Posted on 10/21/2009 1:09:52 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
"The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals…have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.”
—Dr. John MacArthur, Keynote Speaker from The Battle for the Beginning
Schedule and Speakers...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Good idea.
After that ARDI thing the evolutionist have some splannin to do.
Let’s not forget about Ida!
The author forgot the "r" in revolutionary when he plagiarized this story. Yes, this same thing was said about Copernicus' "Revolutionary" theory about the earth revolving around the sun, hence the origin of the word revolutionary. Evangelicals have gotten over flat earth, heliocentrism. They will survive being wrong on evolution too.
What is the purpose of this post?
This is just spam for an anti-science conference
Thought you might enjoy the following:
Fun With Mark Steyn
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/10/fun-with-mark-steyn-but-when-isnt-mark.html
All the best—GGG
You must have misunderstood the nature of the conference. It’s not pushing darwood’s materialist creation myth...it is a conference that exposes darwinian evolution for the anti-science-evo-religion that it is. I have been to these types of conferences before, and each and every time a number of Temple of Darwin fanatics renounce their false evo-religion, accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and leave proclaiming the wonder of God’s majestic creation.
Don’t forget that the Earth is flat and motionless.
The Word of The Lord will stand forever. The word of scientists (so-called) changes from year to year.
The evos believe that now too? Now that I think about it, I'm not really that surprised. After all, the evos also believe that super-sophisticated bio-nano machines that give every appearance of having been designed by a superior intelligence is nothing more than an illusion created by random causes plus (after a materialist miracle happens) survival.
By definition science can only consider naturalistic explanations, this conference will be based on supernatural explanations.
So therefore it is a religious conference and not remotely scientific
All your name-calling will not change the facts.
Argumentum ad Hominem :
The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
Says who?
DENY THE EVIDENCE CONFERENCE, October 30-31, 2009
and then the
IGNORE THE EVIDENCE CONFERENCE, November 6-7, 2009
Does HIV cause AIDS? Its probably a more important question than evolution.
Still at it, I see.
Like a small boy fascinated by seeing pebbles dropped into a pond, who thinks that by this action he is having a very wide influence. The ripples spread unto the very limits of the pond, and even reflect back and create interesting patterns of interference.
But at the end of the day, the pond and its stillness remain, and nothing has really changed except the growing pile of unseen pebbles at the bottom of the pond.
*super-sophisticated bio-nano machines*
You mean like the kids slowly dying at Truman W Smith childerns hospital from various genetic defects in their *super-sophisticate bion-nano machines* in Gladewater, Texas?
I would have thought the lead designer would have put in more redundancy and error checking.
I am fascinated by AIDS (it used to be called GRIDS).
Wait, I have an answer for that somewhere.
Looking through my index cards...hold on a sec....
Oh yeah, here it is:
"God's Will"
Of course, the origin of sickness, disease, evil and death is also explained in Genesis. That is why God the Son came to die for our sins, to save us from the second death, which, according to the Bible, is infinitely worse than the first.
AIDS is explained in Genesis? I am not following.
Read Romans 1. Beyond that, let’s leave AIDS for the AIDS threads, shall we.
Romans1 is about AIDS? I definitely would like to read more. It is a fascinating topic. Most Freepers foolishly believe it is caused by HIV.
Like I said, save the AIDS debate for the AIDS threads.
OK, OK dont get so touchy, I just asked a question.
How about the evolution of AIDS?
How about evolving yourself off this thread.
Haha. That was funny.
"Remarkably, many modern evangelicals…have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record."
Remarkably, many modern scientists…have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is a fair allegorical record of early cosmological events.
As has been said, many times before, "Let there be Light" is a clear analog for "The Big Bang".
Many scientists are quite comfortable with letting Genesis be Genesis, and letting Science be Science. There is no reason for this deliberate baiting of traps to catch wayward travelers who may be imprudently "embrac(ing) a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point."
The "Authority of Scripture" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
Kind of like all those silly freepers who think pneumonia is caused by influenza or MRSA is caused by staphylococcus. When will people ever learn. Silly freepers with their silly science.
To you, maybe. But not to the millions of Christians that DO believe the earth is billions of years old. Sorta makes you choke up?
My favorite part of the ICR promotional ad that GGG feels is necessary on FR is that the keynote speaker is “ the author of more than twelve dozen books, including his newest releases, The Truth War and A Tale of Two Sons.”
The guy has written over 144 books?! Holy crap.
Could be.
For instance, this writer seems downright opposed:
Pastor John F. MacArthur is a dangerous man doctrinally, and a false prophet. Some people will argue that Christians ought to be working together instead of against each other; however, that mentality is exactly how the Devil succeeds at removing the old landmarks. Things are not always as they seem. Much sinful compromise is justified under the falsehood of unity. Romans 16:17 states, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." MacArthur's teachings are certainly offensive to the gift of eternal life and the simplicity of God's salvation.Who’s a poor FReeper to believe?
In Christianity, a believer's salvation is rooted in the love and mercy of an awesome God, who offers salvation as a free gift paid for by Jesus' precious blood (1st Peter 1:18,19); BUT in Islam, a Muslim's salvation is rooted in self-righteousness to appease Allah's wrath. John MacArthur has perverted the simplicity of the Gospel, by requiring a holy life as a final step to complete salvation. MacArthur has effectively turned salvation into a lifelong process. How is this not works salvation? There is no simpler picture of salvation than a gift. Romans 5:15 even calls salvation a "free gift." If I offered you a gift; but then required you to do something for years to come to obtain it, would that truly be a gift? No way! As simple as this truth is, tens-of-millions of people all across the world have been deceived by Satan into thinking that one's eternal salvation is CONDITIONED upon the life that they live. Shame on you Mr. MacArthur! And shame on you foolish preachers who unquestioningly support him. I realize that John MacArthur has produced some excellent study materials on various issues, such as the evils of alcohol, et cetera; however, the Jehovah's Witness cult also produces some of the best literature exposing the sinful world that I've ever read. This does not justify their hellish religion! And neither does John MacArthur's good teachings qualify his damnable heresies. There is no matter any more critical than the issue of salvation.
In John MacArthur's sermons and books, he woefully contradicts himself at times concerning certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Another such area is that of the Blood of Jesus. I've had several web visitors write to me, and tell me to look at the following web link, featuring a letter written by John MacArthur to his constituents in 1988, where he attempts to defend his heresy on the blood...It would appear some Christians with infallible knowledge of the Bible and God’s Mind are at odds with other Christians with infallible knowledge of the Bible and God’s Mind. Of course, no one would have the bad taste to believe that your infallible knowledge of the Bible and God’s Mind might be considered in error, you know, by one of those people who no doubt incorrectly considers him/her/itself to have infallible knowledge of the Bible and God’s Mind.http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Ironically, the very letter that John MacArthur uses to justify his heresy on the blood, condemns him! Here are the very words of John MacArthur, from the above article (close to the bottom of his own letter):
"It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out." -Dr. John MacArthur
What blasphemy!!! John MacArthur accuses Bob Jones university of starting a smear campaign against him; however, MacArthur's own words stand in testimony against him. This has nothing to do with Bob Jones, or anyone else. This has to do with the heresy which John MacArthur, himself, teaches concerning the precious blood of Jesus Christ. The Word of God clearly states in 1st Peter 1:18-19 that it is the blood of Jesus Christ which saves us (see also 1st John 1:7; Colossians 1:14 and Hebrews 9:12 in the King James Bible).
It seems that deep within John MacArthur recognizes that what he is saying is Biblically and practically flawed and so he knowingly or unknowingly contradicts himself. Either way, MacArthur is teaching damnable doctrines and needs to be exposed for the false teacher he is...So before you serve up Dr. MacArthur as the last word on science, much less the Bible, would you mind clearing up this minor doctrinal dispute?
Are you a Christian, Gumlegs? Meaning, do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Also, how much do you know about the person who wrote all those things about John MacArthur?
What difference does that make? Just state who’s right and why.
Your Honor, I move that the last questions be stricken from the record as irrelevant.
I’ll check back in the morning. It’s late here.
I look forward to your specific answers to my specific questions in the morning.
ir·rel·e·vance
n.
1. The quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered.
2. Something unrelated to a matter being considered.
Is this the same church as the Clergy Malpractice case?
Nally vs. Grace Community Church
Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278 [763 P.2d 948; 253 Cal.Rptr. 97]
[No. S002882.
Supreme Court of California.
The church was exonerated. What’s your point?
Be sure to ping him so he will know which of your 14 threads you will be on tomorrow.
No point, I was just wondering if they were the same.
“So therefore it is a religious conference and not remotely scientific”
You are asserting an unsupported philosophical position that anything religious is automatically unscientific. Your assertions are also ambiguous because they blur the line between something not being science versus something being anti-science. Science is not everything. It is not the only way of knowing something. If I know something through my trust in a reliable and credible witness, I do not derive my knowledge by science; yet this is a far cry from my approach being anti-science.
For example, I know George Washington to be a historical figure, not due to scientific testing of a theory, but due to a consistent, credible, historical record in this regard.
