[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[KV-44-v1]

Many dinosaurs had beaks.

Parrotfish have "beaks" too. I'm suprised you aren't claiming that parrotfish evolved into parrots.

www7.lunapic.com/do-not-link-here-use-hosting-instead/17213945201096044?70369462172

 

[KV-44-v1]

Anatomy.

That's why birds and dinoes are not one kind, as you are trying to claim.

Main characteristics dinosaurs share:​

• They had an upright stance, with legs perpendicular to their body. This is the main feature that sets dinosaurs apart from other reptiles.
• Like other reptiles, they laid eggs.
• With the exception of some birds, for example penguins, dinosaurs lived on land, not in the sea.
• Their skull had a hole between the eye socket and nostril. This feature is shared by all archosaurs.
• Dinosaurs also had two holes behind the eye socket. Large, strong jaw muscles went through the holes to attach directly to the top of the skull. As a result, the jaws were able to open wide and clamp down with more force.

What bird has a jaw? Birds have beaks not mouths.

And for the few traits they DO share, Common design. No one has tested or repeated their alleged "evolve" into birds.

troodontid dinosaur Microraptor had flight feathers

Got anything to back it was specifically a dino?

Fun fact: No genetic mechanism enabling an organism to acquire information to evolve into a completely new kind has ever been found.

So what was the dino that supposedly turned into this bird?
And, if CAFPT or F2FE was what made this thing, how many dinos were needed for Lady Luck to cobble their genes into a bird??

CAFPT does not make different families. F2FE is what was supposed to.

Scientist have...

Tiny DNA tweaks made snakes legless​

A change in gene regulation caused this major shape shifting in reptiles The studies may also help settle a longstanding controversy about fossil snakes, some of which have legs to varying degrees. Paleontologists have long tried to squeeze the limbed fossils onto one branch of the family tree with the limbless ones sprouting off from that branch, something that would be expected had limbs been lost only once. But if it didn't take much to lose legs, then it probably didn't take much to re-evolve them. "It could explain the possible reappearance of limbs in some extinct snake lineages," Richardson says.

How funny. The information for their legs musta stayed there, they didn't magically "revolve" them. If genes are suppressed, they don't work. No Darwin needed.

Why Snakes Don't Have Legs (For Now)​

Snakes used to have legs. Now they have evolved, but the gene to grow limbs still exists.

Snakes Evolved Out of Their Legs—but They Still Have the Gene

Snakes used to have legs. Now they have evolved, but the gene to grow limbs still exists.

www.nationalgeographic.com

YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.

i addressed the testimony earlier.
And besides, it proves how man's assumptions that all the millions years passed and evolution beliefs are the athiest makers.

He didn't rely on the Bible enough and therefore let "MiLlz oF yeArs" kill his faith for a bit.

So I say that proves my point, and you say it proves yours.
But, mine is based on the Bible.
Yours is based on trying to fuse Christianity with what Athiests want us to believe about the history of the universe and history of life.

If I had to guess, most Christians were YEC before Long Ages and Evolution (F2FE style) went onto the stage.


“They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years. Though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not even 6,000 years have yet passed.”

“According to Scripture, less than 6,000 years have elapsed since [man] began to be.”
SAINT AUGUSTINE (354 – 430 AD)

But it's not the only reason. For years, fundamentalist ministers were howling that "race mixing" was against God's law. It's more than just YE creationism, but YE creationism is a major contributor..

Names? Links?

No, no it's not.
YEC, the Biblical view, is the antidote, not a or the cause.

All humans are descended from Adam and Eve and so all are related and need the salvation offered by the Last Adam, Jesus. From a biblical perspective, there is one biological race. This is confirmed by scientific studies on the human genome. Biblically and scientifically there is no defense of racism.
- AIG

Racism

Scripture declares there is only one race—the human race! Since we are all descendants of Adam and Eve and we are all one blood, there is no basis for racism.

answersingenesis.org

So please do tell me how YEC has "racsit foundations" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

YEC: Bible foundations.
OEE: Man's word foundations.

Was Hitler a YEC, or Darwinist?

YE is why so many people have rejected Christianity.

Human sin nature and its fruit, the invention - and teaching - of Athiestic OEE, are.

They see such obvious falsehoods and assume that YE creationism is Christianity.

Yec is a Part of Christian beliefs. Cutting out YEC sets one on a risky road.
Thiestic Evo is like a building stripped of pipes and windows and has holes cut from the roof. All to please the Athiests.

 

[KV-44-v1]

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true.

So what, exactly, DID they teach him? For all i know these could have been JW or Islamic Yec's and not Biblical ones.

I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

He must not have been taught very many ICR facts then.

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

He should read up on Crev.info articles today. YEC side is only getting stronger.

And we do not see anything that HE gave that contradicted the YEC facts. Just a bunch of generalizations and vaguery.

But it still proves that Athiesm and OEE are among the biggest weapons the West uses against Biblical Truth.

So he worked in the oil industry. He must not have realized that if oil was so insanely old, it would degrade and be useless. Don't matter how much preservation its got, it'll degrade. That's that.

 

[KV-44-v1]

As you see, racism is a YE creationist myth.

No. It's a Darwin myth that infected a FEW yec's here and there.

if not most YE creationists now reject the racist

If it was a foundation they would not reject it.
Raysism was always a foreign body to Biblical YEC truth.

but I would expect most of them to object to the kind of racism we see expressed by the founders of YE creationism.

Why do you imply that God is very racist? The Bible is God's Word.
And are you arguing for polythiesm?

the racial beliefs of the founders of YEC.

See above.


If your claim about "raycist foundation" and "YEC athiest maker" was correct, then athiests wouldn't be hating on AnswersinGenesis with such a passion now, would they? If what you say is true then surely they should hate evolution and promote YEC.

 

[KV-44-v1]

What is darwin saying were 'breathed by the Creator'? That view of life? The several powers? Life? Clarification needed.

The point to the Good Samaritan was not merely "it's good to help those in need"; it was Jesus telling His people that it's better to emulate a heretic who loves and cares for all people, than to be like a religiously-correct Levite who does not.

Just be sure to emulate the love and helpful part. Not the heretic part.

I can only accept that Jesus is right. You should, too.

I do. I haven't said otherwise.

If you were, you'd just accept His word on it. Find a way to do that.

I did. Take your advice.

It's just God's creation.

Genesis does not show a slow period of time and/or clumsy cobbling of creation. If it did I'd be an OEE.

Why not just accept it on His terms?

I did. You haven't given Biblical support for OEE.

I gave you a way to calculate the age of the earth using the Bible. You blindly dismissed it as SDA. You never even bothered to use it or examine it!

You won't go to hell for rejecting evolution;

Amen. Neither will you, simply for rejecting YEC.

AIG says that the Creation Vs Evolution debate (ask yourself why its called that) is a

NON SALVATIONAL ISSUE

And why would a "cult" (you assert its a cult) make this clear? Wouldn't they try to make a salvational issue out of it?

don't make an idol of your new doctrines.

:amen

It's a common dodge among creationists. Conflating theories might seem like an easy deception, but it never works.

How did i conflate them? F2F Evolution and BBT are both beliefs about life (F2FE) and big bang (universe history ) that athiests and other nonbelievers have.

Around the turn of the century, the Seventh-Day Adventists, on the visions of a "prophetess" invented YE creationism. It was proselytized to fundamentalists who founded the first YE creationist organizations like the ICR and Creation Research Society.

SDA version of YEC taught to ICR and CRS????
Link/source?

If you regard God's word as "nonfactual" if He chooses to use allegory in His word,

So much straw!
Allegories are by nature nonfactual. Are you implying the WHOLE Bible is an allegory????

No, I don't think it's nonfactual because of a few allegories.
It's correct no matter how many allegories it has. But if the WHOLE Bible is allegory, it's neither true nor false.

One popular OEE strawman is that YEC take the WHOLE Bible literally. Mabye this is true for some, but not for most Bible believing YEC.
It's easy to detect a literal and figurative in the Bible. But your claims would have me believe otherwise.

there isn't much I can do to get you to believe Him.

You don't need to do anything as I already do. It's you who seem to struggle.

For example you asserted YEC made Christianity "easier to believe", but then you say it does "damage" and "makes athiests".

You state allelic change has no limits, but then you assert monkeys are too evolved to give rise to humans.
You assert that evolution is only CAFPT, but then you try to prove that Family to Family (like dino to bird) evolution is real.

You and nearly every Christian who believes OEE are described easily by James 1:8.
You struggle on your beliefs about YEC, alleles, and even evolution!

I can even give direct quotes if you prefer.

ALL his ways. Bible proven. Yec vindicated. F2F Evo proven to make Christians unstable.
There now does not seem to be much more i can do, but will continue.

Compromise in the Faith is an important issue for me.

In fact, Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

ok.

Doesn't sound like atheism to me. Why deny something so manifestly obvious?

So it's possible he was a Thiest.
But which kind?
Muslim, Watchtower (jw's), Hindu? What Creator was he referring to? You'll likely say he refers to the Biblical God, but that would be assumption.

No more than you'd expect them be hating on electricity.

Electricity is not an "origin of the different kinds of life" explanation. Origins is a history issue.
So, false equivalence.

AIG accepts the Adventist revision called YE creatinism.

Not Adventist "revision".


This is literally from your guys at Biologos.

Ham is partly correct: the Adventists certainly didn’t invent the idea of a young earth. Nearly all Christians prior to the late eighteenth century believed that God created the world just a few thousand years ago

But Ham was fully correct.

 

[Barbarian]

What is darwin saying were 'breathed by the Creator'? That view of life? The several powers? Life? Clarification needed.

