Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

bobabelever

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bobabelever

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/29/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    43
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Arizona
  1. bobabelever

    Dinosaurs Co-existing With Man?

    Scanman, You said "I believe..." in Post #335 - thank you! Bob
  2. bobabelever

    Aquatic Ecosystems & The Flood

    No they're not. It doesn't take long on the internet to find very recent examples of life adapting from saltwater to freshwater and vice versa, here's just one example of a site: http://www.suite101.com/content/saltwater-...er-lakes-a53590 (it even mentions your beloved Baikal seals) So we have a lungless frog, OK. Do we have any evidence that particular species once had lungs? I'm guessing that the answer is "No". So it is only imagination that says this species actually had lungs in the unknown past. I wonder, did any of the ladies on the expedition try kissing the frog?
  3. bobabelever

    Aquatic Ecosystems & The Flood

    1. How do you know that "all aquatic organisms" did "survive"? We know that a lot did, but we don't know that "all" did. The better question is: What are the adaptation capabilities of the aquatic animals that did survive? God provided what was necessary. 2. How do you know that "organisms [found] their way back to their respective habitats"? Why couldn't they have adapted to new habitats, since they were displaced from thier known habitats - this is the more likely result of the flood. How do you know that the Baikal seal "return[ed]" to Lake Baikal? It is more likely they were displaced there and adapted to their new environment. It is correct that this "the swimming pool analogy has its flaws".
  4. bobabelever

    I Lost My Job...

    Thanks Java
  5. The devil's first deception of human beings certainly did happen in the Garden of Eden, but Satan knew better than to try to convince Adam and/or Eve in anything other than the creation; he knew better than to try to convince them of evolution. Certainly human rebellion against God had it's first account in the Garden..., but again, I am quite certain that both Adam and Eve believed in God and His creation, not evolution. Belief in evolution, and that is what it is, a "belief" or "faith", came sometime after the Garden of Eden. I reject anything that says God didn't do it the way it is clearly described in the Bible, this is "Intelligent Design". I reject a theistic evolutionist view as it is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. When something is to be taken figuratively it is obvious, everything else is to be taken literally. There is nothing in Genesis that suggests it should be taken figuratively. Well said. I will caution you, et al, that it is when Christianity disappears, literally, that is when it will be said that all who are against it have "won". It is during this same time, the time immediately after Christianity "disappears", that it will be very difficult to become a believer because the Holy Spirit will be "gone" also. Anybody that becomes a believer in those times will be doing it all on their own, by way of pure rationale. We, Christians, will have been saying it for 2000+ years, and it will finally be taking place. There will be those who remember this kind of warning and realize what has really happened. And, unfortunately, there will be those who "believe a lie" (2 Thessalonians 2, especially verse 11). It was the truth. Edit: To be fair, I thought I might provide a bit more. I had reason to know what the truth is, the reason is not important. I spent many hours at the library, reading all sorts of "scientific" books. Evolution presented no solid evidence, only speculation and imaginations. Creation presented a solid understanding of the evidence; how the fossils would even exist at all; how the Earth is the only place "life" exists, which is suggested Biblically; how the entire universe is perfectly aligned so that "life" on Earth can even exist at all; how the Noahic flood does a very good job of explaining why the Earth is the way it is. To me, creation makes true sense, rationally, scientifically, logically. Both sides want people to believe in their "side", whether by the sale of books or otherwise. One side is against God, the other is for God. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12 :30) I say "shame on you" to anybody that defrauds the evidence. Both sides make "unscientific" claims: The evolutionist says, "It happened like this", when they really don't know. The creationist says, "God made light before creating the Sun". The difference is that the creationist has a Book in which the account is given, given by God, a God who can not lie, so there is no reason to doubt it. Likewise.
  6. It is called "The Long War Against God". And you are correct, Darwin, and his "pulling together" of those ideas, led to scientists adding "evolution" to their title(s), which, in turn, led to other scientists adding "creation" to their title(s), i.e., "evolutionary biologist" or "creation biologist". Not sure why you would think that, it makes no sense whatsoever that anybody would think that about me! If the Genesis account of the Bible is not accurate, then why should I believe any other part of it? (rhetorical, as I do believe that all of Scripture is accurate) I suppose, when you say "most" scientists. However, I am sure there are "pure" scientists in all fields; not having an agenda to prove a worldview; discovering useful remedies, solutions. Actually, that's my point again. If anti-creation (anti-God) persons weren't so agressively against God and/or believers in God, to the point of forcing their own beliefs on the world (the faith of evolution), even to the point of receiving governmental backing to oust any mention of God in the public forum, then we wouldn't have the opposing views we have today. We would have true science being practiced in classrooms around the globe and objective conclusions made based on ALL scientific evidence(s). There would be enlightening debates in scientific venues with equal time given to any and all worldviews. I have heard of stories from both sides. My response(s): - "Good for you." (to the atheist who discovers God's Word is true.) - "That is sad, may you return to the Lord." (to the person who claims they were a believer, but has become a non-believer.) I think I am qualified to respond in those ways as I have been a non-believer, and a "so-called" believer, and a non-believer again. Finally, when I had reason to know absolutely, I found the truth in God's Word. I am now, and always will be, a believer. Well, since there is no evidence like this available, I can't really respond to that, can I? It's actually a silly question! What kind of evidence are you proposing? If I were an archaeologist, am I searching for evidence of the flood? If I were, how could I possibly find something that invalidates it? If I were searching for something else (could be anything really), what could I possibly find that would make me even consider the flood? I honestly think that your question is illogical! I believe that "evolutionist" scientists are so bent on proving their theory that they would go to extreme measures to hide any evidence(s) to the contrary. Heck, they might even create fraudulent evidence(s) to prove their theory, oh, wait, they've already done that! And I wouldn't doubt for a jiffy that they will do it again.
  7. That's exactly my point! First you get my point, and now you seem to not get it at all! Theistic evolutionist, IMHO, is an oxy-moron, if that person claims to believe in the God of the Bible. If they do not believe in the God of the Bible then they can call theirselves whatever they want. I suppose James Hutton would be one of those types of theistic evolutionists. I started another thread specifically for theistic evolutionists that claim to believe in the God of the Bible: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...=ST&f=20&t=3531 There is still no answer to my OP in that thread!
  8. bobabelever

    Prayer For Nephew.

    Amen.
  9. bobabelever

    I Lost My Job...

    I received the offer and I accepted. God is good, all the time, God is good.
  10. bobabelever

    Prayer For Nephew.

    Man, I'm sorry Ikester - I said a prayer for Indy. God knows the heart, He will provide what is right for your nephew.
  11. bobabelever

    I Lost My Job...

    Last Thursday night (Aug. 26, 2010) I received an Outlook invite from my manager, the time stamp on the invite was 9:04pm AZ time (11:04pm Omaha, NE time, where my immediate manager is located). The invite was to a closed door meeting with him and our Director (our director is located here in Phoenix), my manager would be on the phone. Closed door meetings like this usually mean one thing, somebody is being laid off, and it's usually the lowest ranking person in the meeting, which would be me! The meeting was to take place @ 10am the next day; Friday, Aug. 27, 2010. To give a little background: I am a corporate trainer for a large telecommunications company, have been for over 2.5 years. I have worked for the company for over 7 years. The group I support (train) is a growth channel; dealing almost exclusively with real sales calls, as opposed to service calls that might have sales opportunities. Needless to say I was up all night, I am still human! My wife, equivelent of the Rock of Gibraltar in terms of faith, slept soundly through the night. I was full of anxiety, trying to pray, thinking way too much, but getting some prayers through to God. Transitioning from my bed to my easy chair in the living room, but not sleeping at all. Finally, while sitting on my bed, sometime in the 5am hour, God gave me the answer. (I didn't know it was the answer, I thought it was just another one of "my" good ideas.) There are currently 2 job requisitions open in the center I support, both sales jobs. I did not, do not, want to go back into sales - I feel like I've given enough years to being on the "front line", but that didn't matter, I must not lose my income; I must provide for my family. So I will ask the Team Lead what my chances are if I applied for one of those positions. OK, so I get to work about 6:30am. Waiting for the Team Lead to arrive - time goes very slowly on this kind of a day. I hope nobody reading this ever has to experience this kind of "time slow down" ! She (the Team Lead) shows up @ about 7am. I go into her office and explain that I have this meeting @ 10am, and I ask what my chances are of getting one of those jobs? She agrees that the meeting is likely of the type that nobody wants to be the subject of, and she offers that if it is, then she would be happy to "choose" me for one of the open positions. But it gets better (*read on please). 10am comes, about 14 hours after I get to work (that's what it felt like anyway). I go into the meeting and, sure enough, I am handed a "management separation packet". It was fairly generous actually, I would receive 7 months pay (the equivelent of 1 month for every year worked, pretty standard stuff), COBRA insurance coverage, etc... BUT I WOULD NOT HAVE A JOB! My last day as an employee would be Saturday, Aug. 28, 2010 - the very next day! I interupt the "conversation" and ask, "What if I were able to obtain a different position in the company?". The anwser is, "absolutely, we can work with that" - and they offered to extend my current employment to Tuesday, Aug. 31, but I must be in my new position no later than Aug. 31, 2010 or else I would be laid off. *Here's where it gets real good! I visit with the Team Lead once again and confirm the meeting was as we thought. She now got a bit more in detail with what she wants to offer me: she wants to "hire" me for one of the sales positions, HOWEVER she doesn't want me to take sales calls , she wants to then immediately move me into an "acting supervisor" position, overseeing one of the sales teams. She called HR and explained what she wants to do, then called me back into her office a bit later. Of course I had to submit my application, and about an hour later actually interviewed for the position (we really did go through the entire interview, just over an hour). Since the requisition was so new I was actually the only applicant. She closed the requisition and told HR she had made her "selection" from the "pool" of candidates. I will receive the official offer from HR tomorrow (Monday). The interesting thing is that I might actually receive in increase in salary, and I will receive compensation pay as the supervisor of a sales team. So God not only saved my income, He increased it! (Side note: my wifes salary was very recently reduced, as the school she worked for closed and the school she was hired by is brand new and has very low enrollment!) God is good, He knew exactly what to have me do, and He knew exactly what would happen if I followed His prompting. It was a most humbling experience and I give God all the glory. This is proof absolutely that God can use whoever He wants to bless His children.
  12. bobabelever

    An Interesting Problem With The Flood

    Sure, an enormous (global) flood is the method where all these features were formed. (That was too easy, all I had to do was use the same words you used in your question and made it into a statement.)
  13. Yes, it is the same evidence(s): fossils geology biology biochemistry common design vs. common descent and etcetera, and so on. I've said it before, there are: Evolutionist scientists; specifically to prove evolution. Creationist scientists; specifically to prove creation. Pure scientists; not out to prove anything, just doing science. Pure science = "the study of ...", NOT "the study of ... to prove ...". Whether you like it or not, the evidence(s) are the same. Furthermore, if the pseudo-science that is the ToE were never imagined, there would not be any "creationist" scientists. Prior to Darwin, et al, there were plenty of scientists that were also believers in the Bible, but they were not "creationist" scientists. Actually, I've seen it mentioned many times that some of the founders of certain sciences were Bible believing Christians. And sure, I would say there were plenty of scientists that did not believe in the Bible, but they were not "evolutionary" scientists. All of these scientists, whether Christian or Atheist, were simply practicing science; studying stuff, observing things, experimenting, ... They were NOT practicing their science with an agenda to prove a worldview! "Pure Science" has been hijacked, maybe a better word is *bastardized, in my humble opinion. (*Using this definition of the word: to lower in condition or worth; debase.)
  14. bobabelever

    Dinosaurs Co-existing With Man?

    First, I must offer a correction to the last paragraph/sentence in the above post: Macro evolution may not be confirmed by the evidence, but it is consistent with the interpretation of the evidence by evolutionists scientists. (yeah , and I won't include the false statement about YEC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know who coined the term "micro-evolution", evolutionist or creationist - what I do know is that is is a misleading term! I much prefer the term "adaptation", it is the same thing as what some call micro-evolution but it is much more appropriate and is a God designed function of His creation. Macro-evolution is not logical at all! There are too many logical problems that exist when considering how an organism/creature might develop a new feature (eye, ear, arm, leg, tail, etc...) from either a different existing feature, or from no feature at all. It simply doesn't make any rational sense. Adaptation, however, logically makes A LOT of rational sense. Hair/Fur becoming a different color to better suit a new environment; eyes becoming better, or even unnecessary, dependant on environmental changes; a tail becoming longer, or shorter, as needed; skin becoming lighter/darker; skin/hide becoming thicker/thinner; and so on. Think about it with this very simple, yet very observable, adaptation: - A human being grows up in San Diego, CA, and breathes very comfortably. - He visits a company in Denver, CO to interview for a position and has a noticeable difficulty breathing while climbing a moderate staircase. - He is hired for the job. - In a matter of time, probably a very short period of time, he is no longer winded when climbing even much larger staircases in Denver. - When he visits San Diego, he notices the air seems much "heavier"! - His body has adapted to the environment which he now lives in. At the same time, people who are born/raised in Denver do not have different lungs than people elsewhere on the Earth. Actually, if they moved to San Diego their bodies would adapt as well, and a visit to Denver would result in the same short-breathed experiences after a time. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I really don't know what any of this talk about micro/macro-evolution has to do with the obviousness that dinosaurs did walk the Earth at the same time as human beings!
  15. bobabelever

    An Interesting Problem With The Flood

    I've taken a fair share of airplane rides in my time, and I'm always fascinated (not surprised, rather awe struck) by the different kinds of obvious evidences of water all over North America. It matters not from where you look (from a high altitude), there is always some indication that water was there. Disclaimer: I can only speak as an eye-witness of North America, but I would guess that these visual water evidences are all over the Earth. ---------------------------------------------------- I think that human intelligence guessing that these Missoula floods happened about 15,000 years ago is OK from a creationist viewpoint. They're only about 12,500 years off the mark, that's a lot better than millions/billions of years!
×

Important Information

Our Terms