Speir Explains His YEC View

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #126

Evaporated saltwater.

It sure doesn’t confound any Old Earth Creationists I’ve known (e.g., Hugh Ross.)

Do you mean “formation of fossils?”

This should help you:


Why do you prefer that explanation to those found in the aforementioned article?

What about it?

In what way? I find many of his positions in conflict with the scriptures. Also, so many of his positions conflict with what God has clearly revealed in his created universe. I prefer God’s revelations to r_speir’s.

OK. I too believe God is omnipotent. Lots of us on PS believe God is omnipotent.

I don’t either.

I agree that God transcends nature and can “control” nature—but I’m not sure what “alters it with a wink” means. I see no evidence that God alters nature casually and regularly. (Do you have evidence of that? The Bible makes no such claim.)

Perhaps you mean millions of stars in our galaxy.

The Bible doesn’t claim that God created all of the stars at the same time. Stars continue to form over time.

Yes they do.

As Hugh Ross likes to say, “The Bible describes a worldwide flood—but not a global flood.” The Hebrew text of Genesis says nothing about a global flood. It describes a flood of the ERETZ (“land”.)

(Timothy Horton) #127

You’re not stupid or unintelligent but you’re woefully ignorant on most aspects of modern science, especially evolutionary biology. You also lack the critical thinking skills which let everyone else spot snake oil salesmen like Wise a mile away. The good news is ignorance is curable as is lack of critical thinking skills but first you have to want to learn. That means going outside of your religious bubble and dealing with some scary reality, like geologic formations which 100% disprove a global Noah’s Flood or genetic data which 100% disprove a literal Noah’s Ark.

(Greg) #128

Mr Horton. U keep bringing up the mammal fossil thing, but you continually ignore the context in which wise was using this data. The study performed in the late 60s determined that the there was a common type of mammal in the fossil record that related to existing mammals in Europe at the time to point out that perhaps evolutionist claims that the fossil record is largely incomplete may actually be untrue. This was not brought up to show that these fossils are EXACT in nature compared to their counterpart in existence in Europe at the time.

Your bringing this up now at least 5 or 6 times shows a level of unsophistication that makes me not want to trust your opinion on anything. Please TRY to have self control and hold back future comments in these regards because they are misleading.

(Greg) #129

Dr wise emailed me about how a kilometer thick messinian salt layer in the Mediteranian has everyone puzzled.

(Timothy Horton) #130

That wasn’t Wise’s claim. He claimed that 80-90% of living existing species were found in the European fossil record to back up his “Flood happened 4500 years ago” assertion. Not their similar ancestral relatives. Existing species.

I have to keep bringing it up because you keep ignoring the fact Wise got caught in such a blatant falsehood. It’s a classic case of your religion-induced blindness which won’t let you see when you’re being played like a Stradivarius.

(Timothy Horton) #131

Looks like he lied to you again. You can even find the scientific geologic explanation on Wiki

Messinian salinity crisis

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #132

Dr. Wise may be puzzled but not everyone else:

(Greg) #133

Of course he makes a case for a young earth. He is a young earth creationist! In that segment, he brought this up to specifically point out that, in the matter of animal types in Europe at the time (1968) the fossil record holds a large number of counterparts. Was it 80%? This data runs completely contrary to the evolutionist claim that the fossil record only records a small number of animal types

(Timothy Horton) #134

Tsk tsk. Still trying to defend Wise’s indefensible lie. No light gets through those religious blinders of your at all, does it?

That has never been a position of evolution or paleontology. Looks like yet another Wise lie.

(Greg) #135

Pretty interesting study! I will pass it along to Dr Wise. I think is is really sad how you show him disrespect as one who is “puzzled” because he had not read that study you probably googled and pulled up on the internet. The study is only a hypothesis anyway.

I absolutely respect Dr. Kurt Wise as i see in him a passion to understand the rocks and fossils. And i also see in him w a cherishable childlike faith in a Great God who imspired the Scriptures for us to revere as the very words of God. Regardless of stance on young earth, old earth etc, the balance of those enduring qualities in a man who is obviously smart and obviously was taught by Gould at Harvard and is well informed about mainstream views i think is worthy of more respect than you give. Do you think it is easy being a YEC around you all? We love Scripture and just have no conviction anywhere in our bones that reinterpreting Genesis into long ages evolutionism is right. Fair enough? We are all going to one day leave this earth, and chances we are all going to find out what really occurred…in view of the nature of the God in scriptures, in my estimation Wise might really be on the right track.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #136

YOU are the one who said that Dr. Wise emailed you about how everyone else is puzzled! These were your words:

So, are you saying that Dr. Wise was showing disrespect towards everyone by calling them puzzled?

That’s an interesting double-standard you have there.

(Timothy Horton) #137

He purports to be a trained professional geologist yet he can’t be arsed to do the tiniest bit of research on a well known geologic phenomenon before declaring “everyone is puzzled”? Yet I could find the f***ing explanation with a 5 second Google search. :roll_eyes:

Tell me again why this man deserves any respect from the science community?

(Greg) #138

Look it up. Old earthers have calculated that only 2% of all animals that ever existed are represented in fossils. I may not be saying that w correct semantics but this makes the point perfectly in principle according to old earth evolutionism

(Greg) #139

Read the article for yourself. In it it clearly states that these kilometer thick salt deposits were troubling to explain for all of science…and this a new hypothesis. It may very well be an incorrect hypothesis.

(Timothy Horton) #140

A small percentage of the overall number of species which ever lived is not the same as a small absolute number. Wise was certainly equivocating between the two ideas.

(Timothy Horton) #141

Wise could show up at your door and shoot your dog’s head off and you’d still believe him if he lied and said the dog passed of natural causes.

Your hero worship of a proven charlatan is quite disturbing.

(Timothy Horton) #142

The key word is WERE. They WERE puzzling but with all the new evidence they’re NOT puzzling to anyone anymore. Except to serial prevaricators like Wise.

(Greg) #143

It is impossible to argue the terms when one person speaks from a view that places focus on a Great God who can do things that appear to have age but really dont, and the other leans naturalism over billions of yrs. Like someone fr the Ukraine trying to speak to another fr Canada

(Timothy Horton) #144

It’s also impossible to discuss science with someone like Wise for whom lying comes as naturally as breathing. I honestly feel sorry for you in trying to defend his BS.

(Greg) #145

I cannot judge whether they are on the right track or not. I can tell you that i have read a lot of science about evolution, and i think explaining the existence of the human body w sexual reproductive parts, eyes, ears, interacting organs, a nervous system that is astoundingly complex via godless naturalism is the downright most idiotic idea ever dreamed. So if the science that goes into explaining in such a foolhearty naturalistic manner is similar to the ways geologists explained salt reserves, please dont mind if i have reservations…