Intelligent Evolutionism

sea scorpionCNN Tech has an article about a giant, 8 foot, prehistoric sea scorpion.  Yup – 8 feet.  My question is where were these things during the Ark times?  Since they were sea creatures, I suppose they could handle 40 days and 40 nights…

Then I read another Gadget Pastor article about overzealous anthropologists and how they find fossils and are quick to claim they’re a “missing link”.   Could the giant sea scorpion be something else?

Your thoughts?

11 comments

  1. Tristi

    Rod and I just had this conversation last night. He just thought it was cool and pointed it out to me. I asked the “could it be something else?” question. We didn’t come up with any answers and it asn’t a very long conversation. It was interesting although I doubt I’ll lose sleep over it.

  2. Erik

    Me neither, but it is interesting how evolutionists are quick to say something is of humanoid origin when in reality, it’s nowhere near accurate. So much for science…

  3. sillysillysilly

    “My question is where were these things during the Ark times?”

    Wait – first you have to ask – is there really any truth in the fable of a boat with only 2 of all creatures on it?

    I’m beginning to think you are not only scientifically illiterate but also you believe in “Biblical inerrancy”.

    Time to set “comment moderation” to avoid “nasty” comments about reality from someone like me.

  4. Erik

    Nah. I welcome your comments. In a heated debate, I’ll admit – you’d probably win for the simple fact that I’m not as boned up as I should be on the evolutionary science end of things, but on the other hand, I don’t need to be. My faith dictates my beliefs. For the most part, that’s all I need. One day we’ll all find out which side was right… 😉

  5. sillysillysilly

    “My faith dictates my beliefs.”

    That has nothing to do with “science”.

    “One day we’ll all find out which side was right.”

    There’s certainly no “science” in that statement.
    I have no faith that your statement reflects reality.

  6. Erik

    I never claimed there was any science in my statement. Like I said – faith is all I need. There are some things in this world that have not or cannot be explained.

  7. sillysillysilly

    “There are some things in this world that have not or cannot be explained.”

    A scientist would claim that ther’s a difference between “have not” and “cannot”. “Have not” means “not yet”. The “you can’t explain this particular detail of evolution to my satisfaction” is a standard creationist ploy.

    The statement “this thing cannot be explained” is a “negative” statement. It is very hard to prove a negative statement. You can “wager” that it will never be explained in a million years, but you can never prove it can never be explained.

    Your thinking is very unscientific.

  8. Erik

    You’re right. I don’t think scientifically. Science is not the end all, be all to explaining everything. Take carbon dating for example… Flawed from the start.

  9. sillysillysilly

    “Take carbon dating for example… Flawed from the start.”

    You are silly silly silly in your rejection of science.
    Please go back to the Dark Ages where you obviously came from.

  10. Erik

    Hey, I’m just throwing out things that are floating around already. If the science was flawless, there wouldn’t be so much debate.

    It’s funny you think I’m a “Dark Ager”. I think of myself as pretty progressive when it comes to things of this matter.

  11. sillysillysilly

    “I’m just throwing out things that are floating around already.”

    Yes, you are just repeating creationist canards without the slightest bit of understanding of science.

    “If the science was flawless, there wouldn’t be so much debate.”

    If “ordinary people” had the slighest bit of understanding about “science”, they would not be “taken in” by the creationist canards.

    “It’s funny you think I’m a “Dark Ager”.”

    Fundamentally, creationism rejects science. (See stupid comment about “carbon dating” for example.) So I equate rejection of science with a wish to return to the Dark Ages – religion was “in control”.

    “I think of myself as pretty progressive when it comes to things of this matter.”

    Really nasty ad hominem not entered here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s