Dr. Ruckman giving the gospel...
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Dr. Ruckman preaching the gospel
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Dr. Ruckman on Hyper Dispensationalism and the sinner's prayer
Someone wrote me recently and said that it is "Hyper Dispensationalists" that are against the sinner's prayer. However, one's dispensational position has no bearing on what they believe about the sinner's prayer.
Dr. Ruckman said that it was "Bible believing Christians" and "Bible Believing Baptists" that are against the sinner's prayer. In fact, when it comes to "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" in Acts 2:21, Dr. Ruckman said that it is the Hypers that have the best of the argument.
"Realizing this, a new group of heretics (in this case, Bible Believing Baptists) have come up saying that if a man prays to get saved (or more specifically prays the sinner's prayer), then he is lost."
(Page 405 of The Book of Romans, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
"There is a movement among Bible believing Christians today that says if you pray to receive Christ, that is a work, and you aren't saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5). The logical conclusion to such an argument is that if you prayed to get saved, that you are lost and need to be saved (again!). It is the Baptist version of the Brownsville Revival retreaders."
(Page 566 of The Book of Luke, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
" "...whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (vs. 21). The verse is often linked to Romans 10:13 to prove that Peter, here, is preaching "the plan of salvation"; however, this is not the case, and again the "Hypers" have the best of the argument."
(Page 81 of The Book of Acts, the Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
By the way, if you check page 130 of Dr. Ruckman's commentary on Matthew you will see that he did not believe "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find" was written about repeating the so called "sinner's prayer". Dr. Ruckman said it was "more Old Testament than New" and said that it was instruction for a "Jew praying to the Father". Dr. Ruckman then said that the passage has "spiritual truth" that can be applied to Christian prayer. He did not believe it was referring to lost Gentiles in the present dispensation of grace.
It is impossible for Matthew 7:7 to be referring to lost people because "God heareth not sinners" (Isa. 59:1-2, Ps. 34:15-16, Matt. 7:21, John 9:31, 1 Pet. 3:12, Prov. 15:29, 28:9). The passage plainly says that the prayer is addressed to the "Father which is in heaven" (vs. 11), a lost person's father is the devil (John 8:44).
Besides that, Matthew 7:7 would contradict Romans 10:20 if it were referring to lost Gentiles...
Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Robert Breaker has an excellent video dealing with the sinner's prayer and Matthew 7:7.
Also check out Mr. Breaker's ebook, The heresy of the sinner's prayer
http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hrsy_sin_pryr.htm
And also "The Reasons Why We Left Our Old Home Church"
http://www.rrb3.com/Left/reasons_left_church.htm
As I have said many times, this is my position on the "sinner's prayer":
"Therefore, since salvation is received by faith alone without any mixture of works, prayer has absolutely no part whatsoever in salvation. To tell someone they will be saved by "repeating after you" is a false gospel that denies the truth that Christ is the only mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). To tell someone to pray in order to be saved is to be telling them to offer their works to God in order to be saved (Col. 4:12, Heb. 5:7).
I fully understand that all people pray when they get saved, for the Bible says that when we got saved that God "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). And "ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom. 8:15-16).
And thus begins a lifelong communion with God by the Holy Ghost whereby we have access to the Father (Eph. 2:18).
Everybody prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved. However, nobody gets saved BY praying. No apostle, preacher, or evangelist in the Bible ever told anyone to repeat a prayer after them to be saved. It was simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 13:38-39, 16:31). "
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/calling-upon-name-of-lord-romans-109-13.html
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Dr. Ruckman said that it was "Bible believing Christians" and "Bible Believing Baptists" that are against the sinner's prayer. In fact, when it comes to "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" in Acts 2:21, Dr. Ruckman said that it is the Hypers that have the best of the argument.
"Realizing this, a new group of heretics (in this case, Bible Believing Baptists) have come up saying that if a man prays to get saved (or more specifically prays the sinner's prayer), then he is lost."
