Originally posted by lord xyz
I like it when they want to sound scientific by saying the world was made in 6 days.
Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Still doesn't really disprove evolution.
Try this one.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/CreationEvolution.pdf
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Try this one.http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/CreationEvolution.pdf
And this one.
http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf
Not to mention this one.
Somehow I think that if he elaborated on his point, you would still quote some book written by some person who didn't even know there was a planet beyond the seas. AND yet you insist on claiming that it is completely 100% right and everyone else are wrong.
OHHHHHHHHHH please, god......... no Jesus Christ ( since u say they are the same) gave you a brain to think for yourself, NOT to just copy and paste.
Before you go pasting some other link, think for a bit, why would god give us a set of teeth and an organ( ie appendix) that WE HAVE NO USE for???????? Unless sometime in the past we did have use for it. PLEASE go in ur precious bible and find the answer to that.
DO NOT give a quote on howJEsus is lord and we should follow him. Give a quote to tell us why we have things in our body we dont need anymore.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can you be more specific?
Sure, sure lets punch holes (2 big ones) on that pdf link of yours from reclaimamerica.org:
1. It CHERRY PICKS quotes from reputable scientist to make it appear that the theory of evolution is losing its support in the scientific community and certain facts relevant to the debate.
-It failed to include this quote from Fred Hoyle:
"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14
-Or this one from Stephen J. Gould
"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. " - Stephen J. Gould
-Or take into account the general stance of CURRENT scientists like when The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative declared (in 2005) that Intelligent design (Creationism updated for the new millenium) cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In fact why do creationists love to quote old and/or dead scientists who lived in an INFERIOR scientific era?
-Or take into account that ID/creationist "scientists" like Michael Behe and Will Dembski and their "arguments" have already been HOSED down by the scientific community in several books, journals and public statements all over the world, in particular the court ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial just last December 2005 (Behe made a fool of himself here).
2. It OVEREXAGGERATES the flaws and/or gaps in the evolutionary theory.
-Hoaxes debunked (Piltdown man), old assumptions discarded (Haeckel embryo's) or modified (Neanderthal man) or corrected (Darwin's racist assumption about human evolution was proven wrong by geneticists); all of these things are NORMAL occurences in the course of scientific development.Science and evolution is not static. What we know today is NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural world. There would be plenty more of scientific breakthroughs in the future. Gaps in the fossil record? That would be FILLED IN in the future (Poppycock! Do these creationists know how insanely difficult it is to find fossils?) and besides these currently missing fossils do NOT INVALIDATE evolution because other branches of science like genetics, anatomy, bacteriology furnish concrete evidence that supports it.
-Have i mentioned "God of the Gaps"? Yeah baby.