For ToErs Eyes Only

Perhaps google is playing a little prank on us, or maybe it's just nwr.TTFN,WK

As I saw in the original post, the person talked as if evolution is a universal truth and said that ToErs should not sink to the creationists level. What do you mean by level? Do you mean that creationists are unaware of science and are totally ignorant?
Well if you see so than that is because your not realy understanding their arguments realy well. A beliver in God doesnot mean an ignorant, but unfortuately, evolutionists see it this way. I can see that you are unaware of the knowledge that many creationists have. Did you know that Newton, Galileo, Cuvier, Comprinicus, Linnaeious, and Enstein were strong belivers in God? Did you know that Eistein have once quoted: "science without religion is lame"? Is Einstein or the other scientists ignorants?By the way, about those Data that you said that you show to creationists in order to prove evolution, do you know why they dont believe in them? That is simply because thse so called data and evidences are no more than imaginary evolutionary scenarios with no logic, details, or evidence.

quote:

---

but unfortuately, evolutionists see it this way. I can see that you are unaware of the knowledge that many creationists have. Did you know that Newton, Galileo, Cuvier, Comprinicus, Linnaeious, and Enstein were strong belivers in God? Did you know that Eistein have once quoted: "science without religion is lame"? Is Einstein or the other scientists ignorants?

---

A belief in God does not make you a creationist.Oh and if you are going to quote Einstein, quote the whole thing:

quote:

---

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

---

quote:

---

Did you know that Newton, Galileo, Cuvier, Comprinicus, Linnaeious, and Enstein were strong belivers in God?

---

Really?

quote:

---

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[1]

---

Now you know the truth - you will not repeat such a falsehood again - right? right?[1]Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

Its impressive the way you know that when you don't have a clue what data the writer of the OP had in mind.TTFN,WK

Would that be the same Carolus Linnaeus that classified the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes in his Systema Naturae?

No. Some Biblical Creationists are simply ignorant. Those quickly drop Biblical Creationism when presented with the overwhelming evidence for Evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Others are wilfully ignorant. They wilfully ignore the evidence to maintain their beliefs.The former can be excused, the later though are commiting an act of hubris and denying the very facilities GOD gave them. And accepting evolution has nothing to do GOD. Every major Christian Church accepts the Theory of Evolution and opposes teaching Biblical Creationism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How many times I heard this phrase: "overwhelmin evidence for evolution"? So many times. But, where is that evidence? If I ask any evolutionist to explain to me how a certain organism evolved, all I hear is imaginary tales of evolution and with no evidence.

Where have you looked? ABE -- I am near enough 100% sure you have, in fact, not looked very hard at all. If you think the evidence is "imaginary" then why not go to the various threads covering it and point out the flaws.Guessing that you are not in agreement with the current dates of various events in earth's history you should start with: Message 1and any threads it refers to.If you are in agreement with the dating then: Message 1Might be a good starting place.Note: Neither of these is covering evidence for evolution. You have to be sure you understand the basics before you get further into it.Edited by NosyNed, : Needs a little bit of a dig.

About the dating, if you think I believe in young Earth, than thats not true because I believe in ancient Earth.About evolution simplified, i did check this thread but still, how do you call this an evidence? This is in fact a typical exiplanations of evolutionary mechanisms but that does not mean they are evidences.Just the hypothesis that living organisms evolve is just an imaginary theory that was never actually obsereved. (If you observed natural selection than that is not evolution because i mean evolution as in how a species turns to another species).I need to know, for example, how can a cell can be formed by chance? Without the use of the usual evolutionary imagination.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Good, I'm glad you understand the time frames involved and the basics of the theory.Now, then why, with that understanding would you bring up a topic (the formation of the first living (or something enough like it) thing which is not a part of the evolutionary explanation for how populations of living, things change over time.Of course, no one is suggesting that a modern cell formed by chance. How life actually arose we don't know. So what? Are you one who thinks it is good theology to suggest a proof of God is anything we don't know the answer too. That's had a very poor track record over history. I told you it wasn't evidence just back ground prepartion. You will have to read more carefully if you are going to make any progress here.Now that you are prepared with an understanding of time frames and the basic theory you can go to the various thread (or create your own) and tell us what is wrong with the evidence presented.Calling it "imaginary" doesn't really help much does it?

[We dont know how life on Earth arose!]Good! now evolutionist admit this because they initially believed that the first cell emerged by chance. Admitting this fact means that evolutionist realized the lack of logic in using chance to explain the emergence of life on Earth.So if it is not Chance, than it must be the concious divine intervention.(Im not saying that this is evidence for creation but this is just basic logic).

Are you going to talk about evolution or abiogenesis?Saying we don't know how it arose doesn't mean that it could not have arisen by chance or that it isn't inevitable. You don't know either.The is no "lack of logic" in proposing a chance origin to the first imperfect replicators. If chance is used though, you have to describe an environment and a simple enough first replicator that the odds become reasonable over a few 100 million years. Note that even rather unlikely events can happen if you keep trying for something like 300 million years.There is, of course, work being done on the question and various things have been learned about the chemistry involved. Won't you feel a bit foolish if you hitch your faith to a, possibly temporary, "I dunno"?How about we leave it at "dunno" for now and get back to evolution and mutation rates. Ok?

Actually mutations is on the other forum. This one is about evolution. I know it is confusing a little to talk to the same person in two forums cuz u lose which topic is where.

NO look! the "dunno" philosophy is not the absolute base of my faith. Im just showing you how a cell being formed by chance is as impossible as randomly throwing letters on a paper to form a beautiful poem by "Chance".

which has nothing to do with the topic, you are talking about abiogenesis, which is still at the "dunno" stage of the theory game
its a faulty argument agenst evolution