Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Where's the Math!
What I wrote: "No Almighty God would have been so stupid as to come up with this design."
What you misrepresented I wrote:
"Shubi just wrote that God is stupid. That sounds to me like hatred toward God."
You have now lost all credibility, just like your creationist masters at AIG, ICR and DI. Dembski was tossed out of Baylor for the same kind of stuff.
Well, based on that stupid statement about 22.5 psi I had some basis to suspect that you were maybe implying that you were knowledgeable in science and engineering.
"Nothing more to say. "
Promises promises...
You forgot the ploy that every time we find a transitional we create two more gaps.
I picked your last. By ChristianAnswers he was the ONLY one.
"Wilder-Smith was the first and only person to have the courage to refute evolutionary theory as a whole on a principal level."
Actually, Evolution is a cult, it doesnt matter how many times it is proved wrong, you guys just keep changing theories and then say you were right all along...
Sad, but true.
Yeah, but check out the "modern period." That's a very impressive list. We have George Washington Carver, then we have a gynecologist who died in 1943, an astronomer who died in 1928, an element transmutation guy (hee hee) who died in 1916, and the last guy is described as a creation science pioneer. I'm impressed!
Flapdoodle
maybe someone has taken this already, but I'll give it a go after reading so many iterations of your request:
Species A gives rise to species B1 and B2.
Species B1 cannot interbreed at all with B2 or A. Species B2 can interbreed with A, but the resulting offspring are sterile.
Species A eventually "dies" out - the similar-to-A species B1 and B2 fill the ecological niche. In the meantime, at the fringes of the B populations, new adaptations are giving rise to species B1(C1, C2) and B2(C3, C4, and C5).
The "C" series are still quite similar to species A, but demonstrate not only genetic divergence but rudimentary morphological divergences.
(etc...etc...etc...)
a few million years later, after repetitions of the speciation process, there have been several hundred daughter lines of speciation, most of which are extinct, and a few which thrive. These are species X27, X35, Y205, and Z13. None of these current species resemble species A even slightly.
get it?
Do you have anything in your arsenal against evolution but misinterpreted Bible quotes or false assertions?
oh, my stars! how could I forget THAT ploy?
;)
what will it take to get through to these folks that every organism -EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.- capable of passing its unique genetic code to a filial generation is a potential "transitional" specimen?
Sorry, but I have posted the truth, and your personal attacks prove it.
What it will take is the Pope coming out in favor of creationism. LOL Fundamentalists generally hate Catholics. They refer to them as other than Christian.
(As in my catholic friend talking to a fundie friend the fundie says, "Oh, I thought you were a Christian")
Hate is such a good Christian tradition.:-)
Uh, yeah, whatever. I said that the young earth view was not current or standard 100 years ago, that it didn't begin to reemerge as a common view until the 1960's, and that until then it had not been the view of educated evangelicals since the beginning of modern geology (which would be 1815 or thereabouts).
Quotes of Theophilus (an apparent flat-earther, btw!) and Augustine are irrelevant to anything that I said.
There is no proof in science. How many times to I have to tell you that? LOL
"Surely we can agree that if man evolved he's improved over time. Isn't that at the core of the evolution theory?"
NO!!!!!!!
at this point, spurred by this statement, I must ask: Do you know what a species is? Do you know what factor is the basic divider between species?
I know I said I would not post to you again, but I just had to comment on this post addressed to me.
Ahh, so the truth finally comes out. Thank you. You've finally answered my question about why you are so compelled to defend evolution. It is not because of your earnest desire to increase the knowledge of your fellow man, but rather it is your disdain for your fellow man and your arrogance that drives you. I am secure enough in my beliefs that I don't need to argue them here. I just find it fascinating that you care so much about what other people think about your beliefs. Can't you see that you exhibit the same characteristics in your defenses that you so despise in others? Both creationists and evolutionists, generally speaking, have become far too fanatical about their viewpoints.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.