Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I am not. I offered no description at all. If you wish to argue with me, then you would be better served by actually arguing with me rather than voices in your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That means those who are prejudiced...
Actually no. It means that I am postjudiced. It is the obligation of critical thinkers to eventually reach conclusions based on evidence and reason. It is pure stupidity to maintain an open mind in the face of overwhelming evidence for one position over the other.
Eventually, smart people stop wasting their time on the consideration of demonstrated falsehoods and move on. It's called "progress."
Yes it does, because Ken Ham uses the Bible as "evidence" for a 6000 year old earth and Young Earth Creationism and supposed 'evidence' against evolution. And that's what the topic is.
The topic is not about you.
Harrier doesn't know nor care what arguments Ham uses.
He does know that the debate will be and this thread is about the validity of evolution aa a scientific theory.
Please stop deflecting and answer the questions.
Why do you believe that there is observable evidence for evolution?
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”
Some little children grow up to understand different languages and the Dewey Decimal System.
Other little children continue to dimly not comprehend and think it was done by magic.
Evolution is a fairy tale and evolutionists are intllectually dishonest.
This is evident by their inability to answer even the most basic questions regarding their theory, and to instead rely on red herrings and ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to think critically and engage in rational debate about the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, demonstrated by evolutionists within this thread.
No hallucinations... anything that we don't see, we take by faith in the account of someone else.
What a bizarre assertion. It presumes 1) that we have only a single sense. 2) That we are unable to use tools and instruments to "see" things we otherwise unable to see. And 3) that we are incapable of reasoning either deductively or inductively.
I do not take on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I actually have good evidence that it will do so.
You can't define the facts that evolution is supposed to explain, and you have been asked repeatedly to do so.
You must have posted that in the wrong thread. That or you're really not reading this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
