To the darwinists - Worthy Christian Forums

Well, I've looked at your links, and the people that write your links are believers in evolution. So my point is valid in that respect, also I do look at your links, and read most of
it through, unlike you. I would think that posting a link without reading it through first would be beyond you; since you seem to be more intelligent then that, perhaps you just had an off day Huh?

I do take offense however on being accused of Plagiarism, when in fact the very definition of the prior has two fold definitions.


1. A person who commits plagiarism, must have a mind set to purposely post an article with the intent on passing it off as his own.

2. a person, then must do just that, without even trying to make he's/her sources known.

This I'm not guilty of After being confronted about it, I told you my sources. If I were intent on deceiving you as well as others, I would have not told you my sources.
I usually take a vacation from these board for about 6 months or so at a time. And while I'm gone things change, sometimes without my knowledge.
seems to me last time I was on here last year. This thing about listing sources was not that big of a issue.


My second comment is; whether or not I listed my sources, which for the purpose of this discussion about evolution is a bunch of dia tribe, as far as I'm concerned, in my humble opinion it's just a cover up, because you really don't know how to answer my concerns about evolution.

But what can I expect; after all, you are just an evolutionist, making it up as you go, and attacking the messenger, when you can't answer their questions.

Well to end this conversation on a note:


Evolution in a nut shell; Nothing exploded, and created everything LOL LOL LOL ridiculous (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I'm assuming you're kidding.

Creationists want to put their religion in science class, and you're wondering why people who care about science care?

How would you feel if I went into your church and taught that the god Pangu creater the world by splitting the heavens in half with an axe, and then died, leaving his body to create the mountins and the forests. And then humans were created by the goddess Nvwa who loved her creations dearly and immedately went to patch the sky when the water god Gonggong accidentally broke one of the pillars of heaven?

And truth be told, I've not seen one iota of evidence to suggest that creationists even understand what evolution is. The fact that they use argument like "lol, im not descended from chimpanzees" shows that they don't even grasp the basic concept. If I went around saying that I hated Christianity because I disagreed with the teaching of Mohammed, you would probably at the very least say, 'Hey, that's not Christianity," since if someone's going to disagree with your position, it's only reasonable to make sure they actually are disagreeing with your position, and not simply disagreeing with what they (wrongly) think your position is.

Well, let's rephrase that general thinking to say "I don't share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee " (which science claims is our closest relative on the evolutionary tree). Please don't throw out this 'creationists don't understand science' crap. I, for one, have been reading and studying evolution theories and the history of the earth for years. Even after I completed my schooling. And many others who post here have a good grasp of the principles of the TOE. Because one doesn't believe something doesn't mean they don't understand it. We have all of the pseudo-scientists that post here (with their Wiki data) who have no more background in science than the creationists do. What is your area of expertise, btw?

I have yet to see anyone here claim they're a scientist...

I said there are 'pseudo-scientists' here; I did not say anyone claimed to be a scientist. Please read what is actually written.

What are your specific arguments against evolution then?

And what alternate mechanism do you proposose to explain the fact that organisms are distributed so that not only are more similar species geographically close to each other, but they also without exception share more DNA in common with each other than with closer species than with more distant species? How does said theory explain why all vertebrates share the same eye structure, which is objectively inferior to that of squids (which have the far more sensible eye structure shared by all cephalapods)? How does it explain why similar species share the same defects (such as the common defect of all primates which makes them unable to synthesise their own Vitamin C, even though other animal families are able to do just that). How does your alternate mechanism explain the fact that flowering plants are found in fossil layers dating to the Cretaceous, but not in earlier layers?

If you want your so-called theory to have any scientific credibility, then you need to not only show how the existing theory is flawed, but also show how your theory is superior. Of course, I bet you know that already, being so knowledgeable and all.

I sincerely await your answer.



I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

I did. You're making the claim that cause we're "scientists" we should have more evidence. None of us have said we are. So when we're mistaken or we don't have the answer, calm down.

Even a biologist wouldn't necessarily have the answer to every question. If you asked a question regarding the evolution of the osprey to an entomologist, then there's no shame in them not having specific answers. Biology is a big field, and one could devote their entire life to its study and still only be deeply versed in a small section of it.

Indeed, one of the fundamental axioms of scientific research is that our current knowledge is to some extent inaccuate, and is in the process of being refined. It is, after all, a field where someone will spend years feverently promoting their theory, then listen to someone else's lecture and at the end say, "Thank you, I have been wrong all these years." It's why it's hilarious when people try to argue that theory X is flawed because it changes. A field devoted to the expansion of human knowledge is fluid and changeable by its very nature, since any addition of knowledge changes it. You'd think this would be intuitive, but apparently it isn't.