Ban the internet
Out of context: Reply #65
- Started
- Last post
- 174 Responses
- discipler0
Tick, thanks for using the "nads" laymans term. It's all clear now.
The problem with assuming that any species mutates from one genome to another is that there is no scientific evidence.
Those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces. They have accepted evolution on the basis of authority, because their professors or academic gurus told them so - a kind of faith... a kind of religion.
No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa. Nor does the fossil record suggest this. Louis Pasteur's famous observation, that life only comes from life, has never been disproved. His experiments have already falsified all claims that life originated from primordial goo, but philosophical considerations - not facts, not science - prevent this from being accepted by evolutionists. So, which model of origins requires more faith?
Tick, there's a bit more to the Bible than a good story about the human condition. ;)