Christians. Could you be wrong?

[Undeceived]

You..do realize talkorigins cites and provides the sources for all its material, right? It's literally in the first few lines of the page.

So does creation.com. It's too bad I can't check out talkorigins' lone source though, since it's a dead link.

[FatAndFaithless]

You..do realize talkorigins cites and provides the sources for all its material, right? It's literally in the first few lines of the page.

So does creation.com. It's too bad I can't check out talkorigins' lone source though, since it's a dead link.

I've yet to see an article from a creationist source reference anything other than other creationist sources, which is just a giant circlejerk of dishonesty and a priori bukkake. Except when they quote mine actual scientific papers of course.

[Esquilax]

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased?

Do you have any evidence of bias in talkorigins? Not just that they disagree with you?

I don't see any statement of faith on talkorigins, but I do see it on creation.com.

So does creation.com. It's too bad I can't check out talkorigins' lone source though, since it's a dead link.

It's not on my browser. I can read the whole thing.

[FatAndFaithless]

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased?

Do you have any evidence of bias in talkorigins? Not just that they disagree with you?

I don't see any statement of faith on talkorigins, but I do see it on creation.com.

Not to mention talkorigins' sources are a vast array of scientific, peer-reviewed journals, not creationist catalogs of horsecrap.

[Undeceived]

http://www.trueorigin.org/

[coldwx]

Talkorigins specifically states in their welcome tab that everyone should investigate the scholarly journals themselves and make up their own mind. It also states that if persons who read the essays find errors to submit them. In direct contradiction to this, creation.com states on their about us section that no interpretation of facts can be valid if it contradicts scripture. They also state that their scientists are all of "one voice" in their opinions. You honestly think this is unbiased.

Not to mention you changed the subject by not addressing the bias of your citation but trying to point out that "well your site has bias too". Classic.

[FatAndFaithless]

http://www.trueorigin.org/

The fuck was the point of linking that? Its literally the same shit and mission statement as your last pile of shit link.

[JesusHChrist]

But in evolution, there was clearly a first human. Just as there was a first human in the Bible. How do they contradict according to genetics ? (not using dating)

Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect. Evolution is a micro, micro accumulation of changes over a very long period of time. It's the same concept as moving a pile of sand from one place to the other. At what point does the new accumulation become a new "pile"?

At no point can you stop the clock and say, "there! that thingy is a human".

Doesn't work like that.

[Esquilax]

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Ha ha, look at that huge dodge now that he can't answer for his previous fallacies! Sorry, but you're not getting out of this that easily.

[Undeceived]

But in evolution, there was clearly a first human. Just as there was a first human in the Bible. How do they contradict according to genetics ? (not using dating)

Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect. Evolution is a micro, micro accumulation of changes over a very long period of time. It's the same concept as moving a pile of sand from one place to the other. At what point does the new accumulation become a new "pile"?

At no point can you stop the clock and say, "there! that thingy is a human".

I agree with that explanation. But I still want to know, how are the genetics involved incompatible with Adam and Eve? According to evolution, we are all descended from one person/ape/whatever- pick any stage in history. I'll ask once more as clearly as I can: Why is Adam and Eve proven impossible by genetics?