Christian Forums

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6LvL3o5-8

Answers in Genesis Canada, with another good one.

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 29, 2026 - 17:25:37https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6LvL3o5-8

Answers in Genesis Canada, with another good one.

The lack of any existing "transitions" does certainly raise obvious questions.  However, such lack of evidence is not proof that the theory is false.  Any attempt at a proof of a negative is almost always doomed to failure.

While I am thoroughly convinced that there is no intelligent life beyond that on earth, the lack of any evidence to the contrary is not a proof that none exists.

Instead of trying to disprove a current evolutionary theory, it would be better to try to prove one's own alternate theory.  But there is a problem. There is less technical support for the YEC theory than there is for any evolutionary theories.

You cannot even prove that God exists, let alone prove that He created any of the existing universe and its contents.  One can believe deeply in such a spiritual source, but it cannot be proven.

So you can rage on about the lack of proof of evolutionary theories all you want, but you cannot prove your own theory of the cosmological and biological histories of the universe.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 30, 2026 - 11:57:13The lack of any existing "transitions" does certainly raise obvious questions.  However, such lack of evidence is not proof that the theory is false.  Any attempt at a proof of a negative is almost always doomed to failure.

While I am thoroughly convinced that there is no intelligent life beyond that on earth, the lack of any evidence to the contrary is not a proof that none exists.

Instead of trying to disprove a current evolutionary theory, it would be better to try to prove one's own alternate theory.  But there is a problem. There is less technical support for the YEC theory than there is for any evolutionary theories.

You cannot even prove that God exists, let alone prove that He created any of the existing universe and its contents.  One can believe deeply in such a spiritual source, but it cannot be proven.

So you can rage on about the lack of proof of evolutionary theories all you want, but you cannot prove your own theory of the cosmological and biological histories of the universe.

You are a little confused. I never said I could prove YEC theory based upon "faith" in the Holy Scriptures. My argument has always been that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory based upon faith in the conjectures and speculations of fallen humanity. While YEC's faith is based upon the testimonies of Holy Scripture, upon which we base our theories concerning the scientific evidence which may be observed.

YEC's are not demanding that their belief in scriptural testimony is scientific fact, but rather supported by what can be observed, concerning that which must be established by faith. Evolutionists are the ones who claim that their theory and or supportive stories are scientific facts. Until proven wrong of course, which they have been many times by their own scientists. Unto new theoretical stories, which they will once again claim are facts, until proved wrong.

Do you really mean what you said quoted below?

QuoteWhile I am thoroughly convinced that there is no intelligent life beyond that on earth, the lack of any evidence to the contrary is not a proof that none exists.

So no God? No angelic host? Or other intelligent creations of God?

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2026 - 12:28:10Do you really mean what you said quoted below?

So no God? No angelic host? Or other intelligent creations of God?

Any other physical life in this physical universe? Yes.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2026 - 12:28:10You are a little confused. I never said I could prove YEC theory based upon "faith" in the Holy Scriptures. My argument has always been that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory based upon faith in the conjectures and speculations of fallen humanity.

Evolution, whether true or not, is and has always been based upon physical observations and evidence.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2026 - 12:28:10While YEC's faith is based upon the testimonies of Holy Scripture, upon which we base our theories concerning the scientific evidence which may be observed.

You very frequently make the claim that anything that you do not believe in is the result of the thinking of "fallen humanity" never seeming to understand that your interpretations of scripture are the result of that same "fallen humanity".

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2026 - 12:28:10YEC's are not demanding that their belief in scriptural testimony is scientific fact,

Of course they are.  They even want it taught as science in the schools.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 31, 2026 - 08:16:23Any other physical life in this physical universe? Yes.

So any other life forms not bound to our limited dimensions, are necessarily non physical? Some sort of floating non material entities? Who only take on physical form to interact with humanity when necessary? Such as the angels and whoever all the sons of God who witnessed creation  were? How about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who became one of us for our salvation?

Jhn 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

QuoteEvolution, whether true or not, is and has always been based upon physical observations and evidence.

Yes, with the presupposition that the theory of evolution is true. Interpreting all in accordance with said presupposition. Just as YEC's do regarding a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account, and regarding the same observable evidence. Both theorizing regarding the unobservable past, by what may be observed now. 

QuoteYou very frequently make the claim that anything that you do not believe in is the result of the thinking of "fallen humanity" never seeming to understand that your interpretations of scripture are the result of that same "fallen humanity".

Ah yes, the old nothing really matters, because everything including Holy Scripture is simply the result of every individuals personal interpretation. To the extent that the creation account could be referring to six literal days, or countless billions of years. Making the Holy Scriptures totally unreliable as a source of objective truth right from the very get go. Yet God will actually judge all of humanity according to their acceptance or rejection of His Holy Scriptures? That makes a lot of sense, not. I would say we are either in big trouble, or don't worry be happy, since we can all pretty much make out whatever we want of the Holy Scriptures. Accepting of course that Jesus saves according to the gospel, which of course does mean exactly what you understand it to say, for you and everyone else as well, right? That part we must all interpret the same, correct? What other parts of Holy Scripture do you recommend people should take as simply stated unto salvation, and why, if you don't mind?

QuoteOf course they are.  They even want it taught as science in the schools.

To the contrary, as far as I know, YEC"s are not demanding that the theory of evolution not be allowed to be taught in schools. They just want YEC to be taught as well, creating you know, choice. It is the evolutionists who insist no YEC be allowed. Demonstrating the true spirit you are accusing YEC's of. I see no good reason at all, why competing theories should not be examined in the name of authentic scientific investigation. If one's theories cannot afford to stand up to opposing views, then why should any believe they are true? To the contrary again, a little controversy would no doubt make the subject of greater interest. Encouraging students to join the efforts to figure things out by further investigation themselves.

In any case, I do believe it is as I have always maintained. If the very first chapter and subject of Holy scripture is open to such tremendous disparity as either a literal six day creation and or a countless billions of years evolutionary creative development, why would anyone expect or believe in a need to believe Holy Scripture? Right from the get go, it can be describing to extremely different events, and or anything in-between them, I reckon. Who then is anyone to judge what it actually means anywhere, and or try to teach or preach to others? What sense at all, does the following bold statement of Holy Scripture mean?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Who are you or I or anyone else, to try to tell anyone they need to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or anything else scripture plainly states for that matter? If right from the beginning, we really have no idea exactly what is being stated regarding our very own existence, and that of everything we see and experience around us.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01Yes, with the presupposition that the theory of evolution is true. Interpreting all in accordance with said presupposition.

Why would anyone, except perhaps you, present a theory that they didn't consider to be true?

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01Just as YEC's do regarding a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account, and regarding the same observable evidence. Both theorizing regarding the unobservable past, by what may be observed now.

So now for you, there is no such thing anywhere in the Scriptures that is presented in metaphorical manner.  Interesting.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01Ah yes, the old nothing really matters, because everything including Holy Scripture is simply the result of every individuals personal interpretation.

I have never said any such thing.  I truly believe the scriptures present the absolute truth.  I do not believe, however, that either you or I know precisely what that is in every instant.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01To the extent that the creation account could be referring to six literal days, or countless billions of years. Making the Holy Scriptures totally unreliable as a source of objective truth right from the very get go. Yet God will actually judge all of humanity according to their acceptance or rejection of His Holy Scriptures? That makes a lot of sense, not. I would say we are either in big trouble, or don't worry be happy, since we can all pretty much make out whatever we want of the Holy Scriptures. Accepting of course that Jesus saves according to the gospel, which of course does mean exactly what you understand it to say, for you and everyone else as well, right? That part we must all interpret the same, correct? What other parts of Holy Scripture do you recommend people should take as simply stated unto salvation, and why, if you don't mind?

It is quite apparent that your interpretation is, in every instance, without question, the only one that could ever be considered as the correct one. 

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01It is the evolutionists who insist no YEC be allowed. Demonstrating the true spirit you are accusing YEC's of. I see no good reason at all, why competing theories should not be examined in the name of authentic scientific investigation.To the contrary, as far as I know, YEC"s are not demanding that the theory of evolution not be allowed to be taught in schools. They just want YEC to be taught as well, creating you know, choice. It is the evolutionists who insist no YEC be allowed. Demonstrating the true spirit you are accusing YEC's of. I see no good reason at all, why competing theories should not be examined in the name of authentic scientific investigation.

However, and I know this is without any concern for you whatsoever, the YEC version is not science. There is not one bit of scientific evidence or data that would yield a view of the universe being only six to ten thousand years old.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01If one's theories cannot afford to stand up to opposing views, then why should any believe they are true? To the contrary again, a little controversy would no doubt make the subject of greater interest. Encouraging students to join the efforts to figure things out by further investigation themselves.

By this time I should not be at all surprised at just how totally uninformed you are on just about any aspect of science, but I confess that I am.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01In any case, I do believe it is as I have always maintained. If the very first chapter and subject of Holy scripture is open to such tremendous disparity as either a literal six day creation and or a countless billions of years evolutionary creative development, why would anyone expect or believe in a need to believe Holy Scripture? Right from the get go, it can be describing to extremely different events, and or anything in-between them, I reckon. Who then is anyone to judge what it actually means anywhere, and or try to teach or preach to others? What sense at all, does the following bold statement of Holy Scripture mean?

When scripture tells us that Jesus is a door, I do not really expect to find hinges, a door knob, and a lock on Him when He returns.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:012Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I am almost positive that does not apply to the field of science, but rather to the theological.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2026 - 10:45:01Who are you or I or anyone else, to try to tell anyone they need to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or anything else scripture plainly states for that matter? If right from the beginning, we really have no idea exactly what is being stated regarding our very own existence, and that of everything we see and experience around us.

But I think we do know quite a bit about what is being state regarding our very own existence and that of everything we see and experience around us.  I think your total lack of understanding of all things scientific has you terribly confused.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 30, 2026 - 11:57:13The lack of any existing "transitions" does certainly raise obvious questions. 

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 by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Jun 04, 2026 - 19:50:02Evidences 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 by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

All of that was very interesting.  I wish I understood more about it than I do. 

I am not sure how Dr. Kurt Wise is considered a YE creationist.  I don't think his Genesis 1 "day" is the present 24-hour day.  But I could be wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B41uSGkvyjg

Part 2 of the last Answers In Genesis Canada video I posted.

An interesting discussion of the false belief in a YEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLcNTAi0Cw4

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 05, 2026 - 08:01:42All of that was very interesting.  I wish I understood more about it than I do. 

I am not sure how Dr. Kurt Wise is considered a YE creationist.  I don't think his Genesis 1 "day" is the present 24-hour day.  But I could be wrong.

https://grokipedia.com/page/Kurt_Wise

Quoted material below from link above, where more in depth bio may be viewed.

QuoteKurt Wise

Kurt Wise is an American paleontologist and young Earth creationist who directs the Center for Creation Research and serves as Professor of Natural History at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. Unlike the majority of his peers in academia, Wise interprets geological and paleontological evidence through the lens of a literal reading of the Genesis creation and flood narratives, concluding that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that a global cataclysm accounts for much of the fossil record and stratigraphic column. He earned a B.A. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and both an M.A. and Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University, conducting his doctoral research under the supervision of prominent evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould over an eight-year period.

Wise's academic trajectory highlights a deliberate prioritization of biblical authority over prevailing scientific consensus, as he has stated that his commitment to young-age creationism stems primarily from the grammatical-historical exegesis of Scripture's opening chapters, supplemented by what he identifies as supportive empirical patterns in the natural world. This stance has positioned him as a key figure in creation research, where he has lectured extensively, contributed articles to outlets like Answers in Genesis on topics such as trilobite optics and fossil mysteries, and authored books including Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe (2002), which synthesizes scriptural and scientific arguments for recent creation, and Something from Nothing: Understanding What You Believe (2005). His work extends to educational curricula, such as Devotional Biology, integrating a creationist worldview with biological instruction for homeschool and classroom settings.

Prior to his current role, Wise directed origins research at Bryan College and has been involved in advancing concepts like baraminology to delineate biblical "kinds" using discontinuous variation in biological data, challenging macroevolutionary continuity while acknowledging evidential tensions with mainstream geology—tensions he resolves by treating Scripture as the ultimate arbiter of truth. This approach has garnered respect from some critics for its intellectual consistency, even as it diverges sharply from institutional norms in paleontology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=882fmumdm9A

Very informative video concerning YEC views of the evidence supporting the global biblical flood narrative, by Dr. Kurt Wise.

https://newcreation.blog/author/newcreation_kpwise/

The above link is to a Creation blog at which Dr. Kurt Wise is an Author.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Jun 04, 2026 - 19:50:02Evidences 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 by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I'll see if I can find this in original context, and examine developments regarding these suggested examples of macroevolution, as so many once claimed examples have fallen apart over time and closer examination.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jun 07, 2026 - 08:43:06I'll see if I can find this in original context, and examine developments regarding these suggested examples of macroevolution, as so many once claimed examples have fallen apart over time and closer examination.

Here at creation.com
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

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.
...

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.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html?m=1

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Jun 07, 2026 - 20:10:51Here at creation.com
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Thanks. The first issue I should like to point out is the date of the article you have provided, in that it was published 31 years ago. The concluding statement of the article itself highly suggests that by now, either Dr. Kurt Wise or other creationists have already provided a better Creationist explanation for the suggested proofs of evolutionist he brought forward at that time.  As Dr. Wise and many other creationists have continued to study and address these very kind of issues for the last 31 years. I will of course continue to provide several videos by Dr. wise and others doing just that in the near future. The following is his concluding statement concerning the article under examination, emphasis is mine - 

Quote

CONCLUSION

Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.

Apart from the above conclusion there is the Abstract of the article, and introduction which must of course be considered as well. Emphasis in the following quotes is mine.

Quote

ABSTRACT

There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory. Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the 'transitional form' issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of 'transitional form' arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates. Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.

INTRODUCTION

Several recent lay articles1-4 have spawned considerable interest in a subject which might be called the 'traditional transitional forms issue'. The 'traditional transitional forms issue' is defined as any argument/claim (or counter-argument/ claim) that such and such fossil(s) is (are) good [candidates for] transitional forms (for example, 'Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form because . . .' or 'Mammal-like reptiles are an excellent transitional form because . . .'). Repeatedly called upon to respond to queries on this issue, the author has decided to give an overview of his thoughts on the traditional transitional forms issue, such as they are.

The article itself is addressing what is interpreted by evolutionists as good evidence of transitional forms. It is not stating that they are actual evidence of the same, which has stumped creationists. Rather they are examples used by evolutionists, which YEC's had not yet had time to properly address. The author himself having complete confidence, that in time, creationists will come up with far better explanations than that suggested by evolutionists. Which he may not or may have done already over the last 31 years. I do not know. Do you?

The following is your quote in greater context. Emphasis is mine.

Quote

It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument

Of Darwinism's four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. 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 by 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.

All of the above from both sides of the issue is of course evidence interpreted one way or the other, concerning that which cannot, and has not ever been observed. We have neither observed evolution from simple to complex, nor of course the creation of highly complex organisms from the get go. Evolutionists wish observed changes to mean the their theory is correct pertaining to our origins, and probability of continuation therefore of course. Nevertheless, we simply have not ever observed anywhere near enough beneficial change among organisms, for evolution to be considered a factual explanation of our origins. To the contrary, an extreme lack of fossil and or presently observable evidence for the theory, still remains evident for all to see. Especially considering the countless changes that would have to be able to be observed one way or the other, for this theory to have any real factual basis. The ability for creatures to adapt and or change of course, is far more likely a planned feature of design, than countless random chance changes just because. Because what? Increased organization, complexity, and functionality simply does not just happen randomly but upon very unusual circumstance, if any. Certainly not countless trillions of times, as would be necessary for evolutionary theory be correct.

I have spent my entire working life maintaining and or building complex machinery, systems, and even societal cohesion, because these things simply do not happen or come about on their own. So has and does almost every person on this planet, in one form or another every day, because such simply does not just happen by itself. Nothing we do, maintain, and or invent or build, comes anywhere near the complexity of even one single cell. Yet so very many choose to believe that the unfathomable complexity of life we observe just happened. Even against the most obvious evidence against such, that every single person experiences each and every day of their lives. What sense does that make?

The following videos by DR. Kurt Wise address where he thinks the fossils  we are discussing actually came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCdt6LjvFvA&list=PLEVsU6O-XMpEWJpRfyk5WroWKjq28dp-0&index=3



 

QuoteWhy would anyone, except perhaps you, present a theory that they didn't consider to be true?

There is nothing wrong with thinking a theory you come up with or choose to believe is true, as you most certainly know I believe the YEC position, if you have been listening to anything I have been saying for many years now. Demanding however that a theory or your theory is established scientific fact, and basically forcing everyone you possibly can to accept it as such,  is not presenting scientific theory. It is an attempt to remove theory from the realm of questioning, testing, and critical examination unto greater or lesser proof of authenticity.  Which is the very substance of authentic science.

Once, Creationists sought to ban the theory of evolution from being taught or examined in schools, which evolutionists demanded was wrong. Courts apparently decided they were correct. As public schools were not meant to be for religious instruction, they had a good point. Then they turned around, stated that their theory was fact, and demanded Creationists had no place in schools. Basically forcing their theory upon everyone in public schools. While the theory has had and continues to have serious problems requiring constant revisions as knowledge increases. Claiming a monopoly upon the theoretical subject of our origins, and committing the same sin they accused Creationists of in order to have their theory brought forth in schools as well.

The theory itself becoming an intricate part of the Secular Humanist religion, which is now therefore forced upon all within public education systems. Screaming and crying every time Creationists would like equal opportunity in the schools systems as well. While as a matter of absolute fact, the theory itself requires every bit of religious faith in its tenets, as Creation Science, or any other religion theorizing in accordance with preconcieved views concerning our origins. Regardless of how many may subscribe to it or not. As history reveals that the majority of humanity have been so very wrong, about so very much, so very many times. 

QuoteSo now for you, there is no such thing anywhere in the Scriptures that is presented in metaphorical manner.  Interesting.

No, that is not true, and you know that. Again, if you have been paying any attention to what I have been saying for years now. We've been through the metaphorical thing many times already.

QuoteI have never said any such thing.  I truly believe the scriptures present the absolute truth.  I do not believe, however, that either you or I know precisely what that is in every instant.

I know you have not said that. I am the one who points out that ultimate logical conclusion, if even the most basic fundamentals of Holy Scripture can be interpreted at such great variance between readers, as six days of creation or 14 billion or more years of evolutionary development. If the first chapters of Holy Scripture are subject to such drastically different interpretations, then their is no objective truth within them. As should be obvious.

QuoteIt is quite apparent that your interpretation is, in every instance, without question, the only one that could ever be considered as the correct one.

Concerning the creation taking six days or countless billions of years, yes I would say that is correct. The six day interpretation is backed up in to many other scriptures, with no indication of anything otherwise in scripture, save it be added by way of private interpretation. Regarding the theories YEC's formulate according to the same observable evidence we all have, not so much. Like that of evolutionists, such are subject to revision and or change as newer knowledge might reveal. The testimony of Holy Scripture regarding the creation and global flood, providing the best explanation as I see it, for what we may observe.

QuoteHowever, and I know this is without any concern for you whatsoever, the YEC version is not science. There is not one bit of scientific evidence or data that would yield a view of the universe being only six to ten thousand years old.

That is a matter of personal opinion on your part, which as an avid evolutionist apparently, you would like to pass off as the truth. Though it most certainly is not. The following link provides views of many who disagree with your example of exactly what I have been addressing on this topic for many years now. Evolutionists who refuse to allow for YEC by denying the observations they make, which are every bit as valid as those of evolutionists, whose own accepted dating methods are all dependent upon certain presumptions regarding the past. At least YEC's admit of this fact regarding their own views right from the get go, in the article linked below.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/

QuoteBy this time I should not be at all surprised at just how totally uninformed you are on just about any aspect of science, but I confess that I am.

Yes, that has been your complaint for may years. Accusations of ignorance and apparent inferiority compared to yourself of course. Thank you so much for stooping low enough to address those so far beneath you. Nevertheless, such accusations are no proof, and or good argument for or against anything. They are simply what they are. A dual statement of self acclamation and defamation of your debating opponent. Based upon a 4WD says so. So be it.

QuoteWhen scripture tells us that Jesus is a door, I do not really expect to find hinges, a door knob, and a lock on Him when He returns.

Wow. See, you really are so very intelligent. When a man says he is a door, you do not take that literally. Pure genius. Nevertheless even I, as inferior as you suggest I am, do not take such to be literal either.

On the other hand, when Holy Scripture simply and plainly states that God created our earth and at least galaxy I would say, in six days without the use of any such obvious metaphors, I do not apply metaphorical meaning to it. More than not using language suggestive of such, each day is specified to include an evening and a morning, tending also toward a literal translation of a day as we know them. Then ending the creation account with the establishment of the seventh day sabbath, which sabbath would not make much sense if it were actually countless millions or billions of years. This of course being backed up by the fourth commandment of God, spoken to Israel by the mouth of God and written in stone with His own finger. Which again plainly and simply states the He created the world in six days, and therefore the seventh day is to be observed as a commemoration of this event. That we all may weekly realize just exactly who we are in relation to our great God. Amen.

I say again, if we cannot even know what the basic foundation story of Holy Scripture really means, how can we rightly know anything thereafter? It is all open to endless personal and private interpretation.
 

QuoteI am almost positive that does not apply to the field of science, but rather to the theological.

It definitely applies to all scientific theories, which openly contradict the testimony of Holy Scripture. Which is exactly why Christian evolutionists must complicate and confuse the issues of the creation account. If it means what it simply and plainly states, then they are wrong. This plain and simple fact is certainly obvious even to one as inferior as you suggest that I am. Will you not agree that if the days of the Genesis creation account are meant to be taken literally, then according to Holy Scripture, the theory of evolution cannot be true? Is this not of course, the best reason for Christian professing evolutionists, to reject a literal account?

QuoteBut I think we do know quite a bit about what is being state regarding our very own existence and that of everything we see and experience around us.  I think your total lack of understanding of all things scientific has you terribly confused.

Yes, we both think each other have terribly handicapped their mental abilities by accepting false theories, or having very faulty understanding. You think I know nothing at all. I think you have been duped and twisted by the "sciences so called" of this fallen world. So be it. Life goes on, and so will this debate no doubt, until life no longer goes on as it does now. When our Lord and Savior returns and corrects all misconceptions. Amen.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56There is nothing wrong with thinking a theory you come up with or choose to believe is true, as you most certainly know I believe the YEC position, if you have been listening to anything I have been saying for many years now. Demanding however that a theory or your theory is established scientific fact, and basically forcing everyone you possibly can to accept it as such,  is not presenting scientific theory. It is an attempt to remove theory from the realm of questioning, testing, and critical examination unto greater or lesser proof of authenticity.  Which is the very substance of authentic science.

One more time you demonstrate that you do not understand or know much of anything about science. Theories, scientific or otherwise, are not established fact. 

This from Copilot:

In science, nothing is ever considered an absolute, unchangeable fact — even the most well-supported claims remain open to revision if new evidence emerges scienceinsights.org.

What counts as a "fact" in science
A scientific fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true for all practical purposes. It is not a mathematical proof, which can be certain by definition, but rather a statement supported by strong, consistent evidence scienceinsights.org. For example, the fact that water boils at 100 °C at sea level is based on repeated, reproducible measurements.

Why science avoids "proof"
Science operates in the real, complex world, which is subject to change. Unlike mathematics, where a theorem can be proven true within a closed system of rules, scientific knowledge is built on evidence that can be challenged. This is why scientists say a theory is "corroborated" or "well-supported" rather than "proven" scienceinsights.org+1.

The provisional nature of scientific knowledge
Even the most established theories — such as evolution, germ theory, or the theory of plate tectonics — are not considered final. They are the best explanations we have at a given time, but they can be refined or replaced if new data contradicts them Wikipedia. For instance, Newton's laws of motion are still useful for everyday engineering, but they are approximations that give way to Einstein's relativity at high speeds or strong gravity Wikipedia.

Philosophical perspective
Philosophers of science, like Karl Popper, emphasize that a scientific claim must be falsifiable — capable of being proven wrong — to be considered scientific. This means that even the most accepted facts could, in principle, be overturned by future evidence scienceinsights.org+1.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Once, Creationists sought to ban the theory of evolution from being taught or examined in schools, which evolutionists demanded was wrong. Courts apparently decided they were correct. As public schools were not meant to be for religious instruction, they had a good point. Then they turned around, stated that their theory was fact, and demanded Creationists had no place in schools.

Courts do not decide "scientific facts" (of which there really are no such "facts")

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Basically forcing their theory upon everyone in public schools. While the theory has had and continues to have serious problems requiring constant revisions as knowledge increases.

Constant revision as knowledge increases is precisely how science works. That is the process.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Claiming a monopoly upon the theoretical subject of our origins, and committing the same sin they accused Creationists of in order to have their theory brought forth in schools as well.

Science doesn't claim monopolies.  Science simply presents, or should present, the latest version known.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56The theory itself becoming an intricate part of the Secular Humanist religion, which is now therefore forced upon all within public education systems. Screaming and crying every time Creationists would like equal opportunity in the schools systems as well. While as a matter of absolute fact, the theory itself requires every bit of religious faith in its tenets, as Creation Science, or any other religion theorizing in accordance with preconcieved views concerning our origins. Regardless of how many may subscribe to it or not. As history reveals that the majority of humanity have been so very wrong, about so very much, so very many times. 

What any one person or any group uses as a basis for their religion is quite apart from and immaterial to any science or scientific process.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56I know you have not said that. I am the one who points out that ultimate logical conclusion, if even the most basic fundamentals of Holy Scripture can be interpreted at such great variance between readers, as six days of creation or 14 billion or more years of evolutionary development. If the first chapters of Holy Scripture are subject to such drastically different interpretations, then their is no objective truth within them. As should be obvious.

First, God's creation and evolutionary development are two different things.  God's creation is by scriptural definition, creation ex nihilo.  Evolutionary development begins with a presumed existent set of conditions and progresses with the conceptual or observed changes.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Concerning the creation taking six days or countless billions of years, yes I would say that is correct. The six day interpretation is backed up in to many other scriptures, with no indication of anything otherwise in scripture, save it be added by way of private interpretation.

That is your private interpretation.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Regarding the theories YEC's formulate according to the same observable evidence we all have, not so much. Like that of evolutionists, such are subject to revision and or change as newer knowledge might reveal. The testimony of Holy Scripture regarding the creation and global flood, providing the best explanation as I see it, for what we may observe.

You are, of course, free to hold that view. I have no objection that you hold it.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Evolutionists who refuse to allow for YEC by denying the observations they make, which are every bit as valid as those of evolutionists, whose own accepted dating methods are all dependent upon certain presumptions regarding the past.

One more time, that is not how science works.  Science does not deny observations.  Science, or rather scientists, might well deny the conclusions drawn from any such observations.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Yes, that has been your complaint for may years. Accusations of ignorance and apparent inferiority compared to yourself of course. Thank you so much for stooping low enough to address those so far beneath you. Nevertheless, such accusations are no proof, and or good argument for or against anything. They are simply what they are. A dual statement of self acclamation and defamation of your debating opponent. Based upon a 4WD says so. So be it.

