21 May 12
Originally posted by humyNote how RJHinds doesn't answer my killer question nor admit the fact that he cannot give a valid answer proves his claim to be totally wrong. Will he continue to say the same lies later on and just hope we don't notice that we have already debunked them?
Totally irrelevant; those particular modern definitions for classifying animals happen to be for those animals living at the present and not those that lived in the very distant past.
The fossils PROVE that some past lizards had feathers.
Just LOOK at the fossil in the link I gave you and tell us if that is a fossil of a bird or lizard:
http://www.mapofl ...[text shortened]... athers are just modified scales and made of exactly the same organic substance as lizard scales.
21 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsProblems have now been pointed out, but you have not made any responses in that regard. Does this mean you are not actually going to discuss them but simply start a new thread like I predicted?
By the way I haven't noticed any errors in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillratings and comments disabled. typical creationist nonsense video with nothing to show and too embarrassed to allow people to rate or comment.
Move over Lucy - the Holy Grail of Anthropology has now been found.
[b]The Missing Link FOUND - 47 Million Year Old Fossil Vindicates Darwinism or Voodoo Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7L3PQMi3A[/b]
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsif you think you've found some problems with the theory of evolution, you're welcome to make your case. i haven't seen you make any case. if you don't have a case to make, then by all means admit you've learned nothing (as usual) and move on.
How can We discuss the problems if you will not look at the videos I present to explain the the problems that come from scientist with more knowledge on it than me. If you would watch them then you could explain why you disagree with the scientists and then we could begin a discussion. Until then, I do not see what we have to discuss.
Frog to a Prince 1 ...[text shortened]... you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”
(Luke 19:40 NKJV)
22 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseGood video, huh?
Ok, I looked at your source, you look at mine now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Here is another one that brings up another problem with Evolution by chemical processes. It is called Evolution Debunked.
&feature=related
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you know I put that one up by mistake, since it was put up by you in the first place. I would never have voluntarily put up a piece of crap like that. Blatant religious bias. You don't want to have evolution taught side by side with creationism, you want evolution DESTROYED and have us go back a thousand years, what next? Stocks? Burning witches again?
If you mean this one, yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsif you think evolution has been debunked, you should be able to present a clear case in your own words. we wait with baited breath. (not really).
Good video, huh?
Here is another one that brings up another problem with Evolution by chemical processes. It is called Evolution Debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0DarH79soo&feature=related
23 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, you are right. I believe evolution is a false teaching and should not be taught in school. I believe once intelligent design is taught then there will be more research done in this area and evolution will fall by the wayside.
I think you know I put that one up by mistake, since it was put up by you in the first place. I would never have voluntarily put up a piece of crap like that. Blatant religious bias. You don't want to have evolution taught side by side with creationism, you want evolution DESTROYED and have us go back a thousand years, what next? Stocks? Burning witches again?
23 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHe didn't say there that he was not interested.
Since you are not really interested, there is no point in wasting my time on you.
Your none answer just confirms you have no answer just as we have already guessed and he implied.
You said yourself you are not interested in debating anything and your none answer only confirms this, so why should we waste time with you?