Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Dear WJ:I think your post was an excellent example of how the proponents of the macroevolutionary hypothesis haven't really offered anything.I do realize that materialist/evolutionist like to run for cover when abiogenesis is brought up. I know they realize it conflicts with the materialist creed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I would also say that Christians have ample evidence for Christianity and it is not just limited to science as my other post demonstrate. I also know the abiogenesis hypothesis is very contra-evidence in that the "inference to the best explanation" as Meyer indicated is a Creator.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

TO: SchrafinatorI agree with Kelvin who was called "that odious spectre" by Darwin. Kelvin was a staunch creationist who made a significant contribution in terms of the second law of thermodynamics.Here is some more information regarding the second law of thermodymaics for you to consider:SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - ChristianAnswers.NetLastly, I see the see the materialist being closed in on every side. Molecular biology and the growing contra-evidence and empirical bankruptcy of the abiogenesis hypothesis, for example. I know this trend is continueing. I also see Bible archeology giving us more and more evidence for the Bible and Genesis. Sodom was discovered for example. I realize this makes some materialist upset but this will not stop the trend from continueing.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-04-2004]

to: schrafinatorYou seem to want to be a controlling individual. You say you NEED an answer to your post. You say you want yes or no answers. If you wish to state that somehow sunlight causes lizards to grow hollow bones that make them less fit and develop complex systems that enable flight so they can sprout wings and fly then I think you are deluding yourself. I think you are trying to enter naturalistic miracles into science through the backdoor in order to justify your bankrupt materialist ideology. I have left the Church of Darwin. I see no need to lay hands on beakers and cry, "In the name of materialism I command non-life to become life.". I see the whole endeavor of trying to believe materialism as being a hopeless endeavor. It is inconsistent. Nothing becoming the universe. Asserting "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" while maintaining abiogenesis. I am saved. I am free. I see the majesty of creation. You seem to want to drag me down into the materialist tar pit via your controlling tactics and I wiil emphatically tell you right now that I have no desire to go there.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

Dear Asgara:I think your knitpicking may be due to the fact the EVC Forum may be in the process of living up to their stated goal of allowing both sides of the debate to freely express their views. Again, I have no problem with private property and one view merely being expressed. I do think that if a forum states that both views will be expressed and does not live up to that then there is a problem. I am glad you are no longer "Queen of the Universe" and are now just the admin in one forum. Perhaps, you chose this more limited involvement. Perhaps it was chosen for you. Regardless of how it may have developed, I am glad of the end result.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-04-2004]

To: ALLIt seems as though materialist here are forgetting a common materialist mantra in relation to the abiogenesis hypothesis - namely, extraordinary claims require extraordinay evidence. Clearly, we know that abiogenesis even if we were to grant a such a thing which I am clearly not granting whatsoever, would not be ordinary. Nobody has ever witnessed such a thing and Meyer clearly shows it is contra-evidence: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html
So where is the extraordinary evidence?But it is far worse for the materialist because the materialists do not even have credible evidence that abiogenesis occured. And without credible evidence to show that abiogenesis could realistically occur the materialist have not earned the right to go up to bat against the Christian creationist. In short, the materialist are not in the ballpark.Furthermore, in relation to the origin of the universe, the creationist have a Louisville slugger called the Law of the conservation of mass and energy. The materialist do not have a science "poker hand" that even approaches a scientific law.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up. I would be afraid of this issue too if I were a materialist who eventually is going to meet his Creator. The materialist often worship the god of science but that god cannot help them escape death. Is science close to solving the "death thing" yet?Sincerely,Ken

To: WJHe wants to put enter naturalistic miracles into science through the backdoor via sunshine. I am not buying it.Sincerely,Ken

re: lineup of skullsA website declares:"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, Nature 2001.It should be noted, that Henry Gee is a believer in Evolution...."taken from: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Earlyman.htmlSincerely,Ken

re: whales: Fossils | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis To Make a Tail for a Whale | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Sincerely,Ken

In regards to the second law of thermodynamics and the earth being an open system:http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/om5.htmSincerely,Ken

TO: SchrafinatorI know I gave you the information to answer any concerns you might have.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

TO: ASGARAAs far as my debating skills, I will let others judge my debating skills. I will ask this question though, "Since when has excellent debating skills been necessary to win a creation/evolution debate?" God's creation testifies to Him. The Scriptures rightfully proclaim, "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1. All and any eloquence that the evolutionists have at their disposal will not change the fact that Genesis and creationism are true.The creationist bus in people to see the creation/evolution debates as the Wall Street Journal has stated. We know we very much tend to win the debates. It is true that the evolutionists complain that the creationist pick on the things they propose and they do not have enough time to respond during the debate. That is very true. But this begs the question, "Why can't the evolutionists do the same and pick on creationism?".After all is said and done, the macroevolution hypothesis truly is a hypothesis in crises.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-07-2004]

To: CaptainronI would suggest looking at the main creationist: Answers in Genesis The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Researchwww.creationism.orghttp://www.trueorigins.orgI would also recommend these links:Articles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis: : Page not found – Evolution-Factshttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htmPage not found – How Does a Cryptocurrency ETF Work?TO: ChiropteraI believe there are at least 250,000 species in the fossil record and over 100 million fossils in Natural Museums. I also know that compared to the total amount of fossils and species currently discovered there is a handful of controversial "missing links." In short, I think the fossil record shows creationism.To: AllI suspect my involvement at Evc Forum will be less in the future. If anyone creationist to provide additional input to the string in order to maintain a dialogue on a more frequent basis in this string it certainly would not be discouraged.Sincerely,Ken

Dear Brian:Thank you for the welcome back and I would enjoy some productive conversations as well. I do think, however, that soon my busy season will start as far as work and so my time at EVC Forum will be more limited. Plus tax time and self employment is never fun.Sincerely,Ken

To: WII see teleonomy harnessing the sun's energy (see SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - ChristianAnswers.Net) . I also see the abiogenesis hypothesis as being unworkable and I gave supporting evidence. In short, I see the earth being an open system argument as a way to eliminate the second law of thermodynamics objection to the macroevolutionary hypothesis as being a very forced extrapolation.Lastly, I do not see our dialogue as leading anywhere at this moment in time. I think at sometimes it is just best to discontinue discourse.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-10-2004]