The Bogus Assertion of Evolution

Atheism and Evolution go hand in hand. We have known this for years. My question is, if Evolutionists are "so sure" that Evolution is a fact, why do I keep hearing statements like this from Evolutionistic website:
Our universe may be 15% larger and older than we thought, according to new measurements of the distance to a nearby galaxy. The team used light, velocity, and temperature measurements to calculate the true luminosity of the two stars, which eclipse one another every five days. By comparing this intrinsic luminosity to their observed brightness, the team calculated that the galaxy lies 3.14 million light years away from us. Surprisingly, this is about half a million light years farther than previously thought.Recent estimates have put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, and the new research suggests it may actually be 15.8 billion years old. source

Great, so we keep pushing the origins of the earth further and further back? Before long the Earth is going to be 83 trillion years old if we keep trying to make sense out of Evolution. I believe Socrates from Theology Web has it completely right here:


Origin of life (chemical evolution) -- see http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../faq/origin.asp
Origin of information -- see http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../infotheory.asp
Origin of exquisite design http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../faq/design.asp
Marc Schindler
When people learn the difference between science and religion is not in the answers, but in the questions, which derive from totally different assumptions.
This is just the philosphically bankrupt NOMA nonsense, based on the fallacious fact-value distinction. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs...924ep1.asp#noma
Typically, the misunderstandings arise because people are using words differently. Teach evolution as part of biology, and Genesis in religion classes.
Why? Evolution is part of the religion of Humanism, and separate creation and a global Flood are part of origins science.
Creationism is bad science, but it's bad religion, too.
A wonderful ipse dixit.
Likewise scientism is just evangelizing atheism.
You're right there FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
There are many good, believing biologists who accept evolution (in the Catholic tradition Kenneth Miller is by far the best known; in my own, LDS tradition, there's Michael Whiting and Duane Jeffries).
Miller is most unreliable, as shown http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...15n3_miller.asp and I have no interest in any LDs opinions. These compromisers have accepted scientism for all practical purposes -- "believing" WHAT exactly? Certainly not the god of the Bible.
Socrates:
Quote:
Hume demolished the logic of Paley's Natural Theology Paley actually wrote about 30 years AFTER Hume and addressed some of Hume's pathetic objections , which even Dawko was not impressed with. The way Paley expressed the teleological argument was not vulnerable to Humean counter-arguments Bob blubs:
Not really..... Paley wrote the "science" that supported the "logical" proof of a creator by design. Hume did demolish the logic.
As if you'd know -- fact is, Paley rebutted Hume, not vice versa.
Dawkins demolished the "creation" science many times over by explaining Darwin. Two separate chances at Creationism and two refurations.
As if you'd know -- Dawkins the just-so-story teller has been demolished in the articles I provided.
Your comrehension skills need some fine tuning. Dawkins was not imprressed with the philospher who answered "What about Hume" in response to Dawkins statement "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published". Dawkins went on to say "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?" The unimpressive reply from the philosopher was "He didn't.. Why does it need any special expalnation" You will find that tidbit on page 5 of my copy of the book.
That's exactly what I meant. And I understand that it was A.J. Ayer.Socrates
Quote:
Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp Bob:
Tell us, Socrates, what, in that web site, is most important fact for establishing "Creation Science" or for refuting Evolution. "
We all have the same facts -- the difference is how we interpret them. You interpret them from your bigoted atheistic framework, which can't even provide any justification for science in the first place.
You have not supplied any specifics even though you have mentioned those sites more than once.
Which actually provide some specifics :dunce: And all you have done is cite animal behaviorists like Dawko to "prove" the goo to you theory.
I can fully appreciate you avoidance. I can fully appreciate your struggle to maintain faith in "biblical authority" in the face of Evolution.
I can fully understand your struggle to maintain faith in atheism in the face of the massive amount of evidence for design because of your desperate desire to avoid the notion that you're accountable to your Creator.

Science is Creationism. I am so thoroughly convinced of Creationism based on two reasons. One are the arguments from Evolutionistic claims that Evolution is the one and only valid theory and is a fact in Science. The other is that I have enough supporting evidence from Creationistic websites to make sense out of Creationism. By all means, I encourage one to actually discuss Science with an Evolutionist. See if politics are not discussed somewhere along the line.

Casey Powell