Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Mister Agenda]

Don't tell me what to do fuck face

Let's get along and show mutual respect mate.

It's disrespectful to presume it's your place to tell adults what language they may use. You haven't shown an ounce of respect to anyone here.

---

Why do you believe everyone who believes in God is an imbecilic moron? Is it possible, that someone who believes in no god is not intelligent?

There are plenty of people who believe in God who are quite brilliant. You just aren't one of them. You are a particular person, not Christianity incarnate. An insult to you is not an insult to all Christians.

---

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

Why do you think this is news to us? Can you quote someone here who gave you different percentages? Although not all percentages are created equal: the more accomplished the scientist, as measured by membership in the American Academy of Science which advises the US government on scientific matters and is by invitation-only based on body of work, acceptance of unguided evolution is at 90%.

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation.

95% don't, and most of the ones who do aren't biologists. If you were consistently convinced by who has the numbers on their side, this would change your mind, but you're dishonest or stupid, so you will continue to use numbers arguments as 'evidence' you are right while rejecting any argument ad populum that isn't in your favor.

Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention.

The general public isn't qualified to evaluate the evidence and have had their preachers working day and night to convince them science is false if it doesn't confirm their church's doctrines.

. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

It's not news, and it's not wonderful, but it's understandable why hardly any of them are biologists...it's hard to work in the field of biology while rejecting the evidence in front of your face. There are more scientists named 'Steve' working in actual relevant fields than are on your list. I'd be surprised if you couldnt find as many who embrace astrology as embrace creationism.

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

Your supposed savior didn't do a thing about our haphazard 'design'.

---

ou guys have dismissed my argument so we now are on a tangent.

You didn't make an argument. You presented a quotemine. Do you not know what an argument looks like?

'Elminster the Fourth says cheese is the most sublime of foods' isn't an argument, just because you can tell that whoever is saying that probably likes cheese. Without context, it's just a somewhat random statement.

For what are you arguing? It can't be for the existence of God, because the theory of biological evolution is irrelevant to the existence of God, and no one can be stupid enough to make a seven point argument to prove God exists and not post ANYTHING relevant for the first two of the seven points and still be smart enough to spell at a third-grade level with the assistance of spell-check.

---

I am doing some online research and am excited because I came across a book that has 50 scientists that chose to believe in creation. I have not read this book but I want to order it. I know that this doesn't prove anything but you all threw me under the bus for quoting someone from the 1950's. So to me I am excited that there indeed are modern day scientists who side with the Creator.

There are what, a couple of million scientists in the USA?