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.
Wow, this is a long one. I started this earlier tonight and I'm only a quarter of the way through it. I suggest anyone who really wants to argue about evolution, the validity of "macroevolution", and how scientists come to conclusions really needs to read this. As I said, I have not finished all of it. From the looks of it, it may take me a week to read it and digest it.
This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001).
I will have to read slower to digest, although I need no convincing
Yeah it's a heck of a read. I read a big chunk of it then realized that I wasn't comprehending it. So I went back and re-read about a quarter of it again. It comes a lot faster the second time around
I'll be honest, it's very hard for me to read or take seriously anything that is written in type 16 or 18 bright magenta font. Regardless, when I have a moment I will sit down and read it.
Edit: When we get done reading that, we can read the original author's response to the response
I'll be honest, it's very hard for me to read or take seriously anything that is written in type 16 or 18 bright magenta font. Regardless, when I have a moment I will sit down and read it.
Edit: When we get done reading that, we can read the original author's response to the response
This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001).
I will have to read slower to digest, although I need no convincing
Why don't you quote the hypothesis which fits very well with the creation model as well--
Quote:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.
You are inferring the necessity of evoultion here. Creationists would have no problem with this hypothesis if it were meant by "universal" common descent that everything began separately and reproduces AFTER ITS OWN KIND. That is observation.
The "universal common descent" is that universally all life was created as individual species and kinds and then reproduced accordingly.
Preterist
Last edited by Preterist; 11-16-2007 at 05:21 AM..
Good suggestion, malcolan, but evolutionists will not read with an open mind any objections to their precious views. They don't want to be confused by the facts.
Furthermore, I seriously wonder how intensively GCSTroop will read the "29 Evidences for Macroevolution". He will aproach it with the same bias that he approaches everything written by evolutionists. Why would he take the time to read as intensively the other. A good ploy for someone trying to pawn off a controversial belief is to couch it in technicalities so that people become impressed and enamored by the technicality and not by the so-called "facts" behind it.
Preterist
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.
