Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Jackalope]

Really? What about those endogenous retroviral insertions that you claim to have already addressed?

[Revelation777]

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.

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

You're actually conceding this?

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.

---

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

Bibliographies

Two concise, but thorough, creationary bibliographies exist, from Eric Blievernicht and Henry Morris, Ph.D., respectively. Below is a representative—but by no means exhaustive—list of recommended suggestions for further reading, most of which can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis:

So, after having been told why Answers In Genesis is not a reliable, unbiased source, you link to a site that recommends AiG as a source?

Really?

Really?

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[The Valkyrie]

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?

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.

Again, Google "Project Steve"

[Cato]

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.

This is your problem Rev. You are not researching with the intention of understanding evolution, you are simply running around looking for anything that will support a conclusion you have arrived at for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts or explanatory science. What you call research, the rest of the world calls confirmation bias.

[Cyberman]

So, after having been told why Answers In Genesis is not a reliable, unbiased source, you link to a site that recommends AiG as a source?

Really?

Really?

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

You haven't even shown that there is a baby yet. You just keep asserting it.

[Revelation777]

Interesting that the Rev hasn't bother to respond to my post or that of Brian Boru, and if he ever does, it will be this one, and he'll insist that we repeat ourselves because he can't be bother to go looking for our previous posts.

Which post # are you referring to.

[The Valkyrie]

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

You haven't even shown that there is a baby yet. You just keep asserting it.

This particular baby was stillborn and has long since been buried.

[Cyberman]

So far it looks more like a phantom pregnancy to me.

[The Valkyrie]

So far it looks more like a phantom pregnancy to me.

Excellent response.

[Revelation777]

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

You haven't even shown that there is a baby yet. You just keep asserting it.

Is it ok for me to copy and paste sections from the website?