He's saying that the first living things were made by the Creator. I don't see what's so difficult about that.
The point to the Good Samaritan was not merely "it's good to help those in need"; it was Jesus telling His people that it's better to emulate a heretic who loves and cares for all people, than to be like a religiously-correct Levite who does not.

Just be sure to emulate the love and helpful part. Not the heretic part.

HIs point was a heretic who loved his fellow man was to be emulated in preference to a religiously-correct person who did not. He was making clear what would save a person. Theology won't save you; a heart tuned to God and your neighbor will save you.

Genesis does not show a slow period of time and/or clumsy cobbling of creation.

Neither does the evidence showing God uses evolution to make new kinds of living things. But it does rule out YE creationism.

And why would a "cult" (you assert its a cult) make this clear?

Are Ken Ham and AIG Redefining the Gospel and Harming the Faith of Many? | The Wartburg Watch 2024

How did i conflate them? F2F Evolution and BBT are both beliefs about life (F2FE) and big bang (universe history )

I think any reasonable person would realize that the way living things change over time, is an entirely different subject than how the universe began. How could any sane person think those are the same?

Compromise in the Faith is an important issue for me.

Why not just accept His word as it is, and you won't have to compromise with man's invention of YEC.

In fact, Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

So it's possible he was a Thiest.

Pretty hard to accept that God created the first living things without being a theist.

But which kind?

In The Voyage of the Beagle, he mentioned that he was the butt of jokes over his extreme Anglican orthodoxy. Which is a clue, I suppose.

Electricity is not an "origin of the different kinds of life" explanation.

Like evolution, it's an observed natural phenomenon.

Electricity is not an "origin of the different kinds of life" explanation.

And evolution is not a "how electrons move in a conductor" explanation. But they are both explanations for observed natural phenomena.

AIG accepts the Adventist revision called YE creatinism.

Ham is partly correct: the Adventists certainly didn’t invent the idea of a young earth.

But that's not what YE creationism is:

George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’​

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, duringwhich most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence oflong geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recentcreation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCreadyPrice (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist andteacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada,Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religiousgroup founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White,whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Followingone of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actuallyto have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week.She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surfaceof the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossilrecord, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated onSaturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his lifeto a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history:the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 yearsago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christthat had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convincedthat theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notionof geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at thegeological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure.For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainlyamong his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasinglyreaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of theantievolution crusade, the journal Science described Priceas "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists.That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leadingantievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryanat the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution,none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in theantiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology."Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creationscience," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

counterbalance.org

https://spectrummagazine.org/views/creation-science-and-trustworthiness-god/

 

[Barbarian]

Many dinosaurs had beaks, which were formed from the same tissues as bird beaks.

Parrotfish have "beaks" too.

You've fallen into the creationist error of "looks like" means "the same thing." Some fish do have jaws that look superficially like the jaws of dinosaurs. But they are formed from different tissues. I'm surprised you aren't claiming that bats are birds.

What bird has a jaw? Birds have beaks not mouths.

They all have jaws. Did you really not know that?

Their mouths are, like ours, formed by bones of the skull.

I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
Glenn Morton

He must not have been taught very many ICR facts then.

He got his degree in geology from the ICR graduate school.

He should read up on Crev.info articles today. YEC side is only getting stronger.

Even many YE creationists today now admit there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. And even AIG has now conceded the evolution of new taxa as a fact.

Names? Links?

Because of its interpretation of Biblical principles regarding interracial dating, Bob Jones University completely excluded black applicants until 1971, and from 1971 until 1975, admitted black students only if they were married. After 1975, the University began to admit unmarried black applicants, but continued to deny "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University also imposed a disciplinary rule that prohibited interracial dating.

Bob Jones University v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've already shown you that ICR co-founder Henry Morris wrote about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Would you like to see some more?

But I would expect most YE creationists today to object to the kind of racism we see expressed by the founders of YE creationism.

Why do you imply that God is very racist?

YE creationists are not God, although they seem to frequently forget that. God's word is the Bible, not the claims of YE creationists,

 

[KV-44-v1]

He's saying that the first living things were made by the Creator.

Ok, so life then. Got it.

I don't see what's so difficult about that.

Nothing

Theology won't save you; a heart tuned to God and your neighbor will save you.

This doesn't seem accurate.

Romans 10:9
"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
And John 14:6 .

But it does rule out YE creationism.

No. It made YEC.

Are Ken Ham and AIG Redefining the Gospel and Harming the Faith of Many? | The Wartburg Watch 2024

Don't see how this explains why a supposed "cult" would want to make sure everyone knew that Creation vs Evolution is a NonSalvational issue. Wouldn't a cult want to make a salvational issue out of it?

Gospel

The message of the gospel—Christ’s death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind—is the message the world desperately needs to hear.

answersingenesis.org

No, they aren't redifining the Gospel.

They are harming the faith of many athiests, and fortifiyng that of Christians.

I think any reasonable person would realize that the way living things change over time, is an entirely different subject than how the universe began. How could any sane person think those are the same?

I never said they were the same. I said they were origins beliefs.
Same category does not mean same thing.

Evo is about life. The other is about the universe.
Reviewing my post, I can see why you got confused.

Why not just accept His word as it is,

His Word does not contradict Himself. Why would I not accept it?

You simply want to compromise and thus appease the Athiests, who love belief in F2F Evolution like a 2nd wife. And athiests paint YEC as the devil or whatever.


I'll go with belief in God, which naturally results in believing YEC and that kinds do not give rise to different kinds.

Dawkins said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

If OEE beliefs weren't such a great athiest maker, why would athiests push it so heavily?

By providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins, evolution promotes atheism. "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6)..

compromise with man's invention of YEC

YEC is not compromise, OEE is.

evolution, it's an observed natural phenomenon.

If you mean CAFPT and speciation, then yes.

 

[KV-44-v1]

AIG accepts the Adventist revision called YE creatinism.

You accept the Athiest-freindly, Christianity-destabilizing belief called O E E.

Despite your claim, the text in the copies of Biblical text our Bibles today are based off of *still* has not changed.

But that's not what YE creationism is:

George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’​

So you think biologos was wrong ???

How could an F2F-evolution bastion ORGANIZATION like them get a detail so wrong?? Mind boggling.

Many dinosaurs had beaks, which were formed from the same tissues as bird beaks.

Was that an "educated guess" or direct observation?

You've fallen into the creationist error of "looks like" means "the same thing."

I didn't, plus it's not a "YEC error". Just a logic error or confusion.

Some fish do have jaws that look superficially like the jaws of dinosaurs. But they are formed from different tissues.

Yes.

I'm surprised you aren't claiming that bats are birds.

Because I didn't fall into any "YEC errors".

Their mouths are, like ours, formed by bones of the skull.

Seems like you fell into the error.
It just LOOKES like a jaw.

" Birds also lack teeth or even a true jaw and instead have a beak, which is far more lightweight. "

Wikipedia. The source that believes by blind faith that men and monkeys/apes/whatever are in the same kind.

Bird anatomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory

By what you've said, youre basically claiming that YEC are admitting speciation.

Why do you love to believe that YEC is against CAFPT and speciation? Let go of the straw.
It's against F2F evolution.

Macro-evolution is not the same as speciation. Macro-evolution involves changes that are so large that you end up with entirely different kinds of living things. It is one thing to have wide varieties of ducks, and another thing altogether to assert that an amoeba ultimately evolved into a duck.
...
It is not based on science. It is a theory based on naturalistic philosophy with no science to back it up.
So no, Macro evolution isn't speciation. It's F2F Evo.

I've already shown you that ICR co-founder Henry Morris wrote about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.

You ASSUME writing about means promoting.

Would you like to see some more?

Yes.

But I would expect most YE creationists today to object to the kind of racism we see expressed by the founders of YE creationism.

Polythiesm is not true and God isn't a mere human. Thought you knew.

YE creationists are not God, although they seem to frequently forget that.

They've never claimed to be or acted as God. Thought you knew.

God's word is the Bible, not the claims of YE creationists,

not the claims of OE F2F evolutionists ****

 

[KV-44-v1]

And for the few traits they DO share, Common design. No one has tested or repeated their alleged "evolve" into birds.

So much straw!
Allegories are by nature nonfactual. Are you implying the WHOLE Bible is an allegory????

No, I don't think it's nonfactual because of a few allegories.
It's correct no matter how many allegories it has. But if the WHOLE Bible is allegory, it's neither true nor false.

One popular OEE strawman is that YEC take the WHOLE Bible literally. Mabye this is true for some, but not for most Bible believing YEC.
It's easy to detect a literal and figurative in the Bible. But your claims would have me believe otherwise.

you asserted YEC made Christianity "easier to believe", but then you say it does "damage" and "makes athiests".

You state allelic change has no limits, but then you assert monkeys are too evolved to give rise to humans.
You assert that evolution is only CAFPT, but then you try to prove that Family to Family (like dino to bird) evolution is real.

You and nearly every Christian who believes OEE are described easily by James 1:8.
You struggle on your beliefs about YEC, alleles, and even evolution!

I can even give direct quotes if you prefer.

ALL his ways. Bible proven. Yec vindicated. F2F Evo proven to make Christians unstable.

I gave you a way to calculate the age of the earth using the Bible. You blindly dismissed it as SDA. You never even bothered to use it or examine it!

Was Hitler a YEC, or Darwinist?

i addressed the testimony earlier.
And besides, it proves how man's assumptions that all the millions years passed and evolution beliefs are the athiest makers.

He didn't rely on the Bible enough and therefore let "MiLlz oF yeArs" kill his faith for a bit.

So I say that proves my point, and you say it proves yours.
But, mine is based on the Bible.
Yours is based on trying to fuse Christianity with what Athiests want us to believe about the history of the universe and history of life.

If I had to guess, most Christians were YEC before Long Ages and Evolution (F2FE style) went onto the stage.


“They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years. Though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not even 6,000 years have yet passed.”

“According to Scripture, less than 6,000 years have elapsed since [man] began to be.”
SAINT AUGUSTINE (354 – 430 AD)

And we do not see anything that HE gave that contradicted the YEC facts. Just a bunch of generalizations and vaguery.

But it still proves that Athiesm and OEE are among the biggest weapons the West uses against Biblical Truth.

So he worked in the oil industry. He must not have realized that if oil was so insanely old, it would degrade and be useless. Don't matter how much preservation its got, it'll degrade. That's that.

[Racism is] a Darwin myth that infected a FEW yec's here and there.

If it was a foundation they would not reject it.
Raysism was always a foreign body to Biblical YEC truth.

 

[KV-44-v1]

And take a hard look at how Ken Ham is harming the cause for Christ.

He probably isn't. But only after i evaluate the post on this site will there be a sure answer.

He is hardly bloodied and is making bank on his little enterprise.

So are the athiests, making money off their immense preaching of OE, F2F Evolution, and big bang as scientific, non-supernatural events that happened in history.

Stop defending the man who has caused many to leave the faith by his crusade to tie salvation to a literal belief in 6 day creation.

Try not to strawman challenge (Outcome: Failure!!)

Here's the real deal:
"
As I often tell people in my lectures, Romans 10:9 states: “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” By confessing “Jesus is Lord,” one is confessing that Christ is to be Lord of one’s life—which means repenting of sin and acknowledging who Christ is. The Bible DOES NOT state, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead—AND BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH—you will be saved”!

So, it should be obvious to anyone, even our opponents, that this statement in the New York Times is absolutely false. Sadly, I have seen similar statements in other press articles—and it seems no matter what we write in website articles, or how often we answer this outlandish accusation, the many in the press continue to disseminate this false accusation, and one has to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to alienate AiG from the mainstream church!!

I believe that one of the reasons writers such as Hanna Rosin make such statements is because AiG is very bold in presenting authoritatively what the Bible clearly states. People sometimes misconstrue such authority in the way Hanna Rosin has. It is also interesting that people who don’t agree with us often get very emotional about how authoritatively we present the biblical creation view—they dogmatically insist we can’t be so dogmatic in what we present!! It’s okay for them to be dogmatic about what they believe, and dogmatic about what we shouldn’t believe, but we can’t be!!!
"

As expected, those who put their faith in Family-to-family evolution cannot help strawmanning their opposition.

And besides, how many people did he allegedly "cause to leave the faith"? This site, so far, hasn't backed up its "many" claim.

But, once you start exploring the religious branches of the home school sub-culture, especially the “Christian” support groups, curricula, seminars, etc., you quickly find that it is a rigid, doctrinaire, fear-based, lifestyle

Sounds like in Big Science where pro-YEC or anti- F2FE/anti- big bang papers are censored and negatively affected, usually on purpose, by those defending F2F Evolution.
How inconsistent of this site to claim such a thing.

And they didn't point out the "rigid fear" stuff, they just made a claim and generalized. This claim appeals to the emotions, too.

A Testimony of Renewed Faith

“A few years ago, I never would have dreamed that I would be a Christian, let alone have such confidence in my Lord, Jesus Christ. Thank you for your wonderful ministry.”

answersingenesis.org

Ken Hamm rules in this world.

OE and F2F evolution rule in academia and Western culture.

Apologetics are taught in every spelling lesson, math workbook, history text,

So? Everyone has a worldview. Not like OEF2FE (old earth family2family evo) is doing much different.

and especially in what passes for science education.

Accusation-as-confession.
AIG is teaching YEC as *history*.

It's the OEF2FE people who are teaching their made up antiBiblical history in public schools as "science".

It is this rigid fundamentalism that is destroying the faith of our children. 61% leaving the church? Jesus said in John 6:37 “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”

I agree, rigid anti-YEC preaching by the Godless, morally-declining world is destroying Christians' faith.

That 61% is what happens when Christians don't address the sin issue properly. The majority of the human race has a sin nature.

So who IS driving these children away?

The public schools. Did the poster really believe that the public schools haven't been infested with humanism and sin-nature?? Western public schools of today are not Christian.

The writer of that post on that site is simply emotion-based. Even if I believed OEF2FE, I would laugh at this site.

Rigid ideologues are driving their own children out of the faith.

A repeat. See above.

They are doing so by relentlessly insisting on a more and more stringent belief system. YE creationism is at the heart of this movement.

The Bible has standards.

When any other views are "fundamentalist", these people barely say a word. But when a Christian sticks to Genesis, their "fundamentalism" is complained and griped about.

Not to mention the extreme F2FE and big bang fundametnalism that Athiests want in academia and even science!

1+1=2 .
Bad Fundamentalism or just plain fact? To be consistent, the poster must choose the former.

Ironically, the tighter controls they are taught are necessary to keep their children in the faith are the very thing that is causing their children to reject the faith.

That's like saying that the rules of math make mathematicians quit doing math.

And no, AIG is not the 1984 you belieeeeve it is.

Logic

In logic and reasoning eventually you have to appeal to an absolute authority. Which is your authority: the Bible or man’s word?

answersingenesis.org

Tools for Critical Thinking

Biblical critical thinking skills provide a practical toolset for combatting the culture’s lies.

answersingenesis.org

Imagine No Creator

Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S., shows why a universe with stability and laws of logic requires the biblical God—even hypothetical ones.

answersingenesis.org

Is the Christian Worldview Logical?

Many people have the impression that Christians live in two “worlds”—the world of faith and the world of reason.

answersingenesis.org

These youth are not rejecting Jesus, they are rejecting the false Jesus and his ridiculously narrow and mean- spirited dogma that their parents are presenting to them.

Wrong on various fronts. The Bible is not "mean". This OEF2FE compromiser just wants us to think it is.
YEC truth is not something scary or awful like this person asserts.

Mabye if the poster on the site actually knew what was being taught and put their assumptions, logical fallacies, and emotions aside, they'd have an easier time.

These same parents insist that anything less than complete agreement with the whole paradigm is apostasy.

Whole paradigm of what?
Again, AIG does not claim that OEF2FE Christians are "apostate".

Where is her quote from what parent? This poster is just making bald assertions. Since they are prone to logical fallacies, I'll see that claim as a strawman.

So when broken and discouraged young people finally realize that there is no earthly way possible to be happy and healthy in that paradigm

Wrong. The paradigm she strawmans offers more hope than athiesm and its fruits, some fruits including F2FE ,OE, and big bang.

The teaching allows for no other options.

Neither the Bible nor the athiests ruling Western thought allow for other options.
I'd like to see how the poster thinks about Matthew 12:30.

Will she recognize her beliefs are the true "bad fundamentalism", or not?? After all, she does seem quite fundamentalistic on her stance on the Biblical position, which is YEC.

Hmmmmmm.

Many athiests and even some OEE Christians believe that if you reject F2F evolution, old earthism, and/or big bang, you are rejecting "AlL oF sciEncE!11!".

This poster is grasping at specks, but they have a sawblade in their eyes.

YE creationsim is responsible for creating more atheists than Darwin himself, from where I sit.

See above.

From where you sit? Yes, your opinion, assumptions, and emotions made you say this, and post your post. Not facts or evidence.

So what was the religious home school communities answer to this? More control!

More evidenceless, faceless generalizations. Keep the claims coming!

Your answer to YEC is more baseless claims! Haha ;D

He was taught only YE by both his church and school.

People could easily mistake this as only being taught that the earth was young. And no mentions of God, Adam and eve, etc.
So, poorly written claim.

This reeks of strawman too. I'm sure he was taught the Gospel, about the planets, and microbes, among other things.
May as well argue "kinds in Western schools are only taught that a singularity exploded".

 

[KV-44-v1]

PART 2

He got to an Iy League university.

Typo found.

Yup, more athiestic, anti-God humanism and origins beliefs coming forth from the university.

Dr. Hugh Ross has also written extensively on the tragedy of scientists who feel they cannot become Christians because Christian faith is being defined as a belief in young earth creationism.

How dumb. This poster fails to realize YEC is a PART of being a solid (as opposed to shaky) Biblical Christian.

YEC is like Christianity's legs. Not completely necessaary, but still very important.
.
OE, F2FE, Big bang believing Christians are basically "legless" in the analogy.

This poster doesn't know or doesnt WANT to, that other religions might also believe in a young earth.

Biblical YEC involves more than "earth young". Would these OEF2FE people claim the big bang is just about an explosion? Or F2F evolution is just change?

Ken Ham and AIG are linking salvation with a belief in YE creationism.

Just looked at the author, they name themselfs "Dee". I'll assume Dee's a he.

Repeating his claim. See my refutation of claim above.

Recently, AIG conducted an AIG seminar in Bulgaria. Interestingly, on the AIG website they call this “Creation Evangelism.” Not evangelism involving an understanding of the redemption of Jesus Christ alone but evangelism involving first and foremost, YE creation.

False dichotomy. Evangelism inherently involves Jesus and His Work. Nice fail.

I bet Dee would let "Darwinism Evangelism" fly like an eagle.

it was the religion of atheism vs Christianity—a conflict of worldviews used to interpret the scientific evidence.

FINALLY, he reveals that he CAN quote, that strawman fallacies aren't their only hope.

Note how they subtly add that one can only interpret scientific evidence in two ways, as an atheist or as a Christian.

Where was this quoted? It wasn't. MORE straw!

He only mentioned two worldviews that were used to interpret, specifically.

