Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[The Barbarian]

No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter how the first protein came into existence. If we could prove tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first living cell was a direct, miraculous creation of God, it would have exactly zero effect on the evidence for common descent.

Today's winner.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Are you familiar with the numerous criticisms of the film? No pretense required: the large number of experts you think are out there hiding their rejection of evolution do not exist. If scientists didn't really believe in common descent, they wouldn't keep using the concept in their work. You've spent too much time getting your information solely from creationist propaganda.

So no, you stick to professional creationists (who almost without exception aren't doing any science) and ignore the much larger number of working Christian scientists. That's a good way to never have to test the truth of your beliefs.

Anyone who wants to know the truth. The only ones who don't need to ask are the ones afraid of what they'll find out.

I limited the scope to common descent because that's where we have so much evidence and because I work on evolution, not on the origin of life. You're the one that chose to attack my claim that there was a lot of evidence for common descent -- why do you keep trying to change the subject?

No, I'm saying that it doesn't matter how the first protein came into existence. If we could prove tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first living cell was a direct, miraculous creation of God, it would have exactly zero effect on the evidence for common descent.

Besides the scientific responses to this supposed problem (one of which you've already been given) -- what exactly is your argument here? I thought you were advancing young earth arguments. If so, there was no Cambrian explosion -- nothing happened 500 million years ago, because that's ten thousand times longer ago than the earth has existed. The fact that there was a Cambrian explosion (to the extent that there was one) means that YEC is wrong.


Of course I sincerely believe that common descent is true -- why would I be here defending it if I didn't? Why would I have chosen a career that involved it if I didn't? Especially since I didn't start doing biology until I was almost 40. I could have any number of careers that had nothing to do with biology at all -- why would I choose the one I did? You actually think it's plausible that hundreds of thousands of mostly pretty intelligent people would devote their lives to studying and using something that they secretly knew wasn't true? All to avoid career damage from others who are in the same boat? Why? How does this not strike you as an insane idea? *This* is why you should spend some time talking to actual scientists rather than believing slanders about them.

How sad you subscribe to the wisdom of fools. You reject the plain words of Scripture, preferring to the demonic lies of the enemy.

I must tell you - Satan will not be resurrecting anybody - are we clear? He has not the power to animate a flea, let alone a human. He's eaten up with jealousy that Jesus has such power, and has lied to countless others that evolution is the mechanism by which life is - but he is a liar and the father of it.

Please revisit the scientific arguments of Creationists, but this time with an open mind willing to hear truth instead of a closed, satanically controlled mind.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The title appears to have referred to the people producing the movie. ID crashed and burned because it couldn't explain the evidence. The Discovery Institute seems to have closed most of its functions and is now trying to restart. The Dover Trial, in which ID was found to be merely creationism in disguise, and the accidental release of the Wedge Document in which IDers admit their goal is to establish theism in science, were fatal blows to that charade.


Any science with no further problems to solve, is dead. But why not show us what you think the most significant problem with evolutionary thoery, and we'll talk about it?


Let's find one of those and see what he says....

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

That's what we're doing.

Mostly because the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. And it wouldn't matter. If He had, evolution would work exactly the same way it does now.

In reality, they've found short proteins in the Murchison meteorite, which shows that such things do form in the absence of living things. Would you like to learn about that?

Reality beats anyone's reasoning.

Let's ask a YE creationist familiar with the issue:

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 macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But it's not just that. DNA analyses show the same pattern of common descent first noted by Linnaeus over 300 years ago, based on phenotype only. We know that method works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Even more convincing, we don't find any transitional forms where there shouldn't be any. No mammals with feathers. No whales with gills. Even though bats and whales would benefit from them.


She never found "tissue" at all. She found fossils of blood cells, some of which had a little heme left (heme is a fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) The high iron content preserved a tiny amount of the protein. But here's the key;
The heme, when analyzed, turned out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of other reptiles, once again confirming evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about that?

