Science, Creation & EvolutionNew Info. On Large Mammals Existing Alongside DinosWhen I see a flower, I see beauty. I see an intricately shaped structure with an attached aroma that is pleasing. I also know it is composed of hydrocarbon chains, DNA and other organic molecules, both simple and complex. What I don't then say is "this was designed for I can't possibly see such a beauty being the product of natural forces other than Him". You seem to think because I find Creationism ridiculous that I am not a true scientist. I don't care, and what's more, never have. When I graduate and start working for the gov't on potential applications for helping humanity, I will know that what I am doing is something more than taking time out to argue basic and accepted facts with the scientifically ignorant or those that feel the Bible is somehow above all scientific texts. If anything, it is you with the agenda. I am simply following science and logic. If I find that a hypothesis of mine doesn't fit the facts, I note this down (as I am doing with my dissertation given it seems A. niger may be using an unusual form of weak acid stress adaptation to the normal CLC gene pathway). I don't go "Genesis states this. This evidence says otherwise, so let's twist it to fit the facts and we'll be okay" which is what most all Creationists set out to do. Science is describing the world around us. Creationism is trying to make the facts fit the theory, the total opposite. I am sorry you cannot see this. You are mistaken. I have read practically every Creationist argument put forward over the last half a decade. I have been one to read into alternative theories given I am a regular reader of New Scientist which publishes any news in science since it isn't a journal, but a news tabloid of sorts. But I don't let my intentions get the better of me. I may want aliens to exist, but as I have yet to see anything stating they do, I don't believe they do currently and no amount of my wanting it to be so will change fact. Creationists can harp on about the Bible and misquote, plant evidence and generally lie till their faces go blue. It won't change fact and is ultimately irrelelvent. Tell me, how many times does the national press mention Creationism as being the main theory for how we came into being and not the Big Bang or abiogenesis? Does not that speak volumes for the lovely PR campaign that is Creationism? Again, I am sorry you think I am ignorant when it is you posting excerpts from Answersingenesis.org and associated sites. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame