God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, dad2 said:

The term macroevolutionary is not clear.

It's not clear to you, because, as more than one person has pointed out, you don't know much about it.   Dr. Wise said that there was very good evidence for it in the sense of common descent.   But it technically means "speciation."

7 minutes ago, dad2 said:

That seems to indicate a degree of evolution that is quite high. I could see how a high degree of adapting and evolving may have happened, 

Actually, Wise thinks not, even though he admits the evidence is very good for that.   He expresses confidence that eventually, a reasonable creationist explanation will be possible.

AIG and ICR now admit common descent to the level of families or orders (and sometimes higher).  

10 minutes ago, dad2 said:

But we would need the guy you are quoting to expound on what he means. Does he mean in the fossil record? If so, that evidence is inadmissible.

He disagrees with you.   He points out a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record that indicates evolution.    His fellow YE biologist Todd Wood agrees with him.  This goes back to the point that you don't know much about biology, and it's hurting you here.

12 minutes ago, dad2 said:

God wants us to believe Him over man and our own wisdom.

That's what most Christians do.   Men, relying on their own wisdom, reinterpreted the creation account as a literal history.   Most of us would rather believe Him.   As you know, your salvation doesn't depend on it, but so long as you rely on man and your own wisdom, you're going to be misled.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

After exposing Barbarians claim the YEC is a "modern invention" he still uses this Bogus claim on you

Denial isn't going to help you.   Why not just learn about it, and find a way to accommodate the reality?

Contributions to creationism by GeorgeMcCready Price

Author's Biography

Kurt P. Wise, B.A. (geology, University of Chicago), M.A. & Ph.D. (paleontology, Harvard University), has been Professor of Natural Science and Director of the Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University since 2009. Before that he was on the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Bryan College. Over the last thirty years, Dr. Wise has been active in the development of creation biology and geology, including baraminology, catastrophic plate tectonics, and the founding of the Creation Biology Society and the Creation Geology Society.

Abstract

George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading young-life creationist of the first half of the twentieth century. Largely self-taught, Price shared his creationist views in more than two dozen books and more than 800 articles—mostly intended for the lay believer.

...

Price’s geological ideas formed the core of the geological arguments of Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood, but without appropriate citation. Many of the discussions of modern creationism are similar to ideas Price shared a century or more ago. Although many of current creationist discussions are likely to be derived from Price, not only is this not obvious, but much valuable discussion has been lost. Creationists should reconstruct their intellectual history and thus enrich current discussions.

A host of Price’s claims are echoed in modern creationist discussions. Many of those discussions may turn out to be derived from Price’s ideas and this intellectual heritage should be studied in detail. Price’s philosophy of science, for example, seems to be echoed in such things as the creationist tendency to present anti-evolutionary arguments rather than build models, the preference of quantitative over non-quantitative research approaches, and the adoption of positivist definitions of science. Price’s climatology seems to be echoed in such things as adherence to the canopy model, associations of warm climate with large body size, and discussions about the nature and timing of the ice age. Price’s biology seems to be echoed in such things as creationists’ use of Mayr’s biological species definition, references to ‘natural limits to variation’ and ‘living fossils’, and post-Flood diversification by segregation of genetic information. Price’s geology seems to be echoed in such things as the rejection of the biostratigraphic column and disputes about the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the stratigraphic record.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=icc_proceedings

Starting with the visions of an Adventist "prophetess", Price formulated what has come to be YE creationism.  

 

[The Barbarian]

57 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

With one exception.    Chimpanzees still exist.   Your picture is of a bonobo, the third species in the clade that contains humans, bonobos, and chimps.   Lots a lots of fossil transitionals exist to show that this clade was once much larger, with many species.   Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise cites them as being among the very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.   Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

It's not clear to you, because, as more than one person has pointed out, you don't know much about it.   Dr. Wise said that there was very good evidence for it in the sense of common descent.   But it technically means "speciation."

No, actually, the term is not clear because it is not a scientific term for starters. Then, if someone is talking about speciation, we would need to see details of what exactly they are saying, and what the basis is.

 

Quote

Actually, Wise thinks not, even though he admits the evidence is very good for that.   He expresses confidence that eventually, a reasonable creationist explanation will be possible.

Get the guy to come here and defend his own position. Your cheer leading is pathetic and you can't defend it.

 

Quote

AIG and ICR now admit common descent to the level of families or orders (and sometimes higher).  

 So what? Let one of them come here and defend that! Let's see if they use the fossil record! Let's see the basis. They have tried to (as Walt Brown and others have done) model the past using present nature/physics. That can't be done. That is the mistake science made. If they make the same mistake, that is not my problem.

 

Quote

He disagrees with you.   He points out a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record that indicates evolution.

Then he misunderstands the fossil record. So?

 

Quote

    His fellow YE biologist Todd Wood agrees with him.  This goes back to the point that you don't know much about biology, and it's hurting you here.

Present nature biology belongs in the present nature. Anyone trying to carry it into the far past does so by faith and faith alone.

 

Quote

That's what most Christians do.   Men, relying on their own wisdom, reinterpreted the creation account as a literal history. 

 

 The whole bible records the reality of creation. It cannot be waved away by folks attempting to please men. Even angels in the bible talk about it. Either one believes or not.

Quote

  Most of us would rather believe Him.   As you know, your salvation doesn't depend on it, but so long as you rely on man and your own wisdom, you're going to be misled.

Knowing the Savior means knowing He created the world. Otherwise people don't know Him all that well. Who He really is. What is is and always has really been all about.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by dad2

[dad2]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You'll admit that much, yes.   But you don't approve of the way He did it.

He put Adam to sleep one day and took a part of the man and used it to created woman. That is how He did it. He formed man from the dust of the earth that same day.

[dhchristian]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Starting with the visions of an Adventist "prophetess", Price formulated what has come to be YE creationism.  

Moses was a YEC, King David was a YEC, Jesus was a YEC, The Apostles were YEC, They all believed the literal account given by God that he created the earth in six days and on the seventh he rested. So You can stop with your NPC talking point already, because it is a load of malarkey, nothing more. just because some of the scientific interpretations used to prove YEC have arisen in modern times does not mean believing in young earth is a modern invention it is as old as history. I mean do you even have any common sense to comprehend this? Or are you so unable to compute. 

[The Barbarian]

42 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Moses was a YEC, King David was a YEC, Jesus was a YEC, The Apostles were YEC,

No evidence for that at all.  Not one of them, anywhere in scripture says the days of Genesis were literal days.   You've just assumed that they agree with your new doctrine.   As you learned, it was formulated early in the 20th century by the Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price.

44 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

just because some of the scientific interpretations used to prove YEC have arisen in modern times

Actually, all of Price's assumptions have been easily refuted.   Would you like to learn about some of those?

44 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I mean do you even have any common sense to comprehend this? Or are you so unable to compute. 

Getting angry and verbally abusive probably won't help you very much.    No one takes that as a sign of rational discourse.

 

 

[dhchristian]

  You get a full five "frusties" for that one.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

one.opinion, you win!    Well played.

Not that it was all that hard to predict.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Not that it was all that hard to predict.

Predictable, yes. Still, I find it pretty odd that he didn’t respond with scripture supporting his claim. It’s almost as if those scriptures don’t exist...