Dr. Dino

[Vance]

So, you want a forum where only Young Earth Creationists sit around and discuss, well, Young Earth Creation concepts? Well, I suppose you could have that type of forum if you like.

But this forum is intended to flesh out the very real debate between the concepts of Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Since Young Earth Creationism is the minority opinion among Christians worldwide, it seems odd that you would be surprised that many Christians argue against YEC'ism and for one of the other interpretations of Genesis.

To me, the real debate is between OEC and TE, with YEC'ism not even really in the running as a viable and believable option for Christians. But I would never argue that they be excluded from the forum just because I don't agree with them.

 

[Dutchunter]

I see no such thing from the the evolutionists such as yourself. I and others believe in a CREATOR, PERIOD. NOT a Creator who starts the evolutionary process- of which there is no evidence at all. When people on your side mock AIG and their credentials etc when their foundation is the BIBLE- and are able to back up what they say- don't go telling me you're here for a discussion on God's CREATION.

I noticed you didn't deny there wasn't any difference between the two forums. Gee...could that be because you have the same beliefs as "non-believers"- following the same "science" that gets disproven all the time? Nah......

 

[Dutchunter]

So, you want a forum where only Young Earth Creationists sit around and discuss, well, Young Earth Creation concepts? Well, I suppose you could have that type of forum if you like.

But this forum is intended to flesh out the very real debate between the concepts of Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Since Young Earth Creationism is the minority opinion among Christians worldwide, it seems odd that you would be surprised that many Christians argue against YEC'ism and for one of the other interpretations of Genesis.

To me, the real debate is between OEC and TE, with YEC'ism not even really in the running as a viable and believable option for Christians. But I would never argue that they be excluded from the forum just because I don't agree with them.

Very good! In other words a forum unlike the two that are already here!

Have some evidence of your "YEC is the minority...."? Do you read AIG's magazines etc? Even I grew up as people still do today with textbooks and the media(of all kinds) pushing evolution down our throats. What I'm seeing is the more people read things such as that put out by AIG the more come to realize what a joke evolution is and how a 6 day Creation and a young earth isn't as crazy as you'd like everybody to believe. They realize how awesome God really is.

 

[troodon]

could say "I'm a Christian" and post their nonsense here anyway.

The same thing could happen in your suggested forum. Atheists could claim to be YECs and fill up the forum with nothing but lies hoping that you will post them someplace else and be torn apart.

Regardless, the MODs aren't exactly lax on who they let post here. I had several dozen posts removed some time ago before I convinced the MOD in question that I was a Christian.

Is there a Creation only forum where we can discuss God's awesome Creation

There is not a YEC-only forum. If you would like, you can go into the Bugs, Suggestions, and Help (I believe that's the title) forum and ask Erwin to create one. I fail to see the point such a forum would serve.

and not have to argue with those who claim that "science" proves them right

Science does not prove us right; it proves you wrong. There is a tremendous difference which I'm sure you care not about.

when in fact it seems every day they're proven wrong

Big talk

and can only offer- well, things change.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

I and others believe in a CREATOR, PERIOD. NOT a Creator who starts the evolutionary process- of which there is no evidence at all

Do you mean there is no evidence of a Creator or no evidence of evolution? If the latter than you are incorrect. See here and here

When people on your side mock AIG and their credentials etc when their foundation is the BIBLE

You think that reading the Bible alone makes one qualified to state what the earth is like? If not then don't their other credentials come into question?

also, when did AiG have the credentials of their members questioned? I must have missed that.

don't go telling me you're here for a discussion on God's CREATION.

If we didn't look at God's creation you, and everyone else here, would still believe the sun was in orbit around the earth.

I noticed you didn't deny there wasn't any difference between the two forums.

There is a very large difference in the people who post. Look at the members that frequent the other forum and notice how many do not post here.

Really, this forum itself is unnecessary but they decided to include it.

I fail to see what kind of difference you are looking for. Everyone who posts here claims God to be their Creator.

Gee...could that be because you have the same beliefs as "non-believers"

Violation of forum rule #1.

The non-believers of this website do not accept the existance of God nor do they accept Jesus Christ as their savior.

following the same "science" that gets disproven all the time?

Once again, big talk. If you think you have a falsification of evolution or an old earth please feel free to create a thread on that very subject. Without it I am forced to believe that you are merely blowing smoke.

Even I grew up as people still do today with textbooks and the media(of all kinds) pushing evolution down our throats

Yeah, and what's with the textbooks and media shoving atomic theory and DNA down our throats too? Atomic bombs didn't destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, God did!



When you're done with your empty rhetoric please feel free to post examples for discussion.

They realize how awesome God really is.

God is less awesome if humanity was created via evolution? I could not disagree with you more.

 

[notto]

I see no such thing from the the evolutionists such as yourself. I and others believe in a CREATOR, PERIOD. NOT a Creator who starts the evolutionary process- of which there is no evidence at all. When people on your side mock AIG and their credentials etc when their foundation is the BIBLE- and are able to back up what they say- don't go telling me you're here for a discussion on God's CREATION.

I noticed you didn't deny there wasn't any difference between the two forums. Gee...could that be because you have the same beliefs as "non-believers"- following the same "science" that gets disproven all the time? Nah......

I believe in a CREATOR, PERIOD as well. You are putting your interpretation of the bible in front of understanding Gods creation. When we study the creation, we see something different that what is described in the bible which leads us to understand that the creation story in the bible is a metaphor. This understanding does not say that God is not the creator, it is just a different interpretation of how God created with evidence from the actual creation.

I will tell you: I am here to discuss God's creation. To do so, I suggest we look at the creation itself and from it determine what we can about how God created it.

 

[Dutchunter]

Then anybody can just claim everything else is just a metaphor in the Bible as well. I am putting them both together, as AIG is able to do so well. Do you read their publications? It's obvious so many don't bother to go thru all they have on their website..even I don't. Magazines etc seem to get the point across much better.

Troodon...next time just respond to what I'm saying instead of picking it apart sentence by sentence. I realize there's so much evidence for your side that you don't have room to post it all (those links/"evidence" have been refuted. Would you like me to post every link to every case made against evolution by AIG and others?) But I have to respond to your claim of me violating rule #1. As I said in the SAME SENTENCE(shows how desperate you are)

following the same "science" that gets disproven all the time?

THAT is the belief I was referring to. Now go back to finding all those missing links for us

I hate to have to remind people.....evolution is a THEORY- demonstrated over and over to be wrong! A "theory" that actually tests to work- THE bomb- duh..........

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What "missing links" are you referring to? Be specific - give me two groups, one of which is believed to be ancestral to the other, and I'll see what I can do.

 

[Dutchunter]

That's the problem....there is no "one ancestral to the other". Show me the ones that show human "evolution". Dinosaurs. Actual evidence- not artists "rendering", not one or a small % of bones used to make up a missing link. Hard evidence.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That's the problem....there is no "one ancestral to the other". Show me the ones that show human "evolution". Dinosaurs. Actual evidence- not artists "rendering", not one or a small % of bones used to make up a missing link. Hard evidence.

I said "one believed to be ancestral to the other".

You want the ones showing human "evolution"?

OK.

Here's a series of skulls. Which ones are human? Which ape? - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

See if you can do better than the creationists who can't agree.

What "dinosaur" evolutionary sequence would you like?

 

[notto]

Then anybody can just claim everything else is just a metaphor in the Bible as well. I am putting them both together, as AIG is able to do so well. Do you read their publications? It's obvious so many don't bother to go thru all they have on their website..even I don't. Magazines etc seem to get the point across much better.

Sure anybody can do that, but in this case, it is only done when there is physical evidence in the creation that directly contradicts and falsifies a literal reading of the texts.

The same thing was done to falsify geocentrism and descriptions of doors in the firmament for allowing rain to fall through and storehouses of snow in the heavens that open when it snows. Do you take these texts as literal descriptions of what causes weather?

 

[Vance]

Believe me, I have read more of AIG than you have. In particular, you might want to read their "arguments NOT to use" list, which I posted in another thread below. You might check it out.

 

[Dutchunter]

Do better than what...3 whole skulls??? THAT is the best you can come up with?? They're not even found intact or in some cases even all the pieces found at the same time or the exact same area. Even to say that Creationists can't decide whether to call them apes or human does NOT prove they are candidates for the "missing link" or that man evolved!

Homo erectus is the bones of supposedly the oldest nearly human remains on earth. This classification is based on two fossil finds: "Peking Man" and "Java Man" Let's look at them. Peking Man will be first. "In 1921, two molar teeth were found in a limestone hill 25 miles from Peking, China. Six years later, a third tooth was found and given to Dr. David Black. Over the next several years dozens of pieces of broken up skulls were found. Some time after 1936, a man named Franz Weidenreich, who was in charge of the dig, fashioned a model of what "Peking Man" supposedly looked like."
World War Two comes along and all of the fragments were lost except for the two teeth. But before the war, "a French scientist, Marcellin Boule, examined the actual fragments of the skull and in 1937 published his findings. He said that the fragments were definitely monkey-like, that the model did not correspond objectively to the fossils. The date of Peking man was supposedly in the neighborhood of half a million years. Human fossils have been dug up from the same area."(2)
(2) Evolution: The Fossils Say No-- Dr. Duane Gish


Let's look at 'Java Man". This one will make you want to go out and get some 'Espresso'." In 1891 a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois discovered 'Java Man.' Well, want he really found was an ape-like skullcap.
A few years later he returned to the site along the Solo River and found a human leg bone and two molar teeth 50 feet away from the first find. Like a good scientist, Dubois put the head bone together with the leg bone and called it 'Java Man.' Expert evolutionists have ingeniously estimated the age of the find to be 500,000 years old." (3)
(3) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, p. 119-- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.
Some concluding remarks on 'Java Man'. Dubois admitted before he died that he found two truly human skulls near the place that he found the other fragments. He also said that 'Java Man' was, in reality, a giant gibbon.


What man will do so that he doesn't have to show accountability, responsibility to a Creator. He chooses to believe that he came from a monkey even though the evidence is clearly against it. To show what depths that depraved, Godless men will go to fool the public, let's look at Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man. As we look at these we will see that they are as human as we are. Cro-Magnon Man(12,000 to 30,000 years ago) was found in a cave by some boys out running with their dog. He fell into a crack in the ground. The boys went into the cave, it was several hundred feet long. There were colorful pictures on the wall of deer, horses, and bison."The paintings are now famous as the skillful artwork of people we call Cro-Magnon. Some of their skeletons were found buried in another cave at Les Eyzies, France in 1868. Smithsonian magazine (October 1986) carried an article titled" " Cro-Magnon hunters were really us, working our strategies for survival ".(4)
(4) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, p. 120-- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.

See also evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php


There are even others not on your list that were proven to be FRAUDS long ago. At least Talkorigins isn't crazy enough to keep using them as examples.




Take your pick of the dinosaurs....T. Rex is fine with me

 

[Dutchunter]

Sure anybody can do that, but in this case, it is only done when there is physical evidence in the creation that directly contradicts and falsifies a literal reading of the texts.

The same thing was done to falsify geocentrism and descriptions of doors in the firmament for allowing rain to fall through and storehouses of snow in the heavens that open when it snows. Do you take these texts as literal descriptions of what causes weather?

No there is not physical evidence that directly contradicts and falsifies a literal reading of the texts.

See answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n2Geocentrism.asp

 

[Vance]

Please read the original post in my thread called "the Lesson of Geocentrism"

You are right, the Bible does not teach geocentrism. the point is that the Christian community at the time BELIEVED that it did, based on a literal reading of Scripture, just as YEC's now believe in a young earth based on a literal reading of Scripture. The Church was wrong then, and YEC's are wrong now.

 

[Dutchunter]

I think you need to reread the entire article. It's explained there very well. And your response, from somone who has no problem with evolutionists changing their theories over and over Something is proving wrong- just change it. Dating method didn't "add up"? Just change it. A skull is proven to be a fraud? Who cares. Doesn't change anything. Until we have to change it.

 

[Vance]

This just shows your utter lack of understanding of how science works.

Go do some reading and come back when you can honestly say you have read both sides.

 

[Dutchunter]

This just shows your utter lack of understanding of how science works.

Go do some reading and come back when you can honestly say you have read both sides.

Oh wow.... it's easier than I thought. That didn't take you very long

 

[Vance]

Well, no, it does not take very long to tell you not to waste our time going back over the same discussions again and again. Why don't you read through the threads on this forum, see what arguments have been made back and forth on legitimately debated issues, and add something new to the discussion.

Otherwise, what is the point?

 

[notto]

No there is not physical evidence that directly contradicts and falsifies a literal reading of the texts.

So there are doors in the firmament that let the rain in and storehouses of snow in the firmament?

 

[Dutchunter]

Well, no, it does not take very long to tell you not to waste our time going back over the same discussions again and again. Why don't you read through the threads on this forum, see what arguments have been made back and forth on legitimately debated issues, and add something new to the discussion.

Otherwise, what is the point?

Why don't you ask yourself the same question? I'm not the one who seems to have a problem with my "theory".