Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin's arguments against God
CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

Posted on 03/11/2009 8:26:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2009 8:26:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

2 posted on 03/11/2009 8:27:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yes, I’m sure he had a lot of fun positing those arguments to God in person.


3 posted on 03/11/2009 8:28:26 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

Ouch!


4 posted on 03/11/2009 8:31:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


5 posted on 03/11/2009 8:38:04 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator"

This argument predates Paley considerably.
6 posted on 03/11/2009 8:39:13 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


7 posted on 03/11/2009 8:41:00 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

8 posted on 03/11/2009 8:44:15 AM PDT by uglybiker (AAAAAAH!!! I'm covered in BEES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What a cute little girl Annie Darwin was. It’s sad that his faith, knowledge of scripture, and relationship with God wasn’t strong enough to overcome her tragic death. Sad that countless millions have been led to Hell by his subsequent rejection of God. We forget how Satan really knows what he’s doing. This attest the importance of a local church in earnestly contending with error as soon as it occurs, before it takes on a life of it’s own and millions are damned.


9 posted on 03/11/2009 8:46:29 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
I see no evidence of 'evelution'. Adaptation is simply part of the orifional design, and that is all Darwin ever observed is adaptation of species to different enviroments.

So, you should say "Adaptation and Christianity are perfectly compatable", Because God in his infinite wisdom included in all the seeds oflife a wide spectrum of genes etc. that would lay dormant until needed to help his creation adapt to changing conditions.

10 posted on 03/11/2009 8:48:08 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Come on. He was a devoted Christian. The Noah's Ark paradigm of the 1800s broke down with too MANY new discoveries. His ideas were brilliant at the time. Stop trashing Darwin. I still cant figure how ID is supposed to fix into the 1800s Noah's Ark paradigm or what they are actually claiming.
11 posted on 03/11/2009 8:49:15 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Looks more like “Arguments against God the I Want to Attribute to Darwin”.


12 posted on 03/11/2009 8:52:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwin resented the biblical doctrine of future judgment

That is the only argument that I needed to hear to understand why Darwin created his THEORY. A lot of people don't want to believe in the possibility of hell. If you believe in heaven and hell and in God, then you have to believe that one day you will have to answer for your actions. That means that you might have to... hold on now... take RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. So instead, people create different religions and theories. Charles Taze Russel, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, did the same thing. He didn't believe that a loving God could send someone to hell, so he created his own religion where hell does not exist.

Life is easier when you don't have to answer to anyone, unfortunately, that misleading thought will not save you from the certainty of hell. I'd rather believe and be wrong, then be wrong and go to hell.

13 posted on 03/11/2009 8:52:42 AM PDT by Mind Freed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Is it not true that Darwin himself regretted his own beliefs on his death bed? That he denounced his life work for the damage it had done while he lay dying.

Who knows what kind of salvation he may have asked for in his last moments. I leave that judgment up to God all mighty.

14 posted on 03/11/2009 8:53:01 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (WHAT? Where did my tag line go? (ACORN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
"I still cant figure how ID is supposed to fix into the 1800s Noah's Ark paradigm or what they are actually claiming."

What Noah's ark paradigm? There isn't one that I'm aware of

15 posted on 03/11/2009 8:56:04 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mind Freed

Hell is mostly absent from the Mormon religion too. The pervert pedophile religion (Islam) says you only have to go to Hell for a while.

I’m glad I don’t have to take responsibility for my sins since Jesus did that for me. My sins are ugly and I deserve Hell for them.


16 posted on 03/11/2009 8:59:29 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

> Is it not true that Darwin himself regretted his own
> beliefs on his death bed? That he denounced his life work
> for the damage it had done while he lay dying.
>
> Who knows what kind of salvation he may have asked for in
> his last moments. I leave that judgment up to God all
> mighty.

False.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion

Excerpt follows.

From Darwin’s daughter: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” [7]


17 posted on 03/11/2009 9:00:30 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
RE :”What Noah's ark paradigm? There isn't one that I'm aware of

Prior to the so called ‘evil work of Darwin’ the Bible was the science book ~ the scientific paradigm and serious scientists (real Creationist scientists not these fakes) tried to place all the ‘Kinds’ on the Ark. But it broke down with new fossil discoveries and Darwin came up with a brilliant new one. For that he burns in hell forever sentenced by modern day witch burners, some on this thread. A new completely fraudulent version of Scientific Creationism cropped up that proposes nothing , explains nothing , but dooms Darwin to Hell.

18 posted on 03/11/2009 9:05:09 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Not news. Belongs in religion


19 posted on 03/11/2009 9:05:19 AM PDT by hurly (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hurly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2203455/posts?page=76#78


20 posted on 03/11/2009 9:09:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Jesus definitely did take on a lot for us. I love this description of it...

A man is on trial for the sins he has committed. The judge finds the man guilty and he is sentenced to death for his transgressions. Jesus, as the mans lawyer, asks the judge to set the man free and let Him pay the penalty for the mans sins.

That is what Jesus did for us on the cross. I wish I could say I thank him everyday for it. Unfortunately I get caught up in my own life and take advantage of the gift he gave us all. Thankfully we have forgiveness through His name.

21 posted on 03/11/2009 9:09:58 AM PDT by Mind Freed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hurly

PS The fact that Darwin formulated arguments against God is news to a lot of people, and would be of special interest to the Christian Right, one of the main pillars of the Reagan Coalition (which many in the Darwin/Country Club wing of the Republican Party are foolishly pushing into the
“none of the above” category).


22 posted on 03/11/2009 9:17:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You are quite the spammer. Darwin’s personal views are maybe interesting to historians. But we have the theory of evolution, not a theory of Darwin. You might find some horrible thing Isaac Newton once wrote, yet gravity still exists. So it goes for evolution.


23 posted on 03/11/2009 9:23:16 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It’s called a theory and this one is backed by reproducable experimental facts.

Creationism is just wishfull thinking going taliban.


24 posted on 03/11/2009 9:23:54 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there are people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Everything all happened by accident ping.


25 posted on 03/11/2009 9:26:29 AM PDT by Chinstrap61a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
"the scientific paradigm and serious scientists (real Creationist scientists not these fakes) tried to place all the ‘Kinds’ on the Ark. But it broke down with new fossil discoveries and Darwin came up with a brilliant new one..

New fossil discoveries? All kinds?

26 posted on 03/11/2009 9:32:57 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Think nothign of his statement- it’s just another generalization without any evidnece to back it up- There was plenty of room for hte original kinds- sickoflibs will have to show Noah infact must have forgotten some kinds IF he’s to make his case, but I’m sure he’s got Noah’s checklist handy to show us. My bet is that sickoflibs is only goign to throw out examples of MICROEVOLUTION in his ‘discovery of “NEW” species claim- same old same old argument- Macroevolutionists can’t cede that creationism is NOT averse to speciation which is MICROEvolution- kinds beget kinds.


27 posted on 03/11/2009 9:37:50 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge
"It’s called a theory and this one is backed by reproducable experimental facts."

Such as?

The young earth theory combined with rapid changes due to catastrophic event as described in "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood " by Dr.Walt Brown blows the evolution theory out of the water and has far more "proofs" to the theory than evolutionary theory ever will.

fountains of the deep

His offer still stands for evolutionists to try disprove any of his theory.

28 posted on 03/11/2009 9:42:26 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Such as the radio carbon method.

Anyhow - if you have to ask you probably will not be able to understand.


29 posted on 03/11/2009 9:53:56 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there are people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Except that the THEORY of evolution can’t explain the simplest and most obvious observations, like where is the river delta from all the silt that should be at the outlet of the Colorado river where it empties into the gulf of California after carving out the grand canyon for millions of years?


30 posted on 03/11/2009 9:56:20 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Except that the THEORY of evolution can’t explain the simplest and most obvious observations, like where is the river delta from all the silt that should be at the outlet of the Colorado river where it empties into the gulf of California after carving out the grand canyon for millions of years?

Evolution does geography?

COOL!

The Genetics of Plate Tectonics.

31 posted on 03/11/2009 9:58:08 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("We beat the Soviet Union, then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge
"Such as the radio carbon method."

You mean the radio carbon formula that was formulated to meet a pre-conceived conclusion? There are a lot of problems associated with that FARCE.

32 posted on 03/11/2009 10:01:12 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
My sins are ugly and I deserve Hell for them.

And I have them on videotape.

33 posted on 03/11/2009 10:01:46 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("We beat the Soviet Union, then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
RE “New fossil discoveries? All kinds? “

Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.

After Darwin's ideas took hold a new group of phony Creationists cropped up and completely ignored the problems the serious ones tried to deal with in the 1980s. They only had one theory “Darwin and anyone that listened to him burns in hell forever” . Then they act outraged they are not allowed to teach that theory in science class.

34 posted on 03/11/2009 10:02:09 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Gasp!!


35 posted on 03/11/2009 10:08:12 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

[[Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.]]

This is al ie- IF you bothered to actually check out your claim further, you would note that there was plenty of room on the ark with room to spare- the estimates have been done, and it would NOT have been impossible as you claim- EVEN IF more species are found- which isn’t likely concidering we have documented most known species kinds already- sorry, but your claim doesn’t wash


36 posted on 03/11/2009 10:11:21 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Ah Ha! Maybe that’s why the Colorado doesn’t make it to the gulf because it deposited too much silt. Is it even true that he river doesn’t make it to the gulf? Maybe Baja California is the delta!

Just kidding.


37 posted on 03/11/2009 10:11:33 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Evolution DOESN’T INCLUDE geography? Why is that? Surely the earth “evolved” too.

And as far as plate tectonics go, you better brush up on your schooling. It’s a very flawed THEORY, like al theories put together to support another flawed theory are.


38 posted on 03/11/2009 10:13:23 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

shhhh- don’t mention that radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about.... 10,000 or so years- beyond that, it’s all nothign but speculation and assumptions- but alas, we creationists ‘don’t understand’. We ‘don’t understand’ for instance that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS problems associated with htem such as the following major dating methods:

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/


39 posted on 03/11/2009 10:14:00 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
"The one thing scientists do agree on is that the canyon was carved by the erosive power of the Colorado River, but the river itself has carried away the evidence of its earlier history.”

Wayne Ranney, Carving the Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 2005), back cover.

40 posted on 03/11/2009 10:19:16 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.” (www.gotquestions.org)

41 posted on 03/11/2009 10:24:03 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see and explain away unwanted data.


42 posted on 03/11/2009 10:25:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
RE “This is al ie- IF you bothered to actually check out your claim further, you would note that there was plenty of room on the ark with room to spare- the estimates have been done, and it would NOT have been impossible as you claim- EVEN IF more species are found- which isn’t likely concidering we have documented most known species kinds already- sorry, but your claim doesn’t wash

Are you kidding? Who did the estimates that all the Dinosours would fit? You are talking about millions of species over millions of years, all fitting on the Ark. (most of which were unknown till 1800s, the Biblical writers knew of a couple dozen animal types if lucky) Imagine Noah putting the Tyrannosaurus on his Ark with the other animals 10K years ago.. You cant be serious.... You NEVER hear Creationists debaters tell audiences this. They skip it completely because they dont want to be laughed at .

43 posted on 03/11/2009 10:26:17 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
"But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area."

All neatly layered in the "fossil layer" in correct order and age they existed, right? No matter if, over the "millions of years" there were floods, earth quakes and other catastrophic events that mixed them around a few times...

44 posted on 03/11/2009 10:28:22 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

There’s plenty of evidence for evolution—it’s been discussed on this board over and over again. More importantly, the scientific literature is fairly unified on the topic. Of course, if evidence to the contrary is found and confirmed, then the scientific position will change. That’s the way science works.

Speaking of God’s infinite wisdom, I think that evolution was a stroke of genius, don’t you?


45 posted on 03/11/2009 10:31:55 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Your picture of Noah leading a Tyrannosaurus onto the Ark with all the other animals for a extended period of time is making my laugh for the day.

I bet these guys you cite avoid this topic when they win all those debates with the ‘evil’ evolutionists. It certainly wasnt in their scientific creation books they packaged for public schools in 1980s.


46 posted on 03/11/2009 10:33:08 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
"Are you kidding? Who did the estimates that all the Dinosours would fit? You are talking about millions of species over millions of years, all fitting on the Ark."

Where is the proof of that? Please don't offer "theories" as fact. They aren't. Acheology isn't an exact science either. Fish bones aren't dinosaurs, but how many times have whare bones been offered up as dinosaur bones? Chicken bones from some China mans last diner?

Plus, Noah didn't have to take extinct species on board...

47 posted on 03/11/2009 10:36:33 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Indeed. Nothing about Darwin’s scientific theory was an argument against God.

Darwin’s primary “argument against God”, if he had one at all, was that his little girl died so young and tragically.

And even he was not convinced of that particular argument one way or the other, claiming agnosticism rather than atheism.


48 posted on 03/11/2009 10:38:12 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
No matter if, over the "millions of years" there were floods, earth quakes and other catastrophic events that mixed them around a few times...

Do you study geology?

49 posted on 03/11/2009 10:38:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; CottShop
Thanks! You took my words ‘mostly layered’ and changed them to ‘neatly layered’ This is exactly what Creationist books are full of. You take the evolutionists words, change them, then ridiculed the newly created meaning. Gish was famous for this. He knew he readers would never check the original source because he told them 'reading evolutionist books leads to eternity in hell' as some on this thread repeated. This allowed him to tell his readers almost anything

You must write creationist book sfor a living.

50 posted on 03/11/2009 10:40:36 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Keynesian Eco 101 : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL, and your kid's too!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson