I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(09-21-2019, 11:41 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 11:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: And thus the most interesting passage from St Thomas is Prima Pars, Question 96, Article 1, in his response to the second objection (my emphasis):

Quote:In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.

"But this is quite unreasonable" seems a rather weak translation for the Latin "Sed hoc est omnino irrationabile".

In article 4 of the same question the term "irrationalibilibus" means the non-rational animals - those which lack reason entirely.

Agreed. A bit weak.

St Thomas isn't one to set up straw men, or drift towards ad hominems. I do chuckle on the few occasions, though when St Thomas seems to subtly take some dig at the objector. It makes him a bit more human, because I can only imagine he must have had some fun during some of those lectures he gave. I can only imagine what a sense of humor he must have had.

Which translation would you prefer, Stanis :

1. "But this is completely irrational."
2. "What a bovine idea!"
3. "Only a brute beast would come up with an idea like that!"
4. "Your mom."
5. None of the above.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2
Reply
(11-13-2019, 12:30 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [Video]

I'm not a proponent of Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creationism, but to already see after watching only 7 minutes of the video:

1. A blatant mischaracterization of the position of Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationists

2. Sophistry : calling his own view the "traditional" view of Creation, and failing to mention that the Fathers themselves were widely split on their interpretation

3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

4. Circular argumentation - Owen quotes a Vatican I anathema, but leave open what was defined, implying that his view is the dogma that is being denied by his opponents, despite that Pius XII and the PBC in 1909 explicitly allow what he seems to suggest is heretical.

5. Contradiction - He quotes Pius XII who does allow for study of evolution as he admits, and then says that Lateran IV does not. And in doing this pits the Church against itself. Either Pius XII is correct and study is allowed (thus a non simultaneous creation is, whether true or not, possible) or Lateran IV insists on a simultaneous Creation and Genesis 1 must be interpreted only as St Augustine insists (so no 6-day Creation), or Pius XII and the 1909 PBC decision was permitting heresy.

6. Plain falsity - Most who subscribe to a less-than-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 start from Magisterial documents like Providentissimum Deus, Humani Generis, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, as well as theologians and Scripture scholars who support, or at least allow these ideas. It is hardly "speculation".

And that's just 7 minutes in ...

I think we can see the problem with people who have no background in theology doing theology.

I'd point out again, a point I made higher up on the page much earlier :

Quote:The sad problem that I've seen with Owen and the Kolbe Center is something I think many of us fall into : Confirmation Bias. We convince ourselves of the truth of a proposition, then we look for the evidence of it, and we begin dismissing anything contradictory of it, even if only by failing to look for it. We all do it, and it's a problem, and that's why having critics who are willing to cite sources, deal with one issue at a time, etc. are very good for us.

This video is a perfect example of this in this first 7 minutes. 

Owen has decided that anything but a 168-hour Creation process is heresy. He therefore tries to search out for data and quotes to find this. In doing this he misses major facts and references from the magisterium which undermine his interpretation, or at least undermine his ability to claim such dramatic things about his enemies.

The more I hear from Owen, though, the more I think he is not of good will, because he's not just missing easy retorts and his bad argumentation.

I get the sense he knows that the Church has allowed Progressive Creationism and Thestic Evolution, but he thinks these false. Since he cannot quote the Church directly against them since they are permitted, he has to find some back door than Pius XII and Pius X and Leo XIII must have missed, so it's Red herrings, and suggestions of heresy, and infallible statements, and Pope Francis changing this ... 

In short that he knows he cannot prove his thesis from the Magisterium or the Fathers, but he can suggest enough that people will think he's proven his case. If that's correct, then that's an even more important reason to stay far away.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
(11-13-2019, 11:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

That was one thing that gave me pause when I was listening to it, how he brought up the changes regarding capital punishment out of literally nowhere.