(Asked about evidence against evolution)

The assumed sudden appearance of animals in the Cambrian turned out to be an error. We find an entire fauna of animals in the Precambrian. The Ediacaran fauna includes a number of phyla, some of which survived into the Cambrian. The

It's a typical pattern of mass extinction. Not ever the first. Chen recognizes this. I assume you never read his paper?

nt. J. Dev. Biol. 53: 733-751 (2009)
The sudden appearance of diverse animal body plans during the Cambrian explosion
JUN-YUAN CHEN*

ABSTRACT
Beautifully preserved organisms from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan, southern China, document the sudden appearance of diverse metazoan body plans at phylum or subphylum levels, which were either short-lived or have continued to the present day. These 530 million year old fossil representatives of living animal groups provide us with unique insight into the foundations of living animal groups at their evolutionary roots.

Among these diverse animal groups, many are conservative, changing very little since the Early Cambrian. Others, especially Panarthropoda (superphylum), however, evolved rapidly, with origination of novel body plans representing different evolutionary stages one after another in a
very short geological period of Early Cambrian time. These nested body plans portray a novel big picture of pararthropod evolution as a progression of step-wise changes both in the head and the appendages. The evolution of the pararthropods displays how the head/trunk boundary progressively shifted to the posterior, and how the simple annulated soft uniramous appendages progressively changed into stalked eyes in the first head appendages, into whip-like sensorial and grasping organs in the second appendage, and into jointed and biramous bipartite limbs in the
post-antennal appendages.

Haikouella is one of most remarkable fossils representing the origin body plan of Cristozoa, or «crest animals» (procraniates+craniates). The anatomy of Early Cambrian crest animals, including Haikouella and Yunnanozoon, contributes to novel understanding and discussion for the origins of the vertebrate brain, neural crest cells, branchial system and vertebrae.

Most YE creationists simply assume that Jesus and His disciples agree with them, even though none of them actually said the creation story is a literal history of six 24 hour days.

What rubbish. Jesus plainly referred to "male and female" and - THROUGH INSPIRATION OF THE REST OF THE BIBLE AUTHORS HE HIMSELF INSPIRED LIKE PAUL AND PETER - the flood, six day creation and the seventh day rest, etc.

The reason you who are seduced by the devil don't understand the truth is because you don't understand that Jesus is the God of the OT ane NT and is the One Who inspired every single Bible author.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Today's winner.

What "evidence for common descent"? All we have is evidence for "Common Designer".

 

[Phoneman-777]

Of course I sincerely believe that common descent is true -- why would I be here defending it if I didn't?

Because you are of your father the devil, maybe? IDK.

I DO KNOW there is NO EVIDENCE for "common descent". What we have is evidence for a Flood which buried destroyed creatures according to their death state. "Bloaters and floaters" are always found in the upper mud layers where we'd expect to find them, while the rest are found lower as any thinking person will expect.

Amazing how the layers of the geological column are graded "coarse to fine" for which ONLY WATER can account - but there was only a "local flood", right?

Why the flip didn't Noah just move everything to the where the Flood didn't flood instead of going through the trouble of building an ark?

 

[The Barbarian]

What "evidence for common descent"?

From your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Notice that Dr. Wise admits that these transitional series are not consistent with "traditional creation theory." Even more compelling, we don't see transistions except where evolutionary theory predicts them. Bats would be more efficient with feathers and an avian respiratory system. Whales would be more efficient with gills. But although "common design" woul predict such things, they are never found.

But it's not just that. Genetics and DNA analyses show the same common descent as transitional fossils and anatomy. Neither of these facts are consistent with "common design."

All we have is evidence for "Common Designer".

See above. Even informed creationists admit otherwise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Amazing how the layers of the geological column are graded "coarse to fine" for which ONLY WATER can account - but there was only a "local flood", right?

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Every river delta shows sorting by water, because the water usually sorts sediment that way. But there are huge deposits of unsorted till that completely rule out a worldwide flood, and fossilized desert dunes complete with burrows and fossils of desert organisms that show that they hardened without a flood at all.

What we have is evidence for a Flood which buried destroyed creatures according to their death state. "Bloaters and floaters" are always found in the upper mud layers where we'd expect to find them, while the rest are found lower as any thinking person will expect.

So flowering trees bloated and floated to the surface along with their roots still embedded in the earth. While horsetails did not and formed huge layers far below? I don't think so.

What rubbish. Jesus plainly referred to "male and female"

In fact, God says what was there at the beginning of creation and male and female where not.

THROUGH INSPIRATION OF THE REST OF THE BIBLE AUTHORS HE HIMSELF INSPIRED LIKE PAUL AND PETER - the flood, six day creation and the seventh day rest, etc.

You've merely assumed that they also re-interpreted figurative parts of scripture to make them literal history. Here, you assumed what you proposed to prove, and are trying to speak out of their mouths to support it.

The reason you who are seduced by the devil don't understand the truth is because you don't understand that Jesus is the God of the OT ane NT and is the One Who inspired every single Bible author.

I don't think the devil had seduced you. You've merely come up with a personal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and declared that anyone who doesn't believe your version is "seduced by the devil." In fact, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. But any who declare that their version is the only one that can be held by Christians to be saved, has made an idol of their interpretation to the exclusion of Jesus. And it doesn't matter if they have chosen to worship creationism or evolution. It will not go well for them at Judgement.

Please revisit the scientific arguments of Creationists

Show those to us.

 

[sfs]

How sad you subscribe to the wisdom of fools. You reject the plain words of Scripture, preferring to the demonic lies of the enemy.

I must tell you - Satan will not be resurrecting anybody - are we clear? He has not the power to animate a flea, let alone a human. He's eaten up with jealousy that Jesus has such power, and has lied to countless others that evolution is the mechanism by which life is - but he is a liar and the father of it.

Please revisit the scientific arguments of Creationists, but this time with an open mind willing to hear truth instead of a closed, satanically controlled mind.

I've revisited the scientific arguments of Creationists numerous times. I've read their papers, I've read their books -- I've even written to multiple creationist organizations asking for explanations for genetic data. Their arguments are truly terrible. You, on the other hand, have said repeatedly that you have no need to look any evidence that would contradict your views.

But this kind of blanket claim gets us nowhere. Let's see some of these scientific creationist arguments. I'm a geneticist, so pick your favorite argument that involves genetics and bring it here so we can discuss it. That's what the forum is for, after all: discussion.

Because you are of your father the devil, maybe? IDK.

Fortunately, you are not the one I answer to.

What "evidence for common descent"? All we have is evidence for "Common Designer".

Start with just two of the innumerable pieces of evidence.

1) These are Hawaiian honeycreepers:

They're a diverse group of birds that vary in size, coloring, anatomy, and lifestyle. Their beaks, in particular, are often highly specialized and tuned to their diet, which in one case is seeds, in another fruit, in another snails, in another nectar, and so on. In an evolutionary model, these specializations are the result of adaptive evolution of birds that made their way to Hawaii at some point in the past. What's your explanation? Once we have the two hypotheses stated, we can try testing them.

2) Lots of genetic data only make sense to me under an evolutionary model. I've described one such set of data in some detail here. What's the common designer explanation for those data?

 

[The Barbarian]

They're a diverse group of birds that vary in size, coloring, anatomy, and lifestyle. Their beaks, in particular, are often highly specialized and tuned to their diet, which in one case is seeds, in another fruit, in another snails, in another nectar, and so on. In an evolutionary model, these specializations are the result of adaptive evolution of birds that made their way to Hawaii at some point in the past. What's your explanation? Once we have the two hypotheses stated, we can try testing them.

There's a similar radiation of species in Hawaiian Drosophila flies, which genetics indicates are evolved from one or two species that arrived in the Islands long before humans were there.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Drosophila-speciation-on-the-Hawaiian-Islands-As-new-Hawaiian-islands-are-formed-to-the_fig2_225290387

 

[sfs]

There's a similar radiation of species in Hawaiian Drosophila flies

Yes. That radiation involves many more species than the 50+ among the honeycreepers, but the honeycreepers have the advantage as an example that the differences are a lot easier to visualize. Also, they're prettier.

 

[Phoneman-777]

From your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Notice that Dr. Wise admits that these transitional series are not consistent with "traditional creation theory." Even more compelling, we don't see transistions except where evolutionary theory predicts them. Bats would be more efficient with feathers and an avian respiratory system. Whales would be more efficient with gills. But although "common design" woul predict such things, they are never found.

But it's not just that. Genetics and DNA analyses show the same common descent as transitional fossils and anatomy. Neither of these facts are consistent with "common design."

See above. Even informed creationists admit otherwise.

Dude believes the Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago...so who cares?

Evolutionists sometimes admit their theories do not find support in the real world at all, like Steven J. Gould, who said the evolutionary trees of life that adorn textbooks are based on "inference" - not the fossil record.

God has allowed "hooks" here and there upon which people like you can hang your doubts, else the playing field in the contest between Christ and Satan wouldn't be level.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I've revisited the scientific arguments of Creationists numerous times. I've read their papers, I've read their books -- I've even written to multiple creationist organizations asking for explanations for genetic data. Their arguments are truly terrible. You, on the other hand, have said repeatedly that you have no need to look any evidence that would contradict your views.

But this kind of blanket claim gets us nowhere. Let's see some of these scientific creationist arguments. I'm a geneticist, so pick your favorite argument that involves genetics and bring it here so we can discuss it. That's what the forum is for, after all: discussion.


Fortunately, you are not the one I answer to.

Start with just two of the innumerable pieces of evidence.

1) These are Hawaiian honeycreepers:View attachment 339544 They're a diverse group of birds that vary in size, coloring, anatomy, and lifestyle. Their beaks, in particular, are often highly specialized and tuned to their diet, which in one case is seeds, in another fruit, in another snails, in another nectar, and so on. In an evolutionary model, these specializations are the result of adaptive evolution of birds that made their way to Hawaii at some point in the past. What's your explanation? Once we have the two hypotheses stated, we can try testing them.

2) Lots of genetic data only make sense to me under an evolutionary model. I've described one such set of data in some detail here. What's the common designer explanation for those data?

Their answers are "terrible"? How disgusting for you to take such a position. There is NO evidence of macroevolution. If so, where is it? All you guys do is extrapolate examples of Micro-evolution into macro-evolution. Wanna hear a "terrible answer"? Kent Hovind asked Gutsick Gibbon, "Do you believe you're related to a mosquito, Erika?"

"Yes, I do".

God says we're created in His image, so He's a mosquito, right?

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Every river delta shows sorting by water, because the water usually sorts sediment that way. But there are huge deposits of unsorted till that completely rule out a worldwide flood, and fossilized desert dunes complete with burrows and fossils of desert organisms that show that they hardened without a flood at all.

We find water sorting everywhere...

Except in the middle of supposed "flood deposits" we find deserts with wind sorting. How does a desert have time to form and be buried in the middle of a flood? Tell us about that.

and a huge problem for you guys is that, unlike the rest of the geo column which is universally incomplete

It would be remarkable if there was never major erosion for the entire history of the Earth in any spot. But it turns out, there are several places where the entire geologic column exists. Would you like to learn about that?

BTW, many "desert dunes" have been shown to actually be "underwater dunes" formed during the Flood because formation is not possible otherwise.

Hard to explain then, how they find burrows of desert animals in them. Wind sorting is very different, and no geologist would confuse the two.

the Cretaceous layer, is universal, which proves the entire Earth was underwater.

No, that's wrong, too. We have huge areas of Cretaceous forests. There are river deltas and desert areas in Cretaceous deposits. I think you've confused something here.

Did you miss the part where God said He destroyed the Earth?

It's still here. And as you see, the evidence shows that it was never completely flooded. If only you'd put away your bigoted, anti-Bible mindset and consider the actual evidence, you'd realize that even knowledgeable creationists admit the evidence supports evolution and a very old Earth:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Not for six days...which you guys somehow can't understand means "six days".

Even at the start of the Christian era, people realized that the text itself says the days are figurative, not literal days. Would you like to learn about that? I don't think the devil had seduced you. You've merely come up with a personal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and declared that anyone who doesn't believe your version is "seduced by the devil."

I believe Scripture...

....except where it doesn't fit your new doctrines. Let God be God. If you accept all of it as it is, this will cease to trouble you.

In fact, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. But any who declare that their version is the only one that can be held by Christians to be saved, has made an idol of their interpretation to the exclusion of Jesus. And it doesn't matter if they have chosen to worship creationism or evolution. It will not go well for them at Judgement.

I boldly declare all Theistic Evolutionists to be deceived and seduced by Satan.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide. That kind of overreach is exactly what Satan seeks to install in his victims. Don't let it happen to you.

Neither the Bible nor true science supports it.

The Bible doesn't support protons, either. But we directly observe protons and evolution happening in our world. There's a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible. And you have no excuse...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Let God be God and just accept His creation as it is. You will no longer feel the need to attack other Christians.

There is NO evidence of macroevolution.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You won't lose your salvation by being a YE creationist, but don't make an idol of your new beliefs. Satan can easily use that to pull you down.

 

[sfs]

Their answers are "terrible"? How disgusting for you to take such a position.

Hey, if they didn't offer terrible arguments I wouldn't have to take that position. I'm still waiting for you to present a good argument: present any argument about genetics and let's discuss it in detail.

All you guys do is extrapolate examples of Micro-evolution into macro-evolution.

I offered two pieces of evidence for common descent that were very much not extrapolations of microevolution. Your response is to ignore them. It's hard to find out the truth if you go through life with your eyes closed and your ears covered.

What are you afraid of? Address the evidence I offered.

God says we're created in His image, so He's a mosquito, right?

Um, what? Were you under the impression that God was a human, or that being in God's image had anything to do with physical form? Also, nowhere does the Bible say that mosquitoes were created in God's image. In short, what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Sorry, that's wrong, too. Every river delta shows sorting by water, because the water usually sorts sediment that way. But there are huge deposits of unsorted till that completely rule out a worldwide flood, and fossilized desert dunes complete with burrows and fossils of desert organisms that show that they hardened without a flood at all.


Except in the middle of supposed "flood deposits" we find deserts with wind sorting. How does a desert have time to form and be buried in the middle of a flood? Tell us about that.


It would be remarkable if there was never major erosion for the entire history of the Earth in any spot. But it turns out, there are several places where the entire geologic column exists. Would you like to learn about that?


Hard to explain then, how they find burrows of desert animals in them. Wind sorting is very different, and no geologist would confuse the two.

No, that's wrong, too. We have huge areas of Cretaceous forests. There are river deltas and desert areas in Cretaceous deposits. I think you've confused something here.


It's still here. And as you see, the evidence shows that it was never completely flooded. If only you'd put away your bigoted, anti-Bible mindset and consider the actual evidence, you'd realize that even knowledgeable creationists admit the evidence supports evolution and a very old Earth:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution


Even at the start of the Christian era, people realized that the text itself says the days are figurative, not literal days. Would you like to learn about that? I don't think the devil had seduced you. You've merely come up with a personal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and declared that anyone who doesn't believe your version is "seduced by the devil."


....except where it doesn't fit your new doctrines. Let God be God. If you accept all of it as it is, this will cease to trouble you.

In fact, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. But any who declare that their version is the only one that can be held by Christians to be saved, has made an idol of their interpretation to the exclusion of Jesus. And it doesn't matter if they have chosen to worship creationism or evolution. It will not go well for them at Judgement.


Fortunately, you don't get to decide. That kind of overreach is exactly what Satan seeks to install in his victims. Don't let it happen to you.


The Bible doesn't support protons, either. But we directly observe protons and evolution happening in our world. There's a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible. And you have no excuse...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Let God be God and just accept His creation as it is. You will no longer feel the need to attack other Christians.



Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You won't lose your salvation by being a YE creationist, but don't make an idol of your new beliefs. Satan can easily use that to pull you down.

No, what you have is false interpretations of the same data. We find trees all the time sticking up through several geological layers supposedly "millions of years" apart in age. Do we observe trees today waiting around to be buried for millions of years or do they simply rot and fall over after a short time?

Another example of how theistic evolutionists forcibly draw wrong conclusions from physical evidence for the Flood:

You all look at strata where the layers are folded up and around to resemble the pages of a bunched up magazine and conclude, "The layers indeed took millions of years to form, but after they formed geological events plunged these layers into the furnace of the Earth, softened and distorted them, and they re-emerged as these beautiful formations that we observe today".

When a Creationist like me points out these are cold formations with absolutely no sign of heat - which means the ONLY explanation is they all started out soft during rapid deposition during the Flood and were folded up before they solidified into solid rock AT THE SAME TIME - you insist on your false interpretations rather than simply allowing God to be right.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I offered two pieces of evidence for common descent that were very much not extrapolations of microevolution. Your response is to ignore them. It's hard to find out the truth if you go through life with your eyes closed and your ears covered.

No, you offered religious ideas based in faith, not science. You ought to revisit Hovind's debates in which he points this out. All you guys do is make mountains from molehills. Berlinski tells you "when we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, they're still dogs, when we look at bacteria, no matter how far back we go they stay bugs...there seems to be some inherent species limitation..." He says what you guys call "evidence" doesn't even "pass the threshold of anecdote".

Your so called "science" is nothing more than a false system of faith that denies the truth of the Bible.

What are you afraid of? Address the evidence I offered.

Um, what? Were you under the impression that God was a human, or that being in God's image had anything to do with physical form? Also, nowhere does the Bible say that mosquitoes were created in God's image. In short, what on earth are you talking about?

You're not offering evidence! Merely false conclusions based on bad interpretation of the same data which proves Biblical Creation.

You correctly conclude the complexity of binary code for an ordinary computer cannot exist without a design engineer, but somehow the exponentially increased complexity of DNA code which mankind has never been able to devise in all his ingenuity....simply fell from the sky.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, what you have is false interpretations of the same data.

Notice that a YE creationist who actually knows the data admits all of that data supports long ages and evolution:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Dr. Wood, Dr. Wise, and many other informed YE creationists admit what the evidence indicates, but express hope that a creationist explanation for these facts can be found.

We find trees all the time sticking up through several geological layers supposedly "millions of years" apart in age.

For some reason, no one can cite any examples of that when I ask. I'll try again. Give me an example. Not all layers are slowly deposited.

Do we observe trees today waiting around to be buried for millions of years or do they simply rot and fall over after a short time?

A few miles from my house, there are trees sticking up out of the water of a lake that was flooded decades ago by a dam. They are being buried by layers of sediment. So we can see that they don't rot and fall over after a short time.

You all look at strata where the layers are folded up and around to resemble the pages of a bunched up magazine and conclude, "The layers indeed took millions of years to form, but after they formed geological events plunged these layers into the furnace of the Earth, softened and distorted them, and they re-emerged as these beautiful formations that we observe today".

When a Creationist like me points out these are cold formations with absolutely no sign of heat...

They don't need heat. Over long periods of time, rock can fold. In fact, we have instances where the folding was faster than the rock could handle, and it fractured at the folds. Would you like me to show you that?

When a Creationist like me points out these are cold formations with absolutely no sign of heat - which means the ONLY explanation is they all started out soft during rapid deposition during the Flood and were folded up before they solidified into solid rock AT THE SAME TIME - you insist on your false interpretations rather than simply allowing God to be right.

And now you know the truth. God is a lot smarter than you think He is.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, you offered religious ideas based in faith, not science. You ought to revisit Hovind's debates in which he points this out. All you guys do is make mountains from molehills. Berlinski tells you "when we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, they're still dogs, when we look at bacteria, no matter how far back we go they stay bugs...there seems to be some inherent species limitation..." He says what you guys call "evidence" doesn't even "pass the threshold of anecdote".

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

If you listen to charlatans and criminals for the truth, is it any surprise that they will lie to you?