“By definition science can only consider naturalistic explanations, this conference will be based on supernatural explanations.”
By whose definition? Science is defined by philosophy, particularly a philosophy of science. Philosophies are not derived from scientific principles but vice versa. Further, philosophies, including a philosophy of science, make axiomatic assumptions that cannot be scientifically tested. For example, causation is an assumption. It is, without any contention on my part, a reasonable assumption. But it is an assumption.
Or mathematics. Science relies on math, yet math is a logical construct not based on “naturalistic” experiments, but the reverse. Math is derived from axioms which is why math equations can be proved while scientific theories cannot.
Science must make a leap of faith to rely on simple math equations such as 2+2=4. While this equation may seem to be an obvious “truth”, it is not. Our natural experiences and scientific observations tend to support the “truth” of math, but this is not proof. Math is only proved in relation to the assumptions, not in relation to observations.
I take issue with your assertion that science can only address natural explanations. That is not true. Scientific theories are testable explanations of observable data, i.e. facts. What is observable and measurable is in the natural realm, but not necessarily the explanation.
We are all well aware of the scientific experiments which tested the popular assumptions at the time of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation would or at least could be a supernatural phenomenon. By showing that it was not even occurring, this possible explanation was eliminated.
This is an example of an extremely common error of logic and a frequent argument put forth by promoters of evolution. On the one hand it is argued that supernatural explanations are not falsifiable and are therefore unscientific (because they cannot be tested). On the other hand it is argued that science has disproved (i.e. falsified) some specific supernatural claim. Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
It is similar with supernatural claims of the Bible, whether it is creation or the resurrection from the dead. There were eye witness accounts of people who saw Christ crucified and verified to be dead. Then subsequently these same people witnessed Him to be alive as He was present over a period of many days.
John describes the experience in I John 1 empirically: “that which we have seen, that which we have heard, and that which our hands have handled”. This is empirical evidence of what has no natural explanation. To look for some other explanation would only be for philosophical reasons in which a person is unwilling to accept that some natural events have a cause that exists outside the bounds of the laws of nature. For those who concede the possibility of this philosophically, it only matters that the resurrection of Christ is a credible historical fact as documented by eye witnesses.
The desire to find some natural explanation is not driven by science but by philosophy. The willingness to accept the evidence presented is not anti-science.
1. something like that cannot happen,The answer to the above is, of course,
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where there is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
Here are my specific answers to your specific questions. After reading them, kindly answer my questions.
Are you a Christian, Gumlegs? Meaning, do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
“A” claims authority on the meaning of the Bible. “B” also claims authority on the meaning of the Bible. “B” then attacks “A’s” authority, understanding, integrity, and, for all I know, personal grooming habits. How does one decide objectively who is right, “A” or “B?”
My personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with what should be an objective answer.
If you wish, assume I am the worst possible person on earth using any criteria you chose. Ignore me. Can you answer the question for the honest, believing Christians reading this who might be confused by a doctrinal dispute?
Also, how much do you know about the person who wrote all those things about John MacArthur?
Is that an ad hominem attack, or do you have some evidence that David J. Stewart, to whose website I linked, is wrong?
Another who disagrees with Dr. MacArthur’s theology is Ian B. Johnson. John E. Ashbrook appears to have some problems with Dr. MacArthur, although the link goes to a website quoting Ashbrook. (I don’t know whether the website accurately reflects Ashbrook’s views).
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries professes problems with what they describe as Dr. MacArthur’s, um, phychoheresy. I don’t know whether this is a lesser or greater offense than plain, every day heresy, but heresy is heresy, isn't it?
Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin defends John H. Armstrong from an attack by Dr. MacArthur. Needless to say, Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin believes Dr. MacArthur is in error.
The folks at Jesus-is-Savior.com don’t seem to care much for Dr. MacArthur, either, accusing him of preaching false doctrines.
One could go on listing these objections to Dr. MacArthur’s words almost indefinitely. It seems that even among those who would superficially appear to be in Dr. MacArthur’s camp don’t agree with him. By now it should be obvious that experts within his area of expertise dispute Dr. MacArthur’s authority. What is the objective measure to know whether Dr. MacArthur writes with any authority within his field, and further, why should one care what he thinks about matters outside of his field?
I forgot to bring this up - in one of my medical school courses we learned about a form of cell death called 'apoptosis'. During development, there is a massive amount of apoptosis. Does this square with Genesis? I am really confused, and was even thinking about bringign it up with the prof, but I am afraid he would think I was some kind of Bible thumping kook. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.