Christ's Love is too stupid for words, so here's a movie:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/05/eye_evolution.php
You'll note how Chicken Christ offers not a single iota of science -
just like Chicken Bob, Chicken Gabriel, Chicken Jabriol, Chicken
Pastor Dave and the rest of the flock,
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM CAN OFFER A SINGLE ITEM OF SCIENCE WHICH
SUP****TS A CREATION OR WHICH SUP****TS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Meanwhile, scientists from all over the world, many of which share the
same faith as these chickens, have been, for the last ONE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY YEARS, been doing the hard work of actually studying the topic
and publi****ng evidence sup****ting the theory of Evolution all over
the world. Continuously. For well over a century. People who share
their faith. Finding evidence for evolution. Year after year after
year.
All the chickens can do is cut & paste these content-free blathers
from idiot design web sites and then RUN AWAY from all attempts to
engage them in a discussion of the science.
Like all the other chickens, Christ's Love has once again proven
himself to be not only illiterate, not only ignorant of science, but
fundamentally stupid. No surprises there.
Eye evolution never was a "delemma". It wasn't even a dilemma to
Charles Darwin. In "On the Origin..." said, "To suppose that the eye
with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for
the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree...Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a
simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to
exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the
case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited,
as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be
useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the
difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed
by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the
theory."
and as we see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
he was right.
Biologist Richard Dawkins explains eye evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/3kzrq
A Christian lists some of his objections to intelligent design:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html
Catholic Biologist Kenneth Miller's 10 answers to creationist
questions:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/ten-answers.html
Budikka
|
