The Barbarian

This is why you keep stumbling over yourself. Evidence is facts. Hence, as Wise and other creationists admit, the fact of all these transitional forms and series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Wise didn't find all those fossils himself; he read the papers and checked the data from scientists who did. That's why I linked you to the evidence. I linked you to almost all of it. We both know why you never checked the evidence. It was always a transitional. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Mutation. As you learned, we occasionally observes such mutations producing new species. I cited O. gigas, evolving from O. lamarckaina by a polyploid mutation. Easy. Definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. " So any mutation in a population is evolution. If it happens to cause individuals of one population to no longer be able to reproduce with individuals of another population, we have speciation. And as you know, YE creationist groups like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research admit the fact of speciation. Lots of errors there. Yes, theories are well-substantiated explanations. When a hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed by evidence (facts), then it is considered to be a theory. Only after it's confirmed, is it a theory. A law is weaker than a theory; laws are predictions about what will happen under certain conditions. A theory predicts what will happen, but also explains why it happens. Hence, Kepler's Laws described how planets move around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation (he called it a theory) not only describes how they move, but explains why. And in explaining why, he extended the idea to moons, comets, and apples falling from trees. He had more than a law; he had a theory. Also, no law or theory in science is proven. Logical certainty can happen only when we know all the rules and deduce the particulars from the rules. In science, we observe the particulars, and inductively infer the rules. Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation That's why it's called "speciation." It's not supposed to. It assumes life began somehow, and explains how it changes over time. Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things. It didn't. Mutation produces new genes. Useful ones tend to be retained in the population and harmful ones tend to be removed. Most mutations don't do much of anything. You have dozens that were not present in either parent.

Remember, Jesus is both wholly man and wholly God. So it's not surprising. But being man is not the property of an eternal God. Nope. Eternal means "always was, always will be." e·ter·nal /əˈtərn(ə)l/ adjective adjective: eternal 1. lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning. God is essentially incomprehensible, so you try to bring him down to the properties of a creature to make Him comprehensible. It won't work. Well, let's take a look... Luke 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. So, no. You reject the idea of God being essentially different than creatures, because a God of that scale is not acceptable to you. That's why you want to bring Him down to a more manageable level. But the Christian fathers did, and they realized God wasn't just a big guy a lot more powerful than the rest of us. He is the omnipotent Creator,and therefore not limited as any being with a body must be.

Remember, Jesus is both wholly man and wholly God. So it's not surprising. But being man is not the property of an eternal God. God is essentially incomprehensible, so you try to bring him down to the properties of a creature to make Him comprehensible. It won't work. God is radically unlike creatures and cannot be adequately understood in ways appropriate to them. God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect. One consequence is that the simple God lacks parts. This lack is not a deficiency but a positive feature. God is ontologically superior to every partite entity, and his partlessness is an index thereof. Broadly construed, ‘part’ covers not only spatial and temporal parts (if any) but also metaphysical ‘parts’ or ontological constituents. To say that God lacks metaphysical parts is to say inter alia that God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). But how are we to understand ‘identity’ in this context? Is it an equivalence relation governed by the Indiscernibility of Identicals? Or is it some ‘looser’ form of sameness? These are important questions but ones that cannot be addressed in this entry except in passing. DDS is represented not only in classical Christian theology, but also in Jewish, Greek, and Islamic thought. It is to be understood as an affirmation of God’s absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically unlike creatures in general, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but also in his manner of possessing them. It is not just that God has properties no creature has; the properties he has he has in a way different from the way any creature has any of its properties. God has his properties by being them. Unique in his mode of property-possession, God is also unique in his mode of existence and in his modal status. He is not just one necessary being among others. His metaphysical necessity, unlike that of other necessary beings, is grounded in his simplicity. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

I don't think you understand what evidence means. This is the third time I gave you links to the papers that show Wise's is correct. He cited the following transitional series and fossils as evidence for macroevolutionary theory. 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 phenacodontids32 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 Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Then he supported his claims by citing the papers in which the evidence is presented in detail. That's how it works. There's really no point in you denying the fact. Facts are much easier. For example, all scientists admit the fact of speciation. As you learned, even scientists who are YE creationists admit it, because it's an observed fact. On the other hand, some scientists don't agree with Darwin's theory. Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood are both YE creationists, and don't accept evolutionary theory, while the do acknowledge the evidence (facts) that supports the theory. A fact differs from a theory: In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals--some very similar and some very different--exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory That the Earth's plates move about is a demonstrated fact. However, there are scientists who disagree with plate tectonics, the theory that best explains the facts. You've confused facts and theories. And you've assumed that "theory" means what "hypothesis" actually means.

I was hoping you could explain those apparent misconceptions. They are pretty basic, and unless I'm missing something, he's got some very basic flaws in his hypotheses. Could address those? Here's xkcd's take on the centrifugal force thing: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png

Shroeder has a lot of odd beliefs, if I'm hearing him correctly. He seems to be asserting that: mass is equivalent to weight velocity is proportional to kinetic energy masers emit atoms to mention a few. His notion that centrifugal force is a real, and not fictional force, is based on a misunderstanding, I think. If you could show me your understanding of his arguments, I'd be grateful.

Yes. This was the argument used by St. Augustine when he showed that the "days" of Genesis were figurative. But as he pointed out, the fact that the days were figurative does not mean that Genesis is not literally true. In fact, he titled his work (English translation) The Literal Meaning of Genesis that is, it meant what it said, even if it said it figuratively.

I gave a link to many, many papers Wise cited as evidence for macroevolutionary theory. You failed to check even one of them. Do you think no one noticed? Here's some of them, including some creationist publications. Gingerich, P. D., 1994. The whales of Tethys. Natural History, 103(4):86– 88. Gould, S. J., 1994. Hooking leviathan by its past. Natural History,103(5):9–15 Zimmer, C., 1995. Back to the sea. Discover, 16(l):82–84 Zimmer, C., 1995. Coming onto the land. Discover, 16(6): 118–127 Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CENTech. J., 8(2): 160–165 Wise, K. P., 1990. Baraminology: A young-earth creation biosystematic method. In:Proceedings of the Second International Conference onCreationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 345–360 Wise, K. P., 1991. Practical baraminology. CEN Tech. J., 6(2): 122–137 Wise, K. P., 1992. Creation polycladism: A young-earth creation theory of biogenesis. In:Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities CreationConference, Twin-Cities Creation Science Association, Genesis Institute, and Northwestern College, Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 204–210. Wise, K. P., 1994. Origin of life's major groups. In:The CreationHypothesis, J. P. Moreland (ed.), InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, pp. 211–234 Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K. P., 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history. In:Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 609–621. Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115. Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323 Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467 Carroll, ibid, p. 473. Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219. Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177. Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107. Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514. There's really no point in you denying them. You were, several times linked to these, and you declined to check any of them. (Barbarian earlier) Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge. Show me your list of scientific theories on which there is complete agreement by all scientists, and your evidence for this.

Barbarian observes: Yes, that's the case. For example, the GULO gene is "broken" in various mammals which get sufficient vitamin C from diet, and therefore don't need it. But the specific mutation that broke it in primates is the same in all cases, while in other mammals like Guinea pigs, the mutation is different. The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be essentially impossible. (sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned) Sure they can. Mutations are just changes in the genome of a population. So if we look at some documented speciations, we see that the difference is a change in genome. The mutation that produced the species O. gigas from O. lamarkania (a polyploidy event) was directly observed. It produced a new species which breeds true among it's own kind, but is unable to breed with the species from which it evolved. The origin of Oenothera gigas.-GATES22 has investigated the relation of the number of chromosomes in Oenothera gigas to its size. This mutant from 0. Lamarckiana has double the number of chromosomes (28) possessed by the parent form and by the other mutants examined. In every tissue examined, the cells of the mutant are conspicuously larger than those of the parent form, and the nuclei of the pollen mother cells during synapsis are about twice as large. The author suggests that increase in the size of nuclei and cells, consequent upon or coincident with the doubling of the chromosome number, and change in the rela- tive dimensions of the cells in some cases, will account for all the differences between the two species. There is no evidence of the r resence of new or additional unit characters in 0. gigas. It is concluded that the facts strongly support the view of the independence and genetic continuity of the chromosomes, whatever may be their role in heredity. It is suggested as most probable that the double number of chromosomes in 0. gigas originated soon after fertilization, by the fail- ure of a nucleus to complete its division after the chromosomes had divided. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/330189

That's not scriptural; it's your addition to His word. You think spirits are ghosts and apparitions? No wonder you're confused. Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says a spirit has no bones, meaning no body. Let it be his way

It's not one conference. I've seen plenty of lively disagreement on many, many things in science. Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge. Would you like to see some examples?

Yes, that's the case. For example, the GULO gene is "broken" in various mammals which get sufficient vitamin C from diet, and therefore don't need it. But the specific mutation that broke it in primates is the same in all cases, while in other mammals like Guinea pigs, the mutation is different. The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be essentially impossible.

"Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic product. Homeopathy is a system of medicine established in the 19th century by a German physician named Samuel Hahnemann. Its basic principles are that "like treats like" and "potentiation through dilution." For example, in homeopathy, influenza would be treated with an extreme dilution of a substance that normally causes influenza when taken in high doses. A French physician discovered oscillococcinum while investigating the Spanish flu in 1917. But he was mistaken that his "oscillococci" were the cause of the flu. Practitioners of homeopathy believe that more dilute preparations are more potent. Many homeopathic preparations are so diluted that they contain little or no active ingredient. Therefore, most homeopathic products are not expected to act like drugs, or have drug interactions or other harmful effects. Any beneficial effects are controversial and cannot be explained by current scientific methods. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by an "X." So a 1X dilution = 1:10 or 1 part of an active ingredient in 10 parts of water; 3X = 1:1000; 6X = 1:1,000,000. Dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by a "C." So a 1C dilution = 1:100; 3C = 1:1,000,000. Dilutions of 24X or 12C or more contain zero molecules of the original active ingredient. Oscillococcinum is diluted to 200C." https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1080/oscillococcinum Even if you believe in homeopathic remedies, this one shouldn't work, according to homoeopathy.

My guess is that it will take years of clinical trials,since this drug has a potential to act on human DNA as well. A nucleotice-analog substance might be a teratogen in humans.

Remdesivir has been known to have antiviral properties since at least 2016. Clinical trial results haven't been entirely encouraging, but there is this: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Mar 9. pii: AAC.00399-20 Compounds with therapeutic potential against novel respiratory 2019 coronavirus. Martinez MA ABSTRACT ...The previous epidemics of high-morbidity human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003, and the Middle East respiratory syndrome corona virus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, prompted the characterization of compounds that could be potentially active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The most promising compound is remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleotide analog prodrug currently in clinical trials for treating Ebola virus infections. Remdesivir inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV in tissue cultures, and it displayed efficacy in non-human animal models. In addition, a combination of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitors, lopinavir/ritonavir, and interferon beta (LPV/RTV-INFb) were shown to be effective in patients infected with SARS-CoV. LPV/RTV-INFb also improved clinical parameters in marmosets and mice infected with MERS-CoV. Remarkably, the therapeutic efficacy of remdesivir appeared to be superior to that of LPV/RTV-INFb against MERS-CoV in a transgenic humanized mice model. The relatively high mortality rates associated with these three novel human coronavirus infections, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, has suggested that pro-inflammatory responses might play a role in the pathogenesis. It remains unknown whether the generated inflammatory state should be targeted. Therapeutics that target the coronavirus alone might not be able to reverse highly pathogenic infections. This minireview aimed to provide a summary of therapeutic compounds that showed potential in fighting SARS-CoV-2 infections.

They have a lot of YE creationists with them. Perhaps you're the one who is out of step.

Barbarian observes: Your unfortunate resentment against Catholics is preventing you from thinking clearly. Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved. Your faith, if you love God and love man, will save you just as well. Let it go, and you'll find it easier to accept Him. You seem to have abandoned any attempt at rational discourse, are merely venting verbal abuse. That should be a pretty good hint for you that you aren't being a very good imitation of Christ. Most of the fundamentalist Christians I know recognize that Catholics are their brothers in Christ, and none of them I've encountered so far are as foolish as to claim other Christians are devil worshipers. You should probably calm yourself and try to act in a Christian manner. I won't report you for your behavior, but other people might.

No. I think part of your problem is not reading carefully. Geologist know very well. We see such canyons forming today. It happens when an old river (with lots of meanders and loops) gets uplifted and "rejuvenated." This locks the river into its channel,and instead of cutting new channels as old rivers do, it just cuts deeper and deeper into the existing bed. Canyons and gorges are in the initial phase of valley development and are considered some of the most interesting valley forms. These forms result from accelerated entrenchment caused by recent tectonic activity such as especially vertical uplift. The uplift creates high-standing plateaus and as a result, perpetuates the downward erosive power of existing rivers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_rejuvenation The most spectacular valley forms are canyons and gorges that result from accelerated entrenchment prompted by recent tectonic activity, especially vertical uplift. Canyons and gorges are still in the initial phase of valley development. They range in size from narrow slits in resistant bedrock to enormous trenches. Where underlying bedrock is composed of flat-lying sedimentary rocks, regional uplift creates high-standing plateaus and simultaneously reinvigorates the erosive power of existing rivers, a phenomenon known as rejuvenation. Vertical entrenchment produces different valley styles depending on the size of the river and the magnitude and rate of uplift. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, located in the southwestern United States and formed in response to uplift of the Colorado Plateau, has entrenched about 1,800 metres and widened its walls six to 29 kilometres during the past 10,000,000 years. The Grand Canyon is only one of many spectacular canyons that developed in response to uplift of the Colorado Plateau. https://www.britannica.com/science/river/Valley-evolution Nope. You just made that up. Not unusual for people like you. Jesus said the world would hate us, and we're used to it. You made that up, too. Answers in Genesis wrote that, and they are correct that you would not have the genetic variation in one man, his sons, and their wives to produce the sort of variation we see in the different species of humans such as Cro-magnons, Neandertals, H. erectus, and others. These were clearly "pre-flood" in creationist thinking. Doesn't matter. As you now realize, and as your fellow YE creationists point out, the 8 people on the Ark could not have had the genetic variation to produce these different populations. You think God didn't have oceans on the Earth? Seriously? As you see, there is no possible way for 8 people to have the kind of variation we see in the fossil record of humans. And in a few thousand years, evolution could not produce enough mutations to do this. Why not just accept it God's way? Then it won't bother you any more.

