Search results

What can we say in response to "Look at this, this is AMAZING! Evolution couldn't have done it!" Say it isn't amazing?

The only "dinosaur cave drawing" I've seen was a splotch that takes some serious straining of the imagination to turn into a dinosaur.

That's great! Now, where in the Bible does it say this? Predicted response: The Bible doesn't have to include everything! That means you can add whatever you want! Who cares if the Bible says to not add to it?

It doesn't explain why monkeys don't shave!

Creationists have a long list of supposed flaws of evolution. For example: The incompleteness of the fossil record The impossibility of the evolution of sexual reproduction The impossibility of the generation of the first cell (though abiogenesis does not fall under evolution) The lack of...

I suggest the Chewbacca defense.

How about all scientists? I'd like to see any scientist who doesn't support Creationism in schools who believes it isn't necessary for theories to be falsifiable.

Oh, really? Would you want teachers to teach that the Holocaust never happened if the community really wanted it? How about teaching God doesn't exist? I'm sure you would just love that. Or how about teaching the Earth is flat (though I wouldn't be surprised if you believed it)? Or teaching kids...

I prefer cockroaches, as they, much like Creationist arguments, refuse to die.

Evidence for biological evolution isn't necessary, the evolution of species has been observed countless times. The actual Creationist definition of macro-evolution, the directly observed evolution of any taxon whose evolution has not been directly observed, cannot have evidence.

Assumption #1: A trickster God isn't trying to fool us into believing the Earth came into being 4.5 billion years ago. THOSE *******S!

Under the pic's description of Intelligent Design: "Most proponents of this theory do not believe the earth was literally created in six days, or that the earth is only 10,000 years old." Sure, whatever you say . . .

Why would that be important? What's important is that one (or more than one) did.

I've seen many Creationists in this forum say that the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is merely an assumption, and that would probably be the opinion of the majority of Creationists. This topic is not in response to dad, I know how futile that is. Dad merely made me think about it.

It is supported by all evidence. The only assumption is that there isn't a trickster God who created the universe 6,000 years ago and is determined to fool us into thinking otherwise, which is necessary to conduct science.

The actual, biological definition of macro-evolution doesn't exist in Creationism, despite whatever you tell Creationists. They define it as the directly observed evolution of any taxon whose evolution has not been directly observed..

How can you feel qualified to cast judgement on evolution when your only knowledge of it comes from your high school Biology class? (Which, if it is anything like some Biology classes, might cover very little of evolution's various components and evidence and lump abiogenesis and other theories...

"Wow! Look all around us! It's so amazing and complex! A God must have created it!" "Wow! Look at the horizon! See how straight it is? The Earth must be flat!" "Wow! Look at all these diseases! They're so amazing! Are you telling me that little bugs cause them? I think demons are far more...

double post

I can find no prerequisite of not going to an afterlife in that definition. So, are you going to continue dodging or are you going to admit that humans meet that definition?