[spirited irish]

ping

[spirited irish]

ping

[valkyry1]

As to the creation of life and the origin of man, the darwinist evolutionists will always point towards their answers, infer that they are true, then say ‘we are working on it’

[SkyPilot]

Truth, as recorded over and over by history shows that the seed of wheat has never brought forth anything but wheat. We all know this is true; it is common knowledge. Never once in our long history has the seed of wheat brought forth tomatoes, or something never before seen. Yet these miraculous events ought to have happened at least once if evolution is true. History records the cyclical repetition of the four seasons, year after year, down through the long history of mankind. History likewise records that the return of Spring is always, without fail, accompanied by the return of birds. Each kind pairs off, builds nests peculiar to its own kind, and procreates. Not one time has history recorded the absence of Spring nor a robin mating with a bluebird or a frog.

Atheistic worshipers of themselves and Darwin's twisted fantasies will retort that you have to give them 900,000,000 years or so of observation and evidence, and then it will happen in that laboratory setting.

If that number isn't high enough, they will reach for another one yet higher.

That way, they can move the goal posts not only down field, but also expand the stadium's width to whatever parameters they wish, and then declare they won the argument.

[mek1959]

A MUST READ!!

[elfman2]

"...The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief."

Same misrepresentations, different day - not worth reading beyond the first paragraph.

The first "theory" isn't a theory in any scientific sense. The "second" theory consists of working hypotheses of abiogenesis that integrate into well supported theories of evolution other sciences. But not knowing which is valid does not make the disbelief in divine intervention a "faith" by "evolution worshipers". Abiogenesis is simply a much more convincing explanation for some to accept absent evidence of the divine.

I apologize, but I'm not interested in debating this here again.

[betty boop]

Simply outstanding, spirited irish! Oh, so very well done!

More later....

Meanwhile, thank you so very much for this masterful article!

[metmom]

Rejection of God leaves no alternative but evolution. That’s why the two are tied so closely together. The atheist has no other choice.

And scientific justification for bad decisions on moral issues, will result in tyranny. Any and all kind of decisions can be justified and usually are.

We see that now with the euthanasia and abortion movement.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I love articles like this!

“If evolution were true, then [this thing that has nothing to do with evolution] would happen! Evolution tells us to expect [something that evolution doesn’t predict at all]. Everyone laugh at stupid evolution because these things don’t happen.”

Linda doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

[varmintman]

Information codes do not just happen. The evolution debate should have been over the day DNA and RNA were discovered.

[tacticalogic]

This explains why we revolted and went to war with England. The Church of England was obviously anti-creationist.