Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[Coyote]

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Not quite, but I suppose you are so busy congratulating yourself you are missing out on the details.

While the fossil record only preserves a tiny fraction of all the species that ever existed, it does offer a pretty good insight into one major transition: a reptile evolving into a new group, avians. No need to suspend belief to comprehend this.

Unfortunately, the fossil record has not preserved any deities.

Well, maybe the preserved deities that you are looking for are in the other fraction of fossils that haven't been preserved.

This just shows, the fossil record IS your deity.

Quite possible...perhaps it is preserved in a drop of amber, forever frozen in the beauty of it's creation

No, the fossil record is a book to be read and marveled at.

 

[YWN666]

Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

That is the only way creationists can support their "theory" because they don't have the facts on their side. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some creationist groups have a statement of faith that forbids their members from reaching any conclusions that contradict the bible? Their acceptance of that statement rules them out as scientists right there.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

That is the only way creationists can support their "theory" because they don't have the facts on their side. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some creationist groups have a statement of faith that forbids their members from reaching any conclusions that contradict the bible? Their acceptance of that statement rules them out as scientists right there.

Whoooopy ding. ALL evolutionists vehamently oppose considering any idea but their own and refuse to accept anything that doesn't point to evolution. That stance should rule them out as scientists right there.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Don't know what you're applauding. I called you out for saying something that is a patent lie!!! No evolutionist would ever claim that a dog can turn into a lizard, but you continue to spread the lie anyway. You admit that there are small changes in species that we can see within a human lifetime, but refuse to acknowledge what's likely to happen when those small changes accumulate over millions of years. Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

I don't know how you can be so blind to not read what you write. You are the one lying to yourself. I'm just helping you out.

 

[THE LIGHT]

No, it's in fact the exact opposite. We understand how genetics works. YOU don't understand it personally, but educated individuals do. Contrast that to sun worshippers, whereas no one knew what was going on yet everyone believed it anyway.

I have to say, that last post was pretty trollish, which either makes you the dumbest Christian or the most entertaining troll I've met in a while.

I think I'll ignore this trollish post.

 

[IanC]

For the record, most people who sneer at Christianity and pronounce that Christians don't believe in or understand evolution, present evolution as an explanation for the creation of the universe.

Of course it makes no sense, but you'll pardon those of us who are not fond of atheists, who claim that Christians force their religion on others by publicly adhering to it, while it's A-OK for atheists to hit every Christian website, every newstation, and every school with their rabid insistence that nobody in a public place be allowed to refer to Christianity, simply assume that when people start whining about evolution, they are referring to the belief that it has something to do with the creation. Of course we think that, because typically, it's trotted out every time some asshole calls Christians idiots for believing in God and for believing God created the universe and life.

That sums it up pretty well. Science does a pretty good job of describing things but it has no credible explanations for the creation of the universe or the spark of life. The theory of evolution only (incompletely) describes why lifeforms change over time. Many people assume that science will be able to answer all questions given enough time and effort but that is not true. Science has just replaced religion as the right 'faith' to believe in.

I've heard it said that science deals with the "how" and religion/philosophy deals with the "why". There could be some merit in that.

However, you categoricaly state that science will never be able to answer all the questions. You don't know that. Simply because a question has no answer YET, doesn't mean it won't or that the answer is your deity of choice.

Belief has nothing to do with science, or shouldn't. There is either evidence to support a theory, or there isn't.

Science Cartoons Plus -- The Cartoons of S. Harris This cartoon says it all. Science has lots of wonderful and useful ideas. But there are areas where <insert miracle here> is the only solution.

 

[Coyote]

Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

That is the only way creationists can support their "theory" because they don't have the facts on their side. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some creationist groups have a statement of faith that forbids their members from reaching any conclusions that contradict the bible? Their acceptance of that statement rules them out as scientists right there.

Whoooopy ding. ALL evolutionists vehamently oppose considering any idea but their own and refuse to accept anything that doesn't point to evolution. That stance should rule them out as scientists right there.

What is science?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.

It's not that "evolutionists" vehamently oppose any idea but their own, it's that they oppose any idea that isn't scientific. They are scientists after all.

If you think that "Creationism" is science, how does it fit the definition?

 

[THE LIGHT]

That is the only way creationists can support their "theory" because they don't have the facts on their side. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some creationist groups have a statement of faith that forbids their members from reaching any conclusions that contradict the bible? Their acceptance of that statement rules them out as scientists right there.

Whoooopy ding. ALL evolutionists vehamently oppose considering any idea but their own and refuse to accept anything that doesn't point to evolution. That stance should rule them out as scientists right there.

What is science?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.

It's not that "evolutionists" vehamently oppose any idea but their own, it's that they oppose any idea that isn't scientific. They are scientists after all.

If you think that "Creationism" is science, how does it fit the definition?

I have heard that lie so many times it isn't even funny anymore.

Science is observing things. Have you observed a frog turning into a prince?

I can tell you that I have observed a dog turning into a dog so therefore my theory that dogs turn into dogs is scientific.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The pertinant question is: how do we explain the diversity and complexity of life on this planet - how did it come to be?

You speek of origins...things don't come from nothing

The theory of evolution explains this by concluding that living organisms evolved from simple to complex over a very long period of time. This is supported by the fossil record, biochemistry, geology, genetic biology, and observable changes in populations.

You know what they say about ASSuming.

The "theory" of creation explains this by concluding that everything came into being at once in the current forms, in a short period of time due to the efforts of a supernatural being. God is both the origin and conclusion. This is supported by what?

The theory of creation explains that all living things will bring forth after their own kind such that when a tree drops its seeds they will not hatch crocadiles but rather you will get another tree. And no matter how long a period of time, a dog sill be a dog and will still have 4 legs. No, just because 5 is a bigger number doesn't mean that a mutant dog with 5 legs is a good thing. Is all of this observable? Hell yeah.

All it does is attempt to explain how the living things we see today came to be in their present forms.

Again, how did the giraffe evolve to it's present form?

In fact, an acceptence of the theory of evolution does not preclude the belief in a diety - it's just that explanations involving supernatural beings are not science and people should quit trying to distort science and sully faith by pretending it is.

The only reason dead deities would not be scientific is if the theory surrounding them was not observable.

 

[Hister]

I think the title of this thread should be: creationists suffer epic fail in this thread.
It's somewhat ridiculous to argue science with a creationist, they don't understand the concept. It's like being convinced that the sky is green, that's a condition called color-blindness. What would be the name of the infliction that creationists suffer from? Maybe proof-blindness? Reality-blindness?

 

[Coyote]

The pertinant question is: how do we explain the diversity and complexity of life on this planet - how did it come to be?

You speek of origins...things don't come from nothing

Hmm. You seem confused. Evolution has nothing to do with trying to explain the origin of the universe. That would be another topic.

The theory of evolution explains this by concluding that living organisms evolved from simple to complex over a very long period of time. This is supported by the fossil record, biochemistry, geology, genetic biology, and observable changes in populations.

You know what they say about ASSuming.

Is that what you've been engaging in?

The theory of creation explains that all living things will bring forth after their own kind such that when a tree drops its seeds they will not hatch crocadiles but rather you will get another tree. And no matter how long a period of time, a dog sill be a dog and will still have 4 legs. No, just because 5 is a bigger number doesn't mean that a mutant dog with 5 legs is a good thing. Is all of this observable? Hell yeah.

Sorry buddy, but that doesn't exactly contradict evolution either so, I assume you don't really understand what you are critisizing.

How does the theory of creation explain the living creatures we now have - where did they all come from?

How does it explain fossils and species no longer in existance that died so long ago there is no evidence of modern creatures lying with them?

How does it explain a mutation of human bloodcells that in it's heterozygous form allows the native population to better resist malaria, even though it's homozygous form is lethal? How does it explain an relatively new mutation in the blood of high-altitude Tibetans that allows them to survive in oxygen poor air without getting sick while their closely related Han countrymen lack it?

All it does is attempt to explain how the living things we see today came to be in their present forms.

