Thursday, November 5, 2009

The Back of the Doggit Tract Revealed

Hi Friends, I've made couple of changes to my new "Doggit" tract. If you remember, the front was going to say, "IQ Test" but it will now say something like “Biology Test”.

With the help of my friend, Paul Taylor (Senior Speaker / Head of Media) with Answers in Genesis in Europe I've come to the finalize the text that will appear on the back of the tract. This is what it will read:

“If you guessed ‘Doggit’ (a mix between a dog and a rabbit) then you’re right! Evolutionists say that there must be transitional fossils, representing the evolution of one kind of animal into another, by incremental changes over millions of years. Although there appear to be transitional forms, showing the development of new species within kinds, this would be expected within a biblical worldview, where God made animals to reproduce according to their kind, but there are no fossils showing intermediates between two different kinds. Dogs developed from wolves, within the dog kind. They do not change into cats! What we can learn from fossils is that those creatures lived, were buried suddenly, and died. Have you ever wondered where you will go when you die? Judge yourself by the 10 Commandments to see if you are good enough to go to Heaven - Have you lied (even once), stolen (value is irrelevant), dishonored your parents? Those are just three of the 10 commandments and if you broke one, on Judgment Day you'll be found guilty and end up in Hell. But God made a way for you to be forgiven! Jesus Christ took the punishment sinners deserve for breaking God's Laws when He died on the cross, and then rose from the dead. If you repent and trust in Him, God will forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life. You may not have tomorrow. Please don't wait another minute to be reconciled to God.”

Finally, here's a few comments from Paul Taylor in his recent email to me - I thought you might be blessed by this, "I agree that the purpose of fossils is to speak about death and God’s judgment. Just as the Israelites were supposed to answer their children about the stones of witness, when they asked “what mean these stones?”, we need to tell our children what the fossils mean – that God ended His first world with a judgment of water, but sent an Ark of salvation. Similarly, there will be a Day of Judgment of fire, and we need Jesus, our Ark of Salvation, to fireproof us against the judgment to come."

I thank God for Paul and all our friends at Answers In Genesis. Thank you Paul for your assistance with this tract!

44 comments:

BathTub said...

Ah so going for the Super Evolution Good!
Evolution Bad!

It's so funny to see how an insane amount of evolution over a few thousand of years is good. But much slower evolution over a longer period of time is bad.

Trish, ask Paul if Maicids are Dog kind or Cat kind?

The no Transitional Fossils is just simply a blatant lie at this point.

You want Species to Species Transitional fossils? Done.

"RDF TV - Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species - Nebraska Vignettes #5" on Youtube for 1 example of a direct Species to Species sequence of fossils.

There are plenty of examples like this.

Cat to Dog is NOT "Species to Species".

Cats & Dogs are the same Order "Carnivora" Cat to dog would be across, ORDER, FAMILY and GENUS.

And if a Dog gave birth to cat hat would be evidence that Evolution is FALSE.

Just like your Doggit.

The reason I asked about Miacids before? Because they are the "Transitional fossil" between Cats and Dogs, also Bears, Badgers, Weasels, Hyenas Seals etc.

Seriously at this point you can name any two animals and you can get the 'common ancestor' of the two fairly easily.

Just this week another "transitional fossil" was announced. A dinosaur this time. Aardonyx celestae. It's Transitional between Bipedal and Quadruped Sauropods.
That's a pretty darn specific transition!

So while Creationist run around go "Woo give us Cat/Dogs! Superevolution good, Evolution bad!" Actual scientists are out in the feild digging up the dozens (literally) of feathered dinosaur fossils showing the transtion to birds. Or the similar number of transitional fossils for whales which is another very well known transition now.

You have to be very specific what you mean by "Transitional" these days, if it's not a moronic requirement which evolution wouldn't expect (like doggits, crocoducks, etc), then they are countless.

Nohm said...

"Dogs developed from wolves, within the dog kind. They do not change into cats!"

Sigh.

So we're still doing this garbage, eh?

If it isn't obvious to everyone:

No "evolutionist" thinks that a dog would "change into" (sigh) a cat.

In fact, if such a thing happened, we'd have to junk out pretty much everything that we currently understand about evolution.

This just isn't funny for me anymore; it's now depressing.

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

In a previous thread, Craig noted that he didn't believe for a second that you (or the LW team) thought that the doggit was a viable representation of what evolutionists mean by the term 'transitional' species.

Could you please clarify this?

Do you think that the doggit is a valid example of what evolutionists think evolution predicts?


Your statement regarding dogs and cats seems to imply that you think evolution does say that dogs evolve into cats or some such thing, but I can't be sure because of your ambiguous and muddled terminology.

You seem to be accepting speciation (the emergence of new species) in this post, just like Ray did in his discussion with Thunderf00t, is this the case?


I'd appreciate it if you replied to me this time, you've been somewhat distant of late.

Regards,

Debunkey Monkey said...

Thank you so much. Wonderful message, Trish!!!

Do you think maybe next time you could do a gospel tract about how the Earth is flat?

MNChad said...

Transitional fossils are easy to come by. I'm thinking about making my own.

1st, find any stone that looks to be like a tooth of some sort. Now build whatever your imagination can come up with based on the tooth! Don't forget to add 45-60 million years.

I'll call it Theorus Silliness.

Hey Bathtub,

Would you please explain what came 1st from this list:
heart, lungs, and kidneys? Remember, one cannot function without the other two. I won't hold my breath.

TrishCanGoToHell said...

This is the problem with evangelists. You pray on the ignorant, which describes your group. You blatantly make up lies, ignoring science where it doesn't fit your beliefs. Evolution is the best explanation for our world. You can't look at holes in the evidence and make a blanket statement that it is entirely wrong. Why should creationism fill this vacuum?

Further, your religion is comical. Religious people are some of the most destructive and judgmental people on earth. If there is a heaven, you certainly will not be there. The people that will be rewarded are the ones that do good, without judging other people that live a just life.

May you burn in hell and die of pus rot.

Lissie Darcy said...

Here we go again..with the Christianity VS. Darwinism...

Good to see ya Bath Tub! Where've ya been!? You and Mr. Matt have disappeared!

"Seriously at this point you can name any two animals and you can get the 'common ancestor' of the two fairly easily."

I'm feeling bad..I can't name any. And I really should do my research on evolution so I can evangelize better and be prepared to have an answer...

but I haven't done my research. Cuz I'm bad.

:)

SWEET TRISH! (just sharin the love here..)

ANNND THAT SOUNDED TOTALLY HIPPYISH..if there's such a word....

BLESSINGS SIS!,

LISSIE

Lissie Darcy said...

Well the Nohm, word of advice: Don't bother visiting Trish's blog if it's so depressing.

Hey, we all need a laugh at times. We all need to be reminded to laugh at ourselves right? Well why don't you take the time to laugh at yourself..I mean the whole idea that the world happened by random chance and over a process of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS..

ISSSSSS rather funny...

-Lissie

BathTub said...

Hey MNChad, remember that time I wrote an entire post answering your question what came first blood or the circulatory system? And then for days and days after that you ignored every post I made asking if you read my response?

Wilful ignorance?

"Would you please explain what came 1st from this list:
heart, lungs, and kidneys? Remember, one cannot function without the other two. I won't hold my breath"

As per above I won't hold my breath that you will read or acknowledge my response.

which one is supposed to not be able to function without the others? In your rush to post did you get your organs mixed up? I suspect you meant to say Heart & Blood which I already answered?

Are you saying hearts can't function without lungs? Because I am sure a lot of creatures (like a lot of fish) would like to talk to you.

Hearts came before lungs, that's an easy one.

Kidneys certainly aren't dependant on hearts or lungs since water waste cycling.

I suspect hearts come first before kidneys, but I am not going to waste too much of my time on you *AGAIN* looking that up for you. If you genuinely wanted an answer you could look it up yourself. Or acknowledged when I answered you the first time.

BathTub said...

Lissie said..."I mean the whole idea that the world happened by random chance and over a process of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS..

ISSSSSS rather funny...

but I haven't done my research."

Yes Lissie, we are quite clear on that.

Lissie what is your explanation for the fact that we can see stars billions of light years away?

Reynold said...

Here, if you want a real series of transitional forms, go to the Talk Origins site in their Fossil Hominid section.

Look up the Comparison of creationist opinions there.


PS: That one commentator is a bit of a freak. That last line was way over the line.

Debunkey Monkey said...

TrishCanGoToHell said...
Religious people are some of the most destructive and judgmental people on earth.

They you say...
If there is a heaven, you certainly will not be there.

Then you write...
The people that will be rewarded are the ones that do good, without judging other people that live a just life.

You top it off with...
May you burn in hell and die of pus rot.

Aren't you being a tad hypocritical accusing Tish of being judgmental?

Pot, meet kettle.

Debunkey Monkey said...

MNChad said...
Would you please explain what came 1st from this list:
heart, lungs, and kidneys? Remember, one cannot function without the other two. I won't hold my breath.


Crayfish and earth worms have a heart (or hearts) but no lungs or kidneys, making them good examples of living fossils for our purposes.

Tiktaalik and devonian tetrapods would have had kidneys, but very primitive lungs. In addition, all fish have kidneys, but not all fish have lungs or swim bladders.

So, the order of evolution is: heart, kidneys, lungs.

Nohm said...

Lissie Darcy said:

"the whole idea that the world happened by random chance"

Lissie, it did not happen by "random chance".

Please research the words "determinism" and especially "emergence".

That's why we get on your cases about research, because you can't even get our claims correct when you try to mock them.

If someone mocked the Smurfs for being orange, that would be silly, right? If someone mocked Christians for claiming that Jesus used black magic to heal the King of France, that would be silly, right?

Lissie Darcy said...

My explanation for that Bath Tub, is this: God gave us brains, and with those brains scientists over the years keep learning new things and technology over the years keeps improving. ALL THANKS TOOOOO God Almighty who GAVE us brains..

You know they haven't invented a computer that's as complicated, and intricate as the brain?

:)

BathTub said...

That's just gibberish Lissie, doesn't even begin to attempt to answer the question.

Yes, many scientists think that God gave us brains to use to look at the world around us. And that they should use their God given brains and eyes to learn about the nature of the world rather than blinding accepting dogma.

You know, people like Galileo. Who was locked up by the church because his observations didn't conform with church dogma.

The Big Bang Theory came from a priest, did you know that?

So I will ask you again Lissie. Why do you think that we can see stars BILLIONS of light years away when the universe is only 6000 years old.

Lissie Darcy said...

@ Nohm

Well it's a good thing I'm not mocking the smurfs for being orange, or all the other stuff, don't you think Nohm?

Oh come on! It didn't happen by random chance? BECAUSE THE BANG..ISN'T RANDOM CHANCE RIGHT? THE BANG PLANNED ITSELF..

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Lissie Darcy said...

@ Nohm

"That would be silly, right?...that would be silly, right? that would be silly right?"

My answer: Smile and nod Lissie, just keep smiling and nodding..

OR

Answer number 2: HAHA THAT'S SO SILLY!!

Answer Number 3: Yup it is! Which is why I'm laughing..

Answer Number 4: Mmmhmmm...yup we've established that I believe....or maybe we could add one more "that would be silly, RIGHT!?" Just for more effect.

Answer Number 5: It's a good thing the world planned when it was going to create itself...I was beginning to worry it just "HAPPENED"...

.......................(by random chance..)

Angel said...

TrishCanGoToHell said ... things not even worth repeating. But, I definitely second the assertion that said person is a hypocrite. Judgmental? Please take a good long look in the mirror.

And, honestly, the only true standard of good is God's standard. It is the only one that is going to count in the end.

Nohm said...

Lissie,

You still don't get it, and by thinking that you're mocking me while displaying your ignorance over this "random chance" issue, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Lissie, you're creating a false dichotomy between "planned" and "random chance", which only displays your lack of understanding of the words "random" and "chance".

This is why I encouraged you to research the words "emergence" and "determinism". If you had, you would have understood why people don't claim that the Big Bang, and certainly evolution, are the results of "random chance".

That's why I made the Smurfs point. People who mock the Smurfs for being orange are silly because the Smurfs are NOT orange. But it seems like you would respond by saying, "But they're not green, so they MUST be orange", just like you did with your "planned" vs. "random chance" dichotomy stuff above.

Lissie, until you understand what the claims are, then you appear silly when you mock claims that aren't actually made.

For the record, we wouldn't say that "it made itself", either.

So, no, Lissie, I DON'T get the point, because you've been missing it since you started in with your statements on evolution or the Big Bang.

Again, I plead, PLEASE learn what "emergence" is, if you do nothing else.

BathTub said...

Lissie do you have any idea what the Big Bang is? Or are you just shouting out random words which you think go together because you aren't really making any sense at this point.

Nohm said...

Oh wow, ok.

I just looked at Lissie's profile and only now found out that she's 15 years old.

With this new knowledge, it all makes a lot more sense, and I'll give anyone under the age of 25 a break.

BathTub said...

Yeah Nohm but she isn't completely ignorant, for example she has watched Qualiasoup's 'Evolution' video, or at least said she did. So I am not quite sure what she is up to.

Debunkey Monkey said...

Lissie,
I think you are confusing "unguided formation" with "random chance." Random chance has to do with probabilities like rolling a dice, while the other deals with something called "emergence."

Almost everything we see in nature from clouds and mountains to caves and rivers result from unguided processes. To say volcanoes were formed by "random chance," is silly because there exists a simple process of releasing magma behind it.

We also shouldn't confuse random chance with chaotic systems like the weather either. While the weather has too many variables to predict the future of in any great detail, the fact if it rains or not is not due to random chance, but rather high and low pressure zones and air moisture instead.

Hope that clears things up! Have a wonderful day Lissie!

Lissie Darcy said...

Hey Bath Tub, and Nohm,

You are both right. I am being ignorant..and you're right I don't know my stuff all the way. I have a reallllllllyyyy brief understanding of evolution and it's not fair to attack it so if I'm not knowledgeable in the subject. I think it's a bit of a downfall in my homeschooled education. You see public schoolers are taught the evolution view, yet not the creationist view. I'm taught the creationist view (naturally,) but only briefly the evolution view.

Maybe you two can help me?

Yes, Nohm I'm 15, and thanks for the break :)

I was being illogical and not really thinking about what I was saying. (Which usually isn't like me.)

So if you two can forgive me, and perhaps give me a fresh start?

And maybe you can educate me in this matter. (try not to make it too techy please..) Learning a new concept (like anatomy for instance) is like learning a new language. So, keep that in mind if you're going to teach me in this matter.

Again I'm sorry. Wasn't thinking, or being respectful. (that REALLY isn't like me.)

I did look up the question you asked me Bath Tub..but got kicked off the computer.

I'm not trying to make an excuse, at this point but we are going to Cali for Thanksgiving and I have a deadline for school. I have a lot of school to do before next week. (we leave Wednesday, as a family)

You can email me about all this that way we don't have to spam Trish. Here's my email: Spam_mepwease@yahoo.com

I will be really busy this past week and the next. But, I'll try to get back to you both if you do end up emailing, as soon as I can. I really am willing to learn!

Thanks both of you! You've been really patient haha with a stubborn person like me. (:

Cheers Friends,

-Lissie

Ps. By the way Bath Tub I appreciate what you said about me not being ignorant.

Ps. Thanks Debunkey Monkey, you have a good day too.

MNChad said...

BathTub said...
"Hey MNChad, remember that time I wrote an entire post answering your question what came first blood or the circulatory system? And then for days and days after that you ignored every post I made asking if you read my response?

Wilful ignorance?

"Would you please explain what came 1st from this list:
heart, lungs, and kidneys? Remember, one cannot function without the other two. I won't hold my breath"

As per above I won't hold my breath that you will read or acknowledge my response.

which one is supposed to not be able to function without the others? In your rush to post did you get your organs mixed up? I suspect you meant to say Heart & Blood which I already answered?"

Hi Bathtub,
No I'm sorry I didn't catch your response to what came 1st? The blood or the blood vessels. But if you would be willing to repost it, great.

It's obvious fish don't have lungs. But don't evolutionists believe fish are great ancestors of humans? So let's look at mammals. Now it's your pick, remove the heart, lungs, or kidneys from a mammal. Without any assistance what happens? The mammal dies. If a mammal can't live on it's own without all three then how could it have evolved one at a time?

Bathtub said...
"I suspect hearts come first before kidneys, but I am not going to waste too much of my time on you *AGAIN* looking that up for you. If you genuinely wanted an answer you could look it up yourself. Or acknowledged when I answered you the first time."

MNChad said...
You "suspect?" You don't know? Bathtub, I don't want you wasting your time looking up this bogus either. I would much rather you seek repentance and put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He will save you, grant you everlasting life. No "suspecting" here. It's God's promise, rock solid.

MNChad said...

BathTub said...
"Lissie do you have any idea what the Big Bang is? Or are you just shouting out random words which you think go together because you aren't really making any sense at this point."

Is this the point that nothing created everything?

BathTub said...

"It's obvious fish don't have lungs"

*sigh*

Lots of fish have lungs.

Seriously MNChad are you even trying?

MNChad said...

Bathtub,

So you can't answer the question about the mammal and the evolution of the heart, lungs, and kidneys?

Nohm said...

MNChad,

Would it matter to you if he could?

Would you listen if he could?

Would you possibly change your mind if he could?

As BathTub said, he's already answered this, yet you didn't pay attention the first time.

Here's the other really wild issue: You Can Do The Research For The Answer Yourself.

Since you won't, I doubt that you're interested in an answer.

BathTub said...

What's to answer? it's a monumentally nonsensical question.

I'm sitting on a chair. If the chair magically disappeared I would fall on my butt.

Yes if your heart magically disappeared you would die.

If my lungs magically disappeared I would die.

Is anyone saying otherwise?

What's been repeatedly told to you by people like Steven J. and myself is these things didn't

magically appear all at once.

All around you you can still see all the partial stages. Rudimentary eyes. Rudimentary Hearts.

Rudimentary lungs. etc. etc. etc.

Take a look at a fetus. Does it grow to full term then suddenly start it's heart, kidney, liver etc? No they start up and start working before they are finished.

The thing is everything has a cost, everything has a trade off.

It takes a lot of energy to grow wings for example, so when a species like the kiwi, moa, ostrich, penguins etc don't find them quite so advantageous anymore they aren't selected for, indeed they might be selected against.

So as tiktaalik or whatever came ashore it might be that a tougher skin was selected for at the cost of gills perhaps.

Actually gills becoming inner ears are some of those transitional fossils that you have to pretend don't exist. Eusthenopteron->Panderichthys->Acanthostega

BathTub said...

Feel Free to answer some of my questions MNChad.

Are Miacids Cat Kind or Dog Kind?

Why can we see stars Billions of Light Years away in a 6000 year old universe. Think very carefully about the ramifications of your answer.

And here are some more.

Lissie these should be more up your alley since you are a Mummy in training.

Why are some babies born with tails?

Pretty much all these below have the same answer btw.

Why do babies in the womb grow full coats of fur? Google Lanugo if you haven't heard of it.

Why do dolphin foetuses grow whiskers?

And rear legs (like whales do as well)

And chickens foetuses grow teeth buds.

MNChad said...

BathTub said...
Feel Free to answer some of my questions MNChad.

Are Miacids Cat Kind or Dog Kind?

Answer Neither. They are their own kind.

Why can we see stars Billions of Light Years away in a 6000 year old universe. Think very carefully about the ramifications of your answer.

Answer Thinking, thinking, carefully………Because the Hubbell telescope is an incredibly powerful tool. And God made it that way.

And here are some more.

Lissie these should be more up your alley since you are a Mummy in training.

Why are some babies born with tails?

Answer They’re not tails, just fatty tumors.

Pretty much all these below have the same answer btw.

Answer Your’re right about the answer to the rest being the same. A. Because God made them that way;)

Why do babies in the womb grow full coats of fur? Google Lanugo if you haven't heard of it.
Why do dolphin foetuses grow whiskers?
And rear legs (like whales do as well)
And chickens foetuses grow teeth buds.

MNChad said...

Nohm said...
MNChad,

Would it matter to you if he could?

Would you listen if he could?

Would you possibly change your mind if he could?

As BathTub said, he's already answered this, yet you didn't pay attention the first time.

Here's the other really wild issue: You Can Do The Research For The Answer Yourself.

Since you won't, I doubt that you're interested in an answer.

Hi Nohm,

I did not see Bathtub's original reply. Sorry.

Will I change my mind? No. But "one has to engage the culture or the culture will engage you." Four gold stars for anyone who knows who that quote comes from...

BathTub said...

Why can we see distant starlight (nothing to do with hubble btw)...

"God made it that way."

So God deliberately made the universe look older than it is. To fool people who study it? What would be the point of that? So do you believe that when we look up and see a star 179,000 light years away go supernova, then that star never really existed?

So when a priest like Georges LemaƮtre studies the universe and thinks he's honouring God by using his brain, learning how it works and proposes the big bang theory in reality you think he's just being tricked?

Why are some babies born with tails?

"Answer They’re not tails, just fatty tumors."

Hahah, no some are bony. Did the creationist website you googled up forget to mention that?

"Because God made them that way"

A completely meaningless answer. It simultaneously answers everything and nothing.

Science knows the answer to all of those questions and many more similiar ones.

Why did God give you the genetic code in your DNA to make Vitamin C but turn it off?

"God made it that way."

Why did God disable it the same way in all the great apes?

"God made it that way."

Why did God give you the the genes for prehensile feet and also turn them off?

"God made it that way."

Why did God give you some 20,000 extra genes and just turn them off?

"God made it that way."

Why did God repeatedly insert virus code into your DNA and then also insert the same virus code through other animals in such a way as it makes a perfect family tree?

"God made it that way."

Why does that family tree match up with any other genetic family tree?

"God made it that way."

Why does our Chromosome 2 look exactly like 2 Chimpanzee Chromosomes stuck together included the appearance of extra centromeres and teleomeres?

"God made it that way."

Clearly science that explains why all these are so, and can make predictions about what will be found pales into usefulness compared to the profundity of "God made it that way."

BathTub said...

Basically MNChad you just gave a fantastic example of why "It's Magic" is a total non-answer in science. And why we should all be so very very glad that Scientists (of all faiths/religions, etc) refused to accept that as answer and instead sought out answers and contributed to our understanding of the world.

MNChad said...

BathTub said...
"Basically MNChad you just gave a fantastic example of why "It's Magic" is a total non-answer in science. And why we should all be so very very glad that Scientists (of all faiths/religions, etc) refused to accept that as answer and instead sought out answers and contributed to our understanding of the world."

Bathtub,

I knew you would love the "God made it that way." Much to simple for a over-thinker like yourself. But you know what? It's the truth. Every scientific study needs to be able to Biblically be answered with "God made it that way." If it can't be stated this way in accordance with the Bible than it's false.

You see God is the Creator and Sustainer of this World, and the Bible is His infallible Word. It's the Truth, always has been, always will be. So scientifc studies have to be compared to God's Word. God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days. He created man and land animals on the 6th day. So when people try to say that man evolved from pond scum, fish, banana's or were planted by aliens, it has to be compared to God's Word. In doing so, evolution is false.

Now you can throw all the evoltionary studies that are filled with phrases like "could've", "would've", "seems to", "maybe", "are thought to be", "supposedly" etc. out there all you want. I don't care. I have God's Word, it's rock solid.

I do care about your eternal destiny though. I don't want you to suffer for eternity. Tell me, are you a good person?

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

BathTub said...

You have a dogma and assert without evidence that "God just made it that way".

Christians like Georges LemaƮtre instead look at the evidence and say "The evidence says that God made the universe this way"

Or Christians like Francis Collins, or Ken Miller of Robert T. Bakker, or Simon Conway Morris, Or George Coyne Or Alistair McGrath "The evidence is that God made life this way..."

And that's the difference. These men used the brain they believe god gave them and looked at the evidence and made a decision based on the evidence.

I don't care if you want to deride science for being honest. You have false certainty in your bible. I can easily name at least 3 different 'bibles' that contain quite content. And there are a ridiculous number (~38,000 by some counts) of variants or sects of Christianity for a reason, you can't agree! So while you "know" what the word says, Trish with "know" something else, Ray with "know" something different too.

And yes I am a good person. And no I am not going to play the silly good person test which sets up a false standard which deliberately no person can pass so that you can make a cheesy emotional play.

stranger.strange.land said...

38,000 reduced to just 2.

1. We contribute in some way toward our salvation.

2. Jesus' birth, sinless life, suffering and death on the cross, and his bodily resurrection accomplished salvation.
________________________________

All 3 "families" of manuscripts contain the account of Jesus' life-death-resurrection.

All 3 contain the "promise of the gospel" (forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who receive it), and the "call of the gospel" (God's command to repent and believe).
________________________________

If you are a good person, Heaven is yours, you can walk right in.

If not, you may avail yourself of number 2. (above).

Nohm said...

MNChad,

Is it your opinion that, once we have decided that "God made it that way", that we shouldn't investigate any more?

What it appears that you're proposing is to simply junk the scientific method altogether.

Even if you feel you've answered the "why", you haven't even touched on the "how".

So, go back through BathTub's questions, and answer them for the "how" instead of the "why" this time, please.

Thank you.

BathTub said...

Craig, you just made my point for me if I understand you correctly.

Your summarization of the core elements that you think are common, don't include a dogmatic insistence against the evidence that the Universe & the Earth are 6000 years old, and there was a global flood around 2300 BC.

stranger.strange.land said...

@Bath Tub

I didn't include all that? What was I thinking? ; )

Seriously, I did focus on the salvific elements, but now you mention it, the universe does appear to be incredibly ancient, and mind-bogglingly vast in size to boot.

Craig

Debunkey Monkey said...

MNChad,
I just popped in this thread again to see what's up. I answered your "heart, lungs, blood" question, but you never acknowledged that. A little, "okay" would have sufficed, but I get the feeling you just skipped over my reply given the way you were communicated with BathTub.

Anyway, I do believe and the evidence for it is a bit too complicated for a lot of people to understand. Especially given the huge lengths of time involved, it's a bit like trying to visualize the size of the universe... you just can't.

So to a certain degree I can understand why you would make an argument from incredulity. However, I'm going to tell you what I tell every other creationist. The experts (biologists) agree that evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is not.

Clearly, the people who know about evolution more than you and I have rendered their decision in favor of evolution, and unless these PhD-holding scientists are all blind, brainwashed idiots, this should give you pause.

bdavis said...

Good Stuff Trish! I really liked the comment by Paul too!