false
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
false
CherubRam
New member
Life has a very limited adaptability capabilities. God evolved, but as for this universe, God created it. There is even evidence of high breeds reverting back to there original forms. That proves that life here is by design, and not evolution.
6days
New member
Genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word refuting the common ancestry belief system.
You may have forgotten Barbarian but we looked at genetics before. You were shown that the high mutation rate and genetic load in humans is only consistent with the Biblical creation model. Our genome is evidence of a recently created, perfect information system which has been subjected to corruption (Due to sin and the curse). Evolutionists who reject Scripture have to create hypothetical models trying to make the data fit their beliefs (additive model, synergistic epistasis, multiplicative).
In six days.... God created everything.
6days
New member
No... Wise agrees with Stripe... remember?
Paleontologist Wise says "'Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory—it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues—such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth—are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.'"
6days
New member
You are again being dishonest. Wise does NOT say there are transitionals. What he says is that evolutionists can interpret it that way... and he doesn't, because He believes God's Word. He says "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory."
It is good you realize Mr Wise is honest... He says, " It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel)."
Last edited:
What is a "higher animal"? So there was some death before The Fall? Isn't death just death? Whether higher or lower? Plant or animal?
6days
New member
It depends on definition of life. The Bible defines life with Hebrew word 'nepesh', which did not apply to things we refer to as having life, such as plants, insects, bacteria and more. (What post # was the quote from?)
your post #226.
We can leave bacteria out of the conversation if you wish, but plants, insects and other invertebrates, fish, etc. are all alive and certainly die now. So did they die before The Fall? The fundamentalist Christian comment is that Adam's sin (Eve's too? well maybe not?) brought death into the world. Are you suggesting now that is inaccurate based on the Hebrew? If so then perhaps Genesis literalists need to be a little more accurate.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No, you've just continued to show your incredible delusion about that the Bible is and what it contains. You simply pick and choose like you're at the grocery store picking melons.
The LORD Jesus Christ that you supposedly believe in appeared to Paul and gave him the dispensation of the grace of God, something that you are clearly unaware of.
The cross was part of God's plans from before the world began. Your sheer ignorance is amazing.
By assuming the truth of your religion.
No thanks.
You've merely assumed the truth of your religion and hope that stamping your foot and lying will be sufficient.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
(Barbarian suggests that Stipe try to present some evidence for his new beliefs)
What a surprise...
What a surprise...
Barbarian observes:
As you also learned, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise openly acknowledges the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record but expresses confidence that eventually, a superior creationist explanation will be found for them. His commendable honesty should be emulated by you, not disparaged.
You are or I am. Let's see what Dr. Wise says...
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
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.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Turns out, it's you. Even if you really, really want something to be true, you only make it worse for yourself by lying. You can't reverse this one, but you can try to do better from now on.
Wise admits transitional forms are strong evidence for evolution. That's what he calls them in the title of his paper. But he has hopes that creationism might somehow reinterpret them to be something else. He says that creationists should call them "intermediate forms." Which is what many evolutionists have called them as well. The title of his paper is "Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms." Why would you lie about something so easy to expose?
What he says is... "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory."
His position is, "yes, these transitional forms are strong evidence for evolution, but I believe these will someday be shown not to be transitional, so creationists should call them "intermediates."
Keep in mind, this is a strict YE creationist, who acknowledges that it's a lie to say that transitional forms don't exist. He points out that these forms were predicted by Darwin's theory and that they remain an unsolved problem for creationist belief.
This is why you and some other creationists are very reluctant to respond anyone challenging your claim that transitional forms don't exist. As you see, Wise openly admits that there are many of them.
Your mistake was in claiming that examples of major forms without a transitional form were presented. You knew better and you shouldn't have made the claim.
As you also learned, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise openly acknowledges the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record but expresses confidence that eventually, a superior creationist explanation will be found for them. His commendable honesty should be emulated by you, not disparaged.
You are or I am. Let's see what Dr. Wise says...
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
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.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Turns out, it's you. Even if you really, really want something to be true, you only make it worse for yourself by lying. You can't reverse this one, but you can try to do better from now on.
Wise admits transitional forms are strong evidence for evolution. That's what he calls them in the title of his paper. But he has hopes that creationism might somehow reinterpret them to be something else. He says that creationists should call them "intermediate forms." Which is what many evolutionists have called them as well. The title of his paper is "Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms." Why would you lie about something so easy to expose?
What he says is... "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory."
His position is, "yes, these transitional forms are strong evidence for evolution, but I believe these will someday be shown not to be transitional, so creationists should call them "intermediates."
Keep in mind, this is a strict YE creationist, who acknowledges that it's a lie to say that transitional forms don't exist. He points out that these forms were predicted by Darwin's theory and that they remain an unsolved problem for creationist belief.
This is why you and some other creationists are very reluctant to respond anyone challenging your claim that transitional forms don't exist. As you see, Wise openly admits that there are many of them.
Your mistake was in claiming that examples of major forms without a transitional form were presented. You knew better and you shouldn't have made the claim.
6days
New member
The Barbarian: "As you also learned, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise openly acknowledges the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record...."
6days: "You are again being dishonest. Wise does NOT say there are transitionals. What he says is that evolutionists can interpret it that way... and he doesn't, because He believes God's Word. He says "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory."
He starts the article by calling it an evolutionary interpretation. "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms "
The article is sprinkled with remarks such as "On this point, the conventional explanation is substantially more strained than the creationist scenario"
The article concludes with " There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."
6days: "You are again being dishonest. Wise does NOT say there are transitionals. What he says is that evolutionists can interpret it that way... and he doesn't, because He believes God's Word. He says "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory."
Quotemining is just further dishonesty. Wise does NOT consider the fossils to be transitional. You neglect to mention he makes that statement saying it is a evolutionary argument, and follows that by saying it is explainable in the creation model.The Barbarian said:
He starts the article by calling it an evolutionary interpretation. "There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms "
The article is sprinkled with remarks such as "On this point, the conventional explanation is substantially more strained than the creationist scenario"
The article concludes with " There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."
6days
New member
That is true... Death to 'nepesh' creatures is a result of sin in our world. Plants were not considered nepesh life.
CherubRam
New member
God's personal name "Yahwah" means, "Life Began."
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yes, transitional fossils are a figment of Barbarians imagination.
[video]https://creation.com/media-center?fileID=yXeKk18jUTc[/video]
Last edited: