Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[Lord Emsworth]

Neither a cat nor a dog.

AND on top of that, it is no ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. Evolution is sooo dumb!

 

[BananaSlug]

Anyone find it funny that creationists refuse to play "find the mammal"? If they are so sure of themselves, it should be easy!

 

[Skaloop]

Neither a cat nor a dog.

That's the point. Dogs and cats share a common ancestor that itself was neither a dog nor a cat.

 

[Meshach]

That's the point. Dogs and cats share a common ancestor that itself was neither a dog nor a cat.

You observed this?

 

[JusSumguy]

Just so you know, "Two teenagers in a backseat" isn't the right answer.

Well, how?

( Ok, ok, it is not a serious question. I full well know that there is no meaningful reply forthcoming. )

You left the part out in your quote that splains that. (-:

I don't need to give you an answer to that anyway. It's right there in your bible.

Like I said. You choose not to believe. Yet it's right there in front of you.

Every inch that science advances on this issue brings another glitch in their giddy-up. Yet The Bible splains it all perfectly. You just choose not to believe it.

I have no idea why. Well, I have my suspicions ---> Everybody wants off the hook.

So, I ask... blind, or choosing to be blind? Or, is the Bible complete bunk?

 

[Skaloop]

You observed this?

No more than I observed by brother being conceived and born, but I know we share a common ancestor in my mother.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Dogs and cats share a common ancestor that itself was neither a dog nor a cat.

What's the name of this mythological creature?

And where is your evidence?

 

[Skaloop]

What's the name of this mythological creature?

I dunno. What's the name of your great-great-great-great-great grandmother on your mother's side? If you can't tell me, I will assume she did not exist. Which means you couldn't exist.

And where is your evidence?

Fossil record, DNA, anatomy; stuff like that.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I dunno.

Exactly.

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution.

What's the name of your great-great-great-great-great grandmother on your mother's side? If you can't tell me, I will assume she did not exist. Which means you couldn't exist.

So evolutionist logic is that because I haven't done my geneology my great-great-great-great-great grandmother is a fish?

You're the one claiming my great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a fish.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to name her and show me her fossil proving she was a fish.

 

[Skaloop]

There is evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution.

Glad we agree on that.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And also you have no evidence to prove your great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a fish.

 

[Skaloop]

And also your great.

Aw, thanks. It should be "you're", though. Thanks for the compliment nonetheless!

 

[Exial]

I love Charles Darwin

Really? I shall send you a 10 pound note if you would like, it has his picture on it .

Has anybody else noticed that this argument is going round and round in circles? Creationists ask for evidence, evolutionists provide said evidence but are then asked to present evidence for their evidence.. rather confusing if you ask me.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Really? I shall send you a 10 pound note if you would like, it has his picture on it .

Has anybody else noticed that this argument is going round and round in circles? Creationists ask for evidence, evolutionists provide said evidence but are then asked to present evidence for their evidence.. rather confusing if you ask me.

What evidence?

What evidence have you provided that demonstrates your grandmother to be a fish?

And what is the name of the animal that is the ancestor to cats and dogs?

If you read this thread you'll see that my questions have been ignored.

One poster said the questions were irrelevant...LOL.

 

[Exial]

What evidence?

What evidence have you provided that demonstrates your grandmother to be a fish?

And what is the name of the animal that is the ancestor to cats and dogs?

If you read this thread you'll see that my questions have been ignored.

One poster said the questions were irrelevant...LOL.

I do not know these answers, I am not a biologist. If you really think you have a credible argument against evolution then I suggest you head down to your nearest centre of education and present your evidence instead of arguing on the internet which in the grand scheme of things achieves nothing.

 

[Meshach]

<staff>

You are always so close yet so far away.


Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I do not know these answers, I am not a biologist. If you really think you have a credible argument against evolution then I suggest you head down to your nearest centre of education and present your evidence instead of arguing on the internet which in the grand scheme of things achieves nothing.

I agree that presenting evidence to Darwinists in the grand scheme of things achieves nothing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree that presenting evidence to Darwinists in the grand scheme of things achieves nothing.

Perhaps if you had evidence, we could put your hypothesis to the test.

 

[Miss Elly]

The hypothesis of evolution is absolutely useless in science.

"[Darwinism is] a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences. ... Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life, but here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn't have any substance, 2) it's preposterous, 3) it's not supported by the evidence and 4) the fact that the biologists are uniformly in agreement about this issue could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests." -- David Berlinksi, author, 2008

Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

I love to hear from the truly enlightened, educated persons on this subject. God bless you and I am in your corner.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Perhaps if you had evidence, we could put your hypothesis to the test.

How about we put evolution to the test.

The faith-based hypothesis of evolution predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 50,000 years ago because they hadn't evolved yet.

When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 100,000 years ago.

When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 130,000 years ago.

When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 154,000 years ago.

When that faith-based prediction was falsified by scientific evidence the Darwinists predicted that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 160,000 years ago.

Notice a pattern?

Now they say it's impossible that Homo sapiens didn't exist prior to 200,000 years ago.

But I'm afraid that prediction is no better than the prediction of children because Homo sapiens were in Mexico 220,000 years ago and therefore cannot have evolved in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago.

"Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca 30,000- . . . etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

Irwin-Williams, C., et al., Comments on the Associations of Archaeological Materials and Extinct Fauna in the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico, American Antiquity, Volume 34, Number 1, Pages 82-83, Jan 1969

Szabo, B.J., Malde, H.E., and Irwin-Williams, C., Dilemma Posed By Uranium-Series Dates On Archaeologically Significant Bones From Valsequillo Puebla Mexico, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 6, Pages 237-244, Jul 1969

Steen-McIntyre, V., et al., Geologic Evidence for Age Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site Valsequillo Mexico, Quaternary Research, Number 16, Pages 1-17, 1981

VanLandingham, S.L., Corroboration of Sangamonian Age of Artifacts From the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico By Means of Diatom Biostratigraphy, Micropaleontology, Volume 50, Number 4, Pages 313-342, 2004

VanLandingham, S.L., Diatom Evidence For Autocthonous Artifact Deposition In the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico During Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,0000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP)), Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 36, Number 1, Pages 101-116, Jul 2006

Huddart, D., et al., Analysis of Preservation of Pleistocene Human and Animal Footprints: An Example From Toluquilla Valsequillo Basin (Central Mexico), Ichnos, Volume 15, Numbers 3-4, Pages 232-245, Jul 2008