I found this in the Oct. issue of "Time" in the LETTERS section. I thought that perhaps it's message was worthwhile.......

"THE ANGRY EVOLUTIONIST"

Here's a proposal for people of faith and people of science alike: if one side concedes that evolution is a scientific fact, will the other side stop trying to suggest that it is somehow proof that a higher being can't possibly exist? Just asking.
Shannon T. Nutt, Pittsburgh, PA.

Nothing beats a liberal atheist teabagger.

Aw c'mon. Dontcha know that the earth is only a few thousand years old just like the bible says? Them fossils of dinosaurs and such were just put there by God to fool us and test our faith.

On a serious note, science can't be proven...it is just a collection of theories that suggest how nature might work until disproven by a better theory.

I dont recall the chapter and verse that says that... can you refresh my memory?

Exactly. Not explicit and yet used as a basis for saying evolution is false because it would take too long. A little light reading:

Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda.

Classic.

there is always good reason NOT to trust the words of scientists with agendas


...fixed it for ya...

Ouch! Knifed in the back!

This is an oil and water situation:
-Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
-Evolution is based on science.

Don't try to mix 'em.

Both might be wrong. One or neither is right.

No, not knifed in the back...

You will never be able to bring religion or politics in any discussion because you will alway end up with the same results... 50+ pages of name calling...

Heathen!!

Bible thumper!!

Heathen!!

Bible thumper!!

dickweed... fuctard... sandypuss...

49 pages to go

Is this the fly flinger vs. bait thug thread? We need a video.

9mm or .45acp

Chevy vs Ford?

What do I do?

I am religious and a scientist.

I am a fat liner and a bait slinger.

Decisions...decisions...

Pretty funny...... science VS a story written in a book.

I drink, therefore I am.

and yes, I recently saw DanS in a fishy magazine picture, so at least i can take solace in my faith it was really Dan wait a minute, i thought muslims opposed pictures or photographs depicting DanS? this thread is creating some really troubled spiritual waters....

Good one ..........at least the science has some substance.

There is just no way possible that Democrats could have evolved from monkeys...

Therefore there must be a God

I'm sorry Aunty, i don't know what the outrage is - did i get it wrong and the "W" on Dan's hat stood for Wotan instead?

I can't help it but those are funny.