On May 19, 3:37=A0pm, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Christ's Love is too stupid for words, so here's a
movie:http://scienceblo=
gs.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. =A0Continuously. =A0For well over a century. =A0People who
shar=
e
> their faith. =A0Finding evidence for evolution. =A0Year 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. =A0No surprises there.
>
> Eye evolution never was a "delemma". =A0It wasn't even a dilemma to
> Charles Darwin. =A0In "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
He, like Apo and ASSman aren't worth bothering with, unless one's
really bored
|
