Bigot Ham has no interest in scientific evidence for or even against evolution it would seem. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible". Science does not normally do 'solid proof' - and if it did arguing that the Bible somehow 'refutes' the theory of evolution would be a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 'solid proof'. Propagandists and fundamentalists are the ones doing 'solid proof'. And guess what - no scientific evidence is currently available for them to be able to make a proper case against evolution - so they either bluster about science or else as here ignore the science completely and instead Bible bash against evolution (or try to make evolutionists look silly as in Comfort's video).
I don't have solid proof that Ken Ham hates science - just reams and reams of strong evidence for it. His words.
He claims evolutionists have 'no' excuse for doubting the Bible.
Well creationists have excuses for their practice of condemning evolution whilst simultaneously not being able remotely to disprove it via science despite decades of trying to. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible." Yeah, right.
a_haworthroberts wrote:A Christian student criticises the Creation Museum:
http://benstanhope.blogspot.mx/2013/06/ ... ation.html
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -exegesis/
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -response/
I've only skimmed the posts.
Well done, Ashley.a_haworthroberts wrote:Purdom wrote:"I made a mistake in my post yesterday- the functional pseudogene that Tomkins found is on chromosome 11, not 2. I was thinking about some other conversations we had that related to chromosome 2. Sorry for the confusion."
Users browsing this forum: a_haworthroberts and 1 guest