“Show me a person who believes in Noah’s ark and I will show you a Trump voter,”

[Yeshua1]

Evolution has been proven to be scientifically impossible, huh..?
Well then.. By all means, please present for us all the tests that were conducted and the peer reviewed science journals that they were published in that shows that evolution is impossible..
I shall await your evidence with baited breath.. Good luck with that.. lol

Will you show to us when and where they peer reviewed anything that did not fit into their preconceived godless worldview? many bring up all the time that creationists are not peer reviewed, so no good evidence, duh, not reviewed due to mindset of the secular evolutionists!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, THEY dont..
Which is why they are laughed at by the scientific community, and also why they never submit any of their alleged work for peer review..

God himself could submit how he created the Universe and created life, and they would still refuse to review His work!

 

[church mouse guy]

They also refuse to accept that God became a man, and rose from the dead, correct? Not 'scientifically plausible?"

Of course! AiG likes to say that both sides have the same facts exactly but they have different ways of examining the truth. The charge that Biblical Creationists are not scientific is so laughable that I just ignore it anymore. John Baumgardner worked at Los Alamos for many years. What higher credential is there? Michael Ord knows more about the Great Missoula Flood and the post-flood Ice Age than anyone else and spent years working as a meteorologist for the federal government and has been all over the territory from Missoula to the Pacific Ocean where the water raced when the damned up water broke free. Life is good--you can't chase all of the rabbits of the Darwinists. Gelernter said that evolution was a beautiful theory, but when they asked Berlinski if he ever thought that evolution was a beautiful idea, he said never! That's me--never!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If I understand the discussion from the Hoover Institution linked in my signature, things have to be just so and timing and environment are not really involved. That is the reason that Darwin is discarded forever and ever world without end. The only question is how long it will take Americans do face the facts.

Yes, a good point, cmg. Their model does not require special timing, except to observe that there is not enough time to try all of the options randomly. However, it would require that everything be present for selection, as well as a very special environment conducive to their preservation in the meantime, but they are granting these without discussion.

On the other hand, KS offhandedly dismisses the prohibitive probability, insisting without clear basis that something will accurately select so that the required time is drastically reduced. However, if we are going to go there, then I want to know all of the details of how everything just happened to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the righy way. On its best day, the answer will be extremely complicated, or unacceptably incomplete. The strictly natural "just so" stories are just that, fairlytales with hopeful monsters.

I can understand the desire to search all of this out scientifically, but dismiss with more skepticism than an atheist, and justifiably so, any attempt to pretend the strictly natural one is already an open and shut case. It is no such thing, and by all appearances requires special involvement, that is, intelligent design.

I note two things from the video. First, Gelernter rejects Meyer's ID theory only on aesthetic religious grounds. Second, Berlinski, who usually comes across as a skeptic says it's true that, "The world is charged with the grandeur of God," without basing it on biology.

A better link might be one with some text as well as the video:
Mathematical Challenges To Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution, With David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, And David Gelernter

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course! AiG likes to say that both sides have the same facts exactly but they have different ways of examining the truth. The charge that Biblical Creationists are not scientific is so laughable that I just ignore it anymore. John Baumgardner worked at Los Alamos for many years. What higher credential is there? Michael Ord knows more about the Great Missoula Flood and the post-flood Ice Age than anyone else and spent years working as a meteorologist for the federal government and has been all over the territory from Missoula to the Pacific Ocean where the water raced when the damned up water broke free. Life is good--you can't chase all of the rabbits of the Darwinists. Gelernter said that evolution was a beautiful theory, but when they asked Berlinski if he ever thought that evolution was a beautiful idea, he said never! That's me--never!

Newton held to God existing, and would dare say his smarts would make any evolutionist today be put to shame!

 

[just-want-peace]

So!! Obviously one of the creationists biggest problems is that we have been defining our beliefs on a manuscript that HAS NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED!

Oh, wait a minute - did not Jesus QUOTE many of the verses that we base our beliefs on??

So, it HAS been PEER REVIEWED, just not the same "peers" that the evos claim are so brilliant & factual(?)!

I'll take the PEER REVIEW of the true scholarly, all knowing peer rather than the faux wannabe peers!

Just the opinion of one gun loving, bible toting, red-neck deplorable!!