Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate: Part V
I should've titled this series, Intelligent Design vs. Intelligent Design given the theistic evolution mindset of the "naturalistic" evolutionist team.
It's still good viewing, with the evolutionists totally immersed in all things theological and the ID people trying desperately to keep the subject on critiquing the science.
So far the best the evolutionist team could come up with were:
1. So you don't believe in evolution??? Well, what's your alternative? And…
2. You wanted evidence in the fossil record for evolution, missing links, etc.??? Look at these fine ink drawings I have here. As you can see, The top drawing is of a land animal that resembles a horse or cow. Right under that we have a similar sort of animal with shorter legs, and just below that we have another animal with increased morphological change and no legs which lives in the water. Continued inquiry revealed that these animals have some morphological features which are similar. Furthermore, all these critters were found in the same location in successively older strata. Conclusion: Over the course of a few million years, the quadruped turned into a whale.
creationism is a joke. its just bound to be completely disproven sometime soon.
Yeah, and so are your ill informed statements. Don’t think you can just waltz in here and commit a flagrant foul without losing some yardage, Kat. What constitutes a flagrant foul? I’m glad you asked. First, after making an assertion, how about backing it up with something substantive, like proof. It would also be helpful if you defined exactly what you mean when you use the term “creationism.” That’s because creationism can mean anything from young earth fiat creationism to God-guided evolutionISM. In short, you think creationism is a joke, eh? Okay. Great. How about defining it and then telling us why it makes your sides hurt. Otherwise, you’ll be unceremoniously deleted from the queue.
Thanks for playing.