jcnmyhart #fundie

jcnmyhart #fundie rr-bb.com

I have studied 'evolution' and the evidence. The conclusion...evolution is an unsupported 'theory' put forth by a man who was limited in his (Darwin) research at the given time. The evidence now concludes far more intricate, intelligent than we ever imagined! Go to Institute for Creation Research...I have been to Dr. Morris's classes on 'creationism' and let me tell you, I would love to see the top 'evolution' professor refute the evidence! Praise God!

52 comments

old comment by PudelGrl

dpareja... don't give him that much credit, I'm sure a decent second-year undergrad biologist would do just fine.

Biology is a weird science, in my university it is by far the most academically demanding subject to be accepted into as an undergrad (the highest entrance average, and the most number of students turned away each year), yet so many non-scientists (and even non-biologists) like to suggest that what we are studying is the obvious, or that we don't know what we're talking about. I'd love to slap some of them in my research lab and confuse the crap out of them (though I imagine confusion would cause them to conclude I'm making crap up).

old comment by pete

We have: fossils, dogs, apples, genetic paleontology, bananas, wheat, grapes, goats, cattle, IQ's of above room temperature, nylon eating bacteria, drug resistant diseases, multiple legitimate experts in varied fields, house cats, beans, radiometric dating, pecans, pigs, tools/artifacts of more than a million years in age, corn, living fossils, isolated subspecies, horses, roses, and races of humans who have been shaped by evolution.

You have: AIG, ICR, ignorant shit-kickers who couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag with a machete and a grenade, and Kent Hovind; and you can't produce a legitimate degree between them.

We also use language as a means to convey ideas, emotions and data while you folks slaughter the English language in the most inhumane manner imaginable.

We win by such an overwhelming margin that it has become clear that you creationists are dumb as a bag of broken, headless, hammers that were poorly designed in the first place. Please accept my warm invitation to bed down in a blast furnace before you start crashing the IQ of the entire internet.

old comment by bob saget

The greatest flaw in the scientific argument that God created the earth is that such a hypothesis is not scientific. Evolution, the origin of life and the Big Bang can all be proved (or disproved) by concrete, tangible evidence and math. Saying God did it is an interesting theory, but such a theory cannot be debated because there is no science to refute or back it up. It is not scientific.

I also find it deliciously ironic that a god who trumpets the virtues of faith would scientifically prove such a pivotal tenant of Christianity. Perhaps, then, it's possible he didn't and you're showing your own lack of faith by trying to validate your own religion with science.
(note: I know creation isn't a major tenant of Christianity. Fundies don't.)

P.S.: jcnmyhart, English talked to me the other day and told me it doesn't like it when you rape it.

old comment by wysage

Unfortunately, many well trained biologists with PhD's did not do well debating Morris and his accomplice in deception (Duane Gish). We know many facts in biology, but much of the time the liars use facts in astronomy, geology and other sciences to suggest to the audience that the earth is young. As an undergraduate student I really didn't know why the oceans did not have much sediment and the moon did not have much dust. What can we say when shown photographs of "human footprints" amongst dinosaur footprints. How can biologists prove that the speed of light is and has been constant? I was simply not aware the extent that creationists will go to deceive their audience. But with FSTDT listing example after example of their lies, no one should be surprised anymore.

jcnmyhart #fundie rr-bb.com

52 comments

Confused?