Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
This is about on a par with Slick writing a book about 'The Lie'. Like the Toon, Ham's book must be persuasive because he is an expert liar....
Thank you for bringing some common sense into this thread.
Oh man are your posts dead-on! As I like to say, 'Young-earth creationists' are putting God in a box.
No and yes. Unless you want to put God in a box and deny Him the power that you are too scared to understand...
>>Using Scripture in a discussion about Science is the same as using Scripture in a discussion about auto repair.<<
Generally speaking, I agree with the premise of your first sentence, but it does not apply here. This is not a discussion of science. It is a discussion of Darwinism.
"Now if you want to have and actual discussion"
I wouldn't discuss dog crap with you.
His intentions are irrelevant to the validity of his positions. Like I said - why don't you take on his positions rather than attack him personally?
How is taking the Bible literally to be considered 'putting God in a box'? For me it's simply - God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
The corollary to your argument is that God has lied to you - yet the Bible clearly states God is incapable of sin and can not tolerate it in his Holy Presence. Don't bother replying - I can guess that your going to tell me Genesis is mostly myth and fable and recorded by mere man therefore full of error and mis-interpreted statements. Hardly!!!
Jesus studied the Bible and affirmed the old testament - Please please please try digging a little deeper into your faith rather than relying on worldly experts and their opinions.
If you read the article you would know where he got his Ph.D's
Apparently you don't find that a fair question.
It is a fair question but the answer can be found in the article - you should read the article before you add comments.
Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.
You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.
You really are funny
Yeah, a cute little song is proof Wells is lying.
Which opens the door for you to tell us all "what ID really IS." Have at it.
Yes. They have never taken any course in physical anthropology, which clearly shows fossil and skeletal evidence that evolution is a scientific fact.
And, none of this is incompatible with believing in God. It IS incompatible with fundamentalists, who believe the LITERAL TRUTH of the Old Testament, however.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.
I agree - but we have more entries today - this one is from an Evo:
Evo:the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study
Exactly PING.
Yes imho.
BTW I do think I spelled worldly correctly both times as if a minor spelling error invalidates a whole post anyways...
So what's this, chopped liver?
(Note its position in the chart which follows; hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
No. The mudskipper does NOT so appear. It has fins, not feet. It has none of the amphibian skull anatomy of Tiktaalik or other genuine transitional candidates. Etc. And of course as a living creature, with no indication of a long fossil history, the mudskipper is not properly positioned in time to be a transitional, even ignoring its anatomical unsuitability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.