 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Lots of religious fruit cakes in this country. What a shame. LMAO
True, but not all religious people are nut cases. Lots of atheists are too. It is a shame that people can't listen to another's opinion and think before blurting an acrimonious reply.
Believe me, many religious people are rational, thoughtful, non-hypocritical seekers of truth. We're not all like Ron.
You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
That is true – we aren't all nutcases. This is coming from a Greek Orthodox. While my priests allow a gay couple to sit in the front pew, and I often see the priests talking casually to them; yet at the same time, my bishops are discretely shifting money around for political interest. This is enough for me to agree with you completely.
WOW your parents let the gays sit next to them. You must be the classy kind of church people. /facepalm
There are a lot of fruitcakes in this country in general.
Yup, pretty much. Like the saying, it takes all kinds. Well, we got them all. lolol
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." ...Moses Deut. 8:3/Jesus Mathew 4:4
Yep. God supports slavery and says to beat your children.
Do you really think Ron cares about your responses or that it has any effect on him?
I agree, but at least others can see the contradictions in his statements.
Troll, I care and respond to the sincere. I prefer to not respond to the fool who says in his heart there is no God.
So you'll only respond to people who agree with you on the existence of god?
Ron,
So does God support slavery? Yes or no?
Does the Bible say to beat your children with rods for discipline? Yes or no?
Ooooops! Why not read a full Bible someday?
Tony, I respond to those who are sincere. Those who have hardened their hearts towards God are no longer open to the truth. They have chosen to believe a lie and God will often turn such people over to their own delusions. There are exceptions, but it is a scarry thing when one has chosen to set God aside from their lives. He will not be mocked, what a man sows that he wil also reap.
Ron,
Sorry you missed the questions or are too afraid to admit the truth about what the Bible says.
So does God support slavery? Yes or no?
Does the Bible say to beat your children with rods for discipline? Yes or no?
Completely stumped?
Observer, you speak as a fool. I am only responding because of your insistence. I give you credit for that. Can a man judge God? Do you feel you are more righteous than God?
Ron,
Speaking of being a fool, why do you preach the Bible and then be so TOTALLY CLUELESS about what it says?
Ron,
What you're saying is that you won't respond to trolls/disrespectful people. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are plenty of people who disagree with you who are more than willing to have a conversation about the issue. It sounds like you're painting with too broad of a brush.
You forgot the part where is says to kill your children for disobeying. They human race would not survive long if people actually followed the bible.
Please read the Ten Commandments
And what does evolution support? Eugenics. The sterilization/elimination of undesirables.
Suddenly, religion doesn't look so bad.
Evolution supports the sterilization of "undesireables"? Where the F are you getting your info from? ...and what are you smoking?
I doubt Ron's actually read the bible. He has his favorite quotes, and the rest is likely whatever his church 'interpreted' for him.
"The fool who says in his heart there is no God."
Ron, like so many, many others, must recite the writings of people centuries ago. He can't speak in his own voice very well, but even worse, he thinks ancient claims about a magical being are actually convincing.
The fool says in his heart that his weak wishes are timeless truths; the wise one uses his >head< and leads the pursuit of actual knowledge.
The fool thinks he has all the answers, but they are just opinions. yeah, we know you can't see God, we get it. But the experiences, witnesses from the Old and New Testament are a convincing argument that speaks to most people and 'rings' true.
You don't have to believe, but don't try to belittle the majority of the human race because your tiny mind leads you to believe differently. The only difference in your tired athiest arguments from the ones made years ago are that you are foolish enough to be so certain you are right.
"The fool thinks he has all the answers, but they are just opinions".
Very true! And we doubters remind them all the time that they don't. Can you imagine someone who is swayed by the writings of people thousands of years ago? Unbelievably gullible!
"yeah, we know you can’t see God, we get it".
Yeah, sure. But you CAN see this magic character. In your imagination. This is why you folks always call it a "personal experience", AS IF that is a way we find out what is objectively true.
The only thing that ‘rings’ true is that most folks are not good thinkers, and are very naive.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing bad ideas. In fact, we should do it more.
And it's not those with tiny minds who demand actual evidence for spectacular claims. Tiny minds better describes those who swallow ancient stories, & believe their imagination is more reliable than facts.
I don't believe "differently"; I believe based upon reason & evidence, which are the only standards that we should apply to fantastic claims. That means, my beliefs are better grounded than yours, not just "different".
The only thing tiring about our arguments is that we have to repeat them so often, since the average unthinking person doesn't get them.
Certain we are right!? We're not the ones who construct huge buildings all over the world and gather in them to talk to invisible magical beings, or carry around "prayer rugs" so we can face a certain direction and get on our knees 5 times every day.
If I were to do things like that, I'd have to be pretty certain.
I have no hatred for the religious. I feel bad for them when they allow religion to worsen their lives and I feel good for them when it brings them strength and hope. If you use your faith to do good, help the disadvantaged for example, I have no issue with that. If you however use religion as an excuse to hurt others I do have an issue with that.
Most religious people I find have little understanding of the Bible or its teachings. They pick out the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't. Jesus taught non violence, as did Gandhi, but the Bible does have a lot of senseless violence in it. It has been my experience that most Christians are like most non christians. They are both good and bad. Christianity has people like Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. Atheists have people like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. But christianity also has Hitler and atheists have Stalin.
Religion is not a "source of evil" but it has been routinely used to inspire evil deeds. I have no belief in God. I am a proud atheist. Even the Pope today says it is possible for an atheist to go to heaven! While I appreciate his invitation I am reasonably sure that in the end I will simply be dead and gone and my life must speak for itself. I like the teachings of Jesus and without the possiblity of reward I try to be decent and honorable. The difference between atheists and believers is we do good for free and you guys do it for that reward. I prefer my rationale.
Which god?
The one for the rich
or the other one
So which Christians have given all their wealth to the poor yet
Many. I even know those who have given away their shoes and walked home barefoot. If you got out there you would see them. But that is not even the whole point of religion. There are doctors that know what smoking does but they smoke anyway.
Different doctrines and disciplines will always yield different types of followers and disciples. But this has more to do with the differences in the followers than it does with the religion itself.
There is lots of good that you know you should do to better yourself which you probably don't: Exercising more, or eating a healthier meal maybe. That's down to you, and not the doctrine in question.
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words wll not pass away." ...Jesus Mark 13:31
Posting stupid quotes over and over does nothing but annoy everyone. Unless you think you're annointing the comment section or something?
Sammy, your ignorance of the Word of God and the power of God is showing.
Ronny, your whole understanding of god is to post inane, pointless quotes over and over like a bot. Fuck off, troll.
ron: and your attributing the words of man to god is insane
"He upholds all things by the Word of His power." ...Hebrews 1:3
Does he uphold my wang?
Disgusting.
cowardly
Hilarious!
Hilarious if your vulgar and low class.
ohengineer. Calling someone low class loses any credibility when your grammar is so poor.
What's wrong with wang holding?
He sure upholds MY wang! And I am thankful for the celestial wang holding.
You know, there are kids to whom parents say that the stove/candle/heater are hot and not to go near them and the kids believe and obey... then there are those that need the proof. I'm not against people being atheists, but very often they choose this path for the lack of knowledge. Sure they get a lot of information from their sources, but they rarely seek the information from the believers. I have been healed by God from cocaine and alcohol addiction, have been free of it for over 2.5 years. I know people who have been healed from mental and physical ailments. There is nothing you could say to me to change my mind about God. I have seen miracles.
"... very often atheists choose this path for the lack of knowledge"
Your evidence for that? Atheists tend to be well informed and lack belief in any gods because there is no evidence.
You may be grateful for your recovery (and so am I) but there's no evidence that a god did it – just your determination and presumably the help of your friends and family.
You repeating this again and again simply doesn't make it true...
Atheists are merely willfully obtuse. The evidence that the cosmos could not occur by itself is quite common, yet they, in their scientific arrogance, reject anything that does fit their narrative.
"The evidence that the cosmos could not occur by itself is quite common"
What you mean to say is that the BELIEF is quite common.
How interesting that you know better than scientists.
And how interesting that theists reject ideas that are too difficult to imagine or understand, only to promote ideas for which there is not the slightest evidence.
A theist thinks there must be gods, and his only "evidence" is he doesn't understand any other way.
Two names:
Long Island Medium and John Roberts....be forewarned and REPENT sinners!
OK; you got me.
haha!
Go REDSKINS...not a racist term I hear Yaweh likes them too!
That analogy is backwards. The atheist seeks proof before believing in any creator based belief system. The theist believes simply because somebody told them. When a kid touches the stove they know it's hot because it burns them. That is the proof. Whereas religion has absolutely zero evidence, so believing it is like believing in Santa, you simply take your parent's word for it and call it a day with no critical thinking or testing done whatsoever.
'Getting information from believers' is one of the most nonsensical phrases I've read in a long time.
There are no humans who know what god is or what god wants or whether there is a god or not. Humans have faith. Christians have a holy book that was compiled by a Roman emperor, edited, added to, translated and interpreted but every word is the unerring word of god.
Atheists claim to know that something doesn't exist which they can't know.
This is why I am a humanist.
My brother is very religious and he said, 'if you imagine that your eternal life is a strip two miles long then this life is just one inch of it and why be so concerned with today?'
I can only answer because I can see and feel and think about that inch right now and the rest is speculation.
The one thing and most important thing atheists are missing is lack of Faith, and that comes from God. Faith in knowing God exists without actually seeing him. We see his creation and are awed, I also have seen miracles, it boosts my faith.
BRAVO! Well said!
Self deception is almost as scary as blind faith
HAL9000?
Is Harry Potter real? He has some books too.
Harry potter is real
As real as God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster 🙂
Fortunately we have direct testimony from JK Rowling herself to know that Potter is not real.
Millions of people can testify that they have seen him and his magic. He must be real!
Here is a good one for the women out there.
Genesis 3:16 –
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Aint that just swell?
Yet women worship this repulsive religion. It's baffling to me! They're blamed for all the ailments of humanity.
You know, there are kids to whom parents say that the stove/candle/heater are hot and not to go near them and the kids believe and obey... then there are those that need the proof. I'm not against people being atheists, but very often they choose this path for the lack of knowledge. Sure they get a lot of information from their sources, but they rarely seek the information from the believers. I have been healed by God from cocaine and alcohol addiction, have been free of it for over 2.5 years. I know people who have been healed from mental and physical ailments. There is nothing you could say to me to change my mind about God. I have seen miracles.
And childbirth is a beautiful thing, pain and all. I have been through it. My daughter is worth 100 times more pain to me.
There is no such thing as a miracle. However, there is mass hysteria and delusions. I understand how you might be confused.
The TRUTH is that most men with any kind of power or privilege, no matter how small, are not true believers. And, they are NOT humble before God. Sure, they claim to be, but let's face it - church is a great place to meet people and forge business contacts. We are men, and we like being numero-uno. So, while we bow reverently and freely give our testimony of how God and Jesus changed our hearts, we are really just blowing smoke. And, that includes your preacher.
ah so it's all about the money?!?!
Just ask the televangelists.
Well, while the goat herders were figuring out how the universe started they had to pause and explain why childbirth was so painful and why women needed to do what the men wanted, didn't they?
Yep, women are treated like 2nd class citizens in the bible. It clearly mentions it multiple times. That's why it took so long for women priests to be accepted. The belief system is based on inequality and ridiculously outdated, yet folks still follow it as if it's absolute truth because of indoctrination. It's funny whenever somebody overcomes something (ie Katie's cocaine addiction above), they always credit god, yet when crap hits the fan, or something unfavorable happens, you don't hear them blaming god. It's absurd. Take credit for your own actions, YOU overcame cocaine addiction, not god. I'm not saying your belief couldn't have helped motivate you, but to just ignore everything you did and to say 'god did it' is silly. It's like when somebody scores a super bowl winning touchdown they act like they didn't do it, they just say that it's all god. It had nothing to do with working hard for years to perfect your game, it was all some magical sky man that must apparently think winning in football is important. He must be a sports better.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)
Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
–Genesis 38:9
RON, I BELIEVE YOU KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH HAS MADE YOU FREE !!!
My name is Ron.
I quote ancient books to show my wisdom. I don't think for myself, or I'd realize how preposterous god beliefs were in the 21st Century.
Don't try to get me to think about it or I'll give you another old quote.
Oy...here we go now.
"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." ...Colossians 1:17
"Ron is a great blowhard. Surely he hath no fun in his life." –Babylonians 4:12
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse (sky) is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." .....Pslm 19:1-2
"Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude." – Walter Sobchak
^^ gibberish ^^
"if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God."
Good, I don't fancy spending eternity with a genocidal maniac.
if i don't go to hell, i'll miss all my friends...
plus i want to talk to ghandi and john lennon.
Christ, I actually want to go to Heaven. I forgot the King of the Luddites and the King of the Hippies would be in Hell.
Save me Jebus. Save me from the eternal torment of hippies and sarcastic luddites.
I just want to find out where Hendrix went and adjust accordingly.
If you're bored now, just think what eternity will be like in heaven where you don't get to do anything at all.,
In 2001, scientists announced an amazing discovery: the oldest skull of a human ancestor ever found. The 3½ million year old fossil was remarkably complete, and unlike any previous fossil find. Its discovery – by a team led by Meave Leakey of the famous Leakey fossil-hunting family – has revolutionised our understanding of how humans evolved.
The great mystery of our evolution is how an ape could have evolved into the extraordinary creature that is a human being. There has never been another animal like us on the planet. And yet ten million years ago there was no sign that humans would take over the world. Instead the Earth was dominated by the apes. More than 50 different species of ape roamed the world – ten million years ago Earth really was the planet of the apes. Three million years later, most had vanished. In their place came something clearly related to the apes, but also completely different: human beings!
(YouTube published July 25,2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDwXrawJ_Go
Humans did not evolve from apes, we are in the Ape family,Hominidae, but we evolved from a common ancestor with other Apes.
I don't think there was ever a time when "the apes dominated the Earth", except in the movies.
Lol apes never dominated the world
Uhm ... they do now!
Belief Blog's a day or two late on this one.
It's a much more professional ad design than the stuff the atheists put up in Florida.
Aesthetic appeal shouldn't cloud the truth. That's why Catholic churches are so well decorated and architecturally appealing. It clouds the BS.
Christian orgainizations have more money. No surprise there... I wonder why?
Still you have to admit Silverman's stuff was amateurish.
meh, I'm not a fan of Silverman's tactics.
Agreed, Bill. The ad is much more appealing to the senses, and perhaps the mind. It was a clever ad, but I have no idea if it was a clever move.
I understand Silverman, but he does need to let somebody else take the reigns at AA. The tactics should be far more subtle and give some measureable result.
Yep. Because the church is a multi million dollar business. Keep giving your hard earned money for a ticket to heaven, as they throw your money away to advertising. LOL.
I'm more in line with non literal / non sequential for the six day creation account. Obviously the bible was not written to divulge the the fundamentals of the universe, that wasn't its purpose. Furthermore it was written in a ancient time where talking about modern day cosmology would not have conveyed the intended message.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL83DcR56BY&w=640&h=360]
http://www.skepdic.com/rivas.html
That's one thing I am thankful for when I am speaking to friends and family who are moderate Christians – that I don't have to listen to the crazy twisted Creationist dilly-whacking BS mumbo jumbo .
"Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God."
Although, no where on their site that I'm aware of does AIG allow any discuss of their "articles".
Caveat lector
^ discussion
"In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years."
+++ this is unbelievably sad. that more americans believe the world was created by magic 10K years ago is sad. to ignore the myriad of evidence that shows the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago is beyond ridiculous, it's willful ignorance. it's wanting to stay ignorant, reveling in it. creationism is a disservice to the truth. it is a disservice to all the men and women that have painstakingly gathered data over years, decades and centuries. saying "Goddidit!" is a disservice to humanity in general, a device to retard our progress.
Creationism and Young Earth are two different beliefs.
Look at all the evidence that science is constantly revising
"A new exhibit in Brazil showcases artifacts dating as far back as 30,000 years ago - throwing a wrench in the commonly held theory humans first crossed to the Americas from Asia a mere 12,000 years ago."
yes, it's one of the most admiral things about science, something religion lacks - science can admit when it's wrong. science can revise definitions when more evidence comes in – but you seem to think that's a bad thing. religion is exactly the opposite - no matter how much evidence is gathered to show it's wrong, religion says they got everything 100% perfect with one neat answer - Goddidit!
creationism = intellectually lazy
why look for answers? GODDIDIT!
So you admit science can be wrong, but then call it ignorance for not believing the current estimate of 4.5 billion years, knowing it can be revised?
As for " no matter how much evidence is gathered to show it's[religion] wrong," can you please provide one?
1. Yes, it's terrible that science changes its position as new evidence comes to light. It should remain static and unchanging because that's the reasonable thing. [/end sarcasm]
2. Well, for one thing, we know lightning isn't thrown by Zeus, people can't survive in the bellies of fish, and the planet does not rest on the back of a giant elephant.
@Hope this helps,
Revisions in the age of the Earth are likely never to be of any large amount, relative to the total. As with most science it is a process of refining the facts and applying new data.
"So you admit science can be wrong, but then call it ignorance for not believing the current estimate of 4.5 billion years, knowing it can be revised?"
+++ yes, absolutely. you debate that? you're saying that if someone is capable of admitting they are wrong that they can't be right? that's your logic? hahaha. as opposed to the person that says they are never wrong even when they are? that's the logic you follow?
evidence for evolution? how much do you want? here's some basic websites to get you started, since you have obviously chosen to keep yourself ignorant of the information:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Let's define what science is...
the job of science is not to make historical claims, that is the branch of knowledge called history.
Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?
Evolution, as an origin, is not a repeatable experiment.
"2. Well, for one thing, we know lightning isn't thrown by Zeus, "
That is not in the historical writing of the Gospel of Jesus who is the Christ.
Still would like to see one example.
Most of the greatest men in history are belivers in creationism. You blanket comment that creationism is intellectually lazy is a fairly lazy comment by you. In truth there are many layers to all beliefs and one issue I have with the current state of our science is that most people that believe in the big bang believe that all that we see in the universe came from one single point of space that at some point was so small it did not exist either. So, which is it? Are we all formed from some point in space that had everything in the universe packed into some point that basically was so small it could not be measured or noticed or did we come from intelligent design? I will say this...everytime that we think we know something about how we got here we find out we weren't even close. Too many people on here act as if they know exactly what happened when time began. Creationsism....I get that, they have a FAITH and they are bound to that...doesn't mean they can't live and function and contribute in a big way to the greater good...in fact, just the opposite. Atheists....I see them as a group that really wants people to hear them say they don't believe....OK...you have been heard so if you don't have FAITH in creationism go find your own way but here is where I do have an issue. I don't see the believers of a particular creations based faith on here knocking atheists for their faith in NOTHINGism. What I do see is a group (atheists) that are not just here to talk but to nag at believers like little kids that have always gotten their way, spoiled to believe that anyone that does not have their belief system is wrong or crazy. I know many faith based people in this world and they are by far the easiest to get along with and provide a lot of value to our society. On the other hand...the atheists that I know will tell you how smart they are even though at my lab they are usually the ones you can't trust. Sad really.
But you know whats really sad? That you have been found out to be a quack. If you understand about all this in your LAB it's funny how you only hold atheists up to the same light of atheists in numbers being more dishonest. You should know that is a subjective experiential personal scenario and has nothing to do with truth science or creationism. You sir are intellectually and morally dishonest.
I believe that DNA testing supports the Bering Sea crossing, but even if these paintings are that old all it means is that the people got there sooner maybe by some other way – it is not proof of any kind of creationism nor does it refute evolution.
Kudos AIG!
God Bless!
It takes more faith to be an evolutionist.
silly statement. scientists follow facts and evidence. there are MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution. it's a theory and a fact. no faith needed - just logic and reasoning.
Mountains of evidence? in your dream!!
yes, fossil records alone proves evolution.
And the fossil record is the weakest of the evidences for evolution at that. ERVs are even stronger.
List the transitional fossil evidence for Man.
Most ridiculous statement I've read on this blog "fossil records alone proves evolution"
Let's define what science is...
the job of science is not to make historical claims, that is the branch of knowledge called history.
Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?
Evolution, as an origin, is not a repeatable experiment.
here's a decently thorough list for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
seriously, Mike, you could look this stuff up yourself instead of remaining willfully ignorant on the subject.
@Mike Rowan,
"List the transitional fossil evidence for Man."
Ho.mo Erectus, Ho.mo Habilis, Australopithicus (sp?), etc.
for more see: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
Oncler wrote:
"Most ridiculous statement I've read on this blog "fossil records alone proves evolution"
+++ why? they do.
Go through this and tell us how your faith has to be stronger in evolution in spite of the limitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Limitations_of_the_fossil_record
@Oncler
"Most ridiculous statement I've read on this blog 'fossil records alone proves evolution'"
While science doesn't technically deal in "proofs", the fossil record is quite substantial and convincing.
Well, Mike, the fossil record isn't the only evidence for evolution and, as I stated, is the weakest of the myriad of evidences. There's ERVs, there's commonality within DNA, commonality within physiology, there's anatomical vestiges, so on and so forth. In fact, we can see the process of a given mammal's evolution within the development of embryos and fetuses.
@Funk
the most obvious reason is conditions required for fossilization and preservation. No one will argue that a species does not evolve to live in its environment. Problems arrive with ideas such as "punctuated equilibrium". The idea is extreme and requires "faith" because it is unobservable. Why would such extreme explanation be needed for something you consider lock tight? The fossil record is the weak link in evolution. There is no "missing link" that has been found.
So, you don't have fossil evidence. We can agree on that.
@ Me2 and @Funk
look at @ Max comment in this thread even he/she admits that the fossil record is the weakest link in the theory of evolution. Hence that's why i posted " the most ridiculous comment"
No fossil evidence, moving on to biochemical evidence such as cyto-C– is just one of the thousands of sequences and is not proof of common ancestry, as there are more variations than similarities in the genetic code, on the other hand a study of the amino acid make-up reveals that man is closer to lamprey than are fish.
@Oncler, saying the fossil record is the weakest is not the same thing as saying it's not substantial or sufficient.
@Mike: You were given fossil evidence. Saying none was given is a blatant lie.
"The idea is extreme and requires "faith" because it is unobservable."
+++ bad logic. not everything has to be immediately observed. for instance, take a murder crime scene. do we really have to be there to piece together the facts? evidence and facts found at the scene can piece it together. you don't actually have to see the person get shot in the head. blood splatter analysis can tell you the person was kneeling and 3 feet from the wall. yet the blood splatter expert wasn't there to witness the murder firsthand - how can he say his information is factual then? we don't have to be standing there to watch creatures evolve to prove evolution. again, you are ignoring the mountains of evidence that back up evolution.
do you have any evidence that evolution is not true?
@Mike Rowan,
"So, you don't have fossil evidence. We can agree on that."
No, we can not agree.
Cytochrome-C variations correlate very closely with the order of evolution, i.e. variations align with the branches or clades in the "tree of life".
A study of enJSRV has been shown to regulate trophectoderm growth and supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and mammalian reproduction.Also,non-coding portions of DNA and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles and is not evidence of common descent.
Try again.
@Funk
you know my jab about "unobservale" was only in sarcasm. Its something atheist like to through around but hate when they are told it...so yawn to your example... it doesn't refute what i posted "most ridiculous". Fossil evidence is poor not due to lack of effort but the remarkable conditions need to be formed and be preserved and luck needed to find one. No one will argue evolution is not real in the sense a species will evolve to live in is environment, as i already posted. What people will argue is that life didn't get to where it is by mindless processes.
Really what does it matter if all life is connected? What does it matter if DNA shows little variation? It doesn't help either position more than the other. A person could say it shows that a single God created all things from a few sources of life. Or that the "creator" created all things so they would be connected in origin. If all life is connected we can use it benefit both sides of the argument.
Mike, what you said about ERVs has nothing to do with exactly why they're important to evolution.
Let me help you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
"A study of enJSRV has been shown to regulate trophectoderm growth and supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and mammalian reproduction.Also,non-coding portions of DNA and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles and is not evidence of common descent."
There is a distinction between contributions of ERVs to developmental pathways and the phylogenetic relationships that correlate to the inter and intra-species distributions of ERVs. Furthermore, that a molecular vestigial component has some functionality is not the same as having the same initial functionality. Lastly, there is also a distinct difference between transcription and actual biological functionality as has been pointed out numerous times in response to the grossly inflated claims of the ENCODE project.
Still, feel free to explain why we humans, placental mammals, have a defunct gene for egg yolk production. You could also explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve and male nip-ples while you're at it . . .
"Sequence analysis of JSRV, ENTV and enJSRV suggests that enJSRV do not directly contribute to the pathogenesis of ovine pulmonary adenocarcinoma (OPA) or enzootic nasal tumor through large-scale recombination events, but small-scale recombination or complementation of gene function cannot be excluded;..."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12596897)
@Oncler – Regarding PE, it is by no means "extreme" and as it is restricted to the species-level, PE fits well with what we can directly see in the observation of speciation events, relatively rapid morphological adaptation (e.g. Pod Mrcaru lizards), and the progressive order of the fossil record. Furthermore, we can directly observe evidence for both PE and gradualism in the fossil record, although PE dominates the observations.
@red
PE fits because of the lack of fossils/evidence in the record. Don't make it out like PE helps the cause of evolution. Really its about what idea do you have more "faith" in...I guess you could chose neither...
@red & Me
like I already posted what does it matter if all life is connected? What does it matter if DNA shows little variation? It doesn't help either position more than the other. One could say it shows that a single God created all things from a few sources of life. Or that the "creator" created all things so they would be connected in origin. If all life is connected we can use it benefit both sides of the argument.
@Oncler
"look at @ Max comment in this thread even he/she admits that the fossil record is the weakest link in the theory of evolution. Hence that's why i posted ' the most ridiculous comment'"
I think Max's point was that even the weakest (his word, not mine) evidence is still strong and compelling evidence.
@Oncler
"like I already posted what does it matter if all life is connected? What does it matter if DNA shows little variation? It doesn't help either position more than the other."
Not sure I understand your point. Understanding how this planet and the universe in general actually works is important because we have to live here.
@Oncler – Your response betrays a miscomprehension of PE, particularly that it is restricted to species-level transitions wherein we have actual real time observations of speciation events to confirm the process. I further note that you ignored the fact that gradualism is also reflected in the fossil record (e.g. the Foraminifera). I would also suggest that you frame your limited understanding of PE in the context of contingent genetic history. PE does help evolution because, in combination with what we know of the molecular and organismal biology, this explains why we don't exclusively see smooth transitions in the fossil record. This is principally because: 1) the time scales are small; 2) the transitions arise in small populations with numbers too low to be effectively captured in the fossil record; and 3) we know that rather dramatic morphological changes can occur in relatively short time spans due to increased/relaxed selection pressures and the nature by which otherwise silent mutations can coalesce quickly with a final mutation to produce a novel pathway. This is not "faith" rather it is the product of direct observation, testing and replication.
Regarding the commonality of forms, common designer arguments, you have to explain why common morphologies frequently bear very distinct genetic make-ups, e.g. New World and Old World vultures. We have observed convergent evolution whereas there is no observation or evidence to support special creation ex nihilo. Additionally, invoking a "God did it" explanation is useless. An explanation that can explain any and every observation effectively explains nothing. Contrast this to evolution which can be falsified, e.g. a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, a true chimera, or a recorded observation of creation ex nihilo.
@ME
"Strong" and "compelling" is subjective to whom the evidence is presented to. The original point remains that touting the fossil record alone as the prof of evolution theory is ridiculous.
Understanding the Universe is important; not what i was conveying...
@red
First I have already noted numerous times that the fossil record is the weakest link in evolution due the conditions for fossil to form and preserve being demanding. 2nd what we know and see today in biology does not mean it happened in a time period where verification is not viable due to the lack of evidence (time scale and lack of fossils etc etc...) So if you say something happened based on what we see now because there is nothing we can verify its clearly a injection of faith based on what can me measured today. You can say it happened on faith because it happens today but you really don't know what happened.
Also no one is ignoring gradual evolution, I've already said its a take your pick based on whichever you have more faith in.
@Oncler,
Science doesn't deal in "proof's"; it is always tentative.
That being said, I think many scientists in the appropriate fields would consider the fossil evidence sufficient to accepting evolution as valid.
@red
to your second point about commonality of forms. The point I made is that common forms does not refute a creator. The argument you use about distinct genetic make ups and convergent evolution bear nothing on what i stated. Because we observe a process it does not mean we understand it. You observe life but yet in a naturalistic view you have no idea how and where it originated. You may say well possibly here or there but this process can not even be executed in a controlled lab with all of our tech.
@ Me
The fossil evidence is weak due to natural processes and needs support. Its possible they would except evolution and possible they would reject it but they wouldn't base the decision on fossil evidence alone and that's my point.
@Oncler – When we can repeatedly observe distinct evolutionary progression in the fossil record throughout every form of life AND we can corroborate these observations with every relevant scientific discipline, e.g. astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology (molecular & organismal), ecology, etc, to discount them out of hand is ridiculous. This is akin to the man who argues that the paternity test identifying him as a father is unreliable because no one recorded the act of conception. You are free to maintain your doubt, but this doubt is by any rational standard, an unreasonable doubt in light of the evidence.
@red
I also have to point out in any view of life no one knows where it (life) originated. I don't get stuck on GODDIDIT, i'd like to know how and welcome new data. My point is no one knows and we place our faith in what we see best.
@Red
I'm not denying evolution within species. I'm denying a mindless process that has brought life to where it is. These scientific repeatable experiments require for many things to have been just right (guided). Because we can do test over and over doesn't mean we know how life originated or how we got to where we are. I don't believe in a mindless process...i dont have enough faith to do so.
@Oncler – Regarding common forms, you are correct. There is no way to disprove a supernatural creator; however, as I said before, invoking this argument is a clear example of an argument of incredulity based in an argument of ignorance. Any explanation which can account for any and all observations effectively explains nothing. Evolution is falsifiable, creationism is not. Regarding your demand that all science be reduced to replication in a lab betrays a fundamental miscomprehension of the practice of science.
@Oncler – "I'm not denying evolution within species. I'm denying a mindless process that has brought life to where it is."
This is akin to accepting inches exist, but that they could never add up to produce miles. When you reference a "mindless" process, you'll need to account for the demonstrated ability of "mindless" evolutionary processes to produce novel functionality at both the micro (Lenski's E.coli) and macro scales (Pod Mrcaru lizards). You are still free to invoke the invisible magic hand of a deity, but when you cannot point to any example which requires this invisible magic hand, the reasonable default is that this claim is a superfluous imposition.
@Oncler – Feel free to have the last word here, but before I go, I submit to you that because the evidence supporting evolution comes from virtually every known scientific discipline, e.g. astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology (molecular & organismal), etc, to claim evolution is so flawed as to be effectively worthless requires that this failing originate in the supporting sciences. In other words, creationists inadvertently reject the entire scientific enterprise as unreliable, yet they clearly recognize its demonstrated value. You're attempting to have it both ways solely to preserve an a priori religious belief with no supporting empirical physical evidence. You're certainly free to do so, but please don't attempt to maintain that yours is the more reasoned or rational position.
@red
your the one touting repeatable experiments. I didn't say i need everything replicated in a lab. I'm saying you don't know how life got started and that it hasn't been replicated in a lab despite our tech. You like to put words in my postings but don't respond to what i say...
@ red
When you point a simple form of life that can perform functions for its survival it doesn't negate God. Why would I have to prove God created things in such a way they could evolve to better live? I don't get your arguments, when i'm talking about the origin of life you go on to other things... You we can come with a ideal situation and from a hypothesis of how life could have originated. When you see how many things had to go right you find it took a miracle.
It is a "theory and a fact"? Wow...something new for science...again! It is either or...not both. By the way....anything designed or theoried by man is flawed. Including the whole argument trail here.
Not sure what an "evolutionist" would be, but the Theory of Evolution is science not faith.
Evolution is a a theory, in the absence of observable evidence that complex structures can some how evolve magically it rests solely on the faith of the one making a claim.
It's both fact and theory. It's a fact that it happens. The theory is about how it happens. Furthermore, things in science don't become theories until there's evidence for them.
it's obvious you don't know what the word "theory" means in the scientific community. lol.
A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of how the world works and is based on evidence, laws, and other theories. A theory is not promoted to something else when it is "proven" it extremely solid understand, e.g. theory of gravity, electromagnetism, etc.
No where in the Theory of Evolution is magic invoked.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. – AAAS
(http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml )
he doesn't know what a theory is, Maxwell. he doesn't understand that a theory in science is so well-tested and backed up by evidence that it is 'true' much like a law.
mike, the word you are looking for is hypothesis. evolution is not a hypothesis. here's a website that explains hypothesis, theory and law: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
read it and learn what the words you are using mean.
That is why evolution remains a theory! That is exactly why you need to have faith.
In other words, you didn't read a word any of us had written.
You hold on to the "theory" and deny having any faith?!
You've had it explained to you why a theory doesn't require faith. Continuing to say it does is both pathetic and dishonest.
A theory remains a theory and in the absence of evidence you need to have faith to hold on to the theory till another theory takes its place or is proven to be a fact.
yes, we have. you just keep ignoring the answer because it doesn't back up your fantasy of an invisible sky fairy. the reason you don't need faith with a theory is because it is backed up by well-tested evidence. do you have another question?
my god, you really don't know what the word "theory" means. theories ARE backed up by fact. lol.
at this point you just seem like a child that doesn't want to accept the truth. you keep confusing "hypothesis" with "theory". theories are proven by fact. you may not like it, but there it is.
Look, if it makes you comfortable that what you believe in is just a theory with no evidence, so be it, accept the fact that it is a theory that you need faith to believe in it. It is ok, we all have faith, it's just that your faith is in a "theory".
Continuing to refer to evolution as just a theory betrays a fundamental miscomprehension of a scientific theory and its status in the scientific enterprise. Regarding the development of complex functionality, here are a few examples: 1) RNA aptamers; 2) Lenski's E.coli; and 3) the Pod Mrcaru lizards. All of these demonstrate the ability of evolutionary processes to yield novel and complex functionality.
@Mike Rowan,
"Look, if it makes you comfortable that what you believe in is just a theory with no evidence, so be it,..."
Repeating your statement makes it no less false.
"'Just a Theory': 7 Misused Science Words
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words
The " theory" of evolution is not a fact, in the absence of evidence you need faith in your 'theory'. You can call it a theory or anything else you want, it has been pointed out multiple times you need faith to believe in the theory of evolution. Do you have an observable process in which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism?
@Mike Rowan,
"... it has been pointed out multiple times you need faith to believe in the theory of evolution."
And it has been pointed out multiple times that you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Fossils, Genetics (Human Chromosome-2, ERVs), Biogeography, Biochemestry, etc.
"Do you have an observable process in which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism?"
Sure, mutations, duplications, transcription errors, etc.
Over the years, scientists have proposed several mechanisms by which new genes are generated. These include gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination.
(http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835)
@Mike Rowan,
Observed in studies like Lenski"s long tern e.coli experiment:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
You have been proved wrong and you keep repeatedly posting the same bunkum that has been refuted before.In the absence of evidence you must have tremendous faith as an evolutionist.
A study of enJSRV has been shown to regulate trophectoderm growth and supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and
mammalian reproduction.Also,non-coding portions of DNA and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles and is not evidence of common descent
Cyto-C is just one of the thousands of sequences and is not proof of common ancestry,as there are more variations than similarities in the genetic code,
Mutations do not add new information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information,
and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.
experimental evidence such as Lenski's long term e.coli experment-shows adaptation of the bacteria to its culture and does not prove evolution.
The Theory of Gravity is "just a theory" too. Mind jumping out of a tall building for us Mike?
I personally believe in evolution though I see some problems with it such as Behe's irreducible complex idea. I asked by college science professor about it and she said there is evidence for it and evidence against it. If evolution is true, I simply see it being the way God choose to bring about creation and was not by chance.
Irreducible complexity is simply a fancy way of making an argument from incredulity.
at the end of the day, you're saying you believe the world was made by magic.
because we don't have 100% of an answer doesn't mean we should make one up. that's terrible logic.
also, Behe's irreducible complex idea has been debunked. they tried that with "eyes" saying they are too complex, how could they ever have formed? then they looked at flat worms. their eyes are so basic they just see light or dark. Behe's irreducible complex idea is bad logic. i would have thought your professor would have told you that - or was it a professor of theology that told you that?
You should know that all of Behe's examples of IR were shredded on cross-examination at the Dover trial. Furthermore, when critically examining Behe's published work modeling multi-residue protein-protein interactions, the highly contrived model intending to provide evidence for ID/IR actually shows the exact opposite, i.e. that evolutionary processes are clearly capable of producing these interactions.
Gravity is also a 'theory'. Do you also choose not to believe in it?
People are still using the "just a theory" argument? Really? It's not that complicated. Scientific theories are based on fact and repeated experiments. Theories don't magically become laws when proven. That is a falsehood perpetuated by creationists. If it were just a hypothesis, then they would have a point, but it's not. Hypotheses become theories when the phenomena in question gathers enough evidence to become verified. Evolution = genetic mutations (proven 100% and observed in any species on earth) sorted by natural selection (survival of the fittest, 100% proven). Please explain to me where the guessing part is? Folks just don't understand what evolution means and only look at the long term changes and stand there with their jaws wide open because they can't understand it. Evolution happens on the cellular level (DNA). Sorry it's absolutely valid in science and required no faith at all. That's like saying that faith is required to believe the earth revolves around the sun.
Well said barcs!
I'd go to a Creation Museum. I'm sure it'd be astounding at every turn, and hosted by people who actually (say) they believe it all.
This one looks like it will be more interesting - with *real* items and facts:
http://www.architizer.com/projects/world-toilet-museum/
I would go too. And I would make a game or challenge out of it. Find out how long I can keep a straight face without laughing. And if I can't, find out how well I can recover and pass it off like I'm laughing about something else.
"Oh I was just thinking about... bangers... in my mash? Sorry I'll pay attention."
I'd like to go just to have a nice laugh, but they charge something like $30 at the door. No chance I am helping to fund their lies. Apparently the museum is shutting down now that even the majority of creationists reject that young earth nonsense. It's just a marketing gimmick to make money. Ken Ham knows EXACTLY what he's doing. He's taking advantage of gullible folks with literal interpretations of ancient stories. No way do I believe for a second that he believes any of that BS.
The kind of people promoting this museum are RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS only a step away from the outrageous Moslem fundamentalists. And they are REAL ACHIEVERS: of atheism by providing, by means of their idiotic arguments, welcome fodder for the beliefs of the latter.
AIG. What a joke.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith )
hahaha! basically, he's saying facts aren't facts if they contradict the bible. LOL!
yep, they're a riot, no?
Yeah, AIG is laughably wrong in pretty much all of their claims. They constantly talk about interpreting the evidence differently but that's not the case. Science either proves something or it doesn't. There is no interpretation. If you observe hundreds of genomes and watch the genetic differences from parent to offspring it conclusively proves genetic mutation. If the sun is observed to always travel around the sun in a year's time, it becomes a fact. It's not up for interpretation or that god might be manually moving the earth. When you dig up a fossil that shows transition from one species to another, and then map their genomes and find the same types of links and mutations, it doesn't mean there's a magic force controlling the mutations. Unless there is evidence of this creator or force, they have no argument. Yeah we know cells are complex. That doesn't mean a god is required. It means we haven't fully understood them yet. It's not like scientists all go sit in a room and thinking about how they can disprove god. They analyze evidence and see where it points. Any creationist is able to analyze it for themselves and disprove it if they can. The problem is they cannot without fallacies and in general very poor understanding of the fundamentals of evolution.
MEII.. from your perspective your god gave you a brain. Please try to use it and try thinking for a change rather than repeating.
a large display of willful ignorance - something to be proud of.
that you completely ignore all facts, logic and reason - something to be proud of.
that you believe a book of fairy tales over mountains of evidence - something to be proud of.
stay classy, creationists!
They have made a lot of money with their ignorance. Just saying...