Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frraksurred" data-source="post: 709201" data-attributes="member: 544871">Wow, take a 2 hour break and come back to 2 pages.&nbsp; I love it!Thanks for your comments Steve.I admit it was a painfully long post.&nbsp; I tried to condense as much as I could but obviously I bit off too big af a subject to start with.&nbsp; I will try to &quot;contain myself in the future.&nbsp; //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gifValid point.&nbsp; I started with older, well known, &quot;icons&quot; because they were what was used to initially build the credibility given to evolution.&nbsp; I also attacked primarily Darwinism, which has lost considerable credibility in light of recent discoveries (recent meaning the last 50 years).&nbsp; I realize that paltry post is not going to debunk evolution all by itself, but I had to start some where.&nbsp; //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif&nbsp; I get into more later.Agreed.&nbsp; Thankfully there has been a great deal of discovery that points to intelligent design in the last 5 decades.&nbsp; This is one of the reasons that so many school boards are under fire to teach the intelligent design theory next to the evolutionary theory.&nbsp; I will be getting into more of that as we go as well.&nbsp; &nbsp; //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryhappy.gif.fec4fed33b4a1279cf10bdd45a039dae.gif&nbsp; BTW, I&#039;m glad we have a physics grad(?) to add insight.&nbsp; //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gifStrobel is a collector of information, not a scientist himself.&nbsp; If you were reading closely you would have noticed I referenced the scientist, in this case Jonathan Wells, that Strobel was interviewing and whose research I was using/quoting.&nbsp; Nonetheless, I still felt responsible to list Strobel&#039;s book as the resouce.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frraksurred, post: 709201, member: 544871"] Wow, take a 2 hour break and come back to 2 pages. I love it! Thanks for your comments Steve. I admit it was a painfully long post. I tried to condense as much as I could but obviously I bit off too big af a subject to start with. I will try to "contain myself in the future. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif[/IMG] Valid point. I started with older, well known, "icons" because they were what was used to initially build the credibility given to evolution. I also attacked primarily Darwinism, which has lost considerable credibility in light of recent discoveries (recent meaning the last 50 years). I realize that paltry post is not going to debunk evolution all by itself, but I had to start some where. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif[/IMG] I get into more later. Agreed. Thankfully there has been a great deal of discovery that points to intelligent design in the last 5 decades. This is one of the reasons that so many school boards are under fire to teach the intelligent design theory next to the evolutionary theory. I will be getting into more of that as we go as well. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryhappy.gif.fec4fed33b4a1279cf10bdd45a039dae.gif[/IMG] BTW, I'm glad we have a physics grad(?) to add insight. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif[/IMG] Strobel is a collector of information, not a scientist himself. If you were reading closely you would have noticed I referenced the scientist, in this case Jonathan Wells, that Strobel was interviewing and whose research I was using/quoting. Nonetheless, I still felt responsible to list Strobel's book as the resouce. [/QUOTE]

Verification