Evolution is Crap, there I said it! (page 26)

cantleave

Pick one specific thing that you think has not been properly explained and let's talk about it. Keep it simple, pick just ONE.

EP - Crazyguy would need to undertsand the theory in order to attempt to do this.

Captain Obvious

EP I like this idea:

Pick one specific thing that you think has not been properly explained and let's talk about it. Keep it simple, pick just ONE.

CrazyGuy, every argument you have made thus far has either had nothing to do with evolution, or been easily disproved a long time ago and explained to you in this very thread.

So, lets talk an out ONE issue you have, and make it a good one. About evolution specifically.

And EP isn't the one who has to go back and red Darwin's stuff... As I have explained to you several times in this thread already, evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis, Big Bang, physics, string theory etc. Evolutionary theory only applies after life has started, and it does so quite well. If you like to see the hand of a creator in the first cell go ahead, it still doesn't tough evolution. As I asked you before, are you willing to reduce gods hand in creation to just the first cell? I'd doubt it.

There is no reason to demand that abiogenesis be replicated in a lab just as you would like. It is very complicated. Scientific discoveries are made every day, give it time. It will likely happen in the future.

I the future, please actually read the posts on your own damn thread before making the same tired points repeatedly. We aren't ignoring you, please don't ignore us.

Did you have a peek at the common ancestry thread?

cofty

Did you have a peek at the common ancestry thread?

Of course he didn't.

Captain Obvious

Still waiting, CrazyGuy

EdenOne

If science requires naturalism as an assumption in order to function properly then isn't it simply a case of circular reasoning?

Has this question by Slimboy been addressed?

Eden

cofty

Yes I answered it on page 6...

If science requires naturalism as an assumption in order to function properly then isn't it simply a case of circular reasoning? - SBF

No.

Methodological naturalism is a working assumption. Scientists act as if there is a naturalistic answer to questions and go looking for it. If you assume there is a supernatural answer there is no point in doing science.

Methodological naturalism should not be confused with ontological naturalism. "Let's proceed as if the answer isn't supernatural" v "there is no supernatural".

Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are theists but need to adopt methodological naturalism to do their job.

Methodological naturalism works.

Newton was a great scientist but he lapsed into supernatural nonsense when he could not find answers. For example he could not explain why the planets revolve on the same plane. Instead of humbly accepting the solution was still beyond him he asserted it was a result of god's sense of order. The great man was not above behaving like Behe and Hovind. We now know exactly why the planets are on the same plane but first it had to be discovered how planets were formed.

ID is a classic example of resorting to supernatural answers instead of working to find the real answers. It's lazy and it's anti-science.

“Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." - Tim Minchen

EdenOne

Thanks cofty

Eden

Vanderhoven7

Laurence Tisdall, president of the Creation Quebec, has a powerful Christian testimony. I met him at a Full Gospel meeting. He offered to modify a computer program written for the severely handicapped students I was teaching. He did an excellent job I might add. What a blessing he has been to our family.

Get this. Once he came over to our place for supper. My daughter Rebecca could not attend gym classes at her Christian high school because of a back problem that Laurence knew nothing about. It came out at supper though. After supper, Laurence told her that God loved her and would heal her if she wished. My daughter asked for prayer. He instructed her to lie down on the sofa and asked me to place my hand on her back. He then asked the Lord to heal her. As he spoke, there was a cracking sound and my daughter was healed instantaneously. We never had to write a letter excusing her from gym again. A glorious evening, is how my daughter described it.

Later, when I was alone with Laurence, I asked him how he knew God would heal her. He smiled and said that on the way over to our place for supper, God gave him a vision of a back being healed.

Check out his confidence in God in this TV debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

designs

Van- So Jesus fixed your daughter's back, but 18,000 children starved to death that same day and he did nothing, nice guy.

prologos

The ever better answers to our queries that are derived through research & discoveries

in METHOLOGICAL NATURALISM,

do not necessarily mean there is no creator.

It just means that the creator has used better methods than was previously thought or discovered.

IP: -- The CARP that was so successful in evolving is now invading the Great Lakes. Its sticky eggs perhaps attached to water foul flying over the electric barriers in IL.

The probability of the existence of a creator does not mean the existence of a GOD as we imagine him/her.

ADH7: you are in good company in Quebec. Visit Joes' Oratory in MTL or St Annes d.B and see the miracle proofs there.

Evolution is Crap, there I said it!

Share this