I've been around. I've even tried to keep a game or two going here all the time. I just haven't had much time to play or post. đ I got a chance to drop in today so I did. I'm glad to see some of my old favorite buddies still here and posting. I'll try to drop by more often.
The article makes reference to Philip Johnson and his book 'Darwin on Trial.' Being addicted to televangelists' broadcasts like I am, I heard Johnson being interviewed on Christian radio a few weeks ago. I think this is close to an exact quote of what he said: "The theory of evolution doesn't just contradict the opening chapters of Genesis, it contradicts the entire Bible, from cover to cover."
Johnson also made the claim that the peppered moth is the "very best" piece of evidence that biologists can point to on behalf of evolution, and he went on to say that the type of trees that the moths blend in with are ones that the moths don't even make use of. Johnson says the moths are "glued onto the trees" in pictures that biology texts use to show how a dark moth is hard to see against a dark tree trunk, and how a light moth is hard to see against a ligth tree trunk.
The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda contradicts the oft-repeated injunction to take the Bible as a whole and not focus on verses that seem random, paradoxical or flatly insane.
i didn't read it over fully but i shall make time-i liked the first point, where the guy basically said that the theory of evolution is, by definition, a truth. "All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance,
so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct
observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain."
that, for instance, is not a good comparison. i mean, something had to make those tracks, and those somethings came from the particles - ergo, we have sub-atomic particles!
evolutionary theorists have fossils. they are also missing a lot of fossils, but that's beside the point. they have these fossils, many look similar ergo one came from the other.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda contradicts the oft-repeated injunction to take the Bible as a whole and not focus on verses that seem random, paradoxical or flatly insane.
The casuistic creationist habit of taking things out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda
I could say the same for many of the evolutionists here.
Originally posted by Starrman Hal, I'd be especially interested to know what you thought of the article, you have the kind of enquiring mind which many Christians on the site lack.
27 Sep '05 02:221 edit
Article refuting creationism
Back to Top