(December 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm)Paul the Human Wrote:Absolutley Paul. That Statler statement was a bifurcation.(December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation.No. You provide what you consider evidence against Evolution through Natural Selection and it is successfully refuted. So far, that is all I've seen. If one of your points of 'Evidence', were not successfully refuted, then the 'evidence' you provided would only indicate that the theory of evolution may be wrong. It would be just plain stupid to leap directly to the conclusion that the bible is true and god is love, Praise Jayzus!!
Statler if you want to prove creation, then it would be a good idea to find evidence. Disproving evolution (which you have failed to do, but if you did would be an incredible breakthrough in science), does not lend credence to supernatural creation, and further to that Yahweh etc. You cannot assume that if A is wrong, B must be right especially when there are almost infinite range of possible answers.
Good luck with proving supernatural creation. For thousands of years man has tried and failed, despite being very motivated to prove their god/s. Once you have done that then try proving it was Yahweh and not Lord Brahma.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
