Originally posted by humblejoe
Alright, show us a respectable university that conducts a graduate degree in "creation science".
Who cares? You don't understand genetics enough to know the significance regardless of the similarities.
A shark, a whale, and a dog. Which two will be the closest genetically, and why?
How about a turtle, an alligator, and a bird? Which two will be the closest genetically and why?
Originally posted by npetreley
Can't argue with that, now, can we?
Sorry, Mozart, we aren't interested in hiring you as a high-school music teacher. You don't have a university degree in music theory.
Originally posted by npetreley
Now here's a question for you. How do you explain it when your geologic column has older strata above younger strata? You call it overthrust, even when a whole mountain has to have moved over fragile shale without damaging it in any way. I call it reading what you want to see in the evidence that might support your theory, and coming up with absurd explanations for any of the evidence that contradicts your theory.
Numbers (1993) reports that the outcrop that Lammerts describes is not the Lewis thrust, but is in reality an area located 200 ft above that fault. This invalidates Lammerts' claims since his descriptions of "thin layers of shale" were not made while he was examining the Lewis thrust.
Same goes for your genetic arguments.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Yes, the "all scientists are liars" story. We've heard it before.
Strange, I've never heard this "fact" until now. Which creationist web site did you get it from?
Except there's no evidence that that is really what happened. Why aren't there any primate fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs?
Originally posted by alexgb00
You are mixing "scientists" with "darwinists."
In some cases a person decides between his job and his honesty.
I cited five for you, but i found at least 200 professional (not geocities.com) sites that state this fact.
Immediately, they were portrayed as slouched over, violent, brute/ape-like cavemen. And this image was carried on until almost 1960. At this time, scientists realized that the first found Neanderthal had arthritis, and they did in fact walk upright.
That's the most anti-intellectual statement I've heard all year.
Why don't primates appear with dinosaurs? I can't say that's really true, but if it is, it could be the same reason you'll never find a rabbit fossil alongside a dolphin. They simply don't live around each other.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
[re: mixing scientists with darwinists]
How do we tell which is which?
Originally posted by npetreley
It should be extremely easy to tell them apart. Scientists engage in scientific studies and experiments. Darwinists dream up fairy tales to explain why data supports their theory and even more imaginative fairy tales to explain away data that contradicts their theory, and then they call that process "science."
Originally posted by alexgb00
I see that you've never been in a situation where your life was on the line. You'd have a different reply otherwise.
God bless you!
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Interesting description of Darwinist.. Can you now locate a person who fits that description, and some documented examples of this behaviour from them?
Originally posted by LouisBooth
I think talkorgins was a great example
Originally posted by npetreley
Sure. Here's a good place to start. Check out all the writings of people making arguments in favor of evolution at these sites:
http://www.christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=70
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Originally posted by npetreley
Darwinists dream up fairy tales to explain why data supports their theory and even more imaginative fairy tales to explain away data that contradicts their theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?