Lol I figured that posting Hugh Owens would be like blood in the water for you. Good analysis.  Big Grin
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
(11-14-2019, 12:07 AM)Augustinian Wrote:
(11-13-2019, 11:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 3. Red herring : That Pope Innocent III was Pope during Lateran IV and one document he issued was contradicted by Pope Francis has nothing to do with Lateran IV and its interpretation and Progressive Creationism. That's classic Protestant-style argumentation, to feed in red herrings that make it sound like they have a case.

That was one thing that gave me pause when I was listening to it, how he brought up the changes regarding capital punishment out of literally nowhere.

Lol I figured that posting Hugh Owens would be like blood in the water for you. Good analysis.  Big Grin

I've met Owen, and at least early along I thought him a decent Byzantine Catholic who was well meaning, but just a little off. I do think he probably is good-willed, but I also that the friends he pulled in, like Bob Sungenis were a really bad choice, and as a result he's become much more militant.

Listen, if someone wants to promote some theory of this, great. I, personally, don't care for any of them, because I don't think any of them really capture the whole truth of the matter, and a great deal of this is mystery. Thus, I'd be fine with Hugh trying to promote a Young-Earth Creation theory if it were theologically sound and were far less loaded with epithets towards those with whom he disagrees.

He seems, like so many Protestant Creationists (e.g. Kent Hovind) to be a Catholic reworking of these. Early along when trying to figure out how to teach science classes and Biology I was very intrigued by those types. After seminary studies, especially Patrology, and Scripture, I have a very different view of them.

I recall at a conference I attended that after some between-lecture discussions with some seminarians and a priest Hugh had to clarify that he was not saying that Theistic Evolution was heretical or against the Catholic Faith, and that the Church did allow it to be taught. He explained why he thought it wrong, and that was the reason for his work. From just the first few minutes of this video, though, it certainly sounds like he's bought Sungenis' view that those who the literal reading of Genesis 1 (and non-geocentrists) are heretics.

If Hugh were just to present the evidence for his case instead of seeking to try to label his opponents directly or indirectly as heretics, I would have some respect for him, and really would not feel the need to interject. But because he does seem to want to do that, and he is good at making it sounds very theologically sounds and erudite, thus my reaction.
Reply
(12-20-2018, 06:16 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 03:56 PM)nolte Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

It was never the case - anywhere - that people were just having their tonsils out.

Your honesty is as suspect as your ability to copy-paste from YEC websites.

perhaps I imagined it. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe evolution is true and the earth is flat. Or maybe they took people tonsils out because they thought them useless and the cause of strept throat.

Yes - you did either imagine it or just made it up because you are an uninformed creationist.
Nobody thought tonsils caused "strept throat".  More idiocy from a dishonest creationist.
Reply
(12-20-2018, 06:13 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: “It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16
I never said it was a lie - I said you are a liar for doing what you've done.  That or you are spectacularly incompetent.

Your child-like spelling is the least of your problems.

Quote:This quote was not used to say what the % is, only that the 98% is a lie, and it is. But to show you believe a lie you suport a 98% similarity.
It is not a lie.  It is dependent upon what specifically is being compared.

Are you this dense?  or this dishonest?

I am going to omit your wall of plagiarized quotes, because you are clearly too dense to understand most of them.


Quote:
Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/res...romosomes/


and he concluded “therefore the total similarity should be below 70%”  Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
Tomkins is a hack - if you had ever paid attention to the replies you get on the forums where you spam your child-like lies, you might have learned that Tomkins' methods were shown to be unreliable and perhaps even 'fixed' to produce lower level returns.  

But you are not about learning, you are about preaching your ancient mythology.

https://www.reddit.com/r/junkscience/com...ns_did_it/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution...ils_again/

"[color=var(--newCommunityTheme-bodyText)]Former YEC, geology student
[/color]

AFAIK Tomkins originally said it was 70 percent due to a glitch in the software. He threw a tantrum over it for a year before conceding and didnt address the other errors.
Tomkins is such a fraud its not even funny."

On to your fallacy of appeal to false authority:

Quote:Embroyo


Yes many today have fixed the lie since creationist made it well known, but it is still in many. My kid a few years ago came home with it in his book. SO yes creationist have forced evolutionist to be more honest in some areas, but the lie does continue. And Haeckel  lied on purpose, he manipulated the images to try and prove evolution, does not matter about technology. 




Because humans is where the lie is applied to. It does not matter of other organisms and he just proves what randy and creationist say, "hey are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds "



"What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection."
Are you drunk?  Or just a creationist?
Quote:What is growing? not a tail that is the point. You have missed the lie. 



And yet no tail, once more you have missed the lie. 
What is all that child-like gibberish about?

Was my demolition of Guzzo's nonsense too much for you to handle?

You sound like a dimwit.
Quote:As to his credentials

B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University.
https://store.icr.org/brands/dr-randy-guliuzza/
WOWEEEE!!!  I guess he is an EXPERT on embryology (even though I documented his lies and ignorance)!

Your dopey hero-worship says much about your mental capacity.
Quote:So in conclusion you might have some issues with Randy's  article, but nothing factual with my op. I would recommend emailing Randy [he does debates all the time on universities] 
if you have issues with his article.

Um....  So you didn't actually read what I wrote...
That much is obvious.
Religious nuts are all the same - ignorant and dishonest.
Reply
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.

LOL!!!!!![/quote]
Reply
(11-15-2019, 01:05 PM)nolte Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 06:16 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 03:56 PM)nolte Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

It was never the case - anywhere - that people were just having their tonsils out.

Your honesty is as suspect as your ability to copy-paste from YEC websites.

perhaps I imagined it. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe evolution is true and the earth is flat. Or maybe they took people tonsils out because they thought them useless and the cause of strept throat.

Yes - you did either imagine it or just made it up because you are an uninformed creationist.
Nobody thought tonsils caused "strept throat".  More idiocy from a dishonest creationist.


Holy crap i did not realize this was still going. So just to be clear when I was told to remove my tonsils I was at the time an evolutionist, therefore i would be a misinformed evolutionist, not creationist. Of course this is not the case. Mutilation due to false faith in evolution has been all the rave from removal of appendix to tonsils and many other objects. Worthless vestigial structures they told us. As i said all my cousins [but me] had there cut out. 



"Not having tonsils may reduce the severity of this infection. It may also reduce the number of times you come down with strep.

If you frequently get strep throat, your doctor might recommend removing your tonsils. This procedure is called a tonsillectomy. It can help reduce the number of strep throat cases you get. However, this doesn’t mean that not having tonsils makes you completely immune to strep throat."
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-get-strep-without-tonsils


If a child is diagnosed with strep throat seven or more times in one year, his or her doctor might suggest surgery to remove the tonsils (tonsillectomy).
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/strep-throat/expert-answers/recurring-strep-throat/faq-20058360



It doesn't take long—about 20 to 30 minutes—for an ear, nose and throat specialist like me to remove your child's tonsils. Still, I recommend a tonsillectomy only after careful consideration
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/top...out-1-1683


Reply
(11-15-2019, 01:18 PM)nolte Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 06:13 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: “It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16
I never said it was a lie - I said you are a liar for doing what you've done.  That or you are spectacularly incompetent.

Your child-like spelling is the least of your problems.

Quote:This quote was not used to say what the % is, only that the 98% is a lie, and it is. But to show you believe a lie you suport a 98% similarity.
It is not a lie.  It is dependent upon what specifically is being compared.

Are you this dense?  or this dishonest?

I am going to omit your wall of plagiarized quotes, because you are clearly too dense to understand most of them.


Quote:
Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/res...romosomes/


and he concluded “therefore the total similarity should be below 70%”  Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
Tomkins is a hack - if you had ever paid attention to the replies you get on the forums where you spam your child-like lies, you might have learned that Tomkins' methods were shown to be unreliable and perhaps even 'fixed' to produce lower level returns.  

