Evolution is a Lie

[Nathan Poe]

Care to repeat the question as you wrote it; then highlight anything in my answer that was wrong?

Here it is again: 96

Ok then, new question: Isn't Morris something of a pathetic choice?

 

[Split Rock]

Nevertheless, 'Henry M. Morris' is an effective answer to the question.

There are some better examples of modern scientists (not dead, though) who are trained in more useful fields. Duane Gish, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise come to mind (one could even include Micheal Behe on this list, though he claims to not be a creationist). Some have even contributed to actual science. None, however, have done so utilizing Creationism or Creation Science. I think that is the important point to make.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok then, new question: Isn't Morris something of a pathetic choice?

109

 

[AV1611VET]

There are some better examples of modern scientists (not dead, though) who are trained in more useful fields. Duane Gish, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise come to mind (one could even include Micheal Behe on this list, though he claims to not be a creationist). Some have even contributed to actual science. None, however, have done so utilizing Creationism or Creation Science. I think that is the important point to make.

109

 

[Nathan Poe]

109

Typical creationist -- cares nothing about quality; just wants to be (technically) right.

Again, a perfect example of the uselessness of Creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

109

I did not claim you didn't answer the question asked. This is a discussion forum, and I have moved the discussion foward. Do you agree with my post or not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I did not claim you didn't answer the question asked. This is a discussion forum, and I have moved the discussion foward. Do you agree with my post or not?

Forget it, Split Rock -- AV has answered a question; nothing can distract him from his victory dance.

 

[Split Rock]

Typical creationist -- cares nothing about quality; just wants to be (technically) right.

Again, a perfect example of the uselessness of Creationism.

Modern creationism is of no use to science. However, it apparently does give some people a warm fuzzy feeling unside. Therefore, there is some "use" for it, I guess.

 

[Split Rock]

Forget it, Split Rock -- AV has answered a question; nothing can distract him from his victory dance.

I would like to see him do a victory dance!

Actually, I think it would be fun to meet AVET in person.... we would have a few laughs, I am sure.

 

[sandwiches]

I would like to see him do a victory dance!

Actually, I think it would be fun to meet AVET in person.... we would have a few laughs, I am sure.

I was talking to Tinker Grey the other about just that. I would like to have an actual face to face discussion with AV and see how he tries to evade points and squirm from having to make logical statements.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I was talking to Tinker Grey the other about just that. I would like to have an actual face to face discussion with AV and see how he tries to evade points and squirm from having to make logical statements.

AV should have a debate with someone and then have it be posted on YouTube. That'd be amazing.

 

[sandwiches]

AV should have a debate with someone and then have it be posted on YouTube. That'd be amazing.

I would hope he's not like this in real life. Otherwise, he'd either walk away as soon as he was cornered or he'd just start ignoring you.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I would hope he's not like this in real life. Otherwise, he'd either walk away as soon as he was cornered or he'd just start ignoring you.

Or just randomly start counting!

 

[sandwiches]

Or just randomly start counting!

LOL

Or just point to his Bible (which I'm sure he'd bring) without saying a word, whenever he's asked some questions. =P

 

[Delphiki]

"...something something themselves to be wise... something something they were fools..."

 

[Phred]

Nevertheless, 'Henry M. Morris' is an effective answer to the question.

No AV... it's not. The point is that anyone who has actually been educated in what evolution is, in what the effects are, in how you can recognize it and in what it means to biology as a science cannot possibly still be a creationist. Morris didn't study evolution except to read a line here or there and immediately try to come up with some sort of argument against it.

But if you, like the judge in the Kitzmiller trial, have to be exposed to the actual facts of what the Theory of Evolution is then it's very hard to still be a creationist. That's why there aren't very many of them who actually hold degrees in biology.

And that's the point. It's a point that the answer of "Henry Morris" does nothing to address.

 

[MoonLancer]

AV should have a debate with someone and then have it be posted on YouTube. That'd be amazing.

Actually just having him call in to the atheist experience would be pretty amazing. (A day when Matt is the host)

 

[Split Rock]

No AV... it's not. The point is that anyone who has actually been educated in what evolution is, in what the effects are, in how you can recognize it and in what it means to biology as a science cannot possibly still be a creationist. Morris didn't study evolution except to read a line here or there and immediately try to come up with some sort of argument against it.

But if you, like the judge in the Kitzmiller trial, have to be exposed to the actual facts of what the Theory of Evolution is then it's very hard to still be a creationist. That's why there aren't very many of them who actually hold degrees in biology.

And that's the point. It's a point that the answer of "Henry Morris" does nothing to address.

There are people with PhDs in relevant fields who are creationists. Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish come to mind. However, they were creationists first, and only continue to cling to creationism because of their religious beliefs. Not because the evidence is against evolution.

 

[Hespera]

There are people with PhDs in relevant fields who are creationists. Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish come to mind. However, they were creationists first, and only continue to cling to creationism because of their religious beliefs. Not because the evidence is against evolution.

True, and no volunteers to say otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are people with PhDs in relevant fields who are creationists. Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish come to mind. However, they were creationists first, and only continue to cling to creationism because of their religious beliefs. Not because the evidence is against evolution.

For anyone who doesn't believe in microevolution, I challenge them to take an old bottle of Roundup and come out and spray my weeds.

For anyone who believes in macroevolution, I challenge them to find the oldest man or woman on earth and ask them if they've seen any strange animals around lately.