Science, Creation & Evolutionsecular science and scientistsThis is good. This is what Jovaro and Helix want to see. The problem comes when you try to say "an evo website is wrong because a creo website said so". I agree that many TO articles should not be used because of their misleadings, but Helix and Jovaro aren't gonna buy if the sources you quote are creo sites like you did here: This means nothing for them. And it's hypocritical for you to say that, because at the same time you're telling them to look at a creo site that debunks an evo site, you come off as not willing to look at an evo site (like TO) that attempts to debunk creo. See what I'm saying? Furthermore, (and don't get me wrong here - I'm not sticking up for TO) just because one article is wrong and/or misleading, it doesn't mean that they all are. For you to totally disregard an entire website on the basis of a few of the articles that are presented there seems to me to be kinda close-minded. I'm not at all saying that TO is ever going to find any evidence that proves evolution, but I am saying that you can't just go around saying "Oh, it came from TO, so it is automatically evo propoganda that doesn't deserve the time of day." |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame