(April 23, 2014 at 10:48 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:(April 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.
If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.
How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?
ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.
"Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.
(April 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: If evolution isn't true then why does ken ham look like a monkey?
That's just not right.
(April 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm)truthBtold Wrote: If the bible got it right we wouldnt need science, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle..
Profound but we believe science and the Bible are in harmony.
If the science and the bible are in harmony, why do you deny the fundamental science of evolution?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
