Replies

For example, it defies the Law of Biogenesis, & the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Haha. I just wanted to reitterate what Sentis and PH already drew your attention to. All the leading creationists have implored their flock to stop invoking your 2 shining examples of why evolution supposedly defies scientific laws. (Patrick Henry supplied you a wonderful link, if you didn't feel it was worthy, I beg you to click on it. It's actually from creationists, and not evil-utionists.)

The best is that in my post 1,047 to Gore3000, I even wrote that it was interesting to me that creationists have finally abandoned these ridiculous two "arguments." Apparently, I gave too much credit where none was due.

On 2nd thought, maybe you are just trolling or goofing with us. I'd prefer that to be the case... either that or your pastor is a bit behind the creationist times. FYI, the current creationist falsehoods du jour are "how did the flagella come to be?" "Irreducible complexity" and eukaryotic evolution. Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate.

"how did the flagella come to be?" "Irreducible complexity" and eukaryotic evolution. Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate.

Of course we have debated Irreducible complexity to death and I think I made quite a hash of it in several posts. In fact along with viral cross-species genetic transfer and the fact the irreducible complexity just isn't a factual debate (as we can provide steps that lead to any development that creationists see fit to put forward) IC is a dead argument also.

As for eukaryotic evolution its only a matter of time before the processes are well known and they will have to give up this debate as well. I wonder what will happen when they have to give up every argument. I mean will they suddenly realize they are wrong or just put their fingers in their ears. (oops they are already doing that when I post).

lol. No, I'm not a troll. I want to have an open mind on the subject. You may find it hard to believe, & I would be glad to elaborate, but I really do seek the truth on this matter. No sentis, I'm not a scientist. Hope that doesn't disqualify me from reading & forming my own opinions.
Thanks for reference to the link, actually I had read through that web site a couple of days ago. Post #1047 didn't help much either,whatajoke.

Please enlighten me of the evidence of life being created from a non-life form. It seems that will have to be the reference point of this belief. I prefer the scientific works & research papers.
Not arguments, beliefs, insults, etc.

Simple URLs will do.
Thanks !

Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate.

Just as "Love is never having to say you're sorry," so creationism is never having to be up to date.

All the leading creationists have implored their flock to stop invoking your 2 shining examples of why evolution supposedly defies scientific laws.

Wow, you mean that billions of religious people wrote that one article? Are you saying something that ridiculous? Or are you saying that the only creationists are those people that write for 'Answers in Genesis'? You paint with a very broad brush. While all Christians agree that the Bible is true, they do not agree on the proper polemics to be used against materialistic evolution. That is a scientific matter, not a matter of faith.

Also unlike evolutionists, we think for ourselves, we are not mind numbed robots such as Patrick who find it necessary to deny the most obvious facts in order to support their mind numbed robot friends.