You are too stupid to know what is the best of the
alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is
compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism
that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence
whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant
with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to
delude those that call themselves
christians?
For 10% of their monthly
salaries. hahahaha....
Sorry but just because it is compliant with physical laws of the
universe does not mean it is totally correct. And with the physical
laws of the universe, I presume you are saying the actual age of
the universe.And for your info, evolution does not come with
evidence but also imagination like how you stated creationism is.
Those evolutionists only find a small bone in the sand resembling
that of a human's and claim it is human's ancestor bones, while in
the musuem, they make up the whole body of the animal with their
imagination.
And please read this before you even start calling others
stupid, which is quite ironic since you yourself is stupid.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe
noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary
rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above
somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of
evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must
have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did
not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during
the flood. [For an explanation, see pages
172–183.]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these
“index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and
plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a
coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000
to 400,000,000 years old. [See
Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are almost always
dated by their fossil contenta—which,
as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly
shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is
circular,b
many discoveries, such as living coelacanths,c–g
were unexpected. [See
“Out-of-Place Fossils” on
page 13.]
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to
have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth
(SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean,
northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths,
so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off
the coast of Indonesia.c
How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles,
survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists
incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain,
and four bottom fins about to evolve into
legs.d
Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish,
crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air,
becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students
have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all
amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including
people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from
South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed
the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in
1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at
all.e
Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their
natural habitat. They were not crawling on
all fours.f
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938,
evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at
least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today,
evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils
look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000
years of evolution.g
If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived
and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and
should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that
coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
And I guess AndrewPKYap is too stupid to even google
arguments against the theory of evolution. As I said, go lick a
monkey's arse if you like them so much as to think they are your
ancestors.
