citing the 9th Commandment, Proverbs 6:16-19 and 1 Peter 3:15-16, then please explain how the context would change the meaning of any of these Bible passages.

I take these passages by their plain meaning:

It is wrong to lie. God dislikes haughty eyes, a lying tongue, a false witness who pours out lies. Be prepared to give the reason for the hope you have when you are asked, but do it with gentleness and respect, and keep a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

If there's anything I misunderstood or misrepresented here, please tell us what it is.

Radar demonstrably lied and is unrepentant about it. How is that Christian?

Are you saying it's okay to lie under certain circumstances?

If you have an actual and respectful explanation that would make sense to any reader of this discussion, please provide it.

radar said...

You guys are a real piece of work, lying and then lying about lying. You can say what you will, I did NOT lie and I did post one of the many links showing polystrates going through many layers. I am not a Darwinist, so I do not believe the layers represent long ages, but uniformitarian teaching does. So are you agreeing with me that all fossils were buried rapidly or are you disputing the Darwinist party line. Your choice. I didn't lie.

As to deleted comments, I can see when a commenter deletes his own comment on the website. I am surprised you cannot, or perhaps you overlooked it?

When you lie about a child of God, you are bringing more damnation upon yourself. You see, anyone who comes to God must come as a child, repenting and without a claim of worth besides what God bestows. I am such a child of God.

Matthew 18:6 - "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

You want to lie about me, you can lie about me. You make a big fuss over such a piece of nonsense because you have no evidence to bring to the table. Pathetic.

radar said...

I did not ever delete comments for any reason other than bad language. Some commenters had their comments caught by the Blogger spam filter and in some cases had to repost more than once to get their post out there. But I never deleted a comment for any reason other than bad language or some spammer advertising free sex sites or dating sites or land in Africa or some such thing. So you are making something up now, to add to the insult of calling me a liar. Want to make anything else up while you are at it? Did you quit beating your wife? Good grief!

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Good hell... did you not even read my comments before going off half-cocked again?

I never once accused you of deleting comments - I merely said that you made a big deal (at the time you were being accused by commenters) out of the fact that deleted comments leave a publicly visible mark. If that is not the case, you spent a lot of energy on a lie.

Also, I didn't miss anything... the only comment listed as deleted on this page - comment #5 - was made, and deleted, by Bob. So, is there another one, or are you accusing Bob of being an anonymous troll and lying about the content of said comment?

If there was another comment made and then deleted, it is not visible to me on any browser, which means you CAN delete comments without a trace - something you stridently argued could not be done.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Also:
You can say what you will, I did NOT lie and I did post one of the many links showing polystrates going through many layers.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the number, or thickness, of layers is not the issue and was not what I asked for in the first place? Sheesh.

Again: not every layer or set of layers necessarily means long ages, no matter how thick. For some reason, you simply refuse to understand this, and keep insisting that conventional geology says things that it really doesn't say.

To put it in your terms: insisting that a thick set of strata are necessarily interpreted as long ages in all cases - independent of what those layers actually are - is the same as me saying that the Bible and The Stand - both roughly similar in page number - were written in the same amount of time (a couple thousand years, give or take). Pretty silly, no?

Finally, your repeated insistence on calling me evil and accusing me of leading people to hell is pretty sad. Grow up.

Anonymos said...

" You can say what you will, I did NOT lie"

Were these your words?

"one troll instisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES"

Yes or no?

"When you lie about a child of God, you are bringing more damnation upon yourself."

When a child of God lies, what is the correct procedure in your view?

radar said...

Correct, I did not lie. Anyone with a grade school education can understand that. But willingness to understand is a weakness common to Darwinists. If you are really not smart enough to understand the reason what I said was not a lie, then why bother? I said what I said, what I said was right and you are a sad and deluded person who spreads evil lies. I have answered you according to your folly. Maybe you should ask someone you know to help you figure this out?

radar said...

One more time. I will give you a chance to comprehend your error and repent of you false accusation of lies towards me. Or not, hey, you have to live with yourself. But here goes and this is very simple so I am sure you can comprehend this...

Remember that it is YOUR failed hypothesis that believes layers equate to age whereas my evidentially-supported contention is that all the lower layers were laid by one flood event that lasted for a year and ten days. In my point of view, layers can be laid down in minutes, in yours that takes ages. There are studies done by multiple scientists that show the flood rocks can be replicated in lab conditions and that includes various seemingly odd formations, polystrates, disappearing footprints of dinosaurs and amphibians and etc.

So, again, if a polystrate thrusts through 80 feet of rock or coal and dozens of layers, then by Darwinist thinking it was there for a great many years as soil horizons slowly covered it while it decided not to die or rot (minus branches and roots) whereas by my thinking it was buried rapidly.

So the thinking-impaired Darwinist commenter wanted me to present evidence of a polystrate that was thrust through long ages. Well so my one example given (I have done many posts so this was just one) caused him to them claim that the tree was unremarkable because it was rapidly submersed!!!

Hilarious! While nothing I said was a lie, the Darwinist had to resort to YEC explanations to get out of his trap, as I had presented a polystrate (more than one, in fact) that was thrust through dozens of layers. What could he do? Admit the folly of believing trees stand there while soil horizons slowly bury them, or come over to my side and support a flood explanation? He chose the YEC explanation but pretended it was somehow a vindication of his contention.

I did not lie, but he prevaricated and wound up agreeing with YEC teaching. So let's apply it to all polystrates, which we find in various layers all over the world and, voila, no more Darwinism and we can all agree that the fossil rocks were formed by the Flood!!!

So is your primary purpose to bore us or just make yourself look silly?

Piltdown Superman said...

I have a collection of screen shots where atheopaths make themselves look not only foolish, but childish and petty.

But I have to share this. Back when I allowed comments, a "former Christian" (actually, a former cultist who pretended to be a Christian) left comments that proved my article to be right. When he realized how foolish he made himself look, he came along and deleted most or all of his comments! The comment section of that article looks silly, there I am replying to someone who is no longer there.

By the way, he compounded his error by linking to my article at his hit piece on me; he thinks it makes me look bad, but he makes himself look worse.

Hatred of God and his people makes other people stupid. But they think they're geniuses. Amazing.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18-22)

radar said...

2 Corinthians 4
Expanded Bible (EXB)
Preaching the Good News

4 [L Therefore,] Since God in his mercy gave us this ·work to do [ministry], we don’t ·give up [lose heart; become discouraged]. 2 But we have ·turned away from [rejected; renounced] ·secret [underhanded] and shameful ways. We ·use no trickery [L do not walk in deception], and we do not ·change [distort] the ·teaching [word] of God. We ·teach the truth plainly [fully/openly disclose the truth], ·showing everyone who we are so that they can know in their hearts what kind of people we are [L commending ourselves to every person’s conscience] in God’s sight. 3 If the ·Good News [Gospel] that we preach is ·hidden [veiled], it is ·hidden [veiled] only to those who are ·lost [perishing]. 4 The ·devil who rules this world [L god of this age] has blinded the minds of ·those who do not believe [unbelievers]. [L …so that] They cannot see the light of the Good News—the Good News ·about [that reveals] the glory of Christ, who is ·exactly like [L the image of] God. 5 [L For] We do not preach about ourselves, but we preach that Jesus Christ is Lord and that we are your ·servants [slaves; bondservants] for Jesus. 6 [L For; Because] God who said, “Let the light shine out of the darkness [Gen. 1:3; Is. 9:2],” is the same God who made his light shine in our hearts ·by letting us know [or to give us the knowledge of] the glory of God that is in the face of Christ.

Spiritual Treasure in Clay Jars

7 [L But] We have this treasure ·from God, but we are like clay jars that hold the treasure [L in clay jars]. This shows that the ·great [extraordinary; transcendent] power is from God, not from us. 8 We have ·troubles all around us [or all kinds of troubles/trials], but we are not ·defeated [crushed]. We ·do not know what to do [are perplexed/bewildered], but we do not ·give up the hope of living [despair]. 9 We are ·persecuted [pursued], but ·God does not leave us [not abandoned/left behind]. We are ·hurt [L struck down; knocked over] sometimes, but we are not destroyed. 10 We always carry the death of Jesus in our own bodies [C Paul was in constant danger of the kind of violent death Jesus experienced] so that the life of Jesus [C resurrection life] can also be ·seen [revealed; manifested] in our bodies. 11 [L For] We are alive, but for Jesus we are always ·in danger of [L being handed over to] death so that the life of Jesus can be ·seen [revealed; manifested] in our ·bodies that die [mortal flesh]. 12 So death is working in us, but life is working in you.

13 It is written in the Scriptures, “I believed, so I spoke [Ps. 116:10].” ·Our faith is like this, too [L Having the same spirit of faith,…]. We also believe, and so we speak. 14 We know that ·God [L the one] who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and will ·bring us together with you into his presence [L present (us) with you]. 15 All these things are for ·you [your benefit], so that the grace of God that is ·being given [expanding; increasing] to more and more people will bring increasing thanks to God for his glory.

radar said...


When you are devoted to atheism, you become blind to truth and then you are a slave to lies.