No not based upon a 4WD says so.  Based upon the latest generally accepted scientific explanation, an explanation derived from the available data and information.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56On the other hand, when Holy Scripture simply and plainly states that God created our earth and at least galaxy I would say, in six days without the use of any such obvious metaphors, I do not apply metaphorical meaning to it. More than not using language suggestive of such, each day is specified to include an evening and a morning, tending also toward a literal translation of a day as we know them. Then ending the creation account with the establishment of the seventh day sabbath, which sabbath would not make much sense if it were actually countless millions or billions of years. This of course being backed up by the fourth commandment of God, spoken to Israel by the mouth of God and written in stone with His own finger. Which again plainly and simply states the He created the world in six days, and therefore the seventh day is to be observed as a commemoration of this event. That we all may weekly realize just exactly who we are in relation to our great God. Amen.

You have every right to your belief all that is true. You have no right to claim it is rational science.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56I say again, if we cannot even know what the basic foundation story of Holy Scripture really means, how can we rightly know anything thereafter? It is all open to endless personal and private interpretation.

And all of that is precisely your own personal and private interpretation.
 

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56It definitely applies to all scientific theories, which openly contradict the testimony of Holy Scripture.

No, it only contradicts your interpretation of the Holy Scripture.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56Yes, we both think each other have terribly handicapped their mental abilities by accepting false theories, or having very faulty understanding. You think I know nothing at all. I think you have been duped and twisted by the "sciences so called" of this fallen world. So be it. Life goes on, and so will this debate no doubt, until life no longer goes on as it does now. When our Lord and Savior returns and corrects all misconceptions. Amen.

I see no evidence at all that your interpretation of Scripture is generally any greater or more accurate or more appropriate than mine. You have shown me, on the other hand, that your knowledge and understanding of science and scientific explanations generally is nearly completely absent.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 12, 2026 - 11:24:56There is nothing wrong with thinking a theory you come up with or choose to believe is true, as you most certainly know I believe the YEC position, if you have been listening to anything I have been saying for many years now. Demanding however that a theory or your theory is established scientific fact, and basically forcing everyone you possibly can to accept it as such,  is not presenting scientific theory. It is an attempt to remove theory from the realm of questioning, testing, and critical examination unto greater or lesser proof of authenticity.  Which is the very substance of authentic science.

Once, Creationists sought to ban the theory of evolution from being taught or examined in schools, which evolutionists demanded was wrong. Courts apparently decided they were correct. As public schools were not meant to be for religious instruction, they had a good point. Then they turned around, stated that their theory was fact, and demanded Creationists had no place in schools. Basically forcing their theory upon everyone in public schools. While the theory has had and continues to have serious problems requiring constant revisions as knowledge increases. Claiming a monopoly upon the theoretical subject of our origins, and committing the same sin they accused Creationists of in order to have their theory brought forth in schools as well.

The theory itself becoming an intricate part of the Secular Humanist religion, which is now therefore forced upon all within public education systems. Screaming and crying every time Creationists would like equal opportunity in the schools systems as well. While as a matter of absolute fact, the theory itself requires every bit of religious faith in its tenets, as Creation Science, or any other religion theorizing in accordance with preconcieved views concerning our origins. Regardless of how many may subscribe to it or not. As history reveals that the majority of humanity have been so very wrong, about so very much, so very many times. 

No, that is not true, and you know that. Again, if you have been paying any attention to what I have been saying for years now. We've been through the metaphorical thing many times already.

I know you have not said that. I am the one who points out that ultimate logical conclusion, if even the most basic fundamentals of Holy Scripture can be interpreted at such great variance between readers, as six days of creation or 14 billion or more years of evolutionary development. If the first chapters of Holy Scripture are subject to such drastically different interpretations, then their is no objective truth within them. As should be obvious.

Concerning the creation taking six days or countless billions of years, yes I would say that is correct. The six day interpretation is backed up in to many other scriptures, with no indication of anything otherwise in scripture, save it be added by way of private interpretation. Regarding the theories YEC's formulate according to the same observable evidence we all have, not so much. Like that of evolutionists, such are subject to revision and or change as newer knowledge might reveal. The testimony of Holy Scripture regarding the creation and global flood, providing the best explanation as I see it, for what we may observe.

That is a matter of personal opinion on your part, which as an avid evolutionist apparently, you would like to pass off as the truth. Though it most certainly is not. The following link provides views of many who disagree with your example of exactly what I have been addressing on this topic for many years now. Evolutionists who refuse to allow for YEC by denying the observations they make, which are every bit as valid as those of evolutionists, whose own accepted dating methods are all dependent upon certain presumptions regarding the past. At least YEC's admit of this fact regarding their own views right from the get go, in the article linked below.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/

Yes, that has been your complaint for may years. Accusations of ignorance and apparent inferiority compared to yourself of course. Thank you so much for stooping low enough to address those so far beneath you. Nevertheless, such accusations are no proof, and or good argument for or against anything. They are simply what they are. A dual statement of self acclamation and defamation of your debating opponent. Based upon a 4WD says so. So be it.

Wow. See, you really are so very intelligent. When a man says he is a door, you do not take that literally. Pure genius. Nevertheless even I, as inferior as you suggest I am, do not take such to be literal either.

On the other hand, when Holy Scripture simply and plainly states that God created our earth and at least galaxy I would say, in six days without the use of any such obvious metaphors, I do not apply metaphorical meaning to it. More than not using language suggestive of such, each day is specified to include an evening and a morning, tending also toward a literal translation of a day as we know them. Then ending the creation account with the establishment of the seventh day sabbath, which sabbath would not make much sense if it were actually countless millions or billions of years. This of course being backed up by the fourth commandment of God, spoken to Israel by the mouth of God and written in stone with His own finger. Which again plainly and simply states the He created the world in six days, and therefore the seventh day is to be observed as a commemoration of this event. That we all may weekly realize just exactly who we are in relation to our great God. Amen.

I say again, if we cannot even know what the basic foundation story of Holy Scripture really means, how can we rightly know anything thereafter? It is all open to endless personal and private interpretation.
 
It definitely applies to all scientific theories, which openly contradict the testimony of Holy Scripture. Which is exactly why Christian evolutionists must complicate and confuse the issues of the creation account. If it means what it simply and plainly states, then they are wrong. This plain and simple fact is certainly obvious even to one as inferior as you suggest that I am. Will you not agree that if the days of the Genesis creation account are meant to be taken literally, then according to Holy Scripture, the theory of evolution cannot be true? Is this not of course, the best reason for Christian professing evolutionists, to reject a literal account?

Yes, we both think each other have terribly handicapped their mental abilities by accepting false theories, or having very faulty understanding. You think I know nothing at all. I think you have been duped and twisted by the "sciences so called" of this fallen world. So be it. Life goes on, and so will this debate no doubt, until life no longer goes on as it does now. When our Lord and Savior returns and corrects all misconceptions. Amen.

Public schools were designed for religious instruction, they had a God given good point---- backed up with the ten loving commandments of God . Reading the Bible the first lesson then math etc

Quote from: garee on Wed Jun 17, 2026 - 18:00:48Public schools were designed for religious instruction, they had a God given good point---- backed up with the ten loving commandments of God . Reading the Bible the first lesson then math etc

How about Islam religious instruction? Are public schools designed for that?

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jun 15, 2026 - 06:55:19God's creation is by scriptural definition, creation ex nihilo.

That's one interpretation of Genesis 1.  The mainstream one, but not the only one.

There's a version of the creation story in Job that gets very little attention.  Perhaps because it doesn't agree with ex nihilo creation.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Jun 18, 2026 - 13:34:13That's one interpretation of Genesis 1.  The mainstream one, but not the only one.

There's a version of the creation story in Job that gets very little attention.  Perhaps because it doesn't agree with ex nihilo creation.

I am not aware of that.  Could you point it out for me?

I am aware of Psalm 51:10.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Jun 18, 2026 - 16:41:10I am not aware of that.  Could you point it out for me?

I am aware of Psalm 51:10.

Job 38-41... but especially the last half of 40 & first half of 41.... God's domination of the Behemoth and Leviathan.  This is included in God questioning Job about how the earth was created.

It turns out that this is a version of the same creation story from... Babylon, Assyria, the Amorites, Canaanites, Greeks... a lot of the other cultures around them have a creation story where God defeats titans of the ocean and in doing so creates the earth.

Gen 1:2 basically names those same titans... Tohu and Bohu (formless and void) are also abbreviated versions of the names of Tehowm and Behemoth, the two titans of the seas.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jun 19, 2026 - 02:31:19Job 38-41... but especially the last half of 40 & first half of 41.... God's domination of the Behemoth and Leviathan.  This is included in God questioning Job about how the earth was created.

It turns out that this is a version of the same creation story from... Babylon, Assyria, the Amorites, Canaanites, Greeks... a lot of the other cultures around them have a creation story where God defeats titans of the ocean and in doing so creates the earth.

Gen 1:2 basically names those same titans... Tohu and Bohu (formless and void) are also abbreviated versions of the names of Tehowm and Behemoth, the two titans of the seas.

I think that is a real stretch to deny the ex nihilo creation of God. I cannot in any sense whatsoever give any credence to the "creation stories" of other cultures. The similarities and parallels between the Genesis creation account and the modern scientific account is just too close to be ignored.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 19, 2026 - 05:45:35I think that is a real stretch to deny the ex nihilo creation of God. I cannot in any sense whatsoever give any credence to the "creation stories" of other cultures. The similarities and parallels between the Genesis creation account and the modern scientific account is just too close to be ignored.

I am not dogmatic about this, but for some time I have wondered if there might be a point somewhere between both of your positions.

What if the actual earth existed before the events being described in Genesis 1? If that were the case, would it help explain why so many ancient cultures preserved traditions involving chaos, sea monsters, divine conflict, or the ordering of an already-existing world?

I'm not saying those cultures preserved the truth accurately, nor am I denying God's ex nihilo creation. Rather, I wonder whether some of those stories could be distant and distorted memories of real events that occurred before the ordering and preparation of the earth described in Genesis.

In that case, W/S's observation that similar themes appear across many cultures might have some significance, while 4WD's point that God is still the ultimate Creator remains intact.

Just something I've pondered from time to time. I don't hold it as doctrine, but I find the question interesting.

Quote from: garee on Wed Jun 17, 2026 - 18:00:48Public schools were designed for religious instruction, they had a God given good point---- backed up with the ten loving commandments of God . Reading the Bible the first lesson then math etc

Yes they were. A great deal of modern emphasis upon education for all, comes from Protestant thought, especially concerning the need for all to be able to read and understand the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, in an intended pluralistic society especially, teaching only selective religion or religions amounts to exclusion. Unless all courses related to such, are selective themselves, subject to selection by the students or not. Especially in a country which intends a separation of church and state, and rightly so. Therefore, as our population and thereby diversity increased, was it necessary to exclude teaching religion from our public schools. Although as is apparent, most did not view secular humanism as a religion, which was and is a mistake. 

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jun 19, 2026 - 05:45:35I cannot in any sense whatsoever give any credence to the "creation stories" of other cultures.

The stories I pointed out are literally in the Bible. 

If I compare them to stories from other cultures around the same time, that does not somehow remove them from the Bible.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jun 19, 2026 - 13:31:10The stories I pointed out are literally in the Bible. 

If I compare them to stories from other cultures around the same time, that does not somehow remove them from the Bible.

I didn't see your stories literally in the Bible.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jun 21, 2026 - 07:44:37I didn't see your stories literally in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure you can find Job 38-41.  I pointed it out rather specifically.

If you choose to cover your ears and eyes, that's a different thing.

QuoteOne more time you demonstrate that you do not understand or know much of anything about science. Theories, scientific or otherwise, are not established fact.

One more time you demonstrate that your reader comprehension level is apparently lacking. As I Have always maintained theories are just that, in relation to the theory of evolution especially, since so many Evolutionists attempt to pass their chosen theory off as scientific fact. But you already knew that. You just like to repeat the phrase that I know nothing, as oft as possible apparently. As though that will make it so, I can only surmise.

QuoteThis from Copilot:

In science, nothing is ever considered an absolute, unchangeable fact — even the most well-supported claims remain open to revision if new evidence emerges scienceinsights.org.

What counts as a "fact" in science
A scientific fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true for all practical purposes. It is not a mathematical proof, which can be certain by definition, but rather a statement supported by strong, consistent evidence scienceinsights.org. For example, the fact that water boils at 100 °C at sea level is based on repeated, reproducible measurements.

Why science avoids "proof"
Science operates in the real, complex world, which is subject to change. Unlike mathematics, where a theorem can be proven true within a closed system of rules, scientific knowledge is built on evidence that can be challenged. This is why scientists say a theory is "corroborated" or "well-supported" rather than "proven" scienceinsights.org+1.

The provisional nature of scientific knowledge
Even the most established theories — such as evolution, germ theory, or the theory of plate tectonics — are not considered final. They are the best explanations we have at a given time, but they can be refined or replaced if new data contradicts them Wikipedia. For instance, Newton's laws of motion are still useful for everyday engineering, but they are approximations that give way to Einstein's relativity at high speeds or strong gravity Wikipedia.

Philosophical perspective
Philosophers of science, like Karl Popper, emphasize that a scientific claim must be falsifiable — capable of being proven wrong — to be considered scientific. This means that even the most accepted facts could, in principle, be overturned by future evidence scienceinsights.org+1.

That sounds all nice and neat as a definition of science, but it is not what a great many evolutionists practice. Nor is it what I was taught in regard to evolution in school, along with countless millions of other children growing up. It was taught plainly and simply as, what happened throughout the past up until now. The following quotes from the link provided above them, are just one example of a great many no doubt, which could easily be provided from evolutionists. Emphasis in following quotes is mine.

https://forumscience.com/beyond-belief-why-evolution-is-a-scientific-fact-backed-by-mountains-of-evidence/

QuoteBeyond Belief: Why Evolution Is a Scientific Fact Backed by Mountains of Evidence

Evolution stands as one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science, yet misconceptions persist about its validity and meaning. Understanding evolution as both a scientific theory and observed fact helps clarify why virtually all scientists accept it as the foundation for understanding life's diversity on Earth.

This comprehensive examination presents the overwhelming evidence supporting evolutionary theory, addresses common misconceptions, and explains why evolution represents scientific consensus rather than mere speculation or belief....................

Evolution as Fact: We directly observe evolutionary changes in laboratory settings, natural populations, and the fossil record. Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, finch beak variations during environmental changes, and documented speciation events demonstrate evolution occurring in real time.

There are no mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but in the minds of those who presume the theory to be true. There is a serious, on going almost complete lack of evidence of intermediate transitional forms of life in the fossil record. Where there should be plenty of examples of such. Nor have we, or do we ever observe evolution in a lab or anywhere else, in any other way than presumption in regards to the ability of life to change and or adapt. Which is much more likely to be the result of a designed mechanism unto such, than random chance occurrences which would have to had taken place countless billions of times over, for evolution to be true. Change itself is not evolution. According to the robustly supported theory of evolution, the changes must result in increased information which is no doubt also necessary to increased functionality in the vast majority of any cases that would or could demonstrate the theory as robustly supported. Which itself, is not and has not been observed in a lab or anywhere else for that matter. Even if or when a loss of information could lead to some type of increased functionality, such could not in any way shape or form represent a sustainable progressive evolutionary model of simple to complex development.

Robust support by many, and or consensus, does not equal scientific fact. But in the minds of those who wish it to be so, as those apparently, of the article you have quoted. What about the many times over evolutionists have had to revise their theory because of previous wrong presumptions? What, does robustly supported views of evolutionists being wrong and having to be revised over and over again, equal scientific fact? Get a grip man. Even if constant revisions to scientific theories is part of the process of arriving at truth regarding the unknown, which it is, such most certainly does not equal scientific fact in any way shape or form either. We can, have, and do observe that scientist of the evolutionary persuasion have and will no doubt continue to make constant revisions to their theory as increased information unto knowledge require such adjustments. None of which of course is any proof of authenticity at all, but always and only evidence of wrong thinking and or ideas, regarding the theory they have placed their faith in as the best explanation of what we can presently observe around us.

These very issues and many more are exactly why many, scientists or not, disagree with the majority consensus among those who robustly seek to prove and or defend the theory of evolution according to the dictates of their chosen faith.

QuoteCourts do not decide "scientific facts" (of which there really are no such "facts")

Courts do, and have decided what will be taught in public schools or not, and specifically regarding the creation evolution issue. No one said anything about courts determining "scientific facts". There most certainly are observable and testable scientific facts regarding our present reality. Unless we were to enter a debate regarding our reality as simply perceived as such by us, or not. Which is another subject altogether.

QuoteConstant revision as knowledge increases is precisely how science works. That is the process.

Yes it is,  but it is certainly not proof of the authenticity of a theory. To the contrary, it most certainly exposes errors. An ever increasing number of which is without question evidence against the correctness of a theory, not for it.

QuoteScience doesn't claim monopolies.  Science simply presents, or should present, the latest version known.

Yes, science is simply science. People claim monopolies regarding their favorite theories, trying to exclude others from a platform to share and or introduce competing theories. This is part of the fallen nature, in relation to the unknown.
[

QuoteWhat any one person or any group uses as a basis for their religion is quite apart from and immaterial to any science or scientific process.

I call bull!*#$~t. Everyone proceeds in their scientific endeavors, to prove that which they have already theorized. Demonstrating their faith in their chosen theory.

QuoteFirst, God's creation and evolutionary development are two different things.  God's creation is by scriptural definition, creation ex nihilo.  Evolutionary development begins with a presumed existent set of conditions and progresses with the conceptual or observed changes.

Who has said otherwise? You already know that I do not believe in evolution, but rather that we and the world have been devolving form the original perfection of creation. As already stated, if any actual advance in information and or functionality has occurred, it has been an acceptation and certainly not the rule of our past.

QuoteThat is your private interpretation.

No, the six day creation account is just what it simply states in every bible translation written. As far as I know in any case. As requested many times before already, please do refer to any translations questioning or clouding the issue. Each day is specifically said to include and evening and a morning, just as we have always experienced them. The fourth commandment of God reiterates the six day creation account in no uncertain terms regarding the number of days it took, and the observance of the seventh day as God's Sabbath. No writer of the Holy Scriptures ever even hinted at any other meaning of the days of creation.

If taking the creation account for what it simply and plainly states being  backed up by the fourth commandment of God, represents a private interpretation, then what does making it mean something undetermined or unexplained represent? If not just another private interpretation? How can what it simply and plainly states be considered private interpretation, while making it mean something undetermined or unexplained is what, not a private interpretation? What sense does that make? What it says is private interpretation, and saying what it does not say is not? I call bull!*#$~t again.

QuoteOne more time, that is not how science works.  Science does not deny observations.  Science, or rather scientists, might well deny the conclusions drawn from any such observations.

Yes. That is what is debated. The differing conclusions regarding the same evidence both sides observe.

QuoteNo not based upon a 4WD says so.  Based upon the latest generally accepted scientific explanation, an explanation derived from the available data and information.

Yes based upon a 4WD says so, in agreement with the evolutionists he has chosen to believe. Who themselves come up with very different conclusions than creationists and others regarding the same evidence. Which neither I nor many others accept as scientific fact or truth. As already stated, generally accepted scientific explanations do not equal scientific fact or truth, but within the minds of those who have determined such is so.

QuoteYou have every right to your belief all that is true. You have no right to claim it is rational science.

So says the man demanding that the theorized stories of evolution are rational science. Based upon false claims which I have already addressed regarding mountains of evidence which do not exist. I have every God given right to believe and proclaim as I wish. As you and all others do as well. I neither seek nor care for your permission, or anyone else's for that matter. Save God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as their word has testified.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Nevertheless, I do not proclaim that Holy Scripture was written as rational science. I do however proclaim, that the same evidence we all may observe, back up the testimony of Holy Scripture regarding the biblical creation account and global flood, far better than the claims of the theory of evolution.

QuoteAnd all of that is precisely your own personal and private interpretation.

I challenge you and or any other Christian evolutionist therefore, to demonstrate how the creation account of Holy Scripture actually meaning billions of years of evolutionary development, encourages and or promotes confidence or faith in the bibles testimonies? Please do elaborate or expound upon the positive effects of such upon faith and belief in the testimonies of Holy Scripture. Thank you.
 

QuoteI see no evidence at all that your interpretation of Scripture is generally any greater or more accurate or more appropriate than mine. You have shown me, on the other hand, that your knowledge and understanding of science and scientific explanations generally is nearly completely absent.

First, though I have requested such several times over, you have never provided your interpretation of the creation account of Holy Scripture. Other than perhaps directing me to someone else's interpretation or explanation. Which endeavors I do neither have the time, or even wish to make the time for. Here we are. You are the one who always claims I no nothing, nevertheless, I have and do explain my views upon this subject many times over. Yet you, who apparently do know so very much compared to me, cannot or will not do the same for yourself. Why is that? Why can't a man with supposedly much greater scientific knowledge than I, explain what he believes in relation to our differing views regarding the creation account of Holy Scripture for himself, as I have many times over.

All you repeat over and over, is that my disagreements with your chosen theory of evolution, represent a complete lack of knowledge regarding science. When you yourself  cannot or will not personally explain your own beliefs regarding the matter. Is this not your hubris, and the demonstration of the hubris of evolutionists in general, in declaring all those who disagree with them as simply ignorant? As though I and others who disagree with you, only do so because they simply aren't capable of even comprehending what you know. Although you in fact are the one who cannot or will not give your own personal account or explanation of exactly what you believe, and or why, based upon the scriptures you claim to believe in. What is that all about?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
 
What is your faith regarding the worlds being formed by the word of God, and or the condemnation of this world by the faith of Noah, and the flood regarding the same. Please do share your faith regarding these issues.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 26, 2026 - 13:45:25One more time you demonstrate that your reader comprehension level is apparently lacking. As I Have always maintained theories are just that,

But theories being just theories does not mean that they are not the best explanation of what is observed.  Yes, Einstein's theory of Relativity is just a theory; but so far it has been verified by every experiment conducted to test it. That is as good as it gets.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 26, 2026 - 13:45:25in relation to the theory of evolution especially, since so many Evolutionists attempt to pass their chosen theory off as scientific fact.

No legitimate scientist ever believes that their chosen theory is "scientific fact". The evolutionists that you are complaining about probably are not even scientists but simply proponents of the concept.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 26, 2026 - 13:45:25You just like to repeat the phrase that I know nothing, as oft as possible apparently. As though that will make it so, I can only surmise.

I do not think I have ever said that you know nothing.  I have said that you know basically nothing about science or things scientific.  And I stand by that.  You do not even understand the functioning of scientific endeavor.  That is obvious.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 26, 2026 - 13:45:25That sounds all nice and neat as a definition of science, but it is not what a great many evolutionists practice.

You fail to distinguish between what is science and what any given scientist might say.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jun 26, 2026 - 13:45:25What is your faith regarding the worlds being formed by the word of God, and or the condemnation of this world by the faith of Noah, and the flood regarding the same. Please do share your faith regarding these issues.

I believe that this universe was formed by the word of God.  I believe the written word of God is true, including the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood.  I do not believe that your interpretation of those accounts comes even close to the truth of the actual happening of events described.

QuoteBut theories being just theories does not mean that they are not the best explanation of what is observed.  Yes, Einstein's theory of Relativity is just a theory; but so far it has been verified by every experiment conducted to test it. That is as good as it gets.

Einstein's theory of Relativity is a theory that can presently be repeatedly tested and demonstrably observed to be correct. The theories we are discussing cannot presently be repeated, tested, observed, and or therefore proved to be correct. We have not, and we do not, observe the kind of evolutionary change the theory claims. Nor of course do we, or can we observe the creation as described in Genesis, regardless of exactly how such was brought about and or manifested.

To say that Einstein's theory of relativity is observable scientific fact, from within the reality we presently exist in any case, is an accurate statement. To declare that deep time simple to complex evolution as the mechanism of our existence is in the same category of proved science as Einstein's theory of Relativity, is a blatantly false declaration. We have not, do not, and cannot observe any such thing. Even if some day, someone in some lab, creates the perfect conditions for any such thing to take place, such would not prove evolution as the mechanism of our existence. But only that scientists with exact purpose and intent, after a very great many failures, finally produced the right environment and procedures unto demonstrable simple to complex evolutionary processes. Not that such were the actual mechanisms of our existence. So likewise with the claims of Creationism, which are admittedly based upon faith in a literal historic interpretation of what Genesis simply and plainly states.

QuoteNo legitimate scientist ever believes that their chosen theory is "scientific fact". The evolutionists that you are complaining about probably are not even scientists but simply proponents of the concept.

The evolutionists I am talking about are teaching students all over this nation in every science or biology class. Just like I was taught. Evolution is not presented as just one theory among others in these classrooms, but rather scientific fact supported by the majority of scientists. The following quote from the link above it states part of the problem -

https://crev.info/2026/05/rf-evolution-in-public-schools/

QuoteThe Bottom Line

Like the medical establishment that once clung to bloodletting, today's educational system presents evolution as settled fact—even though most of its key lines of evidence are more complex and debated than students are led to believe.

This matters. Because evolution is not just a scientific explanation—it carries a message:

That life is the result of unguided natural processes.
That we are here by chance.
That there is no ultimate purpose.

Over time, that message shapes belief.

This may help explain why 64% of 18–29-year-olds who grew up in church have dropped out of church involvement as adults.

Just as bloodletting continued in medicine long after its value was discredited, today's teaching on origins suffers from a similar — yet far more consequential — flaw, for it profoundly shapes how the next generation understands life, meaning, and truth.

I think this attitude is far more prevalent than you suggest. I am constantly subjected to the theory of evolution stated simply as fact in one documentary about science, space, nature, geology, and what have you seemingly anywhere it may be squeezed into the context. 

QuoteI do not think I have ever said that you know nothing.  I have said that you know basically nothing about science or things scientific.  And I stand by that.  You do not even understand the functioning of scientific endeavor.  That is obvious.

Well here we are, surely one so knowledgable as yourself who can easily identify a scientific know nothing such as myself, can easily supply a nice summary of exactly what the function of scientific endeavor is. Can't you? Please do enlighten me.

QuoteYou fail to distinguish between what is science and what any given scientist might say.

I'm not addressing what just any one given scientist might say. To the contrary, I am and have been addressing what a great many scientists say. Who themselves point to consensus among large numbers, as proof of their theory.  I'll  take it that your reader comprehension problem, causes you to think such while I exactly address what you think I fail to distinguish between. No doubt such is applicable to your claim that I "do not even understand the functioning of scientific endeavor", as well. Which problem could be easily remedied if you will simply state the real function of scientific endeavor as you understand it. That we might see and work out perhaps, our different views concerning such. What do you think of the following explanation from Wikipedia -

QuoteScience is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society. It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

QuoteI believe that this universe was formed by the word of God.  I believe the written word of God is true, including the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood.  I do not believe that your interpretation of those accounts comes even close to the truth of the actual happening of events described.

And therein lies the entire problem. I believe what the word of God simply and plainly states in the creation and flood accounts, and you claim that is my interpretation, which is wrong. I do not need to explain an interpretation, as I believe what Holy Scripture plainly and simply states concerning these issues. No interpretation implied or supplied. I believe it as written. My interpretation therefore, is that it means what it plainly and simply states.

Now, what is your interpretation? It cannot be to be the same as mine, as you state that my "interpretation" is wrong. Therefore, what is simply stated in the Genesis creation and flood accounts is wrong as well, since that is what I believe. So what does your interpretation of the Genesis creation and flood accounts entail, and why please? What do the scriptures really mean when they state that God created the world in six days, and that the flood was over the entire planet? This cannot be what you believe, since it is what I believe, which is what scripture plainly and simply states. Which you testify you do not agree with at all. So what do you think these words of scripture really mean or represent?

Do you believe the following statement of scripture?

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

How long do you think the above account took?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Do you believe the above commandment of God? How long do you think the days referred to in the commandment were? How long therefore also, do  you reckon a seventh day sabbath is. How do you interpret the days in the above commandment and creation account?