Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

I think we broke him.

I'm not dead yet.

---

They are standing firm on what they believe to be true. True to the Word of God and what the evidence is showing them. I commend them for that.

No -- they are dogmatically believing stuff that plainly and simply is not true based on a faulty methodology. There is nothing commendable about it. They are just lying. That's it -- just lies.

There is no such thing as a magic book that is always right. One does not exist. You need to grow up.

This book was here long before you and will be going strong long after we're gone. I love that love story.

---

In other words, "stop thinking for yourselves and I'll let you into 'paradise' and worship me forever"

Jesus also reputedly said that you have to hate your family before you can be one of his followers. I say "reputedly" because there's no actual evidence for his existence.

---

Bible quotes to atheists, the last resort of the desperate theist who has run out of arguments.

To be fair -- ALL loony cults operate exactly that way.

Christianity is not a cult, it is a relationship with Jesus the Christ.

---

My beef is with "Molecule to Man" evolution.

Exactly do you know about real biochemistry, organic chemistry, and geological history that qualifies you to have any "beef"?

What would you think about someone who can barely add two and two, but claim he really has a beef about the a solution to a differential equation? And how about if the same ignoramus then cite as support some other "work" whose author also can't add two and two, and who furthermore claims he would never recognize any evidence of his own error that might ever be produced in the past, present or future?

Do you recognize the similarity between yourself and this ignoramus; and between the so called work that claims to be correct by the simple expedient of proclaim all evidence to the contrary to be inadmissible, and the aig christain bible clown site?

You are as ridiculous in this as you would be in having a "beef" with anything else that has vast substance to understand, but which you totally don't understand.

I am learning more and more. I am thankful that this site offers persons such as I to share our opinions and objections. This is what I admire about this board. You all allow me to raise my objections.
Secondly, we all are in the process of learning and discovering. If you are impatient with me than I suggest you ignore my posts.

---

I believe that Creationists are open upfront about their beliefs and intentions. Yet, this site is still explaining there stance, why they believe what they do, and challenging some claims that scientists have made that have holes.

They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.

Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?

As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.

We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?

I am learning that if I cite anything from AiG that you will instantly reject it. So I will try to incorporate other sources.