Adrian CorscaddenI want to start out by saying how much I appreciate comments. They are one of the things that keeps me blogging and almost all of them are good.
Lately, however, I have been getting quite a few poorly thought out comments. These are normally from creationists. I really do not understand why they keep on exposing themselves like this, as people are just going to make fun of them even more (like this).
Etienne has been kind enough to provide me with some fodder for this post, and I have kindly graded her comments below.
I hope this does not put too many people off commenting here, but maybe it will make people a bit more cautious.
These comments were from a post I wrote a while ago about losing respect for Ben Stein. Check out the graded version below:
(click the image to enlarge to fullsize)
| 2.9 |
Hi…
You may think that your were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general, but truly you were not. This is just one verse I thought I would share with you today. Please give special attention to verse 13 - notice with whom you are fighting - either for or against.
From Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints…
May the Lord richly bless you and open your eyes and ears so that you may see and hear that the Lord is good!
Blessings -
Camille
uh….the Lord doesn’t exist…..end of argument
If you have any evidence that contradicts this, please share it as I would love to hear it. The burden of proof is on you, Camille. Heck, it could even win you a Nobel prize, if what you are saying is true.
Before you were born, the Lord had this covered. He even prepared us for it.
Psalm 14:1 - The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
All you need is faith -
Hebrews 11: 1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The proof is everywhere, you just have to have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Many blessings to you as the Lord awakens you -
Camille
Pardon me while I step over the theological (or is it philosophical?) issue and say this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on a blog about blogging.
It’s the truth, pure and simple, Dave…you can put what ever label you prefer on it.
Love the ‘do in your picture!! That is fantastic! …and to think He knows every single one of those hairs!! Isn’t that just incredibly reassuring??
Many blessings to you as well -
Camille
Me again, I should have graded myself before hitting send!!! Pardon my errors. Let’s see…
I said, “You may think that your were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general…”
It should have read: You may think that you were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general…
Also, I said pay special attention to verse 13, which does warrant attention, but it should have read verse 12 which states: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
As for grammar - who knows if that is correct?!? I’m just thankful I have a forgiving God, and I don’t have to sweat, which in this usage, is the small stuff.
Peace -
Camille
Thanks Dave!
I’ve been reading your creationists posts but have refrained from commenting. I just have to weigh in a little bit here. First, in the spirit of full disclosure - I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. Here in Hawaii we have witnessed it. In the 1920’s some wallabys escaped and, since what they eat doesn’t grow here, were expected to die. They didn’t. A few managed to survive and adapt and now there is a thriving community of them. They have been studied by biologists and are genetically different from the wallabys in Australia.I’m convinced evolution is a fact.
Second, I believe in God. I believe that something created all this. I believe that the God I believe in created living creatures to evolve. Nothing can survive if it’s static. Organisms need to be able to adapt and change in order to continue to survive. Any God who has the ability to create all this would definitely factor in evolution. It’s the only way her creation could survive. The earth changes and you can see that over the course of a year. The seasons come and go, tides rise and fall, the moon waxes and wanes, everything changes.
I’ve always wondered why it has to be one or the other. Why can’t they coexist? Why can’t they both be right? I understand that people don’t believe in God and that’s okay. So you don’t believe in the creation part, I got that. But why do creationists think that God is so cruel that he would create the earth, stock is full of fossils, create fossil records that are incredibly complete and the allow us to find them and develop theories about evolution. So she could sit back and laugh?? The God I believe in is much nicer then that.
Anyway, thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents. I just don’t believe they are mutually exclusive that’s all. I think they really compliment each other. So what’s my grade
I wrote an undergraduate term paper of 68 pages. In that paper I started with, “Everything in this paper is true.”
Then this whole following ensued called Samsarendom and everyone went around quoting things I’d said and telling the intellectuals how inadequate they were as they quoted things like, “The spaghetti monster is real, sayeth Samsara.” and “People who don’t believe this are poor heathens!” and “Cornflakes are better when soggy.”
Needless to say that when I wrote my follow up paper the next semester and claimed I’d been under the influence of alcohol, pot, fear, and the illusory belief that the world was still flat and we revolved around the sun…Well, even my followers began trying to disprove my final paper! [Said it wasn't mine!] They made this entire movement about me but left the me out of it.
In my best deduction, all I can figure is that they needed to rely on a lie because they didn’t care for the reality. It somehow did not suit them.
To this day, I still hear the murmurings of following generations of that theology class claiming Samsaradom as the one and only truth and way. But, take it from me, it was simply too much alcohol and plenty plenty of ignorance.
I agree with your post. Please don’t grade mine, I’m not so good with the grammer, but I agree that when commenting on heated topics one should construct their comment to be clear and concise. About once or twice a week I’m finding myself reading posts that I strongly disagree with. I try my best to leave a comment stating my opinion and why. I don’t always site sources, but I always leave my name and contact information in case anyone wants to question me.
And like you, my blogging addiction is fueled by comments
I’ll try to make this grammatically correct, however any grammar issues are probably due to the fact that I am an Aggie more than being a creationist. My comment is: You may not believe in God, but he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross for you anyway. I also have an evolution question posted here if you’re interested: http://www.seekingabove.com/2008/03/not-that-there-is-anything-wrong-with.html
Grace and Peace.
Hilarious! Oh my, I was almost in tears. Please do more of these! Haha, not only do I love seeing the same creationist bull**** being pushed, but I love to see how skeptics react and in this case, severely critique.
LMAO! That was just mean….. and funnier than hell
1- Etienne is the french equivalent to Stephen, I’m a man not a woman
2- trying to ridiculize me does not make you smarter ( this is a well known technique used to try gaining credibility when faced with opposition)
3- you have not shown any evidence for evolution, adaptation is not evolution.
4- Saying Kent Hovind is an idiot will not bring you more credibility, I have not seen any evolutionist who could give good answers to the points he’s making,
5- I never said Creation was a science, I just said that evolution was a religions not a science, they are both religions, you have to beleive they happened since you cannot prove them.
6- I agree that evolutionist can beleive in a God, but not the God of the Bible (Jehovah/Yaweh/ Jesus-God manifested in the flesh) since Jesus quoted Genesis many time, agreeing with evolution would be calling Jesus a liar which would make you an antichrist.
7- I’m not a scientist and I’m not trying to be smart or claim I’m smarter than anybody, I used to beleive in evolution myself before I was actually presented with strong evidence against it.
Being atheist doesn’t mean that you are not following a religion, it just mean that you do not beleive that God exist and that he created this world but you still have to beleive that we came from somewhere.
Definition of Religion
Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):
“any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.”
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Evolution is a theory or philosophy that was mostly formulated by Charles Darwin, Darwin was actually a student in theology not a biologist or geologist, he abandoned his christian faith to follow this ideology. I will not go it to much detail in Darwin’s biography but because of his beliefs he married his first cousin (his theory says that you must isolate the best gene pool, survival of the fitest right, if the strongest mates with the weaker then the offspring will be weeker because you did not isolate the strongest gene pool). Most of his kids died young of various illness.(inbreeding).
This information about Darwin is not usually communicated because the main reason that this theory is so widely accepted is because it gets rid of all morality. (no God to answer to anymore)
In order for evolution to take place it has to break almost every law of physics in order to happen. This is just a very few of the evidence against the evolution theory /religion.
According to the evolution theory all the matter of the universe was concentrated into a tiny area the size of a dot (.). This dot was spinning very rapidily and then exploded approximately 20 billions years ago and that is how the universe was created. Eventually all the matter in the universe will again compact itself into an area the size of the dot and another big bang will happen. Apparently this happens every 80 to 100 billions years. (Now please tell me how can this be proven? if this is not a religous statement what is it?)
1.
- This would take a lot of energy to condence all the matter in the universe into one an area the size of a dot. Where is the energy coming from.
- The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Since the world is here, there are only two choices. Somebody made it, or it made itself. If the matter is only being recycled with those “big bangs” where is all this matter comming from?
- The second law of thermodynamics says: everything tends toward disorder. In other words, if you leave something alone for a while, it will rot or rust or die or break down or fall apart. Everything becomes chaos after a while. (Evolution violates this law in every aspect, how can something get better by itself without any intelligent input)
2.
- In a frictionless environment, if a spinning object explodes, something happens to the pieces that fly off. This is call the Conservation of Angular Momentum. One of the laws says in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin the same direction, because the outer part is already spinning faster than the inner part.
- If this whole universe started from a big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. If our little solar system is a microcosm of the macrocosm everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning the same direction. Planets in our solar system are not only going around the sun, the planets are also spinning around themselves. Each one revolves in its own day. Some are longer than others. Out of the 9 planets that we know of, at least 2 of them, Venus and Uranus, spin backward. how did 2 planets get to going backwards?
- Some of these planets have little moons going around them. There are 60 known moons in our solar system. Out of the 60 known moons, Mercury and Venus do not have any. Earth only has one of them. Out of the 60 known moons, at least 11 of them are spinning backwards, 4 of them are traveling backwards, and 2 planets have moons going both directions at the same time. Would you please explain that? Why do we have all of this retrograde motion in our little solar system, plus who knows what else in space? If it all started from a big bang, it should all be going the same direction.
3.
- Let’s look at some more facts from science
The sun is burning
As the sun burns, the sun is shrinking. Boyle Observatory in England has been keeping careful records of the sun’s diameter for 300 years. It oscillates a little bit, but the general trend is that the sun is shrinking 5 feet every hour. That has been the case for the 300 years that it has been observed. Dealing with science that is observable, testable, and demonstrable, the sun is shrinking.
If the sun is shrinking that means it used to be bigger. Five feet per hour is the shrinkage rate; so, if you were to go back in time to an hour ago, the sun would have been 5 feet bigger. If you go back a few thousand years ago, there would be no problem. If you want to tell me that the earth is millions of years old, then we have a problem. Twenty million years ago the sun would have been very big at the current shrinkage rate assuming that it is a linear progression, or that it might be geometric, or logismic. Either way, it puts a time limit on this model. If you excel 20 million years ago at today’s shrinkage rate the sun would have been so big that it would touch the earth. This of course would have made life very uncomfortable.
Distance To The Moon
The moon goes around the earth. As the moon goes around the earth, the moon is getting further and further away. We are slowly losing the moon a couple of inches a year. If the moon is getting further and further away from the earth, that means that it used to be closer.
A couple of thousand years ago that wouldn’t make a big difference. If you want to tell me that the earth is millions or billions of years old, you had better get your calculator because it makes for a serious problem. If you bring the moon back in closer, it would cause trouble because the moon causes the tides. If you bring the moon back in a couple of million years ago, the tides would have been so high that it would have drowned everything on earth twice a day.
Earth’s Magnetic Field
The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker with time. It cannot be millions of years old. The magnetic field, by the way, is one of the things that they are not taking into consideration when performing carbon dating; because, the magnetic field is one of the things that prevents the formation of carbon 14 (C14.) If the magnetic field is weakening, then we are getting more C14 than they had 5,000 years ago—so it throws everything off.
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen.
Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy.
This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950’s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.
Since solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled.
Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Some examples of why C14 is not a good system for measuring age:
- Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
- A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
- Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
- One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
- One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old” (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
- The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
- The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
- Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
- Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
FYI:
- No missing links fossils (ex: half ape/half human) have ever been found, they were either proven to be completely ape or completely humans, there was some fraud made (ape jaw attached to human skull), and a lot of stuff was invented (ex:Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. Evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to and closely related to pigs.)
- The words “prehistoric” and “dinosaur” were invented in the 1800s when the evolution theory came out. Dinosaurs were formaly knowns as “Dragons”, that’s why there’s so many legends and ancient drawing/carving of dragons in ancient civilisations.
HAHAHA this was AMAZING!!! Apparently some people have nothing better to do than to argue. Thanks for the laughs!!!
PS — is ‘ridiculize’ a word? oh..no..no it’s not. Maybe your god should teach you proper English.
Right, wrong or indifferent you’ve definitely got a full house when it comes to commenting! Wow! I love getting comments, too - though ours are in a completely different vein. Your grade sheet caught my eye, stayed for the arguments LOL!
[...] Friday, I graded a comment by Etienne. I just want to announce that he has shown himself and written quite a long [...]
@Etienne lol
Kudos to you, Etienne!! Very well said. Now, let’s see if this group can overlook the few grammatical and/or spelling errors and get to the meat of the matter. I would like to see their rebuttal for such well set-forth arguments. I do so hope they will rise to the challenge!
Blessings to you -
Camille
@Etienne
You are contradicting yourself quite a bit without knowing it. This is mostly due to the fact that you do not understand the scientific method. I think you are in over your head here.
I agree that no science can be 100% proven. That’s not something that can be sidestepped. However, having said that, this does not make any other method of finding out the truth any more credible. Science is still the best method of understanding the world around us. There is NO other way of reliably figuring it out. This is because so much of this world is counter-intuitive. Intuition is crap.
To quote you: “He seems that proclaim that evolution is a proven science and I mentionned that it was a “theory” or “hypothesis” ”
I think the thing that you are missing is that theory = proven science. A theory is the end result of the scientific method. Yes, a theory changes over time as new evidence emerges, but it is still the best present understanding of something.
Again, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis. This word theory is often used in lay speech to mean hypothesis, but in science it is well above a hypothesis. Since we are talking science here, please use these terms correctly.
To say that evolution is ‘just a theory’, is deceitful. The best science we have is ‘just a theory’. For example, the theory of gravitation is ‘just a theory’, or the principles that were used to manufacture your computer are ‘just a theory’.
I’m not too worried about a god slapping me in the face about this. Actually, I am more scared of the impending heat death of the universe (even that I’m not that scared of). I am, however, scared of creationists inflicting religion into science classrooms, without even knowing anything about science.
I don’t care how many scientific facts you know, or how much science education you have had. If you do not know the scientific method, you don’t know anything about science. As I have said before, it is important to treat science as a mind-set rather than a body of knowledge. Knowing the scientific method is the first step in entering this mindset.
Oh yea…I almost forgot to mention. Evolution has been tested and there is a lot of evidence. This is why it is a theory. If it hadn’t been tested, it wouldn’t have even been called a theory. It would still be a hypothesis.
Adrian -
I can understand where you are coming from … but again, you have side-stepped the issue. I can appreciate your dedication to the terminology of science…but again we must admit that “theories are not true in science, at least in the regular sense of the word true”.
Have you ever read the Bible? This I must ask you because so many ‘discoveries’ were in the Bible before they were ever discovered. God’s word - He created it - He should know.
Secondly, from what I have read and understood of Darwin’s theory of evolution - most all of his presumptions have been invalidated. If there are any still out there - I’m sure with the way the biological sciences have been growing by leaps and bounds they will soon be invalidated as well.
How many invalidations does it take to final put to death a theory in science? How long before the scientific community at the time finally, finally accepted the fact that the earth was round? Just because you really, really want to believe something ’scientifically’ does not mean that it is true - that is in the regular sense of the word true.
So - we are left with the holes in Carbon14 dating - which have been validated. We are left with many fakes, lies, and deceits that the ’scientific community’ has tried to push off as ‘fact’, and we are left with from where did the matter of evolution - if we truly did evolve - come? A few simple questions.
…and my answer is the same. When I look at all that has been created from the tiniest to the greatest - as I learn different facts throughout the years about different animals and plant - any form of life - I sit back in wonder at the great Creator - our Father in heaven and His wonderful son - who were in the beginning and continue to be and think ‘Wow!’. My validation is all around me every day - and His word backs it up.
Blessings and still praying *wink* -
Camille
@Camille
There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that the bible was the word of god. It was written by man.
My next point doesn’t just apply to evolution, it applies to all theories. Just because holes can be picked in theories, doesn’t mean that counter theories are validated.
For example, if it was shown that babies don’t come from an embryo, the stork theory is not validated. This is essentially what creationists are doing against evolution.
As I mentionned before I’m not a scientist your definition of theory sound right, but the fact is that evolutionist only take into account facts that do match their theory and disregard the fact that actually destroy it. This is not education it is indoctrination. Some of the discoveries that have been found and later proven wrong are deliberately kept in the school textbook, this is lying to the students!!
I’m not saying that creation should be taught in public schools but Evolution should be removed from the school curriculums since it’s no longer a valid theory.
And the fact that for some people don’t want to even consider that their might be a God or that the Bible might actually be true it doesn’t mean it isn’t. Yes the bible was written by men but was inspired by God’s spirit, I’m not going to deep into that but anyway because I don’t start a discussion on religions, but I do beleive that it would wise to at least study both side before making a final decision.
In my opinion we cannot denied that the spritit “world” exist, many people had various spritual experiences (good and bad - “The Exorcist” and the “Exorcist of Emily Rose” were movies based on true stories) these are definatly bad spriritual experience but it was still spritual. By nature we tend to reject those “signs” or to mock those who had those “experiences”. According to the bible we are born spritually dead that is probably why it seems like nonsense to us by default. Again this is stepping out of the realm of physical science so I will stop here. But not beleiving that the spritual world exist because it cannot be proven with physical evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist.
So the conclusion here is that we should not teach falsified information to students and I truly beleive that this theory of Evolution should be revised by unbiased sources and removed from the school curriculum. If people realy want beleive in this theory so be it but don’t push this theory on young impressionable kids.
Regarding your claims about evolution, could you please cite you sources.
Obviously a spirit can’t be ruled out, but there are infinite number of things like spirits worlds that could exist. In practice, we don’t believe in all of these. Why would you arbitrarily believe in a spirit world, but not believe in unicorns or ferries?
Spiritual experiences rely on anecdotal evidence, and are all on par with UFO abduction stories.
I have a few example in my previous post, here some more:
Human shoeprint with a smashed trilobite inside. ( source: Readers Digest Mysteries of the Unexplained pg. 38 )
Graptolites have recently been found alive in the south pacific. ( source: Earth Magazine Sept. 1993 )
Lobe Finned fish were found still alive in 1938, called the coelacanth ( I hope you don’t need a source for this one ).
Dinosaur blood was found inside bone, couldn’t be disproven. ( source: Earth June 1997 pp. 55-57 )
There’s more but I don’t feel like pulling them all out.
My point was not to say that all spiritual experience ever mentionned are true but only to point out that this world is not only physical and you will not be able to prove God’s existence with physical evidence. So if God (as a spirit) did create this world how do you plan to prove it with physical evidence, you have to look at the evidence and conclude that he did created this world. If you look at the Bible there is thing written in there that have only been figured out a few years ago and this books was written thousand of years ago. I have never heard of any archeological find that would disprove the bible but a lot of them do agree with it.
The bible says that God created man in his image not as his equal, you will never be able to figure out God completely.
1. Uh…none of those disprove evolution…
2. The bible is not a credible academic source, please do not try to use it here.
oh yea….trying to pass of Readers Digest as academia won’t work either…nice try though…lol
Well if most of these animals have been extinct for millions of years before men evolved from apes well it does cause a problem for the theory of evolution I would say.
How do you know Julius Cesar ever existed if ancient writting are not credible academic sources? Are you saying History should not be taught in schools?
@the first paragraph: Yes, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it right.
@second: We know Julius Caesar existed from primary sources, which a pretty good….miles ahead of readers digest.
“which a pretty good….miles ahead of readers digest”: again trying to divert attention to gain credibility this is only one of the sources,
“Yes, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it right”.: Do you beleive in your theory or not? were they extinct millions of years before the evolution of man?
“We know Julius Caesar existed from primary sources”: which are? what makes those writting more realiable than those of the Bible?
You’re still not giving validation to the theory of evolution, Adrian.
As far as textbooks being wrong - this is true. My daughter came home one day from school (this was 5 years ago or so - before we started homeschooling *smile*) and said she didn’t know that the appendix was a vestigial organ - one of the only ones left. I told her it wasn’t. I explained that the scientific community always presumed it was part of the digestive system because of it’s location, and since it didn’t appear to do anything - they used it as a validation of the theory of evolution. I told her that as recently as 15 years ago (I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but that’s when I knew about it) - scientists found that the appendix was actually part of the immune system. It’s function has something to do with the formation of immunoglobulins - and it begins doing it’s job in the 5th month of gestation up to about 2 years of age - it can continue functioning after this, but this is its main time to do whatever God created it to do.
Again - something man doesn’t understand or doesn’t know they use to validate a theory. This is not science - it’s wishful thinking *smile*.
Blessings to you!
How’s your life been? I’ve been praying for you!
Camille
This grading is classic! Got to post it in my blog too!
[...] Grade Your Comments? Written by WTJ on June 8, 2008 – 12:14 am - I saw Adrian Corscadden graded his blog’s comments, and I couldn’t stop laughing! This is classic! I’m on his [...]
Wow this is getting old hehe, again laughing at me for spelling and grammar errors and changing the subject still does not prove Evolution
Yes, this is getting old.
Just a few quick notes:
@Camille: The only thing I want to say is that yes, textbooks are not good sources. If a textbook were to be used as a reference on a paper, it would fail. Just because there are errors in a high school science textbook, doesn’t make science wrong. If you want to stay up to date on science, don’t read textbook, read up to date literature.
@Etienne I think that you are avoiding the subject as you haven’t brought forth one good piece of evidence. I don’t have to do this because the burden of proof is on you.