The Christian tells the truth and does not waver when the troll lies about it. For instance, this statement is true: "one troll insisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES"

I always asserted polystrates went through several layers and then trolls (I do not keep track of which ones, they are anonymous and therefore I cannot know) then asked for dates. It may have been one commenter asking for layers and another for dates. No matter, when I showed clearly that the polystrates go through many layers, the commenter asked for differing dates and also said that the polystrate was rapidly submersed. Well, DUH! That is the Flood assertion. Again I say, you either abandon Darwinist lies about the fossil rocks and agree with me that the polystrates were formed in the Flood, or retain your integrity and admit a polystrate going through so many layers falsifies the long age canard. Simple logic, for those who can reason...

radar said...

If you want me to keep you trolls separated out, have the guts to put up a name. Otherwise I just lump you together.

radar said...

By the way, I have raised six children and I love them all. When they were little and either deliberately disobeyed or lied, I spanked them. But first I made them wait in a room and ponder things, then I came in and made sure they understood what they did, then I spanked them, forgave them and we hugged and let it go. Love is not always NICE but it is just.

When you commenters spread lies and information, I verbally spank you. The character who claims I am lying? You are digging a bigger hole for yourself all the time. At the end of time when you stand before God you will face the charges of lying and libel and you will be punished unless you repent. Now I have told you the truth, you decide what to do with it.

Anonymos said...

"Correct, I did not lie. Anyone with a grade school education can understand that. But willingness to understand is a weakness common to Darwinists. If you are really not smart enough to understand the reason what I said was not a lie, then why bother? I said what I said, what I said was right and you are a sad and deluded person who spreads evil lies. I have answered you according to your folly. Maybe you should ask someone you know to help you figure this out?"

Here is the lie:

"one troll instisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES"

1. No troll insisted that you could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers.

2. No troll changed his/her mind to asking you for polystrates stretching through different DATES. (The commenters asked for this from the beginning, because the examples you presented of your own volition were pointless.)

You made that up and presented it as truth (a.k.a. lying) in an apparent attempt at making the other side look bad.

Here is what actually happened:

You presented polystrate fossils as supposed proof of a young Earth. It was correctly pointed out to you that the polystrate fossils in existence are easily explained by modern science, and that in order for such polystrate fossils to actually be a potential problem for geologists, they would have to pass through layers that geologists would interpret as representing long ages. Such an example does not exist, and you are too proud to cede this issue, even though it has no effect on your larger point. The fact that polystrate fossils are a non-issue doesn't disprove YEC either.

Anonymos said...

"Remember that it is YOUR failed hypothesis that believes layers equate to age"

You're vastly oversimplifying this to the point where it becomes nonsensical. Ages aren't measured by inches of thickness, sedimentation can occur at vastly different rates, depending on the process, and of course rapid sedimentation is possible, and certainly that is the case with polystrate fossils.

"whereas my evidentially-supported contention is that all the lower layers were laid by one flood event that lasted for a year and ten days."

Where is the ground level that was present on the days/weeks the alleged global flood started? We should be able to find thousands of these rapidly submerged trees there, all consistently at one level.

Why aren't polystrates (complete with the soil they grow in) on that ground level? Why are they up much higher, with their soils and roots attached, on top of layers of other sediment that YECs claim were already laid down by the flood? In a case of localized floods separated by long ages, this would make sense. In a global flood taking place as one continuous event from beginning to end, it doesn't add up.

"In my point of view, layers can be laid down in minutes, in yours that takes ages."

False. In the view of a modern geologist, both are obviously possible. This is a pretty basic gap in your understanding of geology, Radar. You should read up on this subject.

"There are studies done by multiple scientists that show the flood rocks can be replicated in lab conditions and that includes various seemingly odd formations, polystrates, disappearing footprints of dinosaurs and amphibians and etc."

We can gladly visit those issues one at a time. Right now we're on polystrates.

"So, again, if a polystrate thrusts through 80 feet of rock or coal and dozens of layers, then by Darwinist thinking it was there for a great many years as soil horizons slowly covered it while it decided not to die or rot (minus branches and roots) whereas by my thinking it was buried rapidly."

False, completely. You're engaging in a massive strawman argument and a false dichotomy.

YECs don't hold a monopoly on the idea of a flood or rapid submersion. The strawman argument is you pretending that modern geology claims that any accumulation of sedimentation must represent long ages, which is obviously not true. Taking your ridiculous misrepresentation to its ludicrous extreme, you would have a modern geologist look at an avalanche that just took place and claim that it took millions of years instead. Obviously that's not the case.

The false dichotomy is that you are only presenting the options that an old-Earth models requires no rapid submersions, ever, and only a young-Earth scenario permits rapid submersions. You're (erroneously) leaving out the possibility of a localized rapid submersion event, which is of course permitted under current understanding of geology.

"So the thinking-impaired Darwinist commenter wanted me to present evidence of a polystrate that was thrust through long ages."

There's nothing "thinking-impaired" about asking you to present something that actually makes your claim worthwhile. Since you arrived at your conclusion through several logical fallacies, you failed to arrive at a cogent point for YEC or against an old Earth model.

"Well so my one example given (I have done many posts so this was just one) caused him to them claim that the tree was unremarkable because it was rapidly submersed!!!"

Yes, and more importantly because it didn't "thrust through long ages".

radar said...

Lies and Duh!!! My comments in italics

Anonymos said...
"Remember that it is YOUR failed hypothesis that believes layers equate to age"

You're vastly oversimplifying this to the point where it becomes nonsensical. Ages aren't measured by inches of thickness, sedimentation can occur at vastly different rates, depending on the process, and of course rapid sedimentation is possible, and certainly that is the case with polystrate fossils.

No, observed science (ever hear of hydrology?) and testing has shown that the sedimentary layers are consistent with the world-wide flood and NOT long ages. That myth was built on Hutton's suppositions and Lyell's outright lies.

"whereas my evidentially-supported contention is that all the lower layers were laid by one flood event that lasted for a year and ten days."

Where is the ground level that was present on the days/weeks the alleged global flood started? We should be able to find thousands of these rapidly submerged trees there, all consistently at one level.

Because the Flood event ripped up the surface of the Earth and also the tectonic plate subduction took the crust and thrust it into the mantle as the giant rift formed at where the Pacific Ocean is now. John Baumgardner provided the evidence for the tectonic plate subduction and even the lower temperatures in the magma where the subducted rock was sent were detected. I have blogged on just that scenario. A world-wide flood is not tranquil and would leave no standing trees.

Why aren't polystrates (complete with the soil they grow in) on that ground level? Why are they up much higher, with their soils and roots attached, on top of layers of other sediment that YECs claim were already laid down by the flood? In a case of localized floods separated by long ages, this would make sense. In a global flood taking place as one continuous event from beginning to end, it doesn't add up.

Where is this fairyland you discuss? There is not a place like this in the sedimentary rocks! Trees are without most or all branches and most or all root systems and they are certainly not all on the same horizon in the fossil rocks!

"In my point of view, layers can be laid down in minutes, in yours that takes ages."

False. In the view of a modern geologist, both are obviously possible. This is a pretty basic gap in your understanding of geology, Radar. You should read up on this subject.

Since your authoritative statement is wrong, you must be the one who needs to study up on the subject.

radar said...

Continued...


"There are studies done by multiple scientists that show the flood rocks can be replicated in lab conditions and that includes various seemingly odd formations, polystrates, disappearing footprints of dinosaurs and amphibians and etc."

We can gladly visit those issues one at a time. Right now we're on polystrates.

Okay, so far you have either lied or repeated the statements of liars, one. Try again?

"So, again, if a polystrate thrusts through 80 feet of rock or coal and dozens of layers, then by Darwinist thinking it was there for a great many years as soil horizons slowly covered it while it decided not to die or rot (minus branches and roots) whereas by my thinking it was buried rapidly."

False, completely. You're engaging in a massive strawman argument and a false dichotomy.

YECs don't hold a monopoly on the idea of a flood or rapid submersion. The strawman argument is you pretending that modern geology claims that any accumulation of sedimentation must represent long ages, which is obviously not true. Taking your ridiculous misrepresentation to its ludicrous extreme, you would have a modern geologist look at an avalanche that just took place and claim that it took millions of years instead. Obviously that's not the case.

Think! This kind of polystrate is common throughout the fossil rocks. So all the fossil rock formations were formed rapidly. Are you proposing a dozen or more shorter-in-duration worldwide floods then?

The false dichotomy is that you are only presenting the options that an old-Earth models requires no rapid submersions, ever, and only a young-Earth scenario permits rapid submersions. You're (erroneously) leaving out the possibility of a localized rapid submersion event, which is of course permitted under current understanding of geology.

If we were not talking about formations that are millions upon millions of tons and spanning continents, nations and states and provinces, then you might have a point. But they do so you don't.

"So the thinking-impaired Darwinist commenter wanted me to present evidence of a polystrate that was thrust through long ages."

There's nothing "thinking-impaired" about asking you to present something that actually makes your claim worthwhile. Since you arrived at your conclusion through several logical fallacies, you failed to arrive at a cogent point for YEC or against an old Earth model.

That is your opinion, but based on your arguments it is not based on evidence.

"Well so my one example given (I have done many posts so this was just one) caused him to them claim that the tree was unremarkable because it was rapidly submersed!!!"

Yes, and more importantly because it didn't "thrust through long ages".

Then you are conceding the point that myriad layers can be laid down rapidly? So all polystrates were formed rapidly? Now you have basically given up the argument and conceded. Formations and fossils that MUST be buried rapidly are found in EVERY sedimentary rock layer. Checkmate.

saleem mohd. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
saleem mohd. said...

Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. Visit the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures and Much More Fun and Entertainment
lolsgag.com