PART 1 OF 2
If you have an example of someone saying that sort of thing to him, I'm sure we'd all be willing to see it.
Page 41, post #808: "This isnt a real response." This was addressed to Bible Research Tools and is as if to say the response he previously gave was nonsensical or gibberish and, by extension, the originator is also nonsensical, and thus the time spent composing that prior post was time wasted and will be ignored. This is akin to "blah blah blah" and "baloney".
Oh, and before you attempt to argue that this isn't the same, you are not qualified to make that assertion as the only one qualified to do so is the recipient. I've received this exact same response numerous times as well from KomatiiteBIF, and it usually comes after lengthy back-and-forth when I suspect he is tired of discussing the topic with me as he feels I am just too ignorant of the facts to be worth his time. Again, he is as comfortable receiving it as he is dishing it out so this is not a critique against him, but rather, to correct you in that you said no one else here is responding in like manner to Bible Research Tools.
At this point, I'm having difficulty stretching the benefit of the doubt that you are not intentionally twisting and exaggerating facts to your advantage, but that these are all just repeated innocent oversights on your part.
Thank you for clarifying.
Probably not a good idea to ask, on a message board, things you don't want to have answered.
Which is why I qualified it by adding additional instruction not to respond as they were rhetorical, but you still responded.
Show us where he was that abusive.
See post #808.
He's a creationist, after all. But an honest one. He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. And while he expresses faith in the idea that creationism might someday find a way to explain all these transitional forms, he admits that he has yet to find that way.
Did Wise say "huge"? Is this currently his position? I thought science accepted changes one's position as new information came to light. Is this not the nature of science? Maybe you have a double-standard? As Bible Research Tools has pointed out repeatedly to you, you continue holding onto a 23-yr old paper... you might as well be quoting what was philosophically believed to be true from the 1st century AD. Peculiar how you're quick to cite the latest from evolutionary biased sources, but then pick out antiquated sources from a creationist perspective. Do you see and understand why I'm finding it difficult to continue extending the grace that you're not being intentionally misleading in your responses?
Like the large number of transitional forms, creationism has no way to explain it.
What qualifies as a "transitional form" is subjective... Biblical creationists recognize there are intermediate forms, but this does not mean that thing1 became thing2 by way of things 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc... The evolutionary paradigm believes this is true, but the creationist paradigm sees thing 1 remaining in the kind of 1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3... all comes from 1 and remains the 1 kind), whereas the kind of 2 may have variations of 2.1, 2.2. 2.3... all coming from 2 and remaining the 2 kind.
Kurt Wise disagrees with you, noting that the cetacean series is evidence for macroevolution.
Kurt Wise believes that the vast majority of fossils do not fit the evolutionary story and he is a young earth creationist. You muddle about in the weeds thinking if you find one contradiction from a statement nearly a quarter of a century ago that you've made a ground-breaking case, but continue to never see the broader and more relevant picture.
Just as we have examples of structures and functions in existing organisms with which we can compare fossils. The notion that we can't know anything we didn't directly see is a major loser for creationism.
Every major branch of study, science or not, uses comparative analysis of things that can be studied and observed in order to determine how something works, how it will function (or not) if the conditions are replicated (or changed), etc... Nobody ever saw a land animal become a whale, nobody ever saw a dinosaur become a finch, nobody ever saw ecoli living on citrate become anything other than ecoli... whales remain whales, finches remain finches, ecoli remains ecoli (even after tens of thousands of ecoli generations)...
Moreover, evidence such as collagen and heme from fossils confirms evolutionary predictions as to the affinity of those molecules. They are, as predicted, more like those of birds than like those of other reptiles. No way to dodge those facts.
This doesn't preclude that similarity in collagen is because of intentional design during creation.
Observed macroevolution makes it impossible deny. It's just what happens. This is why many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation; they just retreat back a few steps and say "it's not real evolution."
Macroevolution never has been observed, even Richard Dawkins qualifies this statement in that he states it has never been directly observed:
Can evolution be observed - creation.com
If you let the text interpret itself, it says that it can't be a literal six days.
Either poor reading comprehension or a willingness not to believe then on your part. I know you're intelligent, so it cannot be reading comprehension that's the hurdle.
That's what the words mean. If you have to redefine words to make the text fit your new beliefs, that's a pretty good sign that they aren't right.
I think at this point it is evidential that you are intentionally warping and twisting facts to your advantage. Day means day. Day doesn't mean billion years. If we say "have a good day", it means have a good day, not have a good billion years. If it was ever interpreted as have a good billion years then that would be REDEFINING the word day.
Science doesn't deny miracles. But if you have to call in all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation, that's also a hint that your new interpretation might be wrong.
Sure it does. Days, as stated in scripture, is not non-scriptural (by definition)... it's right there in the text (in scripture), read your Bible! We've already had this discussion before and aside from scripture and what Jesus has spoken, there are early church fathers who have believed creation was as it is written - so it's not "new"... just like your line of arguments here are not new.
Barbarian observes:
Because those things usually don't cause problems for their new interpretation of Genesis. Usually. However, sometimes they do. For example, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex fossil. When checked it was closest to that of a bird, rather than like that of other repties. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. It's just that most creationists are unfamiliar with the details.
No, you're wrong. It is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but denied by creationism. Since such molecules indicate common descent, it confirms a prediction of the theory made over a hundred years ago.
Again, this does not preclude intentional design during creation. Let's flip it around here: if, for example, God created two independent and not evolutionarily related creatures and they both have eyes, can you explain why they should NOT have any similarities in molecules, collagen, hemoglobin, or DNA? What logic would support the idea that similar function in evolutionarily unrelated creatures should be completely different DNA? You portray that the creationist view as requiring an unrealistic expectation, but the creationist is not expecting discontinuity in the building blocks of life any more than the evolutionist does.
He is a creationist, after all, and he thinks that "there is evidence for creationism." However, as you learned, he admits that the very large number of transitional forms are "strong evidence" for macroevolution, and that creationism has no explanation for this.
Did Wise say "very large"... I thought you said earlier that he said it was "huge"? You keep presenting old information and false views of the biblical creationism worldview, then work to prove them wrong and think you've succeeded, when all you've done is stood up a false strawman and torn it back down with very little connection to reality and what is presently known.
