Chris Johnson wrote:
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" skrev i melding
...
In article . com "Sharkvriol"
writes:
Elmer wrote:
Sharkvriol wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:

Skywise wrote:

Why do Evolutionists simply "believe" life evolved from non-life?
It's not a belief. It's a matter of what the weight of the evidence
demonstrates.
And what evidence might that be?
The big bang

I see, You were around I imagine, to see it.. And yet real astronomers
are drifting from the Big Bang.
Funny...I work in the community of real astronomers, and I read
New Scientist very week, Scientific American every month, and
the New York Times science page every day ... and I'm not aware
of any mass disillusionment with the Big Bang.

You know something I don't?
The Big Bang is a paradigm, it means that hell will freeze before they will
admit that it should be a shift in this belief.

Actually the Big Bang is simply the best idea that fits the data so
far. If it can be reconciled with new data, it will be. If it can't, it
will either be modified or thrown out.

Moron theists seem to like to justify their own rigid positions by
misunderstanding those of scientists. Just because they can dismiss
your fairy tales out of hand doesn't mean their own ideas are
inflexible.

Yet, the evidence is pointing towards a continous creation of stars and galaxies.

What evidence is this?


Actually there *is* evidence for "continuous creation" of stars (not galaxies, however) - As new generation stars are
starting up from the remains of previous supernovaes and novaes. There are pretty pictures provided by the Hubble Space
Sbservatory. Other than that - it's just the sameold-sameold cretinoiod garbage from clueless religious fanatics,
Jesus-peddling fundamentalists, willfully pig-ignorant Talibans and all-around retards such as 'saba', "jabby' and
'skywise' (I must have forgotten some category in that terminally infested hive?...)

If there ever was a big bang, who knows
but the scientists claiming it weren't there, yet they are extremely doctrinal about it.

Who's doctrinal? In what ways are they doctrinal? Can you actually cite
an example, or is this an unfounded assertion?



--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)