Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
- Oct 10, 2004
- 51,745
- 421
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
AND on top of that, it is no ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. Evolution is sooo dumb!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Neither a cat nor a dog.
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.)
What's the name of this mythological creature?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?
Exactly.I dunno.
So evolutionist logic is that because I haven't done my geneology my great-great-great-great-great grandmother is a fish?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.
I love Charles Darwin
What evidence?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.
I agree that presenting evidence to Darwinists in the grand scheme of things achieves nothing.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.
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: âWhy would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?â
How about we put evolution to the test.Perhaps if you had evidence, we could put your hypothesis to the test.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?