(Xrose doubts human remains are in "flood deposits") Barbarian asks: According to YE creationists there are. Let's see if you think so. Do you believe that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are from the flood? (Dodging ensues) If you don't even know what a Christian is, how can you begin to tell me what creationists think? Since you dodged the question, I'm guessing you have no idea what they think about the Grand Canyon deposits. OK. let's find something that might be familiar to you... Indeed, accepting H. erectus as human, as the majority of creationists do now, was a concept that raised its own set of questions. Where did H. erectus fit into biblical history? Where did H. erectus come from and where did he go? Do we carry H. erectus genes? Was there really a wide diversity of human genes immediately post Flood? If so, how did this diversity happen so soon after the human genetic bottleneck of the Ark? Should there not have been less diversity immediately after the Flood, with diversity increasing as time went on? How did H. erectus relate to the Neanderthals? Why are there no H. erectus burials (Homo erectus 2009b)? https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/ AIG has a point. Obviously, if there was a flood that wiped out all humans on Earth other than a man and his sons (with their wives) there would not be enough genetic variety to have Neandertals, H. erectus, H. ergaster, and all the rest. Those fossils would be pre-flood and therefore in flood deposits. Your unfortunate resentment against Catholics is preventing you from thinking clearly. Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved. Your faith, if you love God and love man, will save you just as well. Let it go, and you'll find it easier to accept Him.

Sure. According to YE creationists there are. Let's see if you think so. Do you believe that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are from the flood?

That would explain why you changed it.

Apparently you don't understand what evidence means in science. Wise, for example, gave you dozens of examples, backed up by many, many articles which he cited for you. I get that you feel a need to pretend that he did not, but anyone who goes to the link will find all those citations. There's really no point in you denying the fact.

Well, let's ask your fellow YE creationists, who happen to be scientists... Dr. Kurt Wise: 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 phenacodontids32 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 Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf Dr. Todd Wood: Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html You've been badly misled. If you prefer faith to evidence, that's an honest position. It is not an honest position to deny the evidence, as your fellow YE creationist are telling you.

Always glad to learn something new. Let's see what you have... That's not what He said... Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. You changed His words to make them more acceptable to you. And yet there are many, many fossils of humans in what creationists call "flood deposits." You guys need to get your stories straight. Foraminifera? No. They come much, much later. The earliest fossils are of bacteria from much earlier times. Forams are eukaryotes, not prokaryotes. Fossils of prokaryotes are much older and occur in lower strata than Forams. You've just been misled about that. You've been misled about that, too. Mountains like the Himalayas are made of the fossils of sea shells and other shallow ocean organisms. They were raised when India moved north and collided with Asia. The collision is still going on; India moves north into Asia, and the Himalayas rise by a measurable amount every year. No one is surprised by that. But so far, no one has found fossils out of place in undisturbed gelologic columns (which do exist in totality in several places on Earth). No bunnies in Cambrian deposits, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on. The La Brea tar pits have only relatively recent animals. No trilobites, no dinosaurs. Just recent organisms. Sabertooth tigers, giant ground sloths, etc. ,

Wisdom is what it is, regardless of what it is. What did Jesus say about the pagan centurion? And I never claimed to be superior. You claimed to be superior. It's not just your words, but your attitude and comments that make it clear you think you are: Instead of imagining that you are wise in things you have not learned, go look at the evidence I showed you. Start with Dr. Wise's many links to evidence for evolution in the fossil record. He's a young Earth creationist, but he's honest enough to admit the truth. I've linked you to all sorts of evidence that shows exactly what I'm telling you. No point in denying the truth. I showed you what the Church teaches. No point in denying the fact. You see, this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble here. I linked you to an official statement of The Church, declaring the Bible to be always true. We'll just have to disagree on that point. I also think it is. They were speaking only in the Biblical sense. In the Bible, a church was always headed by an apostle, or one delegated by an apostle. Not all denominations are "churches" in that sense. But of course, modern usage has a different meaning. Jesus made it clear that one did not have to belong to any particular organization to be saved, so it is a meaningless issue. ,