Originally posted by Mithlond
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.htmlI was going to post a link for evolution evidence, then decided I would just advise you to look on google. Type "evidence for creation" as a quote. 55,100 hits. Type "evidence for evolution" as a quote. 251,000 hits. That's virtually 5 times the number.
My point is, there is more EVIDENCE for evolution than creation. So, for each link you can post, there are 5 other links that say it's rubbish.
Don't you mean more links saying the same thing? You are confusing "more" evidence with "links that say the same thing." There may be more hits but the hits are not new info. or more evidence as you assert, but are simply rehashed duplicates of the same "lack" of evidence.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Don't you mean more links saying the same thing? You are confusing "more" evidence with "links that say the same thing." There may be more hits but the hits are not new info. or more evidence as you assert, but are simply rehashed duplicates of the same of "lack" of evidence.
So its a question, to you, of quality over quantity? The fact that so many pro-evolution links can draw on vast masses of scientifically supported evidence is less worthy then a small number of links that draw on no real scientifically verifiable evidence?
Is this some sort of inverse logic? That because creation links are fewer they are somehow more worthy? That the opinion of the fringe is of greater value then the pretty cohesive view held by the scientific community at large?
Originally posted by Robtard
"...To answer you, I looked through them. I have read other articles in the past that basically say the same thing, posting proof that evolution is impossible, but they of course are flawed as the laws of science can disprove them with physical evidence.Repost the link for me and I will read (in essence re-read) what you have to offer if you wish.
The thread is entitled, "Creation vs. Evolution," page 4, article entitled, "New Definition of Science?"
Issue Date: November/December 2005
By Thomas Heinze
"Thomas Heinze has served for more than thirty years as an evangelical missionary in Italy with CBInternational. He currently directs the publishing house Edizioni Centro Biblico. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. "
Thomas Heinze also has no scientific training or backround making him remotely capable of judging any scientific concept.
http://www.chick.com/catalog/posters/lrgposter.asp
Flamboyant is this in essence what you believe?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You and Robtard's bias is why you think every argument against creation is "a good response." Take off your biased lenses, be obective and neutral and then respond to my posts.
You admitted that you are biased yourself in a post earlier, but you are telling them to stop being biased, got to love how you can be such a hypocrite sometimes 🙂
Originally posted by crazy
You admitted that you are biased yourself in a post earlier, but you are telling them to stop being biased, got to love how you can be such a hypocrite sometimes 🙂
The difference is that I openly admit my bias. Everyone is biased about something, but not everyone is brave enough to admit that they are.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveUmm not not really.....first of all men and dinosours did not coexist. Second of all, why do you keep posting things of the earlier stages of human development that turned out to be false? Yes the Piltdown man was a hoax I get that. But there were also other "levels" so to speak of human development that were true, and proven to exist.
http://www.chick.com/catalog/posters/lrgposter.aspFlamboyant is this in essence what you believe?