The Barbarian Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 968 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 Except no literal six day creation, no special creation of organism, and so on. It doesn't rule out a six day creation, nor does it support your new doctrine. 3 hours ago, dhchristian said: Duh!, It was written in the 4the century AD, there was no need to mention those things because creationism was the accepted doctrine back then No, that's wrong. As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the 20th century. For example, St. Augustine showed that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones. Would you like to learn about that? 3 hours ago, dhchristian said: Point made, Point won By Myself, Barbarian walks away with his tail between his legs whimpering. Don't get mad. Get informed. Learn about scripture and what is says, and it won't get you upset any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, The Barbarian said: And the first organism on earth was a unicellular prokaryote. Would you like to learn how we know? Of course I would and I will put on my prophecy hat and declare you have none. You will quotes someone Darwinism evangelist who said it was that and you have accepted it by faith alone. Please include how this life form originated out of dead elements and what it evolved into. Love, peace, joy Edited December 6, 2019 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.42 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: No, that's wrong. As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the 20th century. For example, St. Augustine showed that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones. Would you like to learn about that? You should stick to science and not delve into theology, because you have no clue what your talking about. The Bible, Holy Scriptures, states God created the earth in 6 days, this was not a novel idea of modern day creationists, they just affirmed a belief that has existed since creation using science external to scriptures. Moses, who wrote Genesis believed God created the earth in 6 days, the Jewish nation believed this as well, celebrating the seventh day of rest every week. Jesus affirmed the six days of creation being the Word of God who SPOKE creation into existence, The Apostle Paul affirmed the six days of creation, as did all of the apostles, The early church believed the six day creation, with the exception of those who had been led into Gnosticism which is a doctrine the apostles fought against. This Gnosticism has "Evolved" into modern day deism which is coupled with evolution, which is what You teach, knowingly or unknowingly, which is contrary to the Truth of the Word of God as preached by the Apostles and the True church throughout its history. Evolution is nothing more than gnostic deism in disguise. You of course are free to believe that But this is exactly what the early church of the Apostles fought against. Augustine himself was a gnostic in many of his teachings as well, So Your views stand in opposition to the teachings of the Apostolic church of the first century. They all believed in the six day creation, and that God intervenes in natural world he created supernaturally which is what things like Noah's flood are, which contradicts the uniformitarian view of the Historical record that the evolutionists presume. So all you are doing is promoting deism, which is to say creating half hearted believers as my earlier comment to you spoke about. Edited December 6, 2019 by dhchristian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 30 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Except no literal six day creation, no special creation of organism, and so on. It doesn't rule out a six day creation, nor does it support your new doctrine. No, that's wrong. As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the 20th century. For example, St. Augustine showed that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones. Would you like to learn about that? Don't get mad. Get informed. Learn about scripture and what is says, and it won't get you upset any more. Take your own advice. While the word for day(yom) can mean an extended period of time, every time it is used with a number, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day as we know it today. Now God organized what happened each day to make us use some common sense. Plant life was created on the third day; the sun was created on the fourth day. Plants can't live more that a few days without light and warmth. Therefor it is impossible for the days to be millions of years. Would you like to learn about that? Love, peace, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, dhchristian said: Jesus affirmed the six days of creation being the Word of God who SPOKE creation into existence, The Apostle Paul affirmed the six days of creation, as did all of the apostles What Biblical passages do you rely on to support this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 14 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Neither Todd Wood nor Kurt Wise accept common descent, although both admit evolution, in the scientific terminology, happens. They merely admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Wise openly declares that he puts his faith in his understanding of the Bible above the evidence. I believe that's also Wood's position. Well, let's see what some of your fellow creationist say... 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Dr. Wise 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. Dr. Todd Charles Wood Q.E.D. What you can't seem to get your mind around is that the beliefs of 2 men does not represent the thinking of most creation scientist. I have just posted the names to One Opinion of 11 scientist who not only reject evolution, they give he scientific reasons why. You on the on the other hand can only parrot what some say but offer no supporting evidence. Talk is cheap. Love, peace joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 10:27 AM, one.opinion said: I want you to show me evidence. Otherwise, it is just your opinion. Amusing. You accuse me of now reading your links, now you are not willing to read mine. Love, peace, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 968 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 Barbarian observes: Neither Todd Wood nor Kurt Wise accept common descent, although both admit evolution, in the scientific terminology, happens. They merely admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Wise openly declares that he puts his faith in his understanding of the Bible above the evidence. I believe that's also Wood's position. Well, let's see what some of your fellow creationist say... 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Dr. Wise 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. Dr. Todd Charles Wood 16 minutes ago, omega2xx said: What you can't seem to get your mind around is that the beliefs of 2 men does not represent the thinking of most creation scientist. These two actually are real scientists, with expertise in biology and paleontology. So they know what the evidence is. 17 minutes ago, omega2xx said: I have just posted the names to One Opinion of 11 scientist who not only reject evolution, they give he scientific reasons why. I noticed that only four of them have any competence in biology. So that explains things. Keep in mind, Wise and Wood don't accept evolution, either. They're just honest enough to admit that there lots of very good evidence for it. 19 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You on the on the other hand can only parrot what some say but offer no supporting evidence. As you learned, Dr. Wise offered numerous examples of transitional series that he considers to be "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And I've shown you that genetic data also strongly supports common descent. Would you like to see that, again? 21 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Talk is cheap. It's the creationist way. As you now see, even many YE creationists admit that there is good evidence for common descent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You accuse me of now reading your links I'm not accusing you of it, just pointing out the fact that you refused to read them. You said so yourself. 7 minutes ago, omega2xx said: now you are not willing to read mine You didn't include a link. It's a little frustrating when people demand evidence, and then won't look at it isn't it? So until you provide evidence that other young earth creationists disagree with Wise and Wood, it is just your opinion. After all, talk is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 minute ago, The Barbarian said: Barbarian observes: Neither Todd Wood nor Kurt Wise accept common descent, although both admit evolution, in the scientific terminology, happens. They merely admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Wise openly declares that he puts his faith in his understanding of the Bible above the evidence. I believe that's also Wood's position. Well, let's see what some of your fellow creationist say... 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Dr. Wise 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. Dr. Todd Charles Wood These two actually are real scientists, with expertise in biology and paleontology. So they know what the evidence is. I noticed that only four of them have any competence in biology. 4 vs 2. I will take those odds any day. "So that explains things. Keep in mind, Wise and Wood don't accept evolution, either. They're just honest enough to admit that there lots of very good evidence for it." It would be a simple thing for you to post the evidence they offer and that would solve the problem. Why are you unwilling to do that? As you learned, Dr. Wise offered numerous examples of transitional series that he considers to be "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And I've shown you that genetic data also strongly supports common descent. Would you like to see that, again? You need to get and understanding of what constitutes verifiable evidence. "Considers" is evidence he has no hard evidence. "Strongly supports" is a another indication you have no hard, verifiable evidence. It's the creationist way. As you now see, even many YE creationists admit that there is good evidence for common descent. Why are you so unwilling to present their evidence? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY. Love, peace, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts