Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Back for More Grady McMurtry

Being a glutton for punishment I was back in the pew last night (Monday) to hear "Dr" Grady McMurtry tell us how he knows that the earth is young. I'm thinking that nobody is going to go to church on a Monday night just after they went on Sunday. Fewer people means I have a better chance of arguing with him.

But Grady packed it out pretty well even on a Monday night. I'd guess there were maybe 600 people there. Perhaps people were bringing their skeptical friends, like they suggested we do on Sunday. That's what I did. I brought along an atheistic friend of my own. On the other hand I didn't sense that there were too many skeptical people in the audience. My guess is my friend and I were the only ones.

With all these people I was afraid I might not get a chance to speak with him, but it turned out I did.

The presentation was quite long. I'd say he went about an hour and a half. He packed in dozens of arguments. "Gemstones CAN form quickly. Fossilization CAN occur quickly. Light CAN be artificially slowed." That's all probably true, but who cares? I'm not familiar with old earthers who argue based upon the time required for gems to form, but maybe some are out there. And I don't know why it matters that since light CAN be slowed this somehow shows that light passing through the vacuum of space in fact IS slowing.

He did reference a couple of supposed scientists that claim there is evidence that it used to be 10 million times faster than it is today. I'll look into it, but this was typical of the evening. Some pretty bold claims that he didn't really attempt to justify. Other examples include his claim that the sun is spinning too rapidly for the solar system to be old. If it were 4.5 billion years old it would have slowed to a lower rate than what it spins now. A similar claim was made with regard to spiral galaxies. They spin too rapidly and would have sort of broken up by now if the universe was 14.5 billion years old. That sounds great in his stump speech, but why believe it? He didn't try to explain why.

After each of his Sunday sermons and his Monday night presentation he went straight to a table that was set up for him to be able to sell his books. He had quite a throng of people on Sunday. He was collecting money faster than he could stuff it in his pockets, and he had five volunteers assisting in the money collection as well. Both Sunday services took up a collection for him as was done on Monday night. I have a feeling he's having a very good week.

I wanted to try and talk with him Sunday, but I decided not to. He was too busy collecting money and wouldn't be interested in a discussion. Monday was better, but I still had to wait quite a while for the crowd around the table to disperse. When they finally did I approached him at the table. The conversation went something like this.

Me-Hey Grady. Nice to meet you (shaking hands). I'm actually one of those atheistic evolutionists.
Grady-Oh really (appearing a little uncomfortable).
Me-Yeah, I figured I'd come out and see what the other side has to say. Can I ask you a question about evolution?
Grady-OK
Me-What do you think about endogenous retro viruses?
Grady-What about them?
Me-Don't you think they're good evidence for evolution?
Grady-No
Me-Why not?
Grady-Well why should they be?
Me-You don't think they are?
Grady-Why don't you tell me why you think they should be.

Now, here's why I posed the question this way. Grady portrayed himself as a person that grew up hanging out in the paleontology labs at Berkley. He had said on Sunday that in the 3rd and 4th grade his teachers had him doing some of the teaching because he knew things so much better than they did. His father taught at Berkley and he was inculcated with evolutionary thinking. He taught evolution from the 7th grade on up through the college level. Pretty impressive, right?

But according to what I was able to find digging around on the internet it looks like Grady's father was in fact a major occultist that was a teaching assistant for political science at Berkley. Grady has an undergraduate degree in forestry, a graduate degree in environmental science, and a doctorate from an unaccredited university in theology. So I thought it was odd that any kind of a college would hire Grady to teach biological science when he doesn't have any formal post high school training in the subject. Is it possible he has no idea what he's talking about? Anybody that teaches evolutionary theory in college would have heard of ERV's. This is perhaps the single most powerful piece of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory. So I wanted to see if Grady gave me any indication he had ever heard of them. Nothing he said suggested he knew what they were.

So I had a choice at that point. I could call him out or I could explain them to him as he asked me to do. I wimped out and chose the later. I'm thinking that if I get to aggressive he won't discuss anything further and I wanted to. So I bailed him out and explained things to him. Here's how he reacted, and how subsequent discussion went.

