Creationists take gloves off and come out swinging
Fed up after years of being pushed around by hardline Darwinist roaders and their running dogs, John E. "Jackass" Jones III and other federal judges, creationists have finally taken the gloves off and come out of their corner swinging. These creationists are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore! In an article titled "Should evolutionists be allowed to vote?", Tom Willis said in the newsletter of The Creation Science Association for mid-America,
Claim #3: At least a million new biological structures have formed in the last 500 million years. The only "proof" of this claim takes the form of the Petri dishes above. Bacteria are subjected to some chemical, or other treatment. The change in environment is designed to kill, and many die, but some develop resistance to the new environment. Evolutionists shout, "Evolution is just change, change is everywhere, evolution is a fact!" This is a bit like noticing dents in your child's wagon, and deciding that rocks change wagons, therefore more rocks might turn it into a car. Pause and consider that evolution is sold as a process capable of producing Man from bacteria, but what is demonstrated is bacterial resistance to some chemical. Of the million or so biological structures that evolutionists need, not one has ever been observed, much less demonstrated! It is a simple fact that, in the entire history of man, not one new biological structure has ever been observed. Thus, their theory is an absurd religious insanity. But it gets worse.
Labels: Cartoons (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/14/2008 08:34:00 PM
7 Comments:
Although, I agree with Tom's viewpoint on evolution, I certainly don't agree with denying evolutionists the right to vote. There are many who vote on school boards that are not in the best interest of the kids on different issues, I find it illogical and impractical to banned someone from voting on just one issue, namely evolution. People make mistakes, voting is not a perfect art form nor should it be used as a punishment if you don't go along with issues. That is just as bad as what the militant atheists are doing.
Liberals tend to always make arguments based on emotion and not on substance. It wasn't a real shocker that Larry's buddy PZ, gives credit to the emotion of "anger" as the reason why in the last 15 years atheistic dogma is on the rise.
On the other hand, many Christians and conservatives have fought based on principle and substance. When I was in school, nobody heard of the term; "Creationism" but everyone knew what was evolution. Today, there is growing scientific data and substance responses to many of the discoveries we see now. This was unheard of in the mainstream over 20 years ago.
It is a simple fact that, in the entire history of man, not one new biological structure has ever been observed.
Tell it to this guy.
I luv dem creashunist swingers.
Michael said,
>>>>> Although, I agree with Tom's viewpoint on evolution, I certainly don't agree with denying evolutionists the right to vote. <<<<<
I don't think he was serious about denying evolutionists the right to vote. I think he was just being sarcastic to make a point.
I'm told that I'm lacking in mind
By those who trot on behind
Old Darwin as "great:"
But it seems that my fate
Is to think, and to find what I find.
(Darwinists abhor my friend IDiot, because he's a "thinker." They hold that he should simply repeat whatever the National Academy of Sciences prefers to assert, by majority vote of its members. And that what the minority there may think doesn't matter, either.
So IDiot is an IDist: and he now says that he has come to like and admire many creationists, and to prefer them to what he calls "ignorant Darwin-apostles:" even though he's not a creationist himself. Isn't that strange?
Anyway I, Jim Sherwood, as IDiot's diligent ghostwriter, post his comments.)
The quote from David Coppedge, that Darwin "opened the door to storytellers" in science, is great. I could have written the same thing myself. Darwin didn't know the difference between properly-verified science, and mere daydreaming about possible materialistic causes. And his apostles in "evolutionary biology" haven't yet learned the difference.
Although I'm an IDist (at least more or less), but not a creationist, I have to admire creationists, in many ways.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>>> The quote from David Coppedge, that Darwin "opened the door to storytellers" in science, is great. I could have written the same thing myself. Darwin didn't know the difference between properly-verified science, and mere daydreaming about possible materialistic causes. <<<<<<
I don't think it is fair to put all the blame on Darwin -- he simply did not know all the things we know today about biology. For example, he didn't know about the complexities of DNA and blood-clotting cascades.
>>>>> So IDiot is an IDist: and he now says that he has come to like and admire many creationists, and to prefer them to what he calls "ignorant Darwin-apostles:" even though he's not a creationist himself. Isn't that strange? <<<<<<
Yes, I have acquired something of a liking for fundies myself so far as the Darwinism controversy is concerned. An example is Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. I think he sometimes goes too far, though -- ironically, he sometimes appears to reject ID for seeming to question the bible by trying to satisfy the rules of science. Some creationists have no use for ID because they think that the bible is unquestionable truth. Some creationists just see ID as an expediency, e.g., an argument against evolution or a means of persuading others that biblical creationism might be true. Anyway, the Answers in Genesis website often makes scientific arguments against evolution. Also, Ken Ham was very supportive of Ben Stein's movie "Expelled."
Post a Comment
<< Home