Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

[hide]

Rev - how many times do you need to be told that the truth or otherwise is not decided by opinion? It doesn't matter what these scientists believe - what counts, all that counts, is what they can demonstrate. Nor is truth dependent on the authority of the person speaking it. Einstein was also a practising alchemist; does that mean that we should believe in the Philosopher's Stone too?

I'm also wondering what any of this has to do with your current "argument". You remember? The one you gave such a buildup to last week.

I'll give you this, though... you're fond of your red herrings.

---

Edit to accomodate late-breaking news:


You're actually conceding this?

Red Herrings? I think Rev owns the cannery

---

I found something interesting that I would like to share with my skeptical atheist friends -

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Group Creation Theistic Evolution Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation. Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

---

He hath done all things well. Unfortunately, the destructiveness of sin has tainted His once perfect creation. So He sent a Savior!

So, all you can do to counter my argument is to post bullshit?

Gotcha.

So let me respond in kind: He hath fucked up thins so royally that he is ashamed to showeth his face and dependeth upon the uneducatedeth to defendeth his incompetence - eth.

Who are you to question God?