LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 839
- 130
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular "explanation" that inter-species transformation simply "occurs" over "millions of years" is profoundly dissatisfying, particularly in the complete absence of supporting archeological evidence.
Even the biological definition of "species" has been changed to fit this narrative: It used to be that different species would be unable to mate and have offspring capable of further reproduction (e.g., horses and donkeys producing sterile mules). Now this has changed to muddy the distinction between localized adaptations (like polar bears) and separate,genetically incompatible species. Thus have been created "hybrid species" and other euphemistic terms for dealing with these unanswered questions.
The longest running biological experiment in human history has been the specialization of dog breeds over the past 5,000 years, resulting in the greatest size variation (100+ times) of any animal that has every existed on Earth. But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs biologically capable of producing viable offspring. Why haven't they developed into different species?
We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?
No, believing in magic would be to accept the notion that one species somehow became another.Because they are backwards rubes who when it comes down to it prefer to believe in magic.Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"
Sounds worthy of attack to me.
We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
What this cartoon is really saying is that Christians should not be allowed to say anything that is contrary with what anyone wishes to do. Believe whatever you wish, just don't tell anybody --- you may offend them and hurt their feelings.
We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
because creationism isn't science.
science is science.
i hope you're no longer confused.
What this cartoon is really saying is that Christians should not be allowed to say anything that is contrary with what anyone wishes to do. Believe whatever you wish, just don't tell anybody --- you may offend them and hurt their feelings.
No. What this says is that Christians are not the ones who rule this country. Everyone else is entitled to the same rights, opinions, and liberties as Christians. To be told "no" is not prosecuting your beliefs. The OP claims that Evolutionists harass and prosecute Creationists, when it's really the other way around.
No, believing in magic would be to accept the notion that one species somehow became another.
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.
We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
because creationism isn't science.
science is science.
i hope you're no longer confused.
Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.
"Consider if you will something that helped get this evolution lie going. It concerns Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.
It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.
But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?
When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.
The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a 'new species of finch'."
We know the Christian view, why do they have to attack Evolution?
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
This thread is about the false notion that evolutionists attack creationists. It's not about why we don't teach creation in schools. Try to stay on topic.
"Consider if you will something that helped get this evolution lie going. It concerns Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.
It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.
But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?
When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.
The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a 'new species of finch'."
We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?
Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism
because creationism isn't science.
science is science.
i hope you're no longer confused.
Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.
In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint.
Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Edwards v. Aguillard
No, it's based on a lot of assumptions that require huge leaps of faith.Evolution is a theory predicated on facts and documented evidence,
(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular...