[QUOTE="SoCaliCyc0"] "Did I not say that the reason I wasn't being specific it because it would literally take about 2-3 pages to expain it?"
Your explanations are taken from non-scientific sites. Therefore they're baseless. Just because these religious sites post findings from several psuedo-scientists who are in the MINORITY doesn't make them right.
The VAST MAJORITY of scientists believe in evolution. Much like the VAST MAJORITY of them believe Global Warming is primarily caused by humans. Just because there are a couple scientists that come out speaking against it doesn't make it wrong. By the way, all of the scientists that do speak out against it, generally are employed by Shell, Chevron or the Bush Administration.
But I bet you take their word for it, right?
"And why does it matter what website I got the info from? Me getting my facts from that website and you having a fit about it would be the same as you getting your facts from a site of Evolutionists and me complaining about it."
First off, you aren't getting any "facts." To get reliable information you need an adequate source. Your sources aren't adequate. It's like me getting Jewish information from a Muslim site. Don't you think the info would be slanted to fit their worldview?
The science of Evolution threatens the beliefs of your religion, thus there's an agenda to try and debunk it. But like a previous individual stated, you're too brainwashed to notice it. In fact you're picking and choosing what you want to believe. And what you're picking stems from the OVERWHELMING MINORITY.
The earth is millions and millions of years old. WE KNOW THAT. There is NO DEBATE. ANY SCIENTIST that doesn't believe in that is considered a JOKE.
"And since when have Creationists not been scientists?"
Unbelievable.
In all honesty, you seem like a good person. And there's nothing wrong with your religious beliefs. However, try using a litte bit of common sense and logic to go along with the word of Genesis.
KH-mixerX
"Your explanations are taken from non-scientific sites. Therefore they're baseless. Just because these religious sites post findings from several psuedo-scientists who are in the MINORITY doesn't make them right."
Ok, if there not right and so called "baseless," then why don't you show how and why they're baseless. Provide your own facts. All the info I provided was backed by science. Somebody didn't just make them up. People who thought the world was round when the popular belief said it was square turned out to be right. They were in the vast minority. Since when did being in the minority make you wrong?
"To get reliable information you need an adequate source. Your sources aren't adequate. It's like me getting Jewish information from a Muslim site. Don't you think the info would be slanted to fit their worldview?"
I got proof that creation science is true from a creation science website. That's not an adequate scorce? Let me know if this is right by what your saying: For you to stay non-hypocritical when providing your own facts(which you've failed to do so far) you would have to get proof of evolution from a creation website. Uhh...a bit of a fault in your logic, don't ya think?
"The earth is millions and millions of years old. WE KNOW THAT. There is NO DEBATE. ANY SCIENTIST that doesn't believe in that is considered a JOKE."
I gave you proof that the earth being millions and millions of years old is a bunch of crap. But, like always, you've avoided directly addressing my info and instead just saying it's not true because the majority of people think it's not. Didn't your mom ever tell you not to follow the crowd. Throughout history, there has been popular beliefs on many things. One of them(which I already mentioned) is the earth being square. Back when that was the popular belief of the scientists of that time, anyone who thought different was laughed at and considered a joke. We all know how that story ended. The earth was eventually discovered to be round. Imagine the stunned silence of the vast majority of the scientific community when this was discovered. As time has gone on, many ideas that were believed to be "common knowledge," have ended up being entirely wrong. As I have said before; don't be so quick to discount the theory of Intelligent Design just because it goes against popular belief. Popular belief doesn't have a very good track record of remaining popular.
In your next rebuttle, why don't you try actually addressing my info with your own info instead of attacking my own words only. The scientists that I quoted are not Evolutionists. And even they can't find any sense of logic in evolution. Evolution is a dying theory.
"In all honesty, you seem like a good person. And there's nothing wrong with your religious beliefs."
Religious? I myself haven't mentioned the bible once. Who said I was religious? I just think that its rediculous to believe something as complex as the human body or even a living cell could just happen by chance. Thats like looking at a building and saying that that building just happened by chance. Someone would have to design, then create it. Right? Isn't that the logical thing to believe? I guess according to you and your evolutionist buddies it isn't..
Reply to the Polonium halos discovered by Robert Gentry former president of the national academy of science, reply to Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and nobel prize winner, reply to Albert Szent-Gyorgi, nobel prize winning biochemist, are these men not credible scientists? Are they brainwashed? Are they emplyed by oil companies or George Bush? Major philospophers are being pursuaded by intelligent design. In 2004, one of the world's most noted philosophers of atheism, eighty-one-year old Antony Flew had a change of mind and was courageous enough to announce it. As a young man, Flew debated C.S. Lewis over the existence of God, Lewis himself being an athiest turned christian. Michael Behe has Phd in Biochemistry from the Univ. of Pennsylvania and did post-doctoral at the National Institute of Health used to make fun of christians with ad hominum attacks as you do, calling them brainwashed and the like. He now is a zealus proponent of Intelligent design and played a significant roll in changing the mind of Antony Flew. Darwinian evolution, Flew confessed, could not account for the origins of life and phenomena like information packed DNA. Flew indicated that "biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved" Most of Flew's colleagues who have worked with him through all these years at Oxford University remain in stunned silence after his announcement. Are these guys frauds? Are they not scientists? What if Behe and the others like Antony Flew, one of the world's formost gurus of philosophical atheism for years are right? What about the fossilized trees running perpendicular through millions and millions of years worth of the geological column? What about the absolute absence of transitional fossils anywhere in the world? Pure and simple complexity ABSOLUTELY proves design. What about the world's population factoring in wars, disease and anything that could scientifically affect the numbers, show that we have approx. 6000 years of population, what a coincidence...NOT. Put quotaions around these and answer any of them. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What about Simon Greenleaf one of the founders of Harvard Law School and formost authority on evidence in a court of law saying that: "The ressurection of Jesus Christ is the most provable fact in the history of the world" This is not just blind faith about intelligent design or the belief in christianity. Evolution is becoming a joke, it's a theory, a religion, a belief that takes way more faith than christianity. Can you put quotes on any of this discourse and answer any of it with any facts at all? Sure you can find adaptation of species, but there is ABSOLUTELY no proof of one species changing to another. What about irreducible complexity? What was the eye before it became a seeing eye? What was the heart before it became a heart? Even Darwin said it was rediculous to think the eye evolved from something lower. What about that?
I just have to say. There was a program on Discovery the other month showing the foetus growth of certain animals and of humans.
Do you know that in the early stages of the human foetus we grow gills and what looks like the start of a tail. It is said that the evolution process remembers that we dont need these anymore and that they simply disappear. If all life didn't evolve from the seas as it is meant to have done, why is it that these signs keep arising?
Log in to comment