Grady-I don't see how that proves anything.
Me-Really? We share virus sequences with chimpanzees and you don't see that as relevant?
Grady-It's totally irrelevant.
Me-But this type of things would prove a parent/child relationship in court.
Grady-Look, you've got two eyes, a nose, two ears just like a lot of animals. Is that supposed to prove something?
Me-Would you accept that response from a father in court that was unwilling to pay child support. "Hey, so what if I share a virus sequence with the child. He likewise has two eyes and a nose. So what?"
Grady-You know how similar the chimpanzee genome is with the human?
Me-I don't know. I guess there are different ways of measuring it.
Grady-How close do you think?
Me-Maybe 97% similarity depending on how you are measuring.
Grady-Not even close. They're way dissimilar. Do you know that our genome is more similar to a rat than a chimpanzee.
Me-No it isn't.
Grady-Yes it is. We're even more similar to a sea squirt than a chimpanzee.
Me-I don't think so.
Grady-You're wrong.

It was a lot of Grady simply asserting that I have the facts wrong and he doesn't. There wasn't much attempt to show anything. Perhaps that was true of both of us, but I just assumed a lot of these things must be acknowledge by creationists. Apparently not. I went on to discuss the genomic evidence further.

Me-And it's not just the viruses. There are other features in the genome that point to common ancestry.
Grady-Like what?
Me-Cytochrome C for instance
Grady-(Laughing derisively) Cytochrome C?!? That argument hasn't been used in 25 years.
Me-Not true. I just heard a molecular evolutionists use the argument.
Grady-Well then he is behind the times. That argument doesn't work at all. You're obviously very well indoctrinated and you're just going to believe this stuff.
Me-Well, one of us is indoctrinated, but it isn't me.

Once again I was left wondering if Grady actually knew what the argument was. In front of all of these people he has to make it appear that he understands the issues, but nothing he said actually showed me that he did. However it did give that impression. If he knows when the argument went out of favor then he appears to be familiar with it.

Grady was quite uncomfortable throughout the whole dialogue. He wouldn't look at me. A couple of times he just walked off to the other end of the table and I wasn't sure if he was trying to end the discussion, but it might have been because he was looking for some material to show me. I waited for him to return. The discussion continued as a few interested parishioners listened in.

Me-Have you ever heard of Basilasaurus.
Grady-(Snicker) Yeah. It's ridiculous (he walks off to grab a book and returns to show me a text that says that Basilasaurus isn't in fact ancestral to modern whales, but went extinct on it's own. While he looked for the book I explained to listeners what Basilasaurus was).
Me-I don't have a problem with what this says. We're not claiming that we have the actual ancestor to whales but that this is probably a cousin to what was in fact the real ancestor. Fossil finds are rare and it would be surprising to find an actual ancestor. It's a cousin, like Neanderthal.
Grady-Neanderthal is nothing but a human.
Me-No it isn't.
Grady-Yes it is.
Me-Scientists just recently published their studies on the genome of Neanderthal and they say it is not human.
Grady-That's incorrect it is human.
Me-(I kind of turn to the listeners) Even Hugh Ross, a creationist, will tell you that Neanderthals are not humans. I don't know what else to say.
Grady-Well, you're obviously pretty well indoctrinated and you're just not going to be open to the truth.
Me-OK. Well it was nice meeting you and I'll look into your arguments from tonight (I extend my hand to shake his, but he walks off).

I guess I'm somewhat suspicious that this guy doesn't even believe his own rhetoric. I wonder if I'm dealing with a Marjoe character here, just not nearly as talented. Who knows. Good times though. He's teaching tonight on global warming and how it is bunk. I think I'll skip that one. Wednesday night the lesson is regarding dinosaurs. Maybe I'll go and sit in the front row and smile at him.

47 comments:

Richard said...

Haaaaa thats funny......your too hard headed and full of yourself to even think of accepting truth.

Blad_Rnr said...

I just had a chance to watch two of Dr. McMutry's videos at our church last night. I thought they were very well presented. Especially when he showed us topographical maps of the ocean floor. There is clearly something to what he was demonstrating.

I don't exactly know your beliefs, but the biggest problem I have with evolution is that they cannot effectively demonstrate how matter formed when there was nothing to form it. "You can't get something from nothing." That, to me, stops the argument in its tracks and then you have to start at least giving creation a fair shot.

Read the Bible and it starts making sense. For instance, how did Jonah know there were mountains under the ocean (Jonah 2:6)? How did Moses correctly know the order for the creation (even scientists agree he was right) thousands of years before man proved it? The flood was not a flood of rain, but mostly it was God allowing the waters of the deep to spring up through the earth, just as Moses states in Genesis and McMurtry proves in his oceanic topography map. Where is millions of years of mud and silt flowing out of the Mississippi? There isn't.

God's creation is all around us. If one were to truly investigate the evidence in regards to the Bible there is no doubt you have to believe in Creation. But sadly most evolutionists don't even want to give creation the time of day, and even more can't even explain simply concepts like E=MC (sq) but blindly want to believe someone with a Ph.D telling them the "truth." That's the dangerous problem with evolutionists: they are blindly following scientists who never give creation a chance because that would topple their house of cards, yet they have to assume a lot to get people to prove their theories. So wouldn't that make evolution a religion?

blad_Rnr said...

After re=reading your post, I came away with a sort of smug attitude from you. No offense, but what were you trying to prove with McMurtry? You stand in front of the man and want to disprove his beliefs. Did you think that was going to happen? As if he was going to see your light and fall to his knees and start renouncing creation? Seriously. It was not the time nor the place. If you really want to find the truth, ask God. Seek God. He'll tell you He's real and He'll reveal Himself to you. Looking at McMurtry (a sinner, as we wall are) and not getting the response you wanted is ridiculous. He's not perfect, he's imperfect. But what he is telling his audience within the confines of the Bible and science is the truth. Don't fault the condition of the messenger with the truth of the message.

Cheers.

Jon said...

Hey Blad,

Sorry to hear I sound smug. I don't want to be. But I gotta tell you my attitude may not be the greatest when it comes to someone like McMurtry. I really thinking he's out running around to bilk people like yourself out of money. I don't feel this way about most pastors or even apologists, but this guy is a different breed.

Your biggest problem with evolution is a non-problem. Evolution is not a claim about how matter came into existence. It's a claim about how the diversity of life came about. Common ancestry and all that. The fact is God might exist and evolution is true. I'm not persuaded, but there's nothing about the Theory of Evolution as a science that precludes God and creation.

I don't see that Jonah 2:6 is saying mountains are under the ocean. He might believe that, but the words to require it.

Moses' creation sequence does not square with the scientific timeline. Scientists have the living creatures in the water prior to the land plants. Genesis has the reverse. He does start more simple and proceed to complex so he's not doing badly for a bronze age author, but it's not what modern scientists think.

Erosion and plate tektonics can remove mud deposits.

Anyway, no, I don't expect to change anybody's mind. It's just that I enjoy the dialogue. If you're happy with your beliefs I'm happy for you. I don't need you to change your views.

Anonymous said...

I HAVE JUST WATCHED GRADY MCMURTRY ON GENESIS TV [THU. 3 DEC. 09]. THE INCREDIBLE SLICKNESS OF THIS GUY FORCED ME TO SEEK OUT BLOGS SUCH AS THIS. BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS ARE NOT MY THING BUT TO SAY THAT CHRISTIANS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND THAT ENTROPY IS INCREASING ARE BOTH DUE TO SIN MAKES HIM A DANGEROUS LUNATIC. MY DEAR CHRISTIAN WIFE DESPERATELY TRIES TO INTERPRET HIS "MEANING" WHEN I EXPLAIN A FEW ANOMALIES TO HER. I JUST LOVE HOW HE CAN EXPLAIN AWAY THE MILKY WAY DIAMETER OF 100,000 LIGHT YEARS BEING DUE TO LIGHT TRAVELLING 16.67X FASTER THAN IT DOES NOW TO FIT IN WITH GENESIS EARTH AGE OF 6,000 YEARS - WHAT ABOUT THE ANDROMEDA GALAXY BEING 50,000,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY? THOUGHT: THIS GUY DOES NOT DERSERVE ANYONE'S TIME BLOGGING ABOUT HIM!!!

