http://www.nodnc.com/
Stopping Democrat Corruption by exposing leftist lies.
Another blatant left-wing lie. All someone has to do is produce a genuine billion-year-old human fossil. Evolution would be toast.
At this point we're still waiting to hear what the "scientific theory of ID" is. It's certainly not proven, if it can't even be described.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"...Opiate of the Atheists."
ping
Evolutionists like to semantically cast the debate as "science vs. religion' or "science vs. faith", when in reality it's faith vs. faith. Honest evolutionsists know that.
Even Gould admitted that all of macroevolutionary theory is based on 3 things; (1) 1 observable event (intraspecies limited adaptation by inherent variable traits), extrapolated into an unobservable assumption that this would create new critters, (2) assumptions from similar homology and assumed structural defects, and (3) assumptions about the fossil record. Evolutionists try shoehorn any actual experimental observations into that framework of assumptions. But the farther down we look, the less logical that becomes. Ask Crick and his "little gtreen men" explanation for the DNA code.
It takes faith indeed to make these kind of assumptions and inferential leaps. Of course, it helps the True Believers to paliate their doubts and feel intellectually enlightened, when we throw in a few Latin terms and discuss the complex experiments that reveal observable facts-- facts which must then be interpreted through some interpretive model. Whether one choses MET or ID as their model is unavoidably a matter of faith. But faith should be based on logic, and I personally believe ID is much stronger in that respect. Kudo's to Anthony Few for finally being able to admit that to himself.
But most evolutionists I've talked with fail to recognize where observation leaves off, and interpretation begins. It takes a special kind of myopia to gloss over that distinction and accept Neodarwinism on faith. And I just don't have that kind of faith.
I see a site URL that says "noDNC.com" and I think it's something I could support. Lurking under that banner is a rubbish heap of central casting stock characters attacking a scientific theory with about 150 years of accumulated evidence for it and none against.
I'm reminded how, forty years ago, I thought environmentalism was just Teddy Rooseveltian conservation and was of course a good idea. By thirty years ago, it was clear that environmentalists were a bunch of communists. That in turn led to my decision that the whales could go screw themselves if it came to that.
You guys are doing the DNC a big favor.
Uh...this isn't going to help.
When are you people going to start listening to reason and realize that evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist. I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. As far as that goes Darwin himself was a Christian.
Have you ever stopped to consider that God chooses to run the daily events of the entire universe according to scientific principles. Even the miracle of birth is strictly a scientific miracle. There's not one step in the process that is supernatural.
So why is it that you don't give your God credit for having the ability to do the whole job in a scientific fashion. Instead you seem to insist that that would have been just too tough for even God and imagine that he had to resort to some sort of magic or supernatural processes to get the ball rolling.
"The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists"
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
This has been beat to death again and again on this forum.
You don't have to be an atheist to believe or disbelieve in evolution, and the Bible doesn't conflcit with basic evolutionary concepts.
I believe in the Bible and I believe in evolution.
Where I and the millions of other thinking individuals who believe in Evolution and the Bible differ from those few atheist biologists who do so also is that we don't believe that multiple fortuituous "accidents" of species improvement resulted in mankind, but rather that there was some direction from God.
The latter can't be proven scientifically, but then again, nor can it be disproved. Consequently it is not a scientific issue, but a personal theological one.
Amen.