Comment: Thanks for validating my argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're playing with semantics (see in situ)

GoodSamaritan's picture

Thanks for validating my argument

This is a very accurate description of Creation science:

"It is an attempt to explain the natural phenomena that we observe using the Laws of Nature without resorting to supernatural intervention."

We don't need miracles when cataloging and analyzing the numerous failures of K-Ar radiometric dating. We don't need miracles when explaining the tranposon mechanism for rapid speciation. We don't need miracles for pointing out that thousands of feet of strata in the Grand Canyon that is supposedly hundreds of millions of years old could not have folded as it did without fracturing unless all the layers were deposited in rapid succession while wet. We don't need miracles to uncover polystrate fossils found all over the world. We don't use miracles to explain the serious problems clastic dikes and turbidites present to uniformitarianism. No need to mention miracles as evolutionists struggle to explain marine fossils on the highest mountains all over the world, including the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. It doesn't take a miracle to show that stratigraphic disorder is a common occurrence in the fossil record. Miracles have nothing to do with the fact that organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record without any evidence of transitional forms.

I could go on like this for hours without ever mentioning or resorting to a single miracle. When a theory, such as evolution, is built upon events with zero probability, then it is nothing but a story without determinable basis of fact or natural explanation - a "myth" that depends on the generosity and blessings of The Flying Probability Monster.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father