6days
New member
Kurt Wise..."there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth"
Last edited:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Hedshaker
New member
Doesn't it make you wonder though how they manage to bring so many scientists into the conspiracy, including a huge amount of Christian scientists. Difficult enough keeping such a secret alive with only a handful of conspirators, but tens of thousands?? All maintaining the hoax, year after year.
And what of the theist evolutionary scientists? You would think the gig would be up after all these years.
Truth is there is no hoax, not that creationists care much about truth. :ha:
But you are scared to death to admit you lied about how far it is from Bear Mountain to NYC.
Daniel1611
New member
Whether I was off on the distance or not, the point stands. Literally everything you say is a lie. Everything. You've heard the Gospel and cling to your pride, lust and lies. At that point, I have no use for an unsaved, hellbound, lying antichrist. I'm interested is dialogue with Christians, not listening to satan worshipping liars like you. Someday, your knee will bow. It's up to you if that time comes before or after the door has been shut to you.
The point about NYC not being visible from Bear Mountain fails.
I'm not the one that was untruthful about that distance.
I know lots of Christians who will confirm the same thing I said about Bear Mountain and NYC.
Dear Hedshaker,
How are you doing?? I think your avatar is the bomb. I just didn't remember if I had told you or not. Don't change it. You don't see me changing my avatar.
Of course, everything didn't come from nothing. Our God created man from the dirt of the ground. The freshwater fish were created by Him. So was the aquatic life. And the saltwater fish, and their starfishes, sand dollars, octopuses, crabs, seahorses. Anyway, I digress. God created this aquatic life from the waters. He also created the birds who fly in heaven. Does this sound right to you, Hedshaker?? I hope we both agree once for a change.
I don't believe in evolution. My God created Everything out of whatever He chose. I think He created the Sun from Hydrogen, Helium and Sulfur. What do you think about that? I will await your views on things. Hey Hedshaker, you can post after my last line or before my first line above. Do you know what I mean? It's actually quite easy to navigate.
Thanks and Tons of Love and Joyfulness Be Yours!!
Michael
Below This Line!!<<<
Last edited:
Dear The Barbarian,
Well, I admire your honesty and humility, and I agree with Kurt, but I think he didn't quite phrase it correctly. I thought, Wise admits that there is powerful scientific evidence for a young earth... you know the rest, but I really don't understand that. It must have been written in error and I can take back what I've said?!! What happened? See Post #11732. I think you got it wrong?
God Be With You, Brother!! I won't forsake you even if we don't always agree!!
Michael
Hedshaker
New member
No Michael, you haven't explained anything. The usual God-did-it assertion tells us precisely nothing.
The Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence, lots of it, from various sources. The Theory of God poofed everything is a fairy tale supported by zero evidence. It's that simple. What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
Wise says there is powerful evidence for evolution, but that his understanding of the Bible rules that out.
As I said, honest creationist.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
[p. 219]
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitionals
...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
[p. 219]
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitionals
Jose Fly
New member
That's only being honest about how intellectually dishonest he is.
Cross Reference
New member
<delayed LOL!!! . . . too much>
Cross Reference
New member
Bad parts of the Bible?? What bad parts?
When something bad happens, something that goes against Him___ guaranteed, God doesn't work in mystery ways.
Yah just gotta love the way that he ordered Moses to kill all the neighboring tribe, including all the men, women and children, oh except for those women who are virgins, and those Moses's soldiers could keep for themselves.
You know they could keep them for their own pleasures.
Yeah, you just gotta love that lovin' God of yours don't you?
6days
New member
Excellent....
Likewise if all the evidence in the universe turned against the virgin birth, or the resurrection, we would still believe it because that is what the Word of God tells us.
You just gotta have faith and then you just have to have faith.
Jose Fly
New member
Which shows why it is an absolute waste of time to find, link to, and try to explain science-related material for/to you. No matter what anyone shows you or explains to you, it won't make one bit of difference.
Yet people still try, for some odd reason. They must like....:bang:
Wise is trustworthy, because he clearly says that he will believe what he thinks the Bible seems to say, against any evidence whatever.
Few of the creationists here have the kind of integrity.
Few of the creationists here have the kind of integrity.
Jose Fly
New member
A person commenting on science says he'll stick to his conclusion no matter what the evidence, and to you, that's trustworthy?
That's not saying much.
Barbarian observes:
Wise is trustworthy, because he clearly says that he will believe what he thinks the Bible seems to say, against any evidence whatever.
Yep. No question about his position. I disagree with his interpretation of the Bible, but he's not hiding anything. And notice that when he sees evidence for evolution, he candidly admits it.
That's trustworthy.
Barbarian, earlier:
Few of the creationists here have the kind of integrity.
There'd be a lot less screaming and ranting hereabouts if we had a few more like Wise.
Wise is trustworthy, because he clearly says that he will believe what he thinks the Bible seems to say, against any evidence whatever.
Yep. No question about his position. I disagree with his interpretation of the Bible, but he's not hiding anything. And notice that when he sees evidence for evolution, he candidly admits it.
That's trustworthy.
Barbarian, earlier:
Few of the creationists here have the kind of integrity.
There'd be a lot less screaming and ranting hereabouts if we had a few more like Wise.
- Status