But you are not about learning, you are about preaching your ancient mythology.

https://www.reddit.com/r/junkscience/com...ns_did_it/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution...ils_again/

"[color=var(--newCommunityTheme-bodyText)]Former YEC, geology student
[/color]

AFAIK Tomkins originally said it was 70 percent due to a glitch in the software. He threw a tantrum over it for a year before conceding and didnt address the other errors.
Tomkins is such a fraud its not even funny."

On to your fallacy of appeal to false authority:

Quote:Embroyo


Yes many today have fixed the lie since creationist made it well known, but it is still in many. My kid a few years ago came home with it in his book. SO yes creationist have forced evolutionist to be more honest in some areas, but the lie does continue. And Haeckel  lied on purpose, he manipulated the images to try and prove evolution, does not matter about technology. 




Because humans is where the lie is applied to. It does not matter of other organisms and he just proves what randy and creationist say, "hey are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds "



"What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection."
Are you drunk?  Or just a creationist?
Quote:What is growing? not a tail that is the point. You have missed the lie. 



And yet no tail, once more you have missed the lie. 
What is all that child-like gibberish about?

Was my demolition of Guzzo's nonsense too much for you to handle?

You sound like a dimwit.
Quote:As to his credentials

B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University.
https://store.icr.org/brands/dr-randy-guliuzza/
WOWEEEE!!!  I guess he is an EXPERT on embryology (even though I documented his lies and ignorance)!

Your dopey hero-worship says much about your mental capacity.
Quote:So in conclusion you might have some issues with Randy's  article, but nothing factual with my op. I would recommend emailing Randy [he does debates all the time on universities] 
if you have issues with his article.

Um....  So you didn't actually read what I wrote...
That much is obvious.
Religious nuts are all the same - ignorant and dishonest.


First Comment 

Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks
Insults are the lowest level of debate and when you resort to it, it suggests you have little else to work with.


ad hominem
attack on person not argument


Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS:Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions …  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.



Second

Clearly a monkey and man that you claimed [because you believed evolutionist lies] were compared. 


red herring fallacy is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion


Third 

so Tomkins published in peer review and you trust a random youtube video? that was not even the paper I cited?

urther what do you say of evolutionist publishing the same numbers in their peer reviewed journals?



“The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.
-Buggs, R. 2018. How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes? Posted on richardbuggs.com July 14, 2018, accessed August 9, 2018. http://richardbuggs.com/index.php/2018/0...e-genomes/



“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010 

“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010




fourth


If being drunk or a creationist means we are willing to accept frauds are frauds and dont have to believe in lies over 100 years old than yes. You must be an evolutionist [i hold drunks to a higher standard] to accpt lies over 100 years old. 



fifth 


It is not gibberish to point out it is not a tail. Why is someone telling you humans have a vestigial "tail" [when it is not] not gibberish and someone tells you what it actually is you say is gibberish? the lengths some will go through to keep the faith in evolution i will never understand. I believed it because i actually thought it true. When I found out for example that we do not have vestigial tails, i accepted truth i did not name call. 


The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.
-
H. L. Menck


Sixth 

Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks
Insults are the lowest level of debate and when you resort to it, it suggests you have little else to work with


you showed blind faith in a yotube video and showed you claims of him false. Thus hard to trust you in other claims of him. Further are you more qualified than him? he is a M.D who worked in the area of embryology textbooks and research.  But it does not take an expert to acknowledged when we have accepted a lie, just a heart in the right place. 



Last 



I agree with you on you being a religous  nut. 


“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
- Malcolm maggeridge


“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.


“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30


‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada



"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—
-Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.



‘All of the atheists I know are highly religious; it just doesn’t mean believing in the Bible or God. Religion is the basic belief system of the person. Mankind wants the answers to all unanswerable questions.’
-Ernst Mayr, once called ‘the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."—
*-American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”
-Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley

 
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff. 

"evolution is a anti-scientific fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
-2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations”
-enzyme expert and creationist Dr matti leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30


“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017


“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge
[-] The following 2 users Like Tolkien1096's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)