[nmh]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it, the more polls show they reject it. It seems the atheistic gods are getting upset over their silly "theories" being rejected. They really want to believe that stifling debate and facts will have them reign supreme. Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation. Laws can't change facts nor can they stop people from pursuing truth.

[gomaaa]

Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation.

Then post a couple and we'll start talking. Blanket declarations that you are right do not impress anyone.

[whattajoke]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it, the more polls show they reject it.

No, what's funnier is that I could post a bunch of ridiculous (but real) polls that say things like lots of Americans believe in Astrology or numerology. Or the one that says the vast majority of our soldiers want out of Iraq. Or I could take a poll of several countries that would show you overwhelmingly that Jesus wasn't so great. Polls often mean diddly squat. Since when did public ignorance decide what science is and isn't?

It seems the atheistic gods are getting upset over their silly "theories" being rejected.

I'm very curious as to what an "atheistic god" is. Please enlighten me.

Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation.

And I'll only ask you for ONE. Just ONE. Please? Pretty please?

[Coyoteman]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it

Why is it that this "objective scientific evidence" that supports creationism can only be seen by creationists?

Why can't scientists, who are trained to see "objective scientific evidence" not see this?

Perhaps it takes a specific prior belief to be able to see that particular evidence. A belief in the biblical version of creation perhaps?

If so, then this line of reasoning is not following the scientific method, and it is disingenuous to speak "of objective scientific evidence that supports creationism."