On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:05:10 -0700 (PDT), Ken <flakey714@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On May 19, 3:37 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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
>
>He, like Apo and Adman aren't worth bothering with, unless one's
>really bored
Or if you want to hear the Truth.
Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of
you!
|
