Dr. Dino

Please point me to your substantive scientific responses to the scientific points we have raised.

We are all Christians, and the point of this forum is for Christians to debate and discuss the evidence and arguments for Creation Science AND Theistic Evolution. That means that there are two different viewpoints (3 if you add in OEC) which Christians around the world consider. In fact, YEC'ism is still in the minority, so to act as if Theistic Evolutionists are just atheists dressing up as Christians is not only ignorant, it is in violation of the rules of this forum.

If you don't want to discuss these issues seriously, what are you doing here?

And, yes, I believe that YEC'ism is a great danger to Christian Faith. I have even shown you the proof of this point and provided the arguments regarding why this is so.

But for you, who knows NOTHING about evolution to say that we are not here to read all the evidence is patently absurd. We HAVE read both sides. In detail. You have not. How can you, with any honesty, either to yourself or us, argue that a theory is a lie and a "fairy tale" when you don't even know the first thing about it?

As I have said before: learning about evolution from a Creationist site is about as effective as learning about Christianity from an atheist site. Not only will you NOT learn about the intended subject, you will be given WRONG information and be misled.

I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

I don't think you are all here to read the evidence and respond to it. Some of you have an agenda of falsely saying "YEC's destroy our faith". AIG proves that wrong time and time again.

To respond to your other point...I have too.

Wait a second, you just posted the same thing twice. I asked you to point me to where you have made substantive arguments on the scientific issues that have been raised. That should not be very hard since you have only been here a short time.

No you didn't. You questioned that I had even done so.

I'll repeat:I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

"Please point me to your substantive scientific responses to the scientific points we have raised."

that is what I said, and that is what I want. Not a difficult or onerous task.

When did I say to go look at talkorigins? I said to start a thread in which we can discuss your alleged falsifications of evolution. They really have no place here because this thread is designed for discussion about Dr. Kent Hovind; not the validity of evolution.


Then why did you bring up your opinion that the tooth fairy cannot be falsified?

__________________

Okay. For one thing that is not my exact words. If you check on post 70 I didn't say you could not be saved. What I said was "I am not say your lost, just not a Christian. Christian means Christ-like and Christ certainly did not believe in evolution, He should know." While I am soulwinning I certainly do not tell them they need to believe in creation. I usually only talk to people who have been christians for a while and who would understand good about creation science. I believe every word of the KJV Bible from cover to cover. I don't think evolution sends as many people to Hell as other things like alchohol or drugs but it is important for a Christian to know the truth when he/she is able to understand. I am completely against evolution because it is not [b]Biblical. And if Kent Hovind is a con-artist then take him up on his $25,000 offer for proof of evolution or get one of your professors to.

The offer is $250,000.

And it is a fraudulent offer. Read his conditions. No one can demonstrate what he says because no one even claims that. It is a publicity stunt.

Why do you believe the KJV cover to cover? After all the KJV was just a group of guys gathered around the table in the early 17th century.

Also, how do you know Jesus was not an evolutionist?

Are you the Second Coming? So you know for sure.

I don't think you are a Christian. So don't start accusing others of not being.

[noflame]

Jay
CF Moderator

We have already exlplained elsewhere why Hovind's offer is a fraud.

As for what you said: it is there in black and white. You do not believe a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. I am not sure why you draw a distinction between being saved and being a Christian. I believe that if you are not saved, you are not a Christian, and if you are saved, you are seeking to be Christ-like. And you will have to back up your statement that Jesus did not believe in evolution. I do not recall him addressing the issue one way or the other. He definitely believed God (himself, of course) created the universe and all the life on it, but that is not contrary to evolution in the least. Jesus also believed in Genesis, but THAT is not contrary to evolution, only the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

You are right not to preach YEC'ism when witnessing, but you could still be doing damage to existing Christians if you convince them that evolution and Scripture are incompatible. If they come to believe this and then discover that evolution is likely true, what will that do to their faith?

Why should we be tying to the two together at all? Why not teach that there are many different viewpoints on this issue and that it is, after all, not a salvation issue. Some read the text literally and believe that God created everything 6,000 years ago over six 24-hour periods. Others believe the universe and the earth are billions of years old and that God created over that whole time using evolution. Others believe that the universe is that old, but believe that God created everything specially (without evolution) over progressive periods and that the days were really "ages", which is one definition of "yom" in Hebrew.

Wouldn't this be a safer and more honest thing to be telling people?