So you believe in evolution..

[Erinome]

Hot DAMN. First let me say, Minimalist, when you're right, you're fucking right.

You're admitting here that you just assume apriori that life happened on its own and don't consider any alternatives. It reminds me of this quote:

Who says I haven't considered any alternatives? Do you think I would believe something without considering many options? Do I look like an apologist to you?

There is no viable alternative, so far.

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin
harvard professor of zoology and biology

Because it would be irresponsible to do so. There is no evidence for gods, besides the evidence people want to see. It doesn't make it true. What matters to me is what's true. It's my only commitment.

You seem convinced that God creating the Universe and life itself is impossible, so I'll just ask you the obvious question: why?

Because if you look at the world objectively, and without bias, it's plainly a bunch of made up fairy tales- especially when you combine those observations with scientific reasoning. Evolution is true. I'm sorry you can't handle it, but it doesn't make it any less true because it offends your religious sensibilities.

As far as your links go, I've studied the other side of the debate comprehensively.

Obviously not.

If you would like to engage in a discussion, you could start by using your own words and arguments, if you have any.

No offense to you, I'm sure you're a very nice deluded person, but I have typed my fucking fingers to the bone in this forum, arguing with my own words about the very bullshit in your OP. That's why I made that thread, so when creatards like you come swizzling in here with you're "knowledge", asking for evidence, all my tired ass would have to do is shoot you a linky.

It gets pretty fucking old after a while.

As far as your trex link goes, there is nothing there that explains it away. You didn't even reference the correct link (it was discovered in 2005), which shows you probably didn't even watch the video or take the time to understand the issue.

I watched it when the last slow person... I mean, apologist posted it. You've got nothing new. Science discovers something new every day. How did a boring ass delusion like yours even make it past the 20th century? That's the burning question, I think.

What you've linked is just an attack on creationists who feel this is a big deal. Which it is. What your link doesn't do is dispute the evidence, which is that we shouldn't find soft tissue in 65 million year old fossils if they're really that old.

Yes. Science is out to get your dogma. Raawwwrrr.

Are all Christians paranoid schizophrenics?

Bottom line, doesn't it even pique your curiousity that soft tissue has been found in bones at least 65 million years old? If I were a true believer in your theory, I think that would raise a lot of questions which don't have easy answers.

Sure it does, but just because something isn't readily explainable doesn't mean goddidit.

Anyway, you're hypothesis has been disproven:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/science/13dino.html

The findings, Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues wrote, “suggested that, under certain conditions, remnant organic constituents may persist across geological time.”

Thanks to this discovery, evolution now has a stronger case than ever.

Did you know it is considered to be a universal fact among the scientific community at large?