Anonymous said...

"the biggest problem I have with evolution is that they cannot effectively demonstrate how matter formed when there was nothing to form it. "You can't get something from nothing." That, to me, stops the argument in its tracks and then you have to start at least giving creation a fair shot."

Interesting - you are saying that your disbelief in evolution is based upon "You can't get something from nothing." and for you that stops the argument totally.

Yet - in believing in creation you are accepting that you CAN get something from nothing. The something that you believe came from nothing is your god. Yes I know that you will say that god didn't have a creator and is eternal, outside time etc but that is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it and doesn't hold water.

The problem with the bible is simple - it doesn't make sense. In fact - far from showing a wonderful, all powerful god it shows the opposite. It shows a deity that is limited in thought, imagination and power.

Take the account of the flood. Why did this god have noah build this ark? Let's ignore the purported reason for mass genocide and look at the logistics. This all powerful deity decided that noah and a few others sshould survive - along with a selection of other creatures. So what does this all powerful deity do? Does he wisk up noah etc into the heavens? well he is god and can do all he wants so he could do just that. Isn't he foretold to do just that for the chosen at the tribulation (and there will be far more to wisk up then). No, he has them build a boat. Let's look at the method of genocide - a flood. WHY???? he is a god. Why not just uncreate them? Easy. No - he has to flood the place. Doesn't seem to be a god of unlimited abilities to me.

And, as for things that just don't make sense. Don't get me started on Abraham being told to sacrifice his son - only to be stopped at last minute. Poor Isaac - his dad tried to kill him and there wasn't an therapy available then. LOL

Anonymous said...

I have just heard 'dr' Grady McMurtry claim that everything was vegetarian before the flood. He also claims that lions etc could still be vegetarian - OK if you add the essential items a feline needs, such as taurine, as a food suppliment it may be possible BUT not in the wild and McMurtry doesn't offer this option. he seems unaware of the problem.

He offers up 'proof' based upon the 'fact' that, during WW2, lions etc, in London Zoo, were fed on cabbages. He claims that the lions were vegetarian because all the meat was needed for soldiers etc. And this is proof that even lions can be vegetarian as they were before this flood.

BUT - it isn't true. It is a lie!

The lions and tigers at London Zoo were not fed a vegetarian diet during WW2. They were fed on meat that was classed as unfit for human consumption. That is what the records at London Zoo show.

Anonymous said...

its kind of funny how people like you think its impossible for a god to create the earth, yet you're so quick to believe that we could have evolved from an ape... evolution seems a LOT harder to believe than creationism....

Anonymous said...

"the biggest problem I have with evolution is that they cannot effectively demonstrate how matter formed when there was nothing to form it. "You can't get something from nothing." That, to me, stops the argument in its tracks and then you have to start at least giving creation a fair shot."

Interesting - you are saying that your disbelief in evolution is based upon "You can't get something from nothing." and for you that stops the argument totally.

Yet - in believing in creation you are accepting that you CAN get something from nothing. The something that you believe came from nothing is your god. Yes I know that you will say that god didn't have a creator and is eternal, outside time etc but that is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it and doesn't hold water.

The problem with the bible is simple - it doesn't make sense. In fact - far from showing a wonderful, all powerful god it shows the opposite. It shows a deity that is limited in thought, imagination and power.

Take the account of the flood. Why did this god have noah build this ark? Let's ignore the purported reason for mass genocide and look at the logistics. This all powerful deity decided that noah and a few others sshould survive - along with a selection of other creatures. So what does this all powerful deity do? Does he wisk up noah etc into the heavens? well he is god and can do all he wants so he could do just that. Isn't he foretold to do just that for the chosen at the tribulation (and there will be far more to wisk up then). No, he has them build a boat. Let's look at the method of genocide - a flood. WHY???? he is a god. Why not just uncreate them? Easy. No - he has to flood the place. Doesn't seem to be a god of unlimited abilities to me.

And, as for things that just don't make sense. Don't get me started on Abraham being told to sacrifice his son - only to be stopped at last minute. Poor Isaac - his dad tried to kill him and there wasn't an therapy available then. LOL








and this person.. umm obviously you need to read a little more about God... everything He does is for a reason. why would he "whisk everyone up into Heaven"? that would ruin one of the major points of the story of noah. noah was told to build an ark to test his obedience. as for why God chose to use a flood, He made sure to use a way that left behind physical evidence so that maybe hard headed people would be smart enough to figure it out...

Anonymous said...

"and this person.. umm obviously you need to read a little more about God... everything He does is for a reason. why would he "whisk everyone up into Heaven"? that would ruin one of the major points of the story of noah. noah was told to build an ark to test his obedience. as for why God chose to use a flood, He made sure to use a way that left behind physical evidence so that maybe hard headed people would be smart enough to figure it out..."

Oh dear..not the god moves in mysterious ways clause.

Given that we are led to believe that God knows all that is within our hearts and minds and that we cannot hide anything from this God - Why then, would this God need to test Noah? If he knows all why, despite all his knowledge, does he feel so insecure that he feels the need to test his subjects obedience. Not very god-like to me - more like the actions of an insecure child.

And where is this evidence of a global flood?

Gordon said...

I think his lack of willingness to engage with someone of differing views (whom you think he would be especially pleased to meet up with) is an indication that he is preaching to the converted and, to some extent, playing to the gallery with some of his wilder claims.

I note that the link to my article which appears in this one is a bit out of date so here is an update:

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2008/12/dr-grady-mcmurtry-what-are-his.html

Jon said...

Thanks Gordon.

JA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jacob said...

Anonymous said... Anonymous said... Anonymous said... why would any one want to hear anything from such a 'remarkable species' who is Anonymous? If Mr Anonymous is a real person he should not be cowardly and reveal his true 'Intellient Idenity.' Nah! that would be the proving of Intelligent Design. Just the fact that Mr Anonymous can say any thing proves that He is Created by very 'Intelligent Designer.' Hey, who needs credentials to 'think?.' ---jacob the wit.

Jez Bayes said...

Hi,

I'm a Christian who is DEEPLY suspicious of the Creation Science approach, and I have had a similarly strange and uncomfortable couple of evenings listening to Dr G. McM self-contradictorily critiquing the scientific method, and then appealing to the archaeological record and genetics to back up his arguments.

All this was handled during his presentation by using terminology that no-one else in the room was familiar enough with to be able to counter his logic, even if given the opportunity.


............... SO, I have 2 are important points to make to people who don't believe in God or Christianity to distance Christian beliefs from his methods and conclusions.


1: Firstly, a sensible, open-minded and honest combination of literary and linguistic Bible interpretation and Scientific knowledge is very important. In my experience it is too often lacking in Evangelical circles.

e.g. Literal 24 hour days in Genesis 1:

The word 'day' has a range of meanings in OT Hebrew, allowing for a range of interpretations, not just a literal 24 hours.

Evidence: http://concordances.org/hebrew/3117.htm

See also: http://biblelexicon.org/genesis/2-4.htm in which the whole of creation is described as taking place in a 'day' (same Hebrew word) i.e. a defined finite period of time, not 24 hours.

The Scientific definition of a literal 24 hour day involves the relationship of the earth and the Sun.

So, note that God created the Sun on day 4 in Genesis 1: 14-16.

If so, how can days 1 to 3 be seen as literal 24 hour days?


2: Secondly, I am deeply upset and even offended by what I see as the biggest weakness of using 'Creation Science' as an approach in appealing to people who aren't Christians.

What it does is to add a prescriptive single interpretation of Genesis 1 to the basic Christian message, unnecessarily ruling all other opinions out, and thus creates a barrier to the thoughtful response to the message, rather than an invitation to it.

It is a self-defeatingly ill considered method of distracting people from the importance of the figure of Jesus in human history, and the implications of his life and claims for all of us.

I would recommend avoiding Grady McMurtry, and instead listening to Willian Lane Craig.

Thanks for the healthy sensible dialogue.

Thanks,
Jez

Faith said...

Just one little word - FAITH
To listen to a scientist attempt to show why creation is the better argument, and try to show proof and logic that can support it, line it up with what the scripture says - I applaud Grady. Yet, while everyone must work out their own salvation, those of you that have not made effort to study what the Bible does say - you have no argument.
FAITH - Those who don't believe in anything will fall for anything- The independant nature of man is a gift (from the creator) - you have the right to choose you own path and belief system - but everyman knows what the truth is about the One and only Creator - it is simple rebellion that makes you an enemy of God. AND very bad examples you see from people that are suppose to represent God. FEAR GOD, people - Fear the one that made the heaven and the earth and the Hell that you are heading towards. IT's a simple matter of your own choice. I challenge you to spend one year alone with the Holy Bible and see if you continue to believe the same. FAITH - you do have faith in something - gravity, if not anything else.
If you truly are seeking Truth, reach out to God in an honest search to know whether he exists or not - only the Blind will miss him. All the evidence in the world will never convince you who have alterior motives that is self worship. Take my Challenge if you are really searching. And GOD will prove himself to you. AND if you call yourself a Christian and yet you believe in evolution - then I challenge you to begin to explain how God's plan to save the world through salvation of Jesus Christ - how did that just Happen. Consider what you really believe in.

William said...

'Dr' McMurtry give a presentation in the Student's Union in Queen's University, Belfast yesterday afternoon (26th March 2012). I have attended a few Evolution v Creation debates over the years but I have to say that McMurtry was by far the worst example of someone trying to bend scientific facts to fit his ideas that I have ever seen. He started quoting 'facts' about the similarity between the chimp and human genomes trying to show that the two are completely different. When challenged by a number of geneticists in the audience he refused to attempt to give any answer other than that he was correct and the scientific community was wrong. He became quite insulting and started going on about how believing in evolution is a religion that sells 'adult fairy stories'. In the end he did not get to deliver very much of his presentation as I am glad to say the audience did not let him get away with any of this crap.

Jon said...

Wow, Grady had an audience of experts? He went to a university? That must have been amazing to see. When I saw him his preaching was entirely to the choir. I thought he'd know better than to take on informed people. That surprises me.

William said...

Hi Jon. Apparently there was some Creationist conference held in Belfast (UK) at which Grady was a star attraction. Someone had invited him to speak in the Queen's University Students Union building (sadly Northern Ireland has more in common with the USA in terms of this type of extreme 'Christianity' than the rest of the UK or Europe). He had a few supporters along with him but he got a very rough ride from the majority of the audience, myself included. I only learned about this event when one of my first year students phoned me to day that it was happening. In the end he stormed out of the building.

Robert Neely said...

Has anyone any links to recordings of the presentation st Queens?

William said...

I don't think it was recorded.

Robert Neely said...

I wonder how the session with Stormont politicians went

William said...

I am sure he had an easier time with the assembly christian group than he had with the scientists at QUB. Thing is I normally enjoy this type of debate (I like a good argument) and I have attended quite a few over many years. Grady however was openly (or at least openly to the educated) dishonest. It is not just a case of him having complete faith in the Bible he lies and twists scientific findings to support his ideas and tries to imply that he is highly qualified to interpret the science when he is not.

Robert Neely said...

http://www.mediafire.com/?q8oxbgqpyf6g8aa has an MP3 of the personal background statement made in Belfast and the subsequent presentation made on evolution. It's a phone recording converted from amr to mp3 using Audacity ffmpeg without compression hence the large size.

Robert Neely said...

http://www.mediafire.com/?p6q8593719y8e43 is the Belfast presentation on natural selection

Robert Neely said...

http://www.mediafire.com/?bwu1tcg9bdqfbnh is the Belfast presentation on flood geology

Robert Neely said...

http://www.mediafire.com/?a2qrek256s1mqs6 is the Belfast presentation on scientific method

C3Kop said...

Why are we obviously devolving? and why didn't apes evolve themselves out of existance? Those are two questions I struggled with even as a teen when it comes to evolution. some may be more educated, but our species is clearly not advancing, especially when it comes to character and consistent behavior, hence the "lunatic" sin theory that sin creates most of our problems

Jon said...

What makes you say we are devlolving?

And why should apes have gone extinct? Other apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees, have evolved differently based on different environmental pressures and different mutations. Of course they may go extinct, if that's what you mean by evolving yourself out of existence. Humans may as well. Most species go extinct eventually.

Whether we are getting worse, I'd say don't be so sure. Look at the way humans were just a few centuries ago. Lots of human sacrifice to appease the gods (sometimes the Christian God as people were burned for heresy). Look at how women are treated so much better today. Slavery is almost completely eliminated. There's been a lot of progress. Things are bad, but they were worse.

love all people - please said...

Belief in evolution is the root cause for the racism and 'class' of humans that had plaqued us as a people. Majority of the evil perpetrated against people for their skin colour, language or culture is rooted in evolution. Sadly most evolutionist are racist and hate coloured. NOT ALL but majority se themselves as a higher race.

Jez Bayes said...

I think you'll find that slavery, which was made illegal by Wilberforce, predates Darwin, whose books were reviewed by Wilberforce when written,
i.e. Slavery and racism are more about Empire, greed, prejudice and human nature than about the origins of the theory of evolution.
In some cases the 2 issues may have become 1 later on, but racism got there first and is as old as human nature.

Nothing I am said...

hi there,

actually am looking for revelation tv whrein bro. eli soriano of the "old path" opposed "dr" grady's 6000-year earth claim. care to visit the you tube and kindly visit as well bro. eli soriano's blog about creation.

www.esoriano.wordpress.com

id said...

Dr. Grady McMurtry effortlessly demolished every stance that Bro. Eli Soriano attempted to make. Soriano is a high school dropout Filipino pastor who was once included in the Interpol's Red Notice list for sex crimes. He fled from the Philippines to Brazil many years ago because the two countries do not have an extradition treaty and Soriano knows that he cannot be arrested there. Soriano has been featured in at least 3 docus shown in the Philippines' biggest television networks for his various crimes including swindling, fraud, gun running, tax evasion, homosexual rape and even allegations of murder. Why an educated man like Grady would even agree to have a televised dialogue with a notorious ignoramus like Soriano is beyond me.

charles allan said...

ERV's as proof of evolution is being
well and truly bunked. Evos picked it because it was a new holy grail due to its complexity.
Also since God used DNA to create every living thing by tweaking this incredibly complex code there should be similarities such as us sharing over 50% of our dna with bananas and jellyfish.

Gordon said...

The whole idea of God as designer is extremely limiting. A designer can only make things from material that already exists - like the DNA you mention him "tweaking".

Who made the DNA in the first place? or all the material in the universe? If it was God then he is not a designer and there would be no need for life forms to be as similar as they are to each other.

charles allan said...

God is a creator who obviously designs living creatures - such as bats which can produce 500 sonar pulses a second. In order to design all living creatures and vegetation God created DNA. As evolutionists will tell they have found nothing to back their theory - only speculation which is not science.

Grady sticks to the bible so no matter what his personality is like it is God you are not believing not Grady.

Gordon said...

Which doesn't answer any of the problems I just pointed out with describing God as a designer.

In any case, proving that evolution was untrue would not prove that God existed, and visa versa. Such a line of investigation is therefore pointless - either by Christians or atheists.

Jez Bayes said...

" ... proving that evolution was untrue would not prove that God existed, and visa versa. Such a line of investigation is therefore pointless - either by Christians or atheists."

Agreed

Too much of this debate gets sidetracked into false logic on that point.

If God created, and/or designed, then he could have employed evolution.

Or evolution could one day be disproved, which would lead to other theories about origins, some involving a creator, and some not.

Ultimately this is a fascinating area of scientific enquiry, and a dead end for theological proofs of a Godless or Created Universe ( ... or Multiverse!)

If you want to know what if God exists and if so what He is like, then look at Jesus, his teaching and his resurrection, but don't look at the science of origins, and screw your eyes up when you look at us christians!

Rob said...

anyone that wants to believe you evolved from chimpanzees or any other species and that nothing exploded creating all the something we know as the uNiverses...Well, you have serious mental and cognitive issues....idiots

Rob said...

anyone that wants to believe you evolved from chimpanzees or any other species and that nothing exploded creating all the something we know as the uNiverses...Well, you have serious mental and cognitive issues....idiots

Victor Cameron said...

anyone that wants to believe you evolved from chimpanzees or any other species and that nothing exploded creating all the something we know as the uNiverses...Well, you have serious mental and cognitive issues....idiots

Jez Bayes said...

Steady on - whatever anyone's opinion on these issues, and no-one ultimately can give 100% proof either way, these instructions about how to treat each other are more important than winning an argument or feeling superior.

Do everything in love:
Matthew 5:22
Don't call someone a fool.
1 Peter 3:15
Answer with gentleness and respect.

Edward Brand said...

Iwas never a fan of people that defended evolution, as a science it doesn't need defending, but it seems to be far easier and less time consuming to read a scientific journal on the matter, and instead sit at home thinking of ways to explain the earth that coincides with a theological mind, because of this we've seen creation creep its way into a few schools across Mississippi and Texas.

Now I'm British and there are specific laws against teaching creation in all EU countries, but my partner is from Mississippi, and she's worried religion will be the end of America, after reading things like this it's becoming obvious her worries are very real.

So, note to all creationists: these YEC apologists aren't doing all this because of an altruistic instinct to God or its followers. Guys like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort etc make millions of dollars doing what they do saying what they say, they will continue to make as many people as they can believe it, or they lose their market, I'm not saying that they don't believe everything the preach, but it's highly unlikely they believe most of it.

Science isn't a belief or a worldview, or a political arm, it is an understanding of the world and universe, scientist make and adjust conclusion based on observations, that are repeated, predictable and falsifiable, and are available for ALL to see.

creationists are people who ignore, reject, manipulate or misuse observations to preserve their belief or the belief of others for personal gain. Appealing to the gullible and the fearful is no new business act, it's the easiest way to make money, scammers don't scam those who are willing to find the truth.

Now I don't care what anybody believes, everyone has the right and should have the right to believe whatever they want, even if they're wrong, but if you want to teach creation in science, do it in your own home.

Teaching the controversy doesn't count, should we teach the controversy of lightning with Zeus? What's wrong with teaching creation from a Nordic religion point of view? no it's just the Christian view you went to teach, and that's not teaching, its preaching and should be saved for church.

Jesse Zabel said...

Sounds like your stuck in your ways man. I am sure you are very intelligent and all but dont you possibly think Life might be a little more special. Just like God already knew you before you existed in your mothers womb. Instead you question the guy about a virus. I would of said who cares too. Things are much more complex then we think. What about the countless near death stories where people describe very similar things and some were not even religious. Life has purpose. Do you think you might just spontaneously generate another life after this one? In my opinion you were at that church because God gives everyone a chance.. But the end result is in your hands, he is not going to force anyone to believe him.

stephen goulding said...

If you need a mind blowing TRUTH of the authenticity of the Bible read the findings of a brilliant Russian mathematician Dr Ivan Panin. Then seek the real truth. God bless you all.

Vincent said...

It's interesting to read all the comments here. There are roughly three camps, one that refuses to consider any alternative view to evolution, one that thinks creation should not be discussed with scientific evidence and should be believed on the basis of faith in the bible alone, and the last group which is willing to consider the science (like Dr McMurtry's findings) as something that augments their belief in the bible.
The truth is that evolution is still not proven to be a fact or all the pieces would be in place. Anyone who says that evolution is a fact clearly hasn’t studied the topic in any depth to be involved in an intellectual discussion on the matter. Likewise Dr McMurtry's viewpoint on creation is also not absolutely provable.
We can either choose to accept that Dr McMurtrys explanations have some merit or not. However to dismiss them outright just because they differ from one's opinion is to be rather narrrow minded and not scientific. Good science requires one to consider alternatives. It is how science has gotten to where it is today.
Personally I think that the discussion here is a lot deeper. Evolutionists and Creationists are divided by something else, and that is the unwillingness/ willingness to believe that man should be governed by and accountable to an entity greater than himself. Unashamedly I am a Creationist that believes God’s word on the matter to be accurate. I also respect that others may have a different opinion and do not make it a point of duty to tell them how wrong I think they are.

Mark Smith said...

There is a lot of detail in your writing for the conversation between you and Grady that even include his demeanor. Were you writing as you speak or did you record the conversation? If you recorded it, could you post that as well?