So your religious belief makes you smarter than some of the best scientists in the country? Or did you just stay a couple of nights in a Holiday Inn Express?
What kind of idiot continues to cling to the thoroughly debunked, sloppily concocted myth of "evolution"? There is absolutely no scientific evidence upon which might rest such a hairbrained theory. None.
False. The theory of evolution is only "thoroughly debunked" to those who ignore science and wrap themselves in an extremely narrow interpretation of religion.
And false again. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I have personally seen a lot of the evidence for evolution during six years of grad school in which I studied fossil man, evolution, osteology and related subjects.
Just goes to show, those who believe in nothing will pretty much believe in anything. Rather than admit the truth, they feverishly seek only that which their itching ears want to hear.
False again. (Although that may be a self portrait for creationism.) There is a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution if one would just look.
The price to be paid for insisting on a seat at this show just isn't worth it. Not by half.
{Hint} Forget the sunscreen... bring some barbecue sauce.
Oh, so those of us who are convinced by the evidence for evolution are headed straight to hell?
Son, you are acting like a jerk. You are a very poor representative of your religion.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
Wasn’t there another thread just in the last few days where someone challenged that there were any posters who gleefully looked forward to non-Creationists roasting in Hell?
Ok, there my be "alot" of evidence, but NONE of which is conclusive.
There is much more evidence for creation and the existance of God if one would just put down their arrogant, egotistical blinders and just observe every day life.
As far as evolution is concerned, they, and their moldering opinions, are just more detritus on the scrap-heap of an uncaring universe.
But since you brought it up, where is the fossil-record of the hundreds-of-millions of years of "evolving" eyes? Evolution posits that it took 300-450-million years for eyes to evolve.
Where is the 200-300-million year long fossil record of "partially evolved" eyes?
And given that those eyes need a circulatory system to sustain them, a nervous system to operate them AND the circulatory system, a respiratory system to oxygenate the circulatory vehicle, a musculature to operate the eyes- circulatory-and-respiratory systems, and a skeletal systemn to house it all (exo-or-endo, it matters not), how did all of this eveolve in the first place?
Hmmmmmm...., mutually interdependent, inextricably interwoven systems of unspeakable complexity.
Each of which systems require all of the others in order to exist and to function... especially vis-a-vis the eybeall.
Either they all "evolved" into being at once in an as yet un-hinted-at simultaneous "BIG EVOLUTIONARY BANG", or they were designed and created.
The bloodstream coudn't have evolved first and then waited around for a musculature, respiratory and nervous systenm to evolve for it to work with. The same is true of each of the others.
If the "EVO" scientific community (or its brain-dead acolytes) were able to see the noses on their faces, they would realize and admit this very simple and obvious conundrum.
They might even let the absence of any fossil-record of hundreds-of-millions of years of partially evolved eyes give them a hint.
But, it seems eyes only really work best when one uses them to look, not just to see; and there are none so blind as those who simply refuse to see.
I await your cleverly pointless religion based reparté.
;-/