Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's a deal. I will not hold you to science's standard per your own request.Again, let me reiterate:
I am not obligated to hunt for evidence of my positions, like scientists are.
Please don't hold me to your standards, or you'll confuse yourself.That's right. It applies to others
Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist.
Of course wolves and foxes and coyotes are the same kind.. this is basic biology.
The felines tend to be more specialised meat-eaters, have shorter faces and retractable claws. Many of them are ambush, pounce-predators, rather than runners.
The word species is difficult to define, whether you is a creationist or not.
So why all the abuse about " kinds"?
Dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind.
Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind).
Generally, if two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.
Hybrids in the feline family include bobcats that mate with domestic cats and bobcats with lynx.
Try mating a dog and a cat...
These are my personal standards:But I will continuously point the readers to this post and show them that you insist on having a double standard.
And I said:Estrid said:If there had been "created kinds" the fossil record would show it.
If you see that as a "double standard," that's your prerogative.AV1611VET said:Keep looking.
Jesus said you will know false prophets by their fruits.
I can tell you that I seem to be a more happy and caring person when I believe the Bible's testimony that we were created from the dust of the ground rather than Darwin's speculation of the survival of the fittest.
Nowhere does the Bible say that earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it does say, from beginning to end, that we were created from dust.
When you look at the evidence presented for universal common descent, through natural selection acting on random mutations, with the right presuppositions, rather than the presuppositions of naturalism and reductionism, you realize how flimsy the evidence really is.
On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, and if the apostles willingly died for their witness of it, then God could have created Adam from dust.
Fossils are not the only evidence and ones we do have complement other evidence from multiple scientific fields. It is the consiliance of evidence from from independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions.. Your unreliable sources can only deflect and demean the evidence with childish memes which is why you practically never provide links for your ridiculous claims.The fossil evidence for the cat/ dog is a few teeth and ankle bones of an ancient fisher type animal. Pure speculation based an assumptions.
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an American author, theologian, and advocate of the argument of intelligent design. Jonathan is entitled to his unscientific opinions.
Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist. Instead, he explains the lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.
I met Jonathan Wells and heard him speak when I believed in evolution, and he seemed like a reasonable and well-educated person.
On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, and if the apostles willingly died for their witness of it, then God could have created Adam from dust.
That's fun to say, isn't it, Estrid?Evidence? We don't got no evidence.
He may not be a young earth creationist, but he is a creationist. Specifically a Moonie (Unfication Church).
Wells was sponsored by his church to get his PhD in biology. His position, in his own words, is that "God created the cosmos with a plan in mind" and "that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God."
His objections to evolutionary biology are theology, dressed up with a veneer of biology. Which really explains the entire ID movement as well (a fiction invented to get special creation pushed back into school biology and get around legal decisions).
He's also a terrible liar. Here's a quote: "Yet the oldest fossils show that almost all of the major groups of organisms appeared at around the same time, fully formed and recognizably similar to their modern counterparts."
Two out of those three claims are flatly wrong and one of them is only correct in an incredibly narrow interpretation.
Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist. Instead, he explains the lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.
I met Jonathan Wells and heard him speak when I believed in evolution, and he seemed like a reasonable and well-educated person.
Time is a dead enough giveaway to stop evolution in its tracks.There are no arguments against ToE that are based on data.
If there are no "well informed anti-evolutionists," how can they be "intellectually dishonest"?Estrid said:There is no such thing as a well informed and intellectually honest "anti evolutionist", however reasonable he may seem to the ill informed.
You mean like Jesus is?It is actually impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest creationist.
Childish memes? When have I ever posted a meme?Fossils are not the only evidence and ones we do have complement other evidence from multiple scientific fields. It is the consiliance of evidence from from independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions.. Your unreliable sources can only deflect and demean the evidence with childish memes which is why you practically never provide links for your ridiculous claims.
An example of the memes you present in the form of buzzwords such as "muck" in your present comment. Most of your anti-scientific claims appear to be a replication of DI, AIG and ICR endeavors to demean and deflect from the overwhelming body evidence for the ToE. If you want to say, like @AV1611VET that the "bible settles," that is fine, but your statements to demean and deflect from the evolutionary science are a waste of time.Childish memes? When have I ever posted a meme?
If you start with the assumption that the overall muck to man model is correct then you're going to end up with all kinds of ridiculous assumptions.
Those who walk by faith aren't obligated to present evidence, even if there was some.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Correct you are.One doesn't need to prove special creation to believe that it's true.
Nor does It say the crucifixion took place 1988 years ago.Humble_Disciple said:Nowhere does the Bible say, however, that the creation took place less than 10,000 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?