Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Jukia]

Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly. Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy? the raise the $ from fundamentalisits. There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence. If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by bob b

I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.
If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers.

bob b, I think you misunderstand what is going on here. Freak makes it a point to get members around here stirred up for the sole purpose of seeing all the drama that goes along with this which has been evident time and again in reading his posts. He is not consistant in his attitude. As you may or may not know, Freak might go for quite a while seeming to be in support of a particular ministry for some of the good that he sees in it and then does an "about-face" and makes it his mission to slam it, hijacking threads having nothing to do with it. He does this, knowing that it will get a rise out of members on here who highly support it. He's also been known to make a huge ordeal over a member being banned simply to mix things up in hopes that a big drama will be started over it. It is evident that he enjoys this. This is why it has been necessary at times to point out this flaw in Freak which is what Turbo is doing. If one reads Turbos posts on here it is clear that he has no desire to sew discord among brethren as Freak does.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?

I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL. You don't know what you speak of. You're simply spreading lies about me. I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by bob b to turbo

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual.

Exactly. :up:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly.

Define proper research.

Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy?

Sounds like you're just trying to set up a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. You'd be screaming bloody murder over what they were doing with your tax dollars if they did that.

the raise the $ from fundamentalisits.

At least we're not stealing your money to fund our research.

There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

We don't need money to defeat you. We have the truth on our side. All the money in the world isn't going to change that.

But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the half-baked claims made by evolutionists based on poor science and little evidence. And speaking of evidence, I don't suppose you'd want to provide us with some of this evidence for evolution that you claim is so overwhelming?

If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

To be frank, Jukia, I don't believe you really called them, and even if you did, I don't think you could have debunked their arguments with a year of time to prepare your case and a team of scientists helping you, much less ten minutes all by your lonesome.

Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

What do you know about science? Don't think we've failed to notice how little you've actually contributed to these discussions. Mostly you just sit on the sidelines and jeer.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL.

I know. That's why I used them in my analogy.

You're simply spreading lies about me.

What lie(s)?

I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all.

And I endorse Coral Ridge Ministries. What's the difference?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo
And I endorse Corel Ridge Ministries. What's the difference?

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

 

[Turbo]

I missed this post before:

Originally posted by Swordsman

Turbo, you do know that Dr. James Kennedy is a Presby

Yes.

and denounces the OV, right?

I figured as much. I'll ask you what I asked Freak:

So?



I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. He also has many great guest speakers. I think Pam Stenzel is my favorite. I also like Joshua Harris. (Yes, I know.) There have been many others; I just don't remember their names.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth...


It's no more strange than your support of TOL. (That is to say, it is not strange at all.)

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo


I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality.

And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth...

but it does denounce open theism...but wait you're much smarter then Dr. D. James Kennedy.

It's no more strange than your support of TOL.

I don't support TOL's stance on open theism.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down:

Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View. As I've said, my only real clue that he is a Calvinist is the name of his church. And just because I disagree with him on one non-essential issue (on which I've never even heard him speak) that is no reason to reject his entire ministry.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

I don't support TOL's stance on open theism.

So why are you getting on my case?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View.

Apparently you have never visited his website--and take a peek at his doctrinal statement.

btw, a good article to look at, that one of his professors have written on OV is here: http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/KnoxPulpit/slamerson_ets-paper.html

 

[Nineveh]

Stratnerd,
C'mon now, your question was worded about as honestly as "have you stopped beating your wife yet". You needed to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter.

Far from slacking, God fearing Scientists aren't in short supply, and I will be so bold as to say their discoveries have made leaps and bounds in the world of science.

Andre Marie Ampere
Roger Bacon
Alexander Fleming
Lord Kelvin
Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wright brothers
Gregor Mendel
To name but a few...

Now if we want to investigate "known" falsehoods, when did that peppered moth thing, and Heckle's ideas get taken out of school text books?

 

[Stratnerd]

N-

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.

to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter.

by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I quote this page.

THE JAVA APE-MAN
In 1891 a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof.

THE PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS!
Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.

Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution! Almighty God must have had these worldly wise men in mind when He inspired the Apostle Paul to tell Timothy to "...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called!" (1 Tim. 6:20). Still more!

THE NEBRASKA MAN!
In 1922 a so-called scientist claimed to have found in Nebraska the true "missing link" between men and animals. Dubbed the "Nebraska Man," it was flaunted in text-books and museums of the world as being one million years old. Pictures and models were created, based on the "scientific" studies of experts. Just three years later, in the famous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, this overwhelming evidence was introduced to prove evolution and show that "ignorant Bible-believers" were wrong! Great "scientific experts" were quoted to prove their case and all who were dumb enough to believe that God created man in His image were mocked and ridiculed!

When evidence of the "Nebraska Man" was demanded, the "great scientific experts" reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that's not all! After evolutionists and the mainstream media reporters bullied lowly Bible believers for years with their "scientific proof" the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig! What an example of "profane and vain babblings . .. science, falsely so called!"

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos.

I get the idea that this guy thinks he has evidence against evolution.
Yahya,... and this guy isn't even a Christian.

All of Harun Yahya's works share one single goal: to convey the Qur' an's message, encourage readers to consider basic faith-related issues such as God's Existence and Unity and the hereafter; and to expose godless systems' feeble foundations and perverted ideologies.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

I don't think that was an honestly asked question. You had to qualify it at every turn

You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

I only listed 9 lol

Anywho, the concept of paganism predates darwin too. I think it is a point to know that the fathers of some sciences (like flight), were God fearing.

As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.

Thank goodness you made the qualification huh? Or else the lie might be less. So when did they finally take those "known lies" out of the text books?

by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

Speaking of scandals, how about that embarrasement for National Geographic, huh? Seems some of these "fossils" will be touring museums this summer, talk about scandalous. But I can understand the zeal some "scientists" have for locating any missing link.

Personally I think "scientists" who abandon darwin now are treated like a mormon who gets a divorce. At one moment leaders in their fields, the next a pariah with no "peer review".

as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

Well, I'm sure you could look up a pic of the Piltdown man fairly easily...

as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

Oh, and what if a Creationist did? "WHAT?! He's not PEER REVIEWED! EEgads! And he's a creationist! Everyone knows they aren't really scientists!"

Right.

Creationists can start with the idea DNA is there for a reason, ToErs need millions of dollars and thousands of hours to finally come to that conclusion. So let's weigh your idea of "usless" with my idea of "wasteful uselessness". If darwin hadn't been the foundation of the study of DNA, just think how far science as a whole could be toward understanding what darwinist's created the term for, "junk DNA". Just that one small switch in thinking: "it's there for a reason" instead of "evo leftovers". Btw, the new story is, "evolution must have kept this DNA because it does have a use." In other words... it's there for a reason. "It's there for a reason" is about as ground breaking as Hillary's "boys and girls are different" epiphany. : shrugs:

I imagine our little convo isn't going to go anywhere, but you always seem to be willing to be nice to me , anyway