Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + + + +
Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application? (view source)
Revision as of 13:37, April 18, 2008
, 13:37, April 18, 2008my 2 cents
::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Evolution does not directly say there is no God, any more than Intelligent Design says there is a God. Each theory, however, leads to those respective conclusions. Indeed, the first thing Darwinists usually say in response to ID's critique of evolution is that ID is "merely creationism in disguise". Why can't the anti-Darwinists make the same charge about evolution? It's merely atheism shrouded in materialism.
Darwinists say that only physical forces and laws must be considered when looking at biology. But the evidence is that these are insufficient to account for what biologists themselves call the "appearance of design".
I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)