But all you are doing is making uneducated (because nobody knows) guesses based on faith and employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Enjoy.
I would like to list the following that I found that indicate the idea that evolutionist’s beliefs are also improvable like they claim of creationist’s belief’s. That all their assumptions are just that, assumptions and therefore places them in the religious category of believing something that they cannot prove but insist on believing it anyway and teaching it as truth.
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
(sounds a lot like the improbability that evolutionist claim for creation beliefs)
A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.
(That certainly sounds more improbable than an intelligent designer wouldn’t you think?)
How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.
The above is just a few of the brief arguments I would like to see refuted by some of the evolutionists. I am simply a truth seeker. If you can prove my Christian beliefs are not exactly the same as your beliefs in so far as, both sides require a certain amount of faith in order to believe, then I would be delighted to hear it.
ear charlie brown
™ Version 4.2
