[Coyoteman]

The more I study this issue the more I come to belief that evolutionists who adhere to classical Darwinism are really kind of quaint. Kind of like flat earthers.

Flat earthers? You want flat earthers? Try this.

"A fine Biblical scholar," Brady tells the court, "Bishop Usher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the creation. It occurred in the year 4004 BC."

"Well, that's Bishop Usher's opinion" Drummond replies.

"It's not opinion," says Brady, "it's a literal fact which the good Bishop arrived at through careful calculation (which he then describes), in fact,"he continues, "he has determined the actual time of creation as having occurred on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9 am."

http://www.uufhc.net/s000227.html

[demkicker]

I think you meant for your post to be directed to DouglasKC in post #12

[RobbyS]

O please. Not "inherit the wind" again.

[Marine_Uncle]

""It's not opinion," says Brady, "it's a literal fact which the good Bishop arrived at through careful calculation (which he then describes), in fact,"he continues, "he has determined the actual time of creation as having occurred on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9 am."

So what has that to do with all the known science that says chemical bio-logical evolution is impossible for thousands of good reasons, based on what we have known since the 60's and upward to present?

Besides, perhaps you should get more involved in finding out what many scholars that are practicing Christains and Jews have to say about the 4000BC interpretation. That is no longer adheard to. There are many well written thesis on how easily the creation could be quadrupled or more without anyway affecting those ancient manuscripts or comprimising them.

But that is not the issue. Take the religion out of it as any free thinker should. The issue is soley on the ever growing numbers of scientist in many branches of science that have come forth and with solid explainations, e.g. cell bio-chemistry, just to name one dicipline, and publicaly indicate they see no way evolutioary processes in their many forms, yea tons of changes to try to cover up facts, could possibly have happened. That is the pure simple fact of the matter. OK. Do you think I assume you have adequate background in chemistry, physics etc., think some particular form of polyethene could just come into being from raw organic hydrocarbons and non hydrocarbons, and be formed into lets say a hoola hoop? Don't offer some stupid ass remark or you will be just showing your lack of what is being discussed as so often has been the case in these debates.

[WillRain]

I'm not certain how quoting a fictional work of propaganda designed to reflect well on one side of the debate and paint as foolish the other side really supports a pro-Darwin position all that much.

In fact, I can't see that it's anything other than an admission that no actual reply on the merits is forthcoming.

I might be missing some subtlety there though...

[Centurion2000]

"It's not opinion," says Brady, "it's a literal fact which the good Bishop arrived at through careful calculation (which he then describes), in fact,"he continues, "he has determined the actual time of creation as having occurred on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9 am."

And he was off ... by almost a quarter of an hour. God slept late that day.

And by the way ... Earth would be a Libra then.

[Boazo]

THAT'S WRONG,everybody knows it was 10pm

[mad_as_he$$]

Did he correct for errors in the Julian calendar? I think the Chinese calendar is more accurate. Ouch bit me tongue.