People can interpret it as a Muslim, too.

Christians can only interpret [the evidence] as YE.

If being logical, Biblical, and consistent, yes.

Therefore, Christians who believe differently may not be Christians and may even be atheists!

Straw. See above.

Note how deviously they attack Francis Collins’ faith.

Note how much Dee sticks to his anti YEC beliefs. Pretty fundamentalist wouldn't Dee say?

Ignoring Genesis does not mean one is not a Christian. Poor, confused Dee.
They didn't attack his faith, they attacked his middleground approach.

What if AIG said "Some athiests accept Jesus' existence, but sadly reject His Divinity." (which is a fact btw)

Would Dee then argue that AIG is claiming that "athiests might not be athiests and might even be Christians"? I wouldn't put it past Farmer Dee to say such.

 

[KV-44-v1]

PART 3 will come.

 

[Barbarian]

And for the few traits they DO share, Common design. No one has tested or repeated their alleged "evolve" into birds.

Here, you've confused analogy and homology again. The beaks of insects and fish are very different from amniote beaks. And repeated tests of the relationship have been confirmed. Would you like me to tell you some more of them?

Troodontid dinosaur Microraptor had flight feathers

Got anything to back it was specifically a dino?

It has all the apomorphic traits of dinosaurs. So yes, that is how it works.

You accept the Athiest-freindly, Christianity-destabilizing belief called O E E.

Accepting God as Creator doesn't seem especially atheist-friendly. And it's something all Christians readily admit. Part of our basic creed. Learn about it here:

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Despite your claim, the text in the copies of Biblical text does not support the SDA doctrine of YE creationism. AIG supports the SDA and its new doctrines.

George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’​

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

counterbalance.org

 

[Barbarian]

Theology won't save you; a heart tuned to God and your neighbor will save you.

We have Jesus' word on it. That's what the parable of the Good Samaritan was about.

Was Hitler a YEC, or Darwinist?

Neither. He sorta believed in evolution, but not Darwin's theory. Darwinist like Punnett showed that his ideas were garbage. He was a racist like the founders of YEC, but he carried it to an extreme few YECs have. Racists like Morris and Tinkle were fans of his racial purity ideas, but objected to the way he tried to implement them.

Macro-evolution is not the same as speciation.

No, that's wrong:

Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Macroevolution

Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Supplement Macroevolution involves variation of allele

www.biologyonline.com

But I would expect most YE creationists today to object to the kind of racism we see expressed by the founders of YE creationism.

Polythiesm is not true and God isn't a mere human. Thought you knew.

I don't see what supposed multiple gods have to do with this. Perhaps you meant polygenism? And Agassiz, an early anti-Darwinian creationist was an outspoken polygenist. However ICR founder Henry Morris's racism was based on his idea that God made human races later, including a race to become slaves and servants.

That is the sort of racism that was established in Bob Jones University the Southern Baptists, and so on.

To be fair, the Southern Baptists did officially renounce that part of creationism and apologized for past racist doctrines.

 

[Barbarian]

In case anyone actually thinks that birds lack jaws and mouths...

The skull of a bird is also very lightweight. It has a light, horny toothless beak that is composed primarily of the protein keratin. Since the bird's jaws have no teeth to support, the jaw can also be reduced in mass. The beak is a bird's primary tool and some are modified for digging, probing, piercing, chiseling, straining, cracking, pecking, etc.

https://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Birds/Birds.HTML

Notice that birds have the same bones in their jaws that all reptiles and non-avian dinosaurs have. Mammals all have a dentary bone in their lower jaws, and the upper maxilla but all but the dentary are now located in our middle ears as ossicles. Of course birds have mouths. It's where their tongues are, and where food is ingested.
Beaks are formed not of bone but of hardened integument, and overlay the jaws.
A primitive ceratopsian was found with keratinized mouthparts:

The exquisitely preserved integument of Psittacosaurus and the scaly skin of ceratopsian dinosaurs - Communications Biology

Laser stimulated fluorescence imagery of Psittacosaurus reveals details about ceratopsian skin anatomy and function.

www.nature.com

 

[Barbarian]

Fun fact: No genetic mechanism enabling an organism to acquire information to evolve into a completely new kind has ever been found.

It's called "mutation and natural selection." Most creationist organizations now admit that new kinds of species and new kinds of genera can evolve. But they claim that any evolution that takes too long for a human to document, is impossible. Pretty obvious, isn't it? Their story might be more believable if they could show some kind of barrier at some point that would prevent further evolution, but so far, no luck. Find us a population that has evolved as far as it can, and no further mutations are possible, and you have a case. Until then, it's just a story with nothing to support it.

 

[Barbarian]

The Case Against Evolution

A tract by Matt McClure explaining common young earth arguments against evolution

www.oldearth.org

 

[KV-44-v1]

Part 3

They allude to his lack of faith.

No, they don't. Nowhere was "lack of faith" in what Dee quoted.

What they mean is you can’t believe that he is a Christian because he believes in theistic evolution.

What Dee means is he doesn't know how to argue without making as much straw as he possibly can. Lol.

You can believe that he is a Christian. Just, not a worldview-consistent one. Caught between conflicting views!

Finally, they refer to Mark 10: 6 as “proof” Jesus” believed in YE. This is patently ridiculous. All Christian, including Collins, believe that God created man and woman. How He did it is what is open to debate.

1. Tip: Read Mark 10:6 in context of Genesis 1-10 to get this 'proof'.
And there's lots more than just that.
2. Ad Ridiculum argument. (logical fallacy)
3. Literally ANYTHING is open for debate. It's just that some try to debate over facts like Biblical YEC, because they want to tickle Secularist ears by supporting O E E.

"Proof" one was full of strawmen, an ad ridiculum, and perhaps others. Big fail.
Let's see if "two" does any better.

AIG ties the gospel of Jesus Christ to a belief in young earth creationism.

No, the Bible did that already.
Just follow the generations in the OT.

They claim to be an apologetics ministry yet they spend their time defending

Defending the family, the Gospel, Biblical historicity and relevance, etc. Exactly what an apologetices ministry should do. Just read some of their articles that DONT address Creation vs (Kind-toKind, K2K, formerly called by me as F2FE) Evolution. .
Oh, and they demolish flat earth idea too.

a bankrupt science

What bankrupt science? Not YEC because that's history.

Ken Ham is redefining the faith and that is very, very dangerous. It’s either Ham’s way or hell.

No, he isn't.

 

[KV-44-v1]

(Part 3 continue, got interrupted)

Young people are leaving the faith over this illegitimate addition to the Gospel

K2K Evolution and deep time? I agree, adding athiest's naturalistic worldview origin fantasies result in more athiests. Duuuhh.
One cannot serve two masters. Given human nature, people who compromise will likely turn to K2KE and deep time - instead of Jesus- when the time comes to "love one and hate the other" (paraphrase).

Adults leave the faith because of those who insist that YE+Jesus=salvation.

Since barely anyone actually believes AND teaches that, that's the smallest of the minority!

Scientists will not consider Jesus because they are under the mistaken assumption

That K2K is "true".

Who is responsible for this?

The athiests are, for spreading K2K (kind-to-kind) and deep time beliefs around as facts.

I once wrote to a pastor who holds degrees in Christian education and a Master of Divinity. He is a devotee of Ham and AIG. I begged him to consider the faith of children from his church, some of whom were leaving the faith over this issue.

Oh? Dee should quote the part from his letter. I believe Dee did write, he just has to show the portion the pastor responded to.

His response is telling. “My research has not shown this to be true.”

Shown what? We don't have any of Dee's letter so far.

This man didn’t care. He never conducted an unbiased study.I doubt he "researched" the evidence at all except to read some half-baked YE contention that kids are leaving the faith because they don't know about YE creation. Rubbish! He refused to read some personal testimonies of those who had left the faith over this issue. This man is like Anonymous above. They are far more concerned about poor ole Ken Ham who has made a living out of questioning the faith of his fellow Christians than he is about those who are leaving the faith due to the ministrations of Ham. Ken Ham is doing untold damage to the faith and so are his followers.

Until we get context (the part(s) of Dee's letter), this whoooole paragraph has nothing to stand on. Wasted words. #epicfail

I am saddened by

By your poor reasoning skills and fallacies abroad.

“Today I received a postcard from a child in Pennsylvania. It is one of the most precious things I have ever received. I thought I would share it with you all. It reads, “Me, my sisters, and my mom loved the services. Me and my mom came to every one. I like how could a loving God service because my dad died over the summer June 20th and I’ve been mad at God. My hampster died 2 weeks ago and I’ve been mad at God but we’ve been bought with a price and are not our own.” This note was signed by Tyler. (As I transcribed the note, I added all the punctuation, which was missing, but otherwise, the wording and spelling is Tyler’s.) All I can say is, “Thanks, Tyler. You truly blessed the heart of this tired old doctor today.”



This child now has the Gospel firmly tied to young earth creationism. One day, he will see the evidence of on old earth. The debate is over, the evidence is in and Ken Ham and his cronies are going the way of the dinosaur. There is a high likelihood that this child will experience a crisis of faith or even reject his faith altogether because it is been inextricably woven with a nonsalvific issue. This is adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and AIG is beginning to sound more and more like a cult.

Now here's the FUNNY part!! Poor Dee tried to use eigesis and read YEC into the boy's note!! I only see the Gospel in the boy's note. No age of earth is mentioned there. No instant-creation is mentioned there.

Seems like Dee's accusation here:

This child now has the Gospel firmly tied to young earth creationism

is an confession!!

There was only Gospel stated and no YEC. But here he makes up "YEC in note!!!!!!!" from .... his mind.
So Dee is doing this "tying", but out of emotional antipathy.