(Page 405 of The Book of Romans, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
"There is a movement among Bible believing Christians today that says if you pray to receive Christ, that is a work, and you aren't saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5). The logical conclusion to such an argument is that if you prayed to get saved, that you are lost and need to be saved (again!). It is the Baptist version of the Brownsville Revival retreaders."
(Page 566 of The Book of Luke, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
" "...whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (vs. 21). The verse is often linked to Romans 10:13 to prove that Peter, here, is preaching "the plan of salvation"; however, this is not the case, and again the "Hypers" have the best of the argument."
(Page 81 of The Book of Acts, the Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)
By the way, if you check page 130 of Dr. Ruckman's commentary on Matthew you will see that he did not believe "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find" was written about repeating the so called "sinner's prayer". Dr. Ruckman said it was "more Old Testament than New" and said that it was instruction for a "Jew praying to the Father". Dr. Ruckman then said that the passage has "spiritual truth" that can be applied to Christian prayer. He did not believe it was referring to lost Gentiles in the present dispensation of grace.
It is impossible for Matthew 7:7 to be referring to lost people because "God heareth not sinners" (Isa. 59:1-2, Ps. 34:15-16, Matt. 7:21, John 9:31, 1 Pet. 3:12, Prov. 15:29, 28:9). The passage plainly says that the prayer is addressed to the "Father which is in heaven" (vs. 11), a lost person's father is the devil (John 8:44).
Besides that, Matthew 7:7 would contradict Romans 10:20 if it were referring to lost Gentiles...
Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Robert Breaker has an excellent video dealing with the sinner's prayer and Matthew 7:7.
Also check out Mr. Breaker's ebook, The heresy of the sinner's prayer
http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hrsy_sin_pryr.htm
And also "The Reasons Why We Left Our Old Home Church"
http://www.rrb3.com/Left/reasons_left_church.htm
As I have said many times, this is my position on the "sinner's prayer":
"Therefore, since salvation is received by faith alone without any mixture of works, prayer has absolutely no part whatsoever in salvation. To tell someone they will be saved by "repeating after you" is a false gospel that denies the truth that Christ is the only mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). To tell someone to pray in order to be saved is to be telling them to offer their works to God in order to be saved (Col. 4:12, Heb. 5:7).
I fully understand that all people pray when they get saved, for the Bible says that when we got saved that God "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). And "ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom. 8:15-16).
And thus begins a lifelong communion with God by the Holy Ghost whereby we have access to the Father (Eph. 2:18).
Everybody prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved. However, nobody gets saved BY praying. No apostle, preacher, or evangelist in the Bible ever told anyone to repeat a prayer after them to be saved. It was simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 13:38-39, 16:31). "
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/calling-upon-name-of-lord-romans-109-13.html
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
"Dangerous Gospel Cliches" preached by Pastor David O'Steen
Published on Jul 26, 2016
Pastor David O'Steen, Hope Bible Church, 7/24/16
Excellent sermon preached by Pastor O'Steen on
the dangerous gospel cliches that are out there. (sinner's prayer,
turn from sin, etc.) Many people claim to believe in justification by
faith without works, but then when you point out that justification by
faith excludes the sinner's prayer, they get very angry. Sad!
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I
yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:6-12)
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Friday, July 15, 2016
"What is Hyperdispensationalism?" by Pastor David O'Steen
John Davis (Time For Truth! UK) should listen to this....
"Hyperdispensationalism" preached by Pastor David O'Steen of Hope Bible Church in Locust Grove, GA. (preached on August 8, 2010 while still Landmark Baptist Church)
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
"Hyperdispensationalism" preached by Pastor David O'Steen of Hope Bible Church in Locust Grove, GA. (preached on August 8, 2010 while still Landmark Baptist Church)
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The falsely so called "Great Commission" heresy
["So called Great Commission" preached by Pastor David O'Steen, Hope Bible Church. Locust Grove, GA]
ALL commissions that God has ever given are great, there is no such animal as "THE great commission".
Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-20, John 20:20-23, and Luke 21:45-53 are not being followed by anyone today, and anyone who says they are following that commission is purposefully lying.
That commission was the commission of the 12 apostles of Israel and the other disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations before the end came....
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The church the Body of Christ will be raptured to Heaven BEFORE Daniel's 70th Week and the end of the world (Phil. 3:20-21, 1 Thes. 1:10, 5:9, Rom. 5:9, 13:11-12).
Under the Dispensation of Grace we do not preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, we preached the Gospel of the Grace of God committed to Paul (Acts 20:24, Gal. 1:11-12, 2:1-9, Rom. 2:16, 11:13, 15:15-16, 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8, 1 Cor. 4:15-16, Eph. 3:1-9, 6:19, etc.).
The Gospel of the Kingdom is about Christ restoring the earthly kingdom to Israel with Himself as their King (Matt. 2:2, 5:35, Luke 1:31-33, 1:67-79). That is exactly what Peter (the apostle of the circumcision--Gal. 2:7-9) preached to Israel according to Acts 1:6, 2:30, and 3:19-26.
For more scriptures on defining the "gospel of the kingdom", see this post...
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-gospel-of-kingdom.html
The red letters were not written to or about you....
"But he [Christ] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)
The Pauline epistles are what Christ has to say to us Gentiles under Grace....
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:" (Romans 11:13)
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:1-2)
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Saturday, July 9, 2016
"One Less God" by Pastor Justin Johnson
One Less God by Pastor Justin Johnson
http://graceambassadors.com/god/one-less-god
Article Index
Published: July 9, 2016
Last Modified: July 9, 2016
http://graceambassadors.com/god/one-less-god
Who hasn’t heard this atheist cliché in response to Joe Christian:
It is a puzzle to me why anyone would repeat this since it is either a statement of something so obviously elementary, or a conclusion so erroneous that it halts productive conversation.
Nevertheless, it still gets good traction even by well-known atheists. The Bible says fools can be expected to say foolish things (Psalm 14:1).
What is Obvious
It is obvious to everyone that the atheist (someone who does not believe in any god), believes in one less god than the mono-theist (someone who believes in one god). After all, we all learned in elementary that 1-1 = 0.
However, this is something hardly in contention. In fact, it is agreed upon by all who can count. If atheism were belief in fewer gods then everyone would be atheist, since everyone disbelieves at least one conception of God (even pantheists reject a personal god). This makes the term meaningless.
However, all of this is a distraction and irrelevant to the real issue separating Bible believing Christians and the atheist – is there one God or none god.
One or None
The statement claims that going from one God to no god is merely a matter of degree, like going from 10 gods to one God. This is simply not so.
The reason that Christians reject other gods is not the same reason that the atheists do. Atheists reject all gods, because they reject the existence of any god, even the one who made them. Christians reject other gods, because the Bible reveals the one true God.
Discerning between whether something exists at all, is different than discerning whether something is right and true. Saying, “Jupiter is not God”, is not the same as saying, “there are no gods”. The former is a comparison to the one true God, while the latter makes no comparison.
Here’s an example. If everyone in my church claimed to be President Obama, they would all be wrong. They would all be false Obamas. There is only one President Obama. However, that we all can properly identify President Obama against the lookalikes and copycats, does not prevent us from believing that President Obama exists. Yet this is what the atheist declares when he says he believes in one less Obama than you.
In fact, knowing the one real Obama is how the false ones can be identified as false. Since the atheist claims not to know God, there is now way of knowing any god is true. Strangely, this gives the atheist more reason to blindly believe in Santa Claus, Zeus, Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster than any Christian. They do not know which is real, so they are all legitimate possibilities when considering any god at all. This is why the atheist thinks the Christian god is no different than the others. Not knowing the true God means Jehovah is no different Baal.
In this way, the atheist sounds like a single woman who has not met the right man, and as a result jumps to the hopeless error that men don’t exist. That is silly, and so are atheists. There is a true God, atheists just do not know him.
Christians Who Think Like Atheists
Atheists are not the only ones to make this mistake in thinking. Christians who have never been taught to rightly divide the scriptures get frustrated at trying to understand the Bible. With so many interpretations, who is right?
It is not uncommon for the Christian confused about the Bible to throw their hands in the air and claim that the Bible cannot be understood and that there is no truth at all.
When someone learns how to rightly divide the Bible, and begins to understand it, they realize how much wrong teaching there is in the world. Rejecting a million wrong teachings is not a rejection of truth, it is a greater understanding of it.
Understanding the Bible rightly divided will help you discern truth from error and right from wrong. Denying false gods and false teachings does not mean Christians deny truth, it means they can discern truth and become stronger Christians.
The lack of strong Bible believing rightly dividing Christians is what creates atheists who deny all claims to know truth. I contend that the Christian who does not rightly divide and the atheist are both in the same boat; neither knows how to discern right and wrong from scripture.
One God, One Truth, One Bible Rightly Divided
When a scientist rejects false science, it does not make him a denier of all science, but a denier of wrong science. There is a big difference. If more evolutionists grasped this there would be less claims that creationists reject all science (Bill Nye), but many evolutionists are either atheists or Christians who fail to rightly divide… go figure.
If there is a right answer; there is only one. No more and no less. There are millions of wrong answers.
If there is a right God; there must be only one. No more and no less. There are millions of false gods.
Believing in one less God than the Christian is a denial of what is true and right. This is the big predicament for the atheist. How do they know what is right?
There is one God, there is one truth. There is one Lord Jesus Christ who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). There is one Bible which is God’s words, and it must be rightly divided.
A failure to discern what is right, will lead to a rejection of it. For the atheist, believing in one less god than the Christian monotheist makes all the difference in the world.
Top of the Page
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do.”
It is a puzzle to me why anyone would repeat this since it is either a statement of something so obviously elementary, or a conclusion so erroneous that it halts productive conversation.
Nevertheless, it still gets good traction even by well-known atheists. The Bible says fools can be expected to say foolish things (Psalm 14:1).
What is Obvious
It is obvious to everyone that the atheist (someone who does not believe in any god), believes in one less god than the mono-theist (someone who believes in one god). After all, we all learned in elementary that 1-1 = 0.
However, this is something hardly in contention. In fact, it is agreed upon by all who can count. If atheism were belief in fewer gods then everyone would be atheist, since everyone disbelieves at least one conception of God (even pantheists reject a personal god). This makes the term meaningless.
However, all of this is a distraction and irrelevant to the real issue separating Bible believing Christians and the atheist – is there one God or none god.
One or None
The statement claims that going from one God to no god is merely a matter of degree, like going from 10 gods to one God. This is simply not so.
The reason that Christians reject other gods is not the same reason that the atheists do. Atheists reject all gods, because they reject the existence of any god, even the one who made them. Christians reject other gods, because the Bible reveals the one true God.
Discerning between whether something exists at all, is different than discerning whether something is right and true. Saying, “Jupiter is not God”, is not the same as saying, “there are no gods”. The former is a comparison to the one true God, while the latter makes no comparison.
Here’s an example. If everyone in my church claimed to be President Obama, they would all be wrong. They would all be false Obamas. There is only one President Obama. However, that we all can properly identify President Obama against the lookalikes and copycats, does not prevent us from believing that President Obama exists. Yet this is what the atheist declares when he says he believes in one less Obama than you.
In fact, knowing the one real Obama is how the false ones can be identified as false. Since the atheist claims not to know God, there is now way of knowing any god is true. Strangely, this gives the atheist more reason to blindly believe in Santa Claus, Zeus, Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster than any Christian. They do not know which is real, so they are all legitimate possibilities when considering any god at all. This is why the atheist thinks the Christian god is no different than the others. Not knowing the true God means Jehovah is no different Baal.
In this way, the atheist sounds like a single woman who has not met the right man, and as a result jumps to the hopeless error that men don’t exist. That is silly, and so are atheists. There is a true God, atheists just do not know him.
Christians Who Think Like Atheists
Atheists are not the only ones to make this mistake in thinking. Christians who have never been taught to rightly divide the scriptures get frustrated at trying to understand the Bible. With so many interpretations, who is right?
It is not uncommon for the Christian confused about the Bible to throw their hands in the air and claim that the Bible cannot be understood and that there is no truth at all.
When someone learns how to rightly divide the Bible, and begins to understand it, they realize how much wrong teaching there is in the world. Rejecting a million wrong teachings is not a rejection of truth, it is a greater understanding of it.
Understanding the Bible rightly divided will help you discern truth from error and right from wrong. Denying false gods and false teachings does not mean Christians deny truth, it means they can discern truth and become stronger Christians.
The lack of strong Bible believing rightly dividing Christians is what creates atheists who deny all claims to know truth. I contend that the Christian who does not rightly divide and the atheist are both in the same boat; neither knows how to discern right and wrong from scripture.
One God, One Truth, One Bible Rightly Divided
When a scientist rejects false science, it does not make him a denier of all science, but a denier of wrong science. There is a big difference. If more evolutionists grasped this there would be less claims that creationists reject all science (Bill Nye), but many evolutionists are either atheists or Christians who fail to rightly divide… go figure.
If there is a right answer; there is only one. No more and no less. There are millions of wrong answers.
If there is a right God; there must be only one. No more and no less. There are millions of false gods.
Believing in one less God than the Christian is a denial of what is true and right. This is the big predicament for the atheist. How do they know what is right?
There is one God, there is one truth. There is one Lord Jesus Christ who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). There is one Bible which is God’s words, and it must be rightly divided.
A failure to discern what is right, will lead to a rejection of it. For the atheist, believing in one less god than the Christian monotheist makes all the difference in the world.
Article Index
Published: July 9, 2016
Last Modified: July 9, 2016
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Evolution is....
"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." --Dr. Duane Gish
Friday, July 1, 2016
Can you be a scientist and a creationist?
Atheist's response to my anti-Darwinist post against Bill Nye the "science" guy:
"Read the article. The article was mostly rubbish. Nye got a few Bible facts wrong, but after that the article fell to bits with its own ignorant spew. hell, it had Morris and Gish as prominent scientists.The general effect was to leave Nye unscarred and to leave the author of the article looking like a goose."
Hoss's response:
"A "few Bible facts wrong"? The bird said that the Bible had been translated into English countless times in the past 5,000 years. There are kids that know English has not been around for 5,000 years. Where did it have Morris and Gish as "prominent scientist"? They were in the list, but so were a lot of other people. But, I suppose Dr. Gish could be considered a prominent scientist, since he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley."
Atheist's response:
"Having a Phd doesn't make you prominent. But you are right- it didn't say "prominent". Not that it matters. Neither Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science and began promoting debunked and disproven nonsense. As for the bit about English- that's just an obvious slip."
Hoss's response:
"Thanks for the reply. I think it depends on your definition of prominent. The word can mean 'well known' or it can mean 'important'. Gish and Morris were both well known, not because they were creationists, but because they were scientists with PhDs that believed and promoted creation. You say "Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science", but it is my understanding that they were always creationists. I don't think they ever "gave up" evolution. You seem to be indicating that only people who believe in macro-evolution are scientists (perhaps I am misunderstanding you). Wouldn't that mean that there were no scientists before 1859 when Darwin published his book? Most American medical doctors are not evolutionists. As seen in the blog post, world renown neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is a staunch creationist that does not believe in macro-evolution. Nobody could question his medical science expertise and experience. I would also like to add the fact that Charles Darwin is often inaccurately credited with the discovery of natural selection, but several people already had wrote about it before him. One of which was a creationist named Edward Blyth (1810-1873) who was a zoologist. He is actually someone that helped Charles Darwin learn more about selection. Darwin wrote on pg. 18 of the Origin of Species, "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, "
I haven't read much of Morris or Gish, but what is the "debunked and disproven nonsense" that they promoted? (were you just referring to creationism as a whole or were you referring to specific teachings of theirs?)"
Atheist's response:
"Any scientist that promotes a disproven model of science- whether ot is creationism or astrology or homeopathy has forsaken their status. The usual result is to be ostracised. The primary claims of creationism are indeed disproven. 1) Young Earth- disproven. 2) Special Creation- disproven 3) World Wide Flood- disproven."
Hoss's response:
"I don't see how someone's religious beliefs could negate their scientific education and experience unless it affected how they perform the needful tests/observations in their field. Did Morris and Gish's creation beliefs have a negative impact on their hydraulic engineering and biochemistry work? I don't think so. Did Dr. Carson's creationist beliefs have negative affects on his abilities to perform surgeries? I don't think so. Raymond Damadian's creationist beliefs did not stop him from inventing the MRI scanner either. I don't see how a person's belief about origins affects their scientific operating skills. (but I'm not a scientist)"
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
"Read the article. The article was mostly rubbish. Nye got a few Bible facts wrong, but after that the article fell to bits with its own ignorant spew. hell, it had Morris and Gish as prominent scientists.The general effect was to leave Nye unscarred and to leave the author of the article looking like a goose."
Hoss's response:
"A "few Bible facts wrong"? The bird said that the Bible had been translated into English countless times in the past 5,000 years. There are kids that know English has not been around for 5,000 years. Where did it have Morris and Gish as "prominent scientist"? They were in the list, but so were a lot of other people. But, I suppose Dr. Gish could be considered a prominent scientist, since he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley."
Atheist's response:
"Having a Phd doesn't make you prominent. But you are right- it didn't say "prominent". Not that it matters. Neither Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science and began promoting debunked and disproven nonsense. As for the bit about English- that's just an obvious slip."
Hoss's response:
"Thanks for the reply. I think it depends on your definition of prominent. The word can mean 'well known' or it can mean 'important'. Gish and Morris were both well known, not because they were creationists, but because they were scientists with PhDs that believed and promoted creation. You say "Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science", but it is my understanding that they were always creationists. I don't think they ever "gave up" evolution. You seem to be indicating that only people who believe in macro-evolution are scientists (perhaps I am misunderstanding you). Wouldn't that mean that there were no scientists before 1859 when Darwin published his book? Most American medical doctors are not evolutionists. As seen in the blog post, world renown neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is a staunch creationist that does not believe in macro-evolution. Nobody could question his medical science expertise and experience. I would also like to add the fact that Charles Darwin is often inaccurately credited with the discovery of natural selection, but several people already had wrote about it before him. One of which was a creationist named Edward Blyth (1810-1873) who was a zoologist. He is actually someone that helped Charles Darwin learn more about selection. Darwin wrote on pg. 18 of the Origin of Species, "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, "
I haven't read much of Morris or Gish, but what is the "debunked and disproven nonsense" that they promoted? (were you just referring to creationism as a whole or were you referring to specific teachings of theirs?)"
Atheist's response:
"Any scientist that promotes a disproven model of science- whether ot is creationism or astrology or homeopathy has forsaken their status. The usual result is to be ostracised. The primary claims of creationism are indeed disproven. 1) Young Earth- disproven. 2) Special Creation- disproven 3) World Wide Flood- disproven."
Hoss's response:
"I don't see how someone's religious beliefs could negate their scientific education and experience unless it affected how they perform the needful tests/observations in their field. Did Morris and Gish's creation beliefs have a negative impact on their hydraulic engineering and biochemistry work? I don't think so. Did Dr. Carson's creationist beliefs have negative affects on his abilities to perform surgeries? I don't think so. Raymond Damadian's creationist beliefs did not stop him from inventing the MRI scanner either. I don't see how a person's belief about origins affects their scientific operating skills. (but I'm not a scientist)"
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)