Anyone who calls the theory of evolution a "speculation" is either a deceiving sod or a pig-ignorant twit.

You wouldn't want to be either of those, would you, Iamachildofhis?

Jul 26, 2009 -- 3:24AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Henry Morris was a 100% genuine human, who knew his Bible very, very well!

Henry Morris was not a Biblical scholar. All his training and expertise were in the field of civil engineering.  

He spent his life-energy battling the "speculation" in all of its forms.

He spent his "life energy" trying to destroy Western civilization and did not scruple to practice any deception that he thought would further that end. Like all religious fanatics, he was fundamentally immoral.  

Iam: The Bible records what actually took place in Earth-history, by the way!

ME: If in order to force real data to fit the bible, you have to invent such laughable contortions as a plant-eating T-Rex, then, obviously, no ---- the bible doesn't record what actually took place in Earth's history.

Moreover,  when you make up a patch as ludicrous as this to  jackhammer real-world observations into a ill-conceived model, you have long since abandoned the practice of science.  In real science, models and theories follow the evidence; evidence is not twisted to support a model that the scientist is too emotionally invested in to replace. 

Chalk this one up to more creationist speculation.

Iam: Of course, we all know, that you were there as an eyewitness!

You don't need to be there, Iam --- all you have to do is look at the skeletons. Carnivores, herbivores and omnivores have very different kinds of teeth.  This is elementary school science.  If your hero Henry Morris claimed that velocioraptors and T-rexes ate plants, then he was either an astoundingly uneducated man, a seriously deluded man, or a liar of the highest caliber.

So, on the evolution side, we have the evidence of the fossils themselves and everything that biology has found about teeth and food.

What science is on the side of the creationist speculation, Iam?  Can you provide a single piece of actual scientific data that supports this?  If you haven't got any evidence, then there is no way you can claim that YECs followed the evidence to the conclusion of plant-eater, can you?  No, YECs have to try to invent evidence to fit a conclusion they pre-chose; it is all apologetics. There is no way you can claim that YECs got here through the scientific method or that there is any science involved at all.

Why don't YECs just say that they will believe in a literal bible, no matter how much evidence is against it --- at least, that would be honest.

Jul 27, 2009 -- 5:14PM, Ephemerae_inc. wrote:

They need the illusion of using science as to affirm their rigid view. Plus, it makes them all the more credible than just advertising their ignorance and obstinance.

Unfortunately, their crackpot pseudoscience simply advertises their ignorance and obstinance all the more.

Jul 14, 2009 -- 3:52AM, Blü wrote:

iama

Don't you think that the eight on the Ark who cared for the animals, would have cared for the animals welfare, post-The Flood, as well?

Since we're talking nursery tales, should Little Red Riding Hood's woodcutter be charged for Cruelty to Animals violations?  And killing protected species?

What about the ethical considerations of locking up animals in cages without any chance to exercise for more than a month?

I'm sure PETA would have condemned such animal cruelty.