Again, how did the giraffe evolve to it's present form?

[/quote]

Again (geesh, is this so difficult?) - just because we don't know the answer due to a lack of fossil evidence doesn't disprove the entire theory of evolution.

In fact, an acceptence of the theory of evolution does not preclude the belief in a diety - it's just that explanations involving supernatural beings are not science and people should quit trying to distort science and sully faith by pretending it is.

The only reason dead deities would not be scientific is if the theory surrounding them was not observable.

Here's the problem with creationist-types, and it boils down to ASSumptions.

You feel a need to force science to acknowledge theories that are not based in science (and since you have yet to show that they are, I assume you can't).

You ASSume that science and religion are incompatable. They aren't. There is no need to scientifically validate the existence of a diety for it to exist. The scientific method does not lend itself to the supernatural. That is what faith is for. Science and faith are both languages to explain the world around us - they overlap, but more often faith attempts to understand the world within and science the world without. They can be complimentary, unless you are a fundamentalist.

Clashes occur when chose to believe the literal word of a book that has been edited, translated, added to and subtracted from many times (often for political reasons early in the religion's history) instead of taking the view that the book may be deeper and less literal then the words on the page.

Clashes occur when you try to insist this is science. It's not. Despite the many attempts to clothe it in a cloak of scientific methedology, it fails abyssmally not the least because it's most basic premise is dependent on one thing: the existance of a scientifically unproveable being.

Evolution may not yet explain 100%, but the fact that it can only explain 99% doesn't invalidate the entire theory.

Faith is beautiful. A piece of God exists in every living thing. Perhaps that first spark of life that started the whole process was God lighting the fire, and evolution is the process that that fire took off. Who's to say that evolution isn't God's handiwork?

You try to constrict God to the margins defined by science and the words in a book.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Hmm. You seem confused. Evolution has nothing to do with trying to explain the origin of the universe. That would be another topic.

Me confused? No, from reading your post it seems as you are the one that is confused about whether or not to judge theories based on the origin of life.

Sorry buddy, but that doesn't exactly contradict evolution either so, I assume you don't really understand what you are critisizing.

I didn't expect it to directly because that falls within the half-truth of evolution.

How does the theory of creation explain the living creatures we now have - where did they all come from?

I thought you didn't want to talk about origins.

How does it explain fossils and species no longer in existance that died so long ago there is no evidence of modern creatures lying with them?

Such as?

How does it explain a mutation of human bloodcells that in it's heterozygous form allows the native population to better resist malaria, even though it's homozygous form is lethal?

You mean sickle cell anemia?

People without legs can't get athlete's foot. Big deal.

How does it explain an relatively new mutation in the blood of high-altitude Tibetans that allows them to survive in oxygen poor air without getting sick while their closely related Han countrymen lack it?

Easy, it is call adapting to ones surroundings which is a product of "design." Our military spends millions upon millions in adaptive technology and not a piece of it comes about by chance.

Nothing "needs" to fly or "needs" to swim, but they do. Adaptive responses have nothing to do with developing completely new, unnecessary functions.

Again (geesh, is this so difficult?) - just because we don't know the answer due to a lack of fossil evidence doesn't disprove the entire theory of evolution.

Just because we don't have any evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. Oh that is precious.

Please, how did the giraffe evolve?

In fact, an acceptence of the theory of evolution does not preclude the belief in a diety - it's just that explanations involving supernatural beings are not science and people should quit trying to distort science and sully faith by pretending it is.

Why are they not part of science? (Note: I am not arguing for or against them being part of science, I am just curious why you think they are not.)

Here's the problem with creationist-types, and it boils down to ASSumptions.

What part is being assumed?

You feel a need to force science to acknowledge theories that are not based in science (and since you have yet to show that they are, I assume you can't).

Force science to acknowledge theories? Hmmm... gee, what could be unscientific about a theory that states evolutionary adaptations (observable) are occuring but that they started from an original selection of life forms that generally resemble the current forms?

You ASSume that science and religion are incompatable. They aren't. There is no need to scientifically validate the existence of a diety for it to exist. The scientific method does not lend itself to the supernatural. That is what faith is for. Science and faith are both languages to explain the world around us - they overlap, but more often faith attempts to understand the world within and science the world without.

Seriously, are you okay?

I have been stating that they are compatable all along. It is you that is stating that they aren't.

They can be complimentary, unless you are a fundamentalist.

Yes, fundamentalist evolutionists do seem to have a problem accepting that fact. Just look at Richard Dawkins for example... mention the word G-d and he has a emotional breakdown, but mention alien fairy tales and he embraces it.

Clashes occur when chose to believe the literal word of a book that has been edited, translated, added to and subtracted from many times (often for political reasons early in the religion's history) instead of taking the view that the book may be deeper and less literal then the words on the page.

I've been duped, the Bible was actually written tomorrow.

Lee Strobel thought the same thing, but after setting out to prove the Bible as a complete hoax found the supreme integrity of the scriptures.

Clashes occur when you try to insist this is science. It's not. Despite the many attempts to clothe it in a cloak of scientific methedology, it fails abyssmally not the least because it's most basic premise is dependent on one thing: the existance of a scientifically unproveable being.

Yes, it is a bit difficult to show someone a picture of something that dwells outside the dimension in which human life is confined, but that does not make it completely unscientific. We know that the human eye cannot perceive the full spectrum of light. This, however, does not mean that those spectrum of light don't exist. Just because we cannot "see" radio waves does not mean that they don't exist.

I guess one could say, the clash is not between G-d and science but rather between quantum physics and biology (taught from an evolutionists perspective).

Evolution may not yet explain 100%, but the fact that it can only explain 99% doesn't invalidate the entire theory.

But the fact that it only accurately describes the part that we both agree on means that it doesn't validate it either.

Faith is beautiful. A piece of God exists in every living thing. Perhaps that first spark of life that started the whole process was God lighting the fire, and evolution is the process that that fire took off. Who's to say that evolution isn't God's handiwork?

Oh I agree, just not in the capacity that you would like me too. All that should be taught in school as "science" is that life forms "adapt" to their surroundings. This is observable and should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.

You try to constrict God to the margins defined by science and the words in a book.

The only thing that opposes the Book is a theory based on imaginations, supported by hoaxes, and kept alive by those who refuse to let the poor thing die.

 

[Hister]

Yo Light, If the story of creation is right, then the story of the ark is right also. So how did Noah get 2 of every single animal on earth on a boat? With all the food they'd need for 40 days. Did Noah spend all day shoveling shit?

btw, your "adapting to their surroundings" is just another way of saying "evolution". And why wouldn't your god make evolution part of the world? Because it's not in the bible?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Whoooopy ding. ALL evolutionists vehamently oppose considering any idea but their own and refuse to accept anything that doesn't point to evolution. That stance should rule them out as scientists right there.

Actually that's completely false. The scientific method requires all possibilities be considered, and the most logical conclusion be accepted. The same is not true for creationism, which automatically rules out all possibilities except the bible. Do you disagree?

I have heard that lie so many times it isn't even funny anymore.

Science is observing things. Have you observed a frog turning into a prince?

Well yes, PART of science is observation. It's not the ONLY part of science. Once again I will ask: what is it you think science is? Not in parts, but as a whole, how do you think the scientific method works? Or what is your understanding of evolution?

You seem to avoid these two questions repeatedly.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Actually that's completely false. The scientific method requires all possibilities be considered, and the most logical conclusion be accepted. The same is not true for creationism, which automatically rules out all possibilities except the bible. Do you disagree?

Accountants are suppose to follow general accounting proceedures. That doesn't mean that they do. So just because the evolutionist say that I take that to be about as true as the Obama Administration saying that they are the most open administration.

Well yes, PART of science is observation. It's not the ONLY part of science. Once again I will ask: what is it you think science is? Not in parts, but as a whole, how do you think the scientific method works? Or what is your understanding of evolution?

You seem to avoid these two questions repeatedly.

Gee, I'm tempted...I think I will...

"You continually state I am ignoring questions in your usual fashion, and as usual you don't actually point out what those questions are. Vague references might work in your world of blind stupidity, but here in the real world you need to specify things a bit more." -STH

 

[Coyote]

Hmm. You seem confused. Evolution has nothing to do with trying to explain the origin of the universe. That would be another topic.

Me confused? No, from reading your post it seems as you are the one that is confused about whether or not to judge theories based on the origin of life.

[/quote]

Please show me where the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life.

Sorry buddy, but that doesn't exactly contradict evolution either so, I assume you don't really understand what you are critisizing.

I didn't expect it to directly because that falls within the half-truth of evolution.

I thought you didn't want to talk about origins.

No. I didn't say that did I? If you want to discuss the theory of evolution we can discuss that. If we want to discuss the origin of life we can discuss that as well. But they are two seperate topics - something you can't seem to comprehend.

Which shall we discuss?

Such as?

I asked a direct question: How does it explain fossils and species no longer in existance that died so long ago there is no evidence of modern creatures lying with them?

Why do you require a specific example to answer? Here is one: T-Rex.

You mean sickle cell anemia?

People without legs can't get athlete's foot. Big deal.

Are you normally this stupid or did you take a detour into the fountain of retardation?

People without legs don't rank high in survivability nor is athletes foot malaria. You are side-stepping the question. Can't you answer it?

Easy, it is call adapting to ones surroundings which is a product of "design." Our military spends millions upon millions in adaptive technology and not a piece of it comes about by chance.

Lysenkoism has long ago been invalidated.

Nothing "needs" to fly or "needs" to swim, but they do. Adaptive responses have nothing to do with developing completely new, unnecessary functions.

That makes zero sense.

What are new and nunecessary functions - examples please.

Just because we don't have any evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. Oh that is precious.

Please, how did the giraffe evolve?

Please. Who created God?

Why are they not part of science? (Note: I am not arguing for or against them being part of science, I am just curious why you think they are not.)

Thus far, you dodge answering my questions while I seem to keep answering yours. Give up some answers first and then we can discuss the scientific analysis of God and Religion.

What part is being assumed?

Keep reading before you open yer yapper, grasshopper.

Force science to acknowledge theories? Hmmm... gee, what could be unscientific about a theory that states evolutionary adaptations (observable) are occuring but that they started from an original selection of life forms that generally resemble the current forms?

The fact that your "theory" is unable to explain the fossil record and the fact that no modern life forms have ever been found in conjunction with more ancient ones. Then there is the pesky problem of genetics.

Seriously, are you okay?

I have been stating that they are compatable all along. It is you that is stating that they aren't.

Where?

Yes, fundamentalist evolutionists do seem to have a problem accepting that fact. Just look at Richard Dawkins for example... mention the word G-d and he has a emotional breakdown, but mention alien fairy tales and he embraces it.

Source? I don't particularly follow Dawkins.

How are alien fairy tales different than Christian creation myths? What does any of that have to do with the theory of evolution? Please find something concrete in the theory of evolution that embraces alien fairy tales or I'll assume you are simply floundering and dodging.

I've been duped, the Bible was actually written tomorrow.

Don't be an ass.

Lee Strobel thought the same thing, but after setting out to prove the Bible as a complete hoax found the supreme integrity of the scriptures.

That has WHAT to do with anything?

According to wikipedia: Lee Patrick Strobel (b. January 25, 1952 in Arlington Heights, Illinois) is a writer, creationist, former journalist and former megachurch pastor. He is the author of several books, including four which received ECPA Christian Book Awards (1994, 1999, 2001, 2005)[1] and a series which addresses challenges to a Biblically inerrant view of Christianity.[2] Strobel also hosted a television program called Faith Under Fire on PAX TV,[3] and runs a video apologetics web site.

I'm not sure what sort of credentials he has to verify anything about the Bible other than a certain historical value.

Yes, it is a bit difficult to show someone a picture of something that dwells outside the dimension in which human life is confined, but that does not make it completely unscientific. We know that the human eye cannot perceive the full spectrum of light. This, however, does not mean that those spectrum of light don't exist. Just because we cannot "see" radio waves does not mean that they don't exist.

Nice dodge.

You do realize, don't you that vision the only means for confirming the existance of something?

I guess one could say, the clash is not between G-d and science but rather between quantum physics and biology (taught from an evolutionists perspective).

But the fact that it only accurately describes the part that we both agree on means that it doesn't validate it either.

Faith is beautiful. A piece of God exists in every living thing. Perhaps that first spark of life that started the whole process was God lighting the fire, and evolution is the process that that fire took off. Who's to say that evolution isn't God's handiwork?

Oh I agree, just not in the capacity that you would like me too. All that should be taught in school as "science" is that life forms "adapt" to their surroundings. This is observable and should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.

What I "like" or do not "like" you to agree with is irrelevant. I don't give a damn what you believe.

Evolution has a significant body of evidence supporting it. You have yet to knock it down beyond a specious reference to giraffes.

The fact that life forms adapt through genetic changes in a population is evolution.

Putting it down to an act of a creator is not science.

If it is - prove it.

The only thing that opposes the Book is a theory based on imaginations, supported by hoaxes, and kept alive by those who refuse to let the poor thing die.

Funny - that sounds just like Creationism

By the way - which version of the "book" are you talking about?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Accountants are suppose to follow general accounting proceedures. That doesn't mean that they do. So just because the evolutionist say that I take that to be about as true as the Obama Administration saying that they are the most open administration.

Once again you draw completely incongruous analogies. This is not one "accountant" telling everyone what to believe. You continually seem incapable of understanding the scientific method. In this case, you completely overlook the portion of it that requires repeated validation of the same results from scrutiny by other researchers looking to knock down their colleagues. Again, this is a process that is not seen within creationism.

Well yes, PART of science is observation. It's not the ONLY part of science. Once again I will ask: what is it you think science is? Not in parts, but as a whole, how do you think the scientific method works? Or what is your understanding of evolution?

You seem to avoid these two questions repeatedly.

Gee, I'm tempted...I think I will...

"You continually state I am ignoring questions in your usual fashion, and as usual you don't actually point out what those questions are. Vague references might work in your world of blind stupidity, but here in the real world you need to specify things a bit more." -STH

Excellent quote. Let's take a look at this. I saw you dodge a question and point out exactly which question you're dodging. You even quoted my asking the same question again, which you continued to dodge. The reverse is not true, whereas you claim I dodge a question and yet can't point out which question it is.

So, care to answer what you think science or evolution is exactly?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Please show me where the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life.

Where did I say it did?

No. I didn't say that did I? If you want to discuss the theory of evolution we can discuss that. If we want to discuss the origin of life we can discuss that as well. But they are two seperate topics - something you can't seem to comprehend.

Which shall we discuss?

Oh, I comprehend them quite well. It was you remember that asked, "where did they all come from?"

The answer is, they are all here.

So, which would you like to discuss?

I asked a direct question: How does it explain fossils and species no longer in existance that died so long ago there is no evidence of modern creatures lying with them?

I know you asked a question, and I asked for a clarification of the question being asked. Is there anything wrong with that?

Why do you require a specific example to answer? Here is one: T-Rex.

Answer:
If two people die on the same day and are burried in different states, does this mean that they did not die on the same day? NO

There is evidence of man living with dinasaurs, so just because they are not burried in the same tomb doesn't mean that they didn't live together. I know that one takes a little common sense to put together but it really isn't that hard.

That makes zero sense.

What are new and nunecessary functions - examples please.

I gave you two examples. Listen carefully as I list them once again...

a) flying
b) swiming

Please. Who created God?

Again, how did the giraffe evolve?

Thus far, you dodge answering my questions while I seem to keep answering yours. Give up some answers first and then we can discuss the scientific analysis of God and Religion.

No, I've answered most of your questions. You just don't like my answers. And no, you have not answered mine. You just doged the last two.

Keep reading before you open yer yapper, grasshopper.

Okay Captain Crunch.

Then there is the pesky problem of genetics.

Yeah, I know, genetics do pose a bit of a problem for evolutionism.

Don't be an ass.

That's why I'm not a democrat.

That has WHAT to do with anything?

That was in response to the point that you had made.

According to wikipedia: Lee Patrick Strobel (b. January 25, 1952 in Arlington Heights, Illinois) is a writer, creationist, former journalist and former megachurch pastor. He is the author of several books, including four which received ECPA Christian Book Awards (1994, 1999, 2001, 2005)[1] and a series which addresses challenges to a Biblically inerrant view of Christianity.[2] Strobel also hosted a television program called Faith Under Fire on PAX TV,[3] and runs a video apologetics web site.

Seriously, you should try branching out sometime. Try looking for sources other than wiki. (WARNING: do not try if you have frail opinions and theories)

You do realize, don't you that vision the only means for confirming the existance of something?

You do realize that I don't understand your sentance. Maybe it's just me, but I think you left a word out that makes it kinda ackward. Just so I don't have to geuss what you actually meant to say, maybe you could re-state it?

What I "like" or do not "like" you to agree with is irrelevant. I don't give a damn what you believe.

I have noticed that.

Evolution has a significant body of evidence supporting it.

About as much as a piece of TP haning out of my pants would prove that I wiped my butt.

You have yet to knock it down beyond a specious reference to giraffes.

Which you have yet to answer.

The fact that life forms adapt through genetic changes in a population is evolution.

Which I have not disputed and which validates my theory just as much as it does yours.

Putting it down to an act of a creator is not science.

There you go, back to origins. Which one do you want to talk about?

 

[konradv]

Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

That is the only way creationists can support their "theory" because they don't have the facts on their side. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some creationist groups have a statement of faith that forbids their members from reaching any conclusions that contradict the bible? Their acceptance of that statement rules them out as scientists right there.

Whoooopy ding. ALL evolutionists vehamently oppose considering any idea but their own and refuse to accept anything that doesn't point to evolution. That stance should rule them out as scientists right there.

More intellectual dishonesty! That's exactly what you're doing, taking a pre-determined conclusion and basing your analysis of the facts on that.

 

[Coyote]

Please show me where the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life.

Where did I say it did?

You continue to attempt to tack it onto evolution directly and indirectly. Make up your mind.

Oh, I comprehend them quite well. It was you remember that asked, "where did they all come from?"

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension. I asked: "How does the theory of creation explain the living creatures we now have - where did they all come from?"

Not the origin of life but the origin of the species we now have. Evolution theory proposes that they evolved from simpler organisms.

Your theory seems to be something along the line of ZAP! - flip the switch and there they are. Deus ex Machina - a bored deity, and empty universe. What evidence supports that theory? You seem to be dodging that pesky detail.

I know you asked a question, and I asked for a clarification of the question being asked. Is there anything wrong with that?

Answer:
If two people die on the same day and are burried in different states, does this mean that they did not die on the same day? NO

There is evidence of man living with dinasaurs, so just because they are not burried in the same tomb doesn't mean that they didn't live together. I know that one takes a little common sense to put together but it really isn't that hard.

What evidence?
What evidence?

I gave you two examples. Listen carefully as I list them once again...

a) flying
b) swiming

Listen carefully- you make zero sense.

What are "unnecessary functions"?

Flying and swimming are adaptations of form through evolution. That adaptation led to a divergence of species and the creation of new species. That supports evolution.

Again, how did the giraffe evolve?

Again, who created the creator?

No, I've answered most of your questions. You just don't like my answers. And no, you have not answered mine. You just doged the last two.

You just don't like the answers I give you.

You have yet to show how "creation science" is a science other than some sort of blather on "observation" (hint: visual observation is but one of many tools used in science), or explains the evidence more completely than evolution does. You dodge, duck, and weave with the inanity of outlier data like the Giraffe. You ignore other people's arguments and refuse to directly address them. My expectation was that you are incapable of honest debate and thus far you have wildly exceeded my expectations.

You can now return to a simpler era more suited to your cognition, when science was not allowed to thwart the Church.