The Barbarian Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,088 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said: Clearly we have to differing viewpoints, however I have no doubt there will be many creationists in heaven and evolutionists in heaven all of who Loved Jesus. Amen. Thanks for your post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,088 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 (edited) 9 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said: Macroevolution is completely false with no evidence to support it. If macroevolution were true there would be an abundance of transitional fossils for us to observe, and there are none. 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.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. YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms Edited January 4 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 1.22 Reputation: 817 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said: I wish to apologize for the wording of my post. I think perhaps my intent did not come off as I wished it to. I'm not sure exactly how I should have worded what I intended to say, but I did not mean to come off as disrespectful as I think I did. Clearly we have to differing viewpoints, however I have no doubt there will be many creationists in heaven and evolutionists in heaven all of who Loved Jesus. So I apologize if my last post came off as very disrespectful. Water under the bridge my friend, I respect that, thank you. 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted January 4 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 777 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 334 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Author Share Posted January 4 8 hours ago, The Barbarian said: "Evolutionists" have an advantage in that evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. But common descent isn't, so it's at least in principle possible to be wrongly convinced of common descent. Nobody denies speciation occurs, Most people understand that if all the breeds of dogs came from the two original pairs of canines on an ark 4,000 years ago, that there has been a lot of adaptation and changes from what was there originally. In that context, we see change and adaptation all around us. The great dishonesty of evolutionists is that they proclaim this validates molecules to man. It does not. Dogs become different looking dogs. Cats become different looking cats. Horses become different looking horses. Nothing advances to a higher life form. There is nothing is observable science that contradicts the Scriptures. Even nature law doesn't discount miracles, since the violation of natural law is what separates a miracle from a coincidence. None of that demonstrates universal common descent. Science is not a synonym for truth. Science is the study of the physical world. If God created an exact clone of this world tomorrow we would have no better way of determining its age than we do of our own planet. We can say what the half life of an isotope is, but we can't demonstrate the condition or integrity of that isotope when it was created. You can't use natural law to explain a supernatural creation. The fact is, when Christ returns all natural law will bow to His will. The creation is just a rock. The Creator is eternal. Many things in the Bible are subject to interpretation. However, when we read Exodus 20:11, and we realize those words were carved by the finger of God, we realize that when God said "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them," He was not referencing the ancient fables of bronze era sheep herders. He didn't even reference Genesis, as Jesus did when He said "It is written." God's words are unequivocal. In six days the Lord made heaven and earth. Period. That is God's word. Accept it or reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,088 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: Nobody denies speciation occurs Macroevolution is an observed fact. In fact, Answers in Genesis admits that not only do does speciation happen, even new genera and sometimes higher taxa evolve. They don't like the word "evolution" , of course. Even though we see evolution happening all around us, they avoid speaking of it. 7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: The great dishonesty of evolutionists is that they proclaim this validates molecules to man. That's a common creationist dishonesty. In fact, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. I suppose you're not lying about it, and just bought into the creationist lies by others. 9 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: We can say what the half life of an isotope is, but we can't demonstrate the condition or integrity of that isotope when it was created. No, that's wrong. Some creationists try to dodge the facts by claiming that rates of decay were faster in the past. But if that were true, the increased rates necessary to convert billions of years into thousands of years would have fried all life on Earth. 11 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: God's words are unequivocal. Yes. As you learned, the text itself in the Creation account says that it's not a literal account. That is God's word. Accept it or reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 1.22 Reputation: 817 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said: Nobody denies speciation occurs, Most people understand that if all the breeds of dogs came from the two original pairs of canines on an ark 4,000 years ago, that there has been a lot of adaptation and changes from what was there originally. In that context, we see change and adaptation all around us. The great dishonesty of evolutionists is that they proclaim this validates molecules to man. It does not. Dogs become different looking dogs. Cats become different looking cats. Horses become different looking horses. Nothing advances to a higher life form. There is nothing is observable science that contradicts the Scriptures. Even nature law doesn't discount miracles, since the violation of natural law is what separates a miracle from a coincidence. None of that demonstrates universal common descent. Science is not a synonym for truth. Science is the study of the physical world. If God created an exact clone of this world tomorrow we would have no better way of determining its age than we do of our own planet. We can say what the half life of an isotope is, but we can't demonstrate the condition or integrity of that isotope when it was created. You can't use natural law to explain a supernatural creation. The fact is, when Christ returns all natural law will bow to His will. The creation is just a rock. The Creator is eternal. Many things in the Bible are subject to interpretation. However, when we read Exodus 20:11, and we realize those words were carved by the finger of God, we realize that when God said "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them," He was not referencing the ancient fables of bronze era sheep herders. He didn't even reference Genesis, as Jesus did when He said "It is written." God's words are unequivocal. In six days the Lord made heaven and earth. Period. That is God's word. Accept it or reject it. Man is the highest life form on earth though there's some slime that has higher designing skills than man. All of God's plan for His creations. God is supernatural but that doesn't mean that creation was instantly like making a clone earth to look old so no one can determine its age. Jesus in the flesh was a supernatural creation but it still took 9 months to be born. Dirt to man wasn't in a whirlwind creation or zap~man. Six days of evening(chaos and morning(order), thus in the day that God created the heavens and earth. It's not referring to 24 hour each. Genesis means "In the beginning". Edited January 4 by BeyondET 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted January 4 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 777 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 334 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Author Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, The Barbarian said: That's a common creationist dishonesty. In fact, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Stop. Just stop. You personally have posted that all living things came from a single progenitor. When called on it you say, "But we don't know where Frankencell came from." That doesn't mean you doubt its existence, you're just smart enough to have realized that abiogenesis is impossible. God created man in His image but you want to return the favor. Theistic evolution is like rat poison labeled as vitamins. Your theory says that man evolved from simple life forms; that man was NOT created in the image of God. You say that the six day creation is a lie; that it took billions of years. You say that the flood, which Jesus spoke of, which killed every living thing was just a local flood. You deliberately misquote Genesis to say that the land produced life without acknowledging the last part of the verse which says that it happened in one day on day six. When God specifically said He created the heaven, the earth and all that is within it in six days, you claim He was referencing some allegory. And you claim OTHERS are dishonest? You claim that the text of Genesis proves it's not a literal account. Why? Because you refuse to believe it? I may be wrong, but I think it was you who posted the quote that said when the Bible conflicts with science the Bible is wrong. No. The theory of man is wrong. We have a divine origin because we are made in the image of God. Like God, we know good from evil. We are responsible for the choices we make. When we diminish God as some kind of junior sorcerer who somehow started a chain of events that led to the start of the universe but subsequently just sat back and watched things happen, it becomes even easier to ignore His teachings and His word. You think very little of the Bible. I get it. You pretend not to, which is dishonest. God is in COMPLETE control. He still performs miracles to this day. The most dramatic of these is that He saves lost people from a certain destruction. I never said that decay rates were different long ago. I say that the earth, like everything else in creation, was created in its mature form. Oil was in the earth. Gold, coal and diamonds were in the earth. He didn't need billions of years. He knew what we needed before He created us. Maybe the god you created in your mind is very limited in his abilities, but my God is AWESOME!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted January 4 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,088 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 4 That's a common creationist dishonesty. In fact, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. 48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: Stop. Just stop. These are facts. And it's been true from the start. Darwin never made any predictions about the origin of life, other than to attribute it to God: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin, last sentence in On the Origin of Species 52 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: You personally have posted that all living things came from a single progenitor. So the genetics indicate. And we can test that by looking at genetics of organisms of know descent. It turns out to be true. 52 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: When called on it you say, "But we don't know where Frankencell came from." Perhaps you forgot who actually said that. Wasn't me. However, God says that the earth brought forth living things, so that's good enough for me and Darwin. You should believe Him, too. 54 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: That doesn't mean you doubt its existence, you're just smart enough to have realized that abiogenesis is impossible. I'll go with God's opinion. Sorry. 55 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: Your theory says that man evolved from simple life forms Actually, man evolved from other hominids. All of them rather complex. 56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: that man was NOT created in the image of God. Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says a spirit has no body. The "image" is not in our bodies, but in our minds and souls. 57 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: You say that the six day creation is a lie; If you think figurative verses are a "lie", then you have decided Jesus is a liar. Are you sure about that? 59 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: When God specifically said He created the heaven, the earth and all that is within it in six days, you claim He was referencing some allegory. As you learned, the text itself tells us that. 59 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: And you claim OTHERS are dishonest? I said that YE creationists are, with few exceptions, not liars, but merely in error. 1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said: I may be wrong, but I think it was you who posted the quote that said when the Bible conflicts with science the Bible is wrong. Yes, you're wrong. When it seems that scripture and science disagree, one has misunderstood one or both of them. The Bible isn't wrong; the man-made doctrine of YE creationism is wrong. Yes, the Bible does not say that the flood was global. If it had been, God would have used "tevel" not "eretz" for the extent of the flood. 1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said: When we diminish God as some kind of junior sorcerer who somehow started a chain of events that led to the start of the universe but subsequently just sat back and watched things happen Here, you're preaching deism. God is intimately in control of every particle in the universe. If He turned His mind from us, we would not even exist. He just chose the most efficient way to make things work. Engineers have started using evolutionary processes to solve extremely complex problems, because it works better than design. Once again, God knows better than man. 1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said: You think very little of the Bible. I get it. You pretend not to, which is dishonest. I just take it as it is. You don't. I get it. But I won't attribute dishonesty to you; you could merely be wrong. 1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said: God is in COMPLETE control. He still performs miracles to this day. The most dramatic of these is that He saves lost people from a certain destruction. What about miracles surprises you? After all, He makes the universe work. If He wants to intervene, He will. 1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said: never said that decay rates were different long ago. I say that the earth, like everything else in creation, was created in its mature form. Oil was in the earth. Gold, coal and diamonds were in the earth. I know you believe it. But there's no scriptural support for it. Maybe the god you created in your mind is very limited in his abilities, but my God is omnipotent. He created the universe to do what He willed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueFollowerOfChrist Posted January 5 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,054 Content Per Day: 1.60 Reputation: 599 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/26/2022 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5 On 1/3/2024 at 6:08 PM, The Barbarian said: 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.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. YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms I must admit I don't understand your post. I'm not sure what you are saying. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted January 5 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 777 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 334 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Author Share Posted January 5 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Darwin proposed a single universal common progenitor from which all living things, plants and animals, evolved. While he may have given lip service to the Creator, he certainly didn't give God credit for creating anything but one original life form. Darwin and all his little Darwinians have said ever after that the Bible is wrong; that it isn't the word of God; that it's the fables of bronze age shepherds; that the six day creation is some weird allegory for nothing in particular; and that God saw fit to take credit for a "six day" creation that took billions of years. In so doing, the Darwinians must disavow the special creation of man, the fall of man, the origin of marriage, the Great flood, and about half of the Old Testament. You cannot accept evolution without rejecting the word of God. While some claim they don't, every Biblical quote is taken out of context, abbreviated to what they want it to say, or ignored completely. 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: So the genetics indicate. The Bible states otherwise and you have chosen which to believe. The fact is, the word of God is your enemy because it contradicts everything you are trying to preach. You aren't here praising God and re-affirming the faith of others, you are here to attack the Bible and demean those who chose to believe it over the claims of agnostics and atheists about our origins. 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: However, God says that the earth brought forth living things, so that's good enough for me and Darwin. Apparently not, because you deny the existence of the rest of the passage which concludes with "THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE SIXTH DAY." You aren't expressing a belief in the Bible, you're using it to make the exact same arguments we can see on any atheist website. You are deliberately taking the Bible out of context to teach something directly contrary to what is written. Even when presented with the actual words of God, carved by God onto stone tablets, you say that God was referencing a parable or allegory. God never referred to God's word. God IS God's word. 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Actually, man evolved from other hominids. No, Man was created in the image of God. he had no ancestors, no parents, and no siblings. You mention Jesus, but Jesus REVERED the Scriptures and used them to rebuke the devil. He said that from the beginning GOD CREATED THEM male and female. Which of us is calling Jesus a liar? 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: I said that YE creationists are, with few exceptions, not liars, but merely in error. If one believes in the written word of the Bible and they are in error, then the Bible must be in error, right? Was King James wrong in not clearing his translation through you first? For you to be right about 40% of the Bible has to be wrong. 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Yes, the Bible does not say that the flood was global. How many mountain peaks are covered by a local flood? How does water cover the mountains when a relatively low lying ground with easy run-off to the sea is flooded? How does an ark float from the Middle East to the mountains in Turkey in a local flood? How does one so twist his mind as to believe the things you say are true? 22 hours ago, The Barbarian said: He just chose the most efficient way to make things work. Read the Bible. God NEVER uses the most efficient way to do anything. He chooses the impossible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts