It is simple - AiG is pro-science AND carries a distinctively Christian Religious POV.
Please explain how building a for profit museum that flatly denies hundreds of years of tangible, provable science is scientific. Also what has creation science given us in terms of actual benefits? The evolutionary model on the other hand has given us all kinds of medical advances.
Evolutionism according to DARWIN is distinctly opposed to Christianity. Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all agree with this - on video taped interviews available to the public.
So? First off atheism isn't a religion and much like Christanity, there is no "official spokesman". Does the "God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" crowd speak for all of Christanity? Also there any many, many Christians out there who believe in and study Evolution and have no problems believing in God.
Evolutionism is itself a distinctively atheist religion -- and should never be promoted by any public funded organization that has any interest at all in actual science.
Make sure that next time you have to go to the doctor you let him know that you do not want ANYTHING done to you, or given to you that has a basis in evolution. Chances are that you will die far before your time. Also are you suming up all science into the "evolutionism" category? I know a lot of creationist simply don't know what they are talking about when they lump the big bang theory in with science. Also how is evolution a religion? Evolution simply describes the diversity of life on earth. It DOES NOT have anything to do with space, planets, comets, God, mars or the creation of life on earth. Also atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
This was proven by atheist darwinist Osborn in is deceptive practices promoting ape-man "Nebraska man" using a pig's tooth.
Keep in mind that few in the scientific community bought into "Nebraska man" and those pictures you see published are not from a scientific journal (real science) but from a magazine. Also you accuse him of knowing the tooth was a fraud, isn't it more likely that if held a belief that was contrary to fact (like creationist do)? Of course this also raises the question of why the actions of a few people make a scientific theory wrong.
It was proven by Marsh who totally fabricated the famous "horse series" - later published by Simpson in the 1950's and still on display in museums though it has been discredited EVEN by atheist evolutionists!
Find me a link, I am not finding anything. This is what is great about science though, it changes.....on the other hand it is a bit tough to scratch all that crazy stuff in the bible now isn't it.
It was proven by the latest debunking of the fraudulent methods to date Neanderthals.
Care to cite? I have no idea what you are talking about.
It was proven by the debunked 50 year fraud of Piltdown man.
I was proven by the fraudulent practices of Ernst Haeckle to promote his mythology that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
The list of fraudulent practices used for multiple decades to prop up the junk-science claims of the junk-science religion we call atheist darwinism is impressive by any standard!
Now, you do understand that these "frauds" are no longer used right? Also the case for evolution is still rock solid without any of these. Another thing to note is that these frauds were not exposed by people like yourself but by other "atheist darwinist". Creation "Science" has given the world nothing but a museum.
No Wonder the late Colin Patterson (atheist darwinist and senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history) could say that evolutionism was comprised of stories about "how one thing came from another - stories easy enough to make up but they are not science".
in Christ,
Bob
So? Just because one guy doesn't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
