Skip to Content
2-15-2009 @ 5:38PM
I don't even know what to reply with. It's all so convenient how it works out that macroevolution simply must be true even though we haven't been around long enough to observe it, yet by the same token creationism is completely out because it would have happened so long ago that it simply can't be observed. Creationist scientists don't deny science itself, my friend. Creationism is simply another, viable (yes) explanation for how we are here, like intelligent design and evolution. One hinges on random chance events, the other two hinge on a designer with or without a purpose. Science's job is to answer how, not why. And science certainly must not rule out a reasonable hypothesis simply because it cannot be completely observed.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.