[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[BobRyan]

As we all know, Christians come in many colours and flavours with each one claiming to be a "True Christian (tm)". Darwin believed in the Christian God until his death.

And now DARWIN -

But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

He admits that his DISBELIEF continue with one thing after another starting with the entire OT itself until at last HE SAID his "disbelief" was COMPLETE!

Sadly the devotees to blind darwinist dogma and doctrine will struggle with facts so inconvenient to the entertaining "story" they wish to tell.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again you just can't help demonstrating Patterson's complaint about evolutionism being ANTI-KNOWLEDGE.

In that link Patterson firms TWO THINGS.

1. That the quotes were ACCURATE

2. That Theunissen's spin on Patterson's comments about "story telling" and the lack of transitional forms was "accurate" as well.

Well, let's see what he actually said...

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

Imagine that. Did you think we had forgotten already, Bob?

Clearly -- "you did"

Theunnisen makes HIS case very clear -- in the areas of AGREEMENT that he has with Patterson.

you seem to want to snippet-out the context AS IF some AFFIRMING statements followed when in fact ALL we see is the inconvenient DETAILS in your OWN LINK -- already exposed here.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p387827

Why are you so bent on running away EVEN from your OWN link????

Why not simply admit to what we ALL SEE CLEARLY when we actually CLICK that link?

Your argument only works for those who do not read -- atheist darwinists??

Who are you appealing to?

THEUNNISEN
IT says that EVEN though they all agree that the fossils CAN NOT reveal ancestory AND may in fact not be ancestral AT ALL to what evolutionists CLAIm -- they are NONe-the-less transitional!

BARBARIAN
Yep. I get it now. You don't know what "transitional" means.

As Patterson points out -- it means "affirming the fact while claiming IGNORANCE as to the MEANS"

As you already learned in Pattersons OWN words!

How is it that reading what Patterson said is so difficult for you?

As BOTH Patterson and Theunnisen agree -

Bob -
For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and "NOT in descendant line of A" is to be never-the-less BELIEVED as "transition from A to C".

Barbarian
Uh, yes. That's what a transitional is.

Well my friend we have LOT's and LOST's of things that are NOT "descendants of A"[/b] AND ALSO "NOT ancestors of C" -- airplanes and insects for example. Things that you can not simply INSERT between reptiles and birds . SURE airplanes, insects and beavers are NOT descendant of reptiles and ALSO NOT ancestors to birds -- But that fact is now something that befuddled anti-knowledge thinking Atheist Darwinists want to use to argue " SO that proves they MUST BE TRANSITIONAL between them"???

Your argument that descendants come from DEAD-END ancestors is just silly self-conflicting story-telling. Dead End lines either because they go extinct or remain-UNCHANGED are by the definition of "DEAD END" not producing different-descendants of any kind at all.

What a joke that you would be so confused with the anti-knowledge arguments of atheist darwinism as to make such wild innexplicable arguments!!

Barbarian
Say we wanted evidence that Latin evolved into French. And we found a document that was halfway between Latin and French. It would be transitional, because it would document a transitional stage between Latin and French even if it happened to be a dead end that did not influence any later writing. That is a transitional.

WRONG!

The existence of a language in Asia that happens to appear in some form similar to french and German -- though clearly NEVER a stage TO WHICH the French language transitioned and clearly not a stage FROM WHICH German originated -- can never be "story-told into a transition" between French and German no matter how much you wave your hands and say "harrumph!" when the glaringly obvious flaw in your logic is "noted".

Your "we don't need no stinking honesty or logic to claim something as a transition" argument is EXACTLY why Simpson's 1951 horse series "that never happened in NATURE" was fully debunked EVEN by atheist darwinists. It is because the dead-end empty, non-science story telling that you are engaged in now -- was being practiced by (Marshall) the one who initially proposed that fraudulent sequence - the sequence "That never happened in nature" according to Atheist Darwinists today. (As we already learnd in the thread about the confirmed hoaxes and frauds used to prop up the junk-science religion we know of as atheist darwinism today.)

Remember Barbarian - as you already learned your revisionist history and anti-knowledge are your enemy in this case just as in all cases. You need to leave those stories behind and begin to embrace fact instead of continually clinging to fiction.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have trouble with the idea that one can say they know God and yet deny His word.

(I'll go back to lurking now since I can't add anything to this thread.)

What a good point. What does it mean to be a "bible-denying, bible-rejecting" Christian?

Where is that any different from being a non-Christian who ALSO denies the Word of God?

Seems like Darwin saw clearly that the myths and doctrines of his Darwinist dogma was completely opposed to the Word of God.

Bible believing Christians see that too.

So also do atheists like Dawkins and Provine. (See the movie Expelled for their OWN WORDS on that topic)

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's see what he actually said...

Patterson, on the creationist attempt to quote-mine him:
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

Barbarian chuckles:
Imagine that. Did you think we had forgotten already, Bob?

Theunnisen makes HIS case very clear -- in the areas of AGREEMENT that he has with Patterson.

Nope.

you seem to want to snippet-out the context AS IF some AFFIRMING statements followed when in fact ALL we see is the inconvenient DETAILS in your OWN LINK -- already exposed here.

Sorry Bob. As you can see, Patterson clearly says that the context shows that the creationist quote mining misrepresents what he said. And he gets to decide.

THEUNNISEN (sic)
IT says that EVEN though they all agree that the fossils CAN NOT reveal ancestory AND may in fact not be ancestral AT ALL to what evolutionists CLAIm -- they are NONe-the-less transitional!

Yep. As you learned, transitionals indicate common descent, but the chance of us finding the exact individual that was ancestral to new taxa is very small.

Barbarian chuckles:
Yep. I get it now. You don't know what "transitional" means.

As Patterson points out -- it means "affirming the fact while claiming IGNORANCE as to the MEANS"

Nope. As he said, he was referring to systematics, notthing more. Everyone here read that, Bob. No point in denying it.

Well my friend we have LOT's and LOST's of things that are NOT "descendants of A"[/b] AND ALSO "NOT ancestors of C" -- airplanes and insects for example.

Airplanes and insects don't have shared apomorphies, however. So it's irrelevant to the issue.

Things that you can not simply INSERT between reptiles and birds .

However, as you admitted when you declined to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird or a dinosaur, and why you did so, Archaeopteryx is nicely intermediate between the two.

Barbarian tries to make it simpler for Bob:
Say we wanted evidence that Latin evolved into French. And we found a document that was halfway between Latin and French. It would be transitional, because it would document a transitional stage between Latin and French even if it happened to be a dead end that did not influence any later writing. That is a transitional.

WRONG!

As I said, the problem is you don't know what a transitional is.

The existence of a language in Asia that happens to appear in some form similar to french and German -- though clearly NEVER a stage TO WHICH the French language transitioned and clearly not a stage FROM WHICH German originated --...

Bob, French evolved from Latin. It's a fact. There are transitional documents between Latin and French. Just as there are transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.

Your "we don't need no stinking honesty or logic to claim something as a transition"

Of course, it's Bob's nature, when he knows he's lost the argument, to invent a faked quote and attribute it to his opponent. Shame on you, Bob.

 

[Barbarian]

What a good point. What does it mean to be a "bible-denying, bible-rejecting" Christian?

It means he's a Young Earth Creationist.

Where is that any different from being a non-Christian who ALSO denies the Word of God?

Young Earth Creationists accept some of God's Word, but not all of it.

 

[BobRyan]

Since the foxhole strategy of many atheist darwinist devotees is to "pretend not to notice" the inconvenient facts in the devastating sections of the argument when confronted by evidence -- I will repeat what even their own atheist darwinist icon has said on the subject.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p387968

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:




about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.
...

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

HMMM - they "plead ignorance as to the means while affirming only the facts" -- what an interseting expose on atheist darwinist dogma.


How much BETTEr to embrace ACTUAL science in the context of academic freedom to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not pander to the blind darwinist orthodoxy of atheist religionists.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's see what he actually said...

Great! Here he is "yet again" along with Theunnisen whom HE claims to AGREE with.

Among the "inconvenient facts" in this statement from Patterson and NOW also from Theunnisen since Barbarian insists that the TWO of them must now be consulted.

Patterson confirms TWO THINGS TO Theunnisen

1. That the quotes were ACCURATE
2. That Theunissen's spin on Patterson's comments about "story telling" and the lack of transitional forms was "accurate" as well.

Well- did YOU READ Theunnissen's spin AS HE stated at that link?

IT says that EVEN though they all agree that the fossils CAN NOT reveal ancestory AND may in fact not be ancestral AT ALL to what evolutionists CLAIm -- they are NONe-the-less transitional!

i.e "Affirming the FACT while claiming ignorance as to the MEANS".

Indeed Patterson claims they are DOING that VERY THING

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

HMMM - they "plead ignorance as to the means while affirming only the facts"

They are BOTH AGREEING that fossils CAN NOT tell ancestory!!

Theunnisen said IN BARBARIAN's link -

Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:

[quote:11827]
PATTERSON:
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form,[b/] or as evidence for evolution.
[/quote:11827]

Here we see the TWO of them (Theunnisen and Patterson) IN AGREEMENT.

Yet the "still fumbling and lost" response we get from Barbarian to this glaringly obvious fact is ...

Barbarian analysis:
Nope.

How "insightful" -- how "substantive"!!

Now back to the obvious -
For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and yet claim it is "transition from A to C".

That would be "claiming ignorance as to the means while simply affirm blind faith in the fact"!!

(something patterson claims THEY ARE DOING)

Get it???

Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Darwinian Science Faction: Darwinian Science Fiction (regarding the origin and etymology of life forms on earth) cleverly packaged and sold to the unsuspecting public as “science fact†by painting imaginative stories on a canvas of science terms and selling them with blind faith “affirmations of the fact while professing ignorance as to the means†– affirmations stated in practice as if in support of “revealed truthâ€Â

Barbarian -- I seriously need to find a way to pay you in real benefits for these perfect softball setups!

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's see what he actually said...

Patterson, on the creationist attempt to quote-mine him:
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

Barbarian chuckles:
Imagine that. Did you think we had forgotten already, Bob?

IT says that EVEN though they all agree that the fossils CAN NOT reveal ancestory AND may in fact not be ancestral AT ALL to what evolutionists CLAIm -- they are NONe-the-less transitional!

Yes, part of the trouble is you don't know what "transitional" means. In other words, if we find a fossil of an animal which is a species intermediate between two groups, it is transitional, even if that particular animal was not the one that actually gave rise to the new group.

As you learned, it's like finding a document that is intermediate between Latin and French. It is transitional between them, even if that particular document did not lead to French. It merely shows how the evolution proceeded at that point.

They are BOTH AGREEING that fossils CAN NOT tell ancestory!!

No. They merely affirmed that

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution.

How "insightful" -- how "substantive"!!

Yep.

For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and yet claim it is "transition from A to C".

Sure can. Just as that intermediate between Latin and French is transitional is. Even if that particular document didn't lead to further development of French. It is merely documents the transitional state at that point in time.

Barbarian -- I seriously need to find a way to pay you in real benefits for these perfect softball setups!

You've been immensely helpful, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim a fossil is "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and yet claim it is "transition TO C".

Obviously
(To which we find the insightful "junk-science" response

Barbarian suggests:
Sure can.

i.e "Affirming the FACT while claiming ignorance as to the MEANS".

How convenient that Patterson address the very fallacy that Barbarian is trying to "practice"

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

HMMM - they "plead ignorance as to the means while affirming only the facts"

How convenient of Barbarian to be so obliging on this point! :D

And of course Barbarian is never content to leave the hole he is digging for himself at it's "current depth" always seeks to dig deeper.

Barbarian

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution

Hint Barbarian -- time to throw away the shovel!

You illustrate the truth of Patterson's observation about darwinist believers -

PATTERSON:
"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's see what he actually said...

Patterson, on the creationist attempt to quote-mine him:
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

And so now WE LOOK at what Theunnissen SAID -- in that very link to which Barbarian directs us -- (the one he is apparently not actually reading -- link posted AGAIN for those who DO read)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Theunnisen said IN BARBARIAN's link -

Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:

[quote:82d0d]
PATTERSON:
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form,[b/] or as evidence for evolution.
[/quote:82d0d][/size]

In that quote above we see the TWO of them (Theunnisen and Patterson) IN AGREEMENT as they blindly "affirm the fact while pleading ignorance as to the means"

WOW -- they really DO claim to "Affirm the fact while claiming ignorance as to the means" JUST like Patterson said they do it!

Objective reader: Please note that In that link Patterson confirms TWO points

Patterson confirms TWO THINGS TO Theunnisen

1. That the quotes were ACCURATE
2. That Theunissen's spin on Patterson's comments about "story telling" and the lack of transitional forms was "accurate" as well. (As we see in that quote above from Barbarian's OWN Link!!)


Now we look at Patterson AFFIRMING Sunderland (both TO Sunderland AND to Theunnisen)

Patterson TO Theunnisen:
The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes.

The claim above that Sunderland WAS ACCURRATE is in Barbarians link (the one he does not read).

Here is Patterson TO SUNDERLAND

PATTERSON - TO Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.


You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

IS it any wonder than that Patterson expresses his own objective frustration over the problem he affirms in the quote above -- by saying the following statement to his fellow darwinist devotees..

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Yet the "still fumbling and lost" response we get from Barbarian (apparently oblivious to Patterson's words above) is the "less than substantive" ...

Barbarian analysis:
Nope.

As I have tried to explain to our atheist darwinist devotees time after time -- "pretending" not to understand the text of the posts is not helping your argument as much as you may be imagining.

Bob

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....What quantitative (hell, even qualitative) substantiative empirical data would show that something was "intelligently designed" ???....

Mathematics, or more to the point, statistics. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution.

So mathematically, it is more probable that the universe was intelligently designed

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and yet claim it is "transition from A to C".

Barbarian
Sure can. Just as that intermediate between Latin and French is transitional is.

The lack of substance in that statement speaks for itself.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

For a transitional form - -you can not continually claim "NOT IN ANCESTRAL LINE OF C" and yet claim it is "transition from A to C".

Barbarian observes:
Sure can. Just as that intermediate between Latin and French is transitional. Even if that particular document didn't lead to further development of French. It is merely documents the transitional state at that point in time.

The lack of substance in that statement speaks for itself.

I suspect you're being willfully dense here, Bob. The bottom line is that you don't like the meaning of "transitional", so you made up your own definition, and complained because other people don't use it your way.

And all your tap dancing around the fact that Patterson himself agreed that the quote miners had not honestly represented what he said, won't help you.

And the longer you thrash and insist you know better than Patterson what he meant, the worse it will be for you.

 

[Barbarian]

Mathematics, or more to the point, statistics. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible.

Of course, evolutionary theory says that hominoids evolved into humans, which is very, very likely.

Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible.

The funny part is that Hoyle actually thought evolution works like that. Of course, it doesn't. Hoyle pointed out that the likelihood of a zebra (for example) poofing into existence all at once was essentially impossible. But of course that's not how zebras evolved. They were only slightly modified from an existing peryssodatyl. Hoyle's argument, BTW, also "proves" that you can't exist and that card games are impossible. Would you like to see the numbers?

And does it bother you that your avatar is the pontiff who first acknowledged the fact of evolution?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...The funny part is that Hoyle actually thought evolution works like that. Of course, it doesn't. Hoyle pointed out that the likelihood of a zebra (for example) poofing into existence all at once was essentially impossible. But of course that's not how zebras evolved. They were only slightly modified from an existing peryssodatyl....

But there, life already existed.
Certain aspects of evolution, and adaptation, are true.
But life, from lifelessness? Matter just accidentally coming into existance? No way

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, on Hoyle's Folly:
The funny part is that Hoyle actually thought evolution works like that. Of course, it doesn't. Hoyle pointed out that the likelihood of a zebra (for example) poofing into existence all at once was essentially impossible. But of course that's not how zebras evolved. They were only slightly modified from an existing peryssodatyl. Hoyle's argument, BTW, also "proves" that you can't exist and that card games are impossible. Would you like to see the numbers?

But there, life already existed.

Right. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. In fact, all Darwin said about it, was that God did it.

Certain aspects of evolution, and adaptation, are true.

All aspects of evolution, like everything else in God's creation, are true.

But life, from lifelessness?

That's what God says. He says that the earth brought forth living things. Unless you believe in Gaea as a living entity, that's what happened.

Matter just accidentally coming into existance?

You seem to have conflated the origin of matter with the origin of life. Life came a bit later. And no one I know thinks it was an accident. Nature is not random.

And does it bother you that your avatar is the pontiff who first acknowledged the fact of evolution?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The problem is that most "evolutionists" don't include God in the equation as you do, which is why Christians don't like the way it is presented in schools.

And, since you do include God in the equation, why not include Him in schools, even if only as one possibility?

 

[jmm9683]

The problem is that most "evolutionists" don't include God in the equation as you do, which is why Christians don't like the way it is presented in schools.

And, since you do include God in the equation, why not include Him in schools, even if only as one possibility?

Because it's not science... and the whole illegal thing.

 

[freeway]

The problem is that most "evolutionists" don't include God in the equation as you do, which is why Christians don't like the way it is presented in schools.

And, since you do include God in the equation, why not include Him in schools, even if only as one possibility?

Because it's not science... and the whole illegal thing.

You mean like scientist that takes a little and adds their thoughts and dreams and then try to say it's science so it has to be true.. come on thats getting old... science in its pure form is great. but science made into a religion sucks... if the outcome or the beginning can not be proved... its religion...

and the whole illegal thing

again you miss the mark... the separation of church and state was not to keep religion out of school but to stop any state ran religion... as to the government making its own religion or backing only one.... read up... 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[jmm9683]

You mean like scientist that takes a little and adds their thoughts and dreams and then try to say it's science so it has to be true.. come on thats getting old... science in its pure form is great. but science made into a religion *bleep*... if the outcome or the beginning can not be proved... its religion...

Yeah, yeah we know, evil scientists... now that is getting old.

again you miss the mark... the separation of church and state was not to keep religion out of school but to stop any state ran religion... as to the government making its own religion or backing only one.... read up... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Public schools are state ran...