Wow, good answer. Is that what the liberals do whenever they're confronted with hard facts that refute their pet theories? Since you sited your grad school in arguing for evolution, I'd say you were the one who's been indoctrinated and fed the standard-issue liberal pabulum of lies.
Liberals ignore reality and see the world as they imagine it, or want it to be.
I have studied the actual "hard facts" supporting evolution, handling hundreds of fossil casts for hundreds of hours in grad school, as well as studying other aspects of the field.
That is not some "standard-issue liberal pabulum of lies" -- that is evidence. And I have seen it for myself, which probably makes me the only one still posting on FR to have that background.
And what you bring to "refute" those mountains of evidence is religious belief and such internet luminaries as Answers In Genesis. Belief, not evidence. (Hey, there's a good tagline in there somewhere!)
Sorry, denying reality when it stares you in the face is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.
Hey there, I've been where you are, so I'm not knocking your state of mind. But, as a person of intellect, have you ever considered applying the Scientific Method to scripture? I challenge you to test God and see. Every where there is a conditional clause or a promise within the Bible, test it out and see if you come back with a fact, based on the application of the Scientific Method. I did, and could not get past the evidence. If you seek truth, you will find it.
Can you not look at the complexity of a single cell and all of it's parts and say "there is a God?" Niche coined the term "God is dead" but one only needs to open their eyes, or look in the mirror, and see the marvels of His creation.
We could get into a whole boatload of apologetics and many other rabbit trails but starting with the application of the Scientific Method to scripture is challenge enough. Have fun, should you accept the challenge, and may the truth be with you! :)
If you can see how credible God is through the promises within scripture, then you will see the validity of the so called faith-based theories like Genesis, and it's account of creation. One thing is true, God does not lie, and he can not lie because it is not in His character to do so.
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.- Ronald Reagan ("A Time for Choosing" address)
Liberals fill themselves with a myriad of facts and then leap to mythical conclusions. Coyoteman, I think you and I have been down this road before. The existence of fossils (truth) does not validate Darwin's atheistic and fatally flawed Theory of Evolution (myth).
Since I don't know how to copy over a link, I refer you to an earlier discussion we had on this below:
The Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science Friday, March 07, 2008 10:45:12 AM · 260 of 272 Jim 0216 to Coyoteman From an earlier post: Giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:
- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.
- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.
- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing. More evidence than the sand of the sea.
Sorry Coyoteman, but again, calling the evidence I've presented and dismissing intelligent design as "religion in disguise" doesn't refute intelligent design. Calling these facts "a statement of my beliefs" doesn't refute these facts. I couldn't care less about the Discovery Institute, and calling it silly has nothing to do with refuting intelligent design. I'm not impressed with whatever these attempts are to somehow deflect focus on the undeniably of intelligent design. I'm also not I impressed with evolutionists' "evidence" which is paltry, sad, and often found to be a fraud.
Next.