Young Earth creationism... is not science in the least. Rather, it is an infantile view of the universe grasping at straws as it loses it's
underpinnings that were sparse in the first place and only became established for lack of a better alternative. Darwinism, on the other hand, makes an
(excellent and brilliant) attempt to explain these things instead of just "God did it". I cannot fathom (and indeed fear even to do so) how much
duller my life would be if I wasn't for Darwin.
I would expect the "respectable" ones are those that agree with the lot of Darwinian Dolts
You expect correctly. Evolutionary theory is central to a branch of modern biology, phylogeny. Apparently vestigial structures, fossils, embryological
evidence, etcetera is all bunk as well? Let me guess... Satan put it there to tempt us to sin?
so they can come up with more new excuses to get everyone so confused when they switch back to using micro evolution to substantiate macro evolution.
That's how real science works, my friend. Old theories and hypothesis are not clung to when they are found to be wrong; they are rewritten. That's
more than Creationists' rediculous fundamentals have ever done.
Lots of the bunk we see as proof touted by evolutionist was well established that long and proven bunk later. The strange thing is,, it is still being
taught to our kids as evolution fact when in fact it is BUNK
Except that the current vast consensus and volume of evidence suggest otherwise. I know that if my children were mindlessly indoctrined with infantile
and scientifically worthless creationist views, I would take issue.
Oh you got that right but not for the reason you say. Its never going to happen because macroevolution is never going to happen.
Maybe it won't. No problem for evolutionary theory because we never claimed that it would. Punctuated equilibrium - the idea that species stay
relatively similar until a new pressure is put upon them - on the other hand, most likely did happen, and probably will again, due to new selective
If Darwin could have used the tools we have today just to see how complex a single cell is and that it makes our nano technology seem like childs
play, he would have never come up with that silly idea in the first place.
Complexity of an organism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory's correctness or falseness, so that argument is meaningless.
LOL you don't get out much do you ha ha the horse has been totally debunked. As for the whale,, same thing, it is up to interpretation and the
evolutionist uses so much word games to explain it almost all of it is garbage. Dawkins average paragrapghs grade level 21 readability big fat zero.
Ill never forget that and you might want to get yourself a Science writer software program so you can see what I am talking about.
Let me get this straight... because you can't read it or understand it, it must be false? An argument of ignorance? Sounds awfully familiar...
indeed, it's what creationists have been using for hundreds of years to try to gain a hold over their audience. Well guess what? Science can explain
plenty of it now. Not all of it, not yet or perhaps ever. Science doesn't claim to be able to. Either way, dark age views do not have a place in the
information age, and it's beginning to become blatant.
Another words if anyone disagree's or blinds him with science that proves him wrong then just go away.
There is no science in creationism. The OP did not want to get into another argument because creationists' are painfully circular. Luckily, since
this is my first post in this forum, I still have plenty of room for frustration.
Let's see how this spins out.