Just a question...

It would be nice for a change if some Creationist ever presented a model for their theory. Instead, we get the Type 3 poster like this one and the occasional Type 1 poster.But hope springs eternal.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, you've got to give Salty his due on that one. He may have been a crazy whackjob, but he was a crazy whackjob with a theory that made some sort of sense, it was clearly wrong but it did make sense.TTFN,WK

Your saying that the site is biased because some of the posters take one side of the very debate this site is set up to encourage?Would an unbiased site for the discussion of evolution versus creationism consist entirely of creationists patting each other on the back?Oh, and there are, for your information, several creationist moderators. Is it your idea that to have an unbiased site they should ban everyone who says that evolution is scientific?Well, this might be very cosy for you, but it would be much less like a debate.

Who told you that the Big Bang had anything to do with evolution, or that it "started from nothingness"? Why not? You can say what you please, so can we. If the facts are on our side, this isn't the fault of the website. No, there are plenty of creationists who post on this site. When you can agree on one thing besides that creationism is right and science is wrong, maybe you could gang up on us. How?There are, as I've pointed out, creationist moderators. "Need to be superior in argument".Clearly not a need that you've ever felt. Well, you go on being inferior in argument if that's what pleases you --- but then don't be surprised if we win all the arguments.Perhaps you should try being "superior in argument" once in a while. Of course, this would entail you being right. Good luck with that.As for "pride", I don't think that my disdain for you is greater than yours for me, though I believe that mine is rather better expressed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.If you are interested in knowing what people are saying, feel free to look at what they actually say. Saying it doesn't make it true. Well, I'm glad you made it clear that "pride" is the besetting sin of evolutionists. 'Cos we'd not have guessed, when we saw you abolish the last 150 years of biology just on your say-so. Then you might want to learn some basic chemistry.Enjoy.

I think a level playing field could be achieved if we banned evidence from the discussion, meaning both sides would have to argue without the use of it, instead of just one.

The first thing you should learn about chemistry is that "organic" and "inorganic" don't mean what you think.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course, believing in God even the Christian God has nothing to do with the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Trying to use that as part of the argument is simply as futile and worthless as thinking that attacking one theory adds support to another.The FACT is that Evolution is accepted by many if not most Christians, and in the words of the Clergy Letter, an open letter currently endorsed by over 11,000 US Christian Clergy: So two steps.First, attacking the current models does nothing to support Creationism.Second, pretending it is a religious or Christian issue is simply false.So next step is to see if you can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models. So far NO Creationist has ever been able to do so, which is why they simply run away instead of trying to support Creationism.Edited by TrueChristian, : and

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Uhh...Woehler showed that in eighteen-thirtysomething. And the dusty gas off red giant stars and in planetary nebulae does it every day. Like niacin from star-stuff.

I've decided I don't believe in either, now prove to me evolution is true. We don't have to prove creationism. Explain to me how something that is not living can become living.

Error

"in the last days there will come scoffers"

Irrelevant and as pointed out to you, unrelated to the issues of either Evolution or Christianity.It also does nothing to support Creationism.If you expect Creationism to ever be more than just something to laugh about, then you need to present the models that explain what is seen better than the current models.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you trying to claim that God and evolution are mutually exclusive? Do you really believe that? Why? It doesn't make any sense.There was a topic a month or two back in which creationists were asked to present their best evidence. For the longest time, there were no takers. We were practically begging them to present evidence, any evidence, that supported creationism. Finally a creationist presented the only "evidence" that he could, that if you look at the world in a certain way with certain preconceptions that you might be able to say that it kind of looks like design.Nobody was suppressing creationists nor even trying to, but rather were doing the exact opposite. It's just that "creation science", in the nearly 40 years of its existence and in the century of creationist efforts that preceded it and from which it had drawn heavily, has accumulated no evidence to present.Now, if you believe that you do have any evidence for your ideas of creation, you should resurrect that topic and present it.

The ToE describes how life evolves once it becomes life. It says nothing about how life arose. Your insistence that we explain something to you that has nothing to do with the ToE suggests that your rejection of it may have something to do with the fact that you don't know what it says in the first place.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat