how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.
the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.
many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.
"I don't believe I come from fish. I believe that both me and fish had a common ancestor in a very very distant past."
The problem with this is that according to evolutionists the "common ancestor" of humans and (modern) fish was itself a fish (albeit an ancient one). That is why they say things like:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews "Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"
i understand that rice and sorghum are related to grass, so how many types did noah take on board?.
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
John Woodmorappe. 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 298 pages.
This remarkable book is the most compete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. The author has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti-Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the biblical account, and other relevant questions.
available from http://www.creationresearch.org
how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.
the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.
many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.
"What the heck does it mean to "come from a fish"???"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews
"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"
how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.
the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.
many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.
How many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?
The outspoken ones that I have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing. Many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:
(This is not to say that every one who has a darwin fish on their car is necessarily an atheist, though I suspect that a larger than normal amount of them are).
astonishing dna complexity demolishes neo-darwinism.
paper by alex williams.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf.
This paper doesn't mention a single thing about androgenous retro-viruses. That is a vital part of "junk" DNA that they are supposedly proving is so active so as to negate Neo-Darwinism. Of course DNA serves a purpose, some DNA might actually be for extinct traits like you would see in the fetal stages. Regardless I don't see how this demolishes anything, the fact the writer went to so much detail explaining "junk" DNA and didn't mention androgenous retro-viruses tells me that either:a.) He purposely left them out in order to lie to meb.) He's ignorant of the subjectIf B is the case, he has no right to even write this paper as it's a fundemental property of "junk" DNA. This is a sad proposition indeed as a best case scenario is admitting that the writer is unqualified to write on the subject he had already written about. The worst case scenario is he's purposely misleading people to draw to his conclusion.Perhaps the paper never specifically discusses "androgenous [sic?] retro-viruses" because the (longer) principal referenced Nature "ENCODE" project paper itself didn't in its discussion of DNA. http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
Or perhaps they to:
a.) Purposely left them out in order to lie to you
b.) Are ignorant of the subject
astonishing dna complexity demolishes neo-darwinism.
paper by alex williams.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf.
Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism
Paper by Alex Williams
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin Group, New York, p. 188, 1995.
thanks for your help.. /newborn.
If someone made a list of "the greatest evidences that evolution never happened" and had never spent much time in the in the professional evolutionary literature on those points, they would be given stern lectures on "speaking on subjects without proper study" by the atheists /other evolutionists here.
Yet when it comes to atheists/ evolutionists speaking on creationism and the flood . . .
thanks for your help.. /newborn.
"Belief in the flood requires belief in hyper evolution:
Even granting a highly impractical number of representative pairs of various
"kinds" of animals, getting back up to the millions of current species requires
a level of evolution many thousands of times faster than required by the theory
of evolution, which Creationists reject as impossible."
You people must not read much in the way of actual creationist literature.
thanks for your help.. /newborn.
thanks for your help.. /newborn.
http://www.creationresearch.org
John K. Reed and John Woodmorappe
CRSQ Vol 39 No 1 June 2002
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm
