Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[SmarterThanHick]

So let's highlight the things you completely avoided in my last post, in your usual underhanded method, to avoid being shown wrong on simple topics:

So you say they can prove a parent of a child through genes. But really they're just showing that they share identical copies of certain genes. That's all. It just shows similarity. Nothing more, nothing less. But you claim similarity can't prove ancestry. So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science?

So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science? You blatantly contradict yourself and then avoid responding to me pointing it out. You can't even support your own beliefs on this because they are so undeveloped.

the relation between evolution and the beginning of the universe are related in that they both happened, but they aren't the same thing. You continue to pretend as if they are the same thing to make your usual morally bankrupt arguments. Or do you finally concede that evolution does not involve the beginning of the universe or life?

Do you finally concede that evolution is temporally related to but does not involve the beginning of the universe or life? No, you'll avoid answering this one as well. Because you know you're wrong. Responding only leaves you conceding, or saying something else completely moronic you know I'll call you out on. You're best bet is misdirection once again, or completely ignoring it hoping it will go away.

So in summary once again: science is using transparent methods, defined terms, and reproducible verifiable evidence to draw logical conclusions. Religious nuts are using vague terms without real meaning, misdirected questions, circular reasoning, and unsupported guesses to draw their opinions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, not even arguing with me. You've chosen to submit for the first time i've ever seen you do it on this board.

You choose the loony interpretation because the want to be seen with the loony crowd, has nothing to do with it being the correct interpretation.

I want you to break down each scripture you posted and explain it if you don't mind.

Please forgive me for putting you to the test I am in a teaching mood.

Scroll back a page or two, the scripture and my explanation are already provided and you've already responded to them.

Not what I asked you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me help you out with this whatever can reproduce they reproduce what they're,yes or no ?

Mostly, yes. Not always. We've gone over this before. You conveniently forget every time. New mutations during reproduction create changes. This is not only the driving force behind evolution, but is easily observed in humans.

I will tell you what is hilarious,by your reasoning and argument we are 75% identical to a nematode worm. Oh yeah during the Genome project they studied the Genome of the nematode and that is what they came away with.

So I ask you does your argument still prove ancestry between chimp and human ?

If you say yes you have to admit we are 75% worm.

I would like to say this is the most absurd conclusion you have ever given, but that would be wrong. My speakers and my lamp both require a power cord. Does that mean my speakers are 50% lamp? No, that's ridiculous. It means they share similar components because a long time ago a standard was produced, and it pervaded all electronics moving forward. Similarly, standards in genes are produced that work well, and are passed forward.

In this post, you use two types of bad reasoning simultaneously. First is your usual comparison fallacy that goes something like: "if a firetruck is red, and an apple is red, an apple is a type of firetruck." The second is belief that humans evolved from an animal alive today, such as worms or apes. As if my speaker evolved from my lamp because they share something in common.

I have and use many different bibles so I get the right message, ... I don't cherry pick when it comes to God And his word.

Actually that pretty much defines cherry picking.

Prove an offspring came out a different species due to mutations ? You know very well that genetics determine what the offspring will be. At best mutations will make no difference, worse case scenario the offspring will die or will die prematurely or be severely deformed.

Stop with your Neo crap.

You're disengenuious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So let's highlight the things you completely avoided in my last post, in your usual underhanded method, to avoid being shown wrong on simple topics:

So you say they can prove a parent of a child through genes. But really they're just showing that they share identical copies of certain genes. That's all. It just shows similarity. Nothing more, nothing less. But you claim similarity can't prove ancestry. So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science?

So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science? You blatantly contradict yourself and then avoid responding to me pointing it out. You can't even support your own beliefs on this because they are so undeveloped.

the relation between evolution and the beginning of the universe are related in that they both happened, but they aren't the same thing. You continue to pretend as if they are the same thing to make your usual morally bankrupt arguments. Or do you finally concede that evolution does not involve the beginning of the universe or life?

Do you finally concede that evolution is temporally related to but does not involve the beginning of the universe or life? No, you'll avoid answering this one as well. Because you know you're wrong. Responding only leaves you conceding, or saying something else completely moronic you know I'll call you out on. You're best bet is misdirection once again, or completely ignoring it hoping it will go away.

So in summary once again: science is using transparent methods, defined terms, and reproducible verifiable evidence to draw logical conclusions. Religious nuts are using vague terms without real meaning, misdirected questions, circular reasoning, and unsupported guesses to draw their opinions.

To your first question here educate yourself,no a chimp can't be shown to be a relative using this method. The more they study the genomes of humans and chimps the further we get from each other.

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

 

[JScott]

So let's highlight the things you completely avoided in my last post, in your usual underhanded method, to avoid being shown wrong on simple topics:

So you say they can prove a parent of a child through genes. But really they're just showing that they share identical copies of certain genes. That's all. It just shows similarity. Nothing more, nothing less. But you claim similarity can't prove ancestry. So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science?

So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science? You blatantly contradict yourself and then avoid responding to me pointing it out. You can't even support your own beliefs on this because they are so undeveloped.

the relation between evolution and the beginning of the universe are related in that they both happened, but they aren't the same thing. You continue to pretend as if they are the same thing to make your usual morally bankrupt arguments. Or do you finally concede that evolution does not involve the beginning of the universe or life?

Do you finally concede that evolution is temporally related to but does not involve the beginning of the universe or life? No, you'll avoid answering this one as well. Because you know you're wrong. Responding only leaves you conceding, or saying something else completely moronic you know I'll call you out on. You're best bet is misdirection once again, or completely ignoring it hoping it will go away.

So in summary once again: science is using transparent methods, defined terms, and reproducible verifiable evidence to draw logical conclusions. Religious nuts are using vague terms without real meaning, misdirected questions, circular reasoning, and unsupported guesses to draw their opinions.

To your first question here educate yourself,no a chimp can't be shown to be a relative using this method. The more they study the genomes of humans and chimps the further we get from each other.

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

With the beginning of time.

 

[JScott]

Let me help you out with this whatever can reproduce they reproduce what they're,yes or no ?

Mostly, yes. Not always. We've gone over this before. You conveniently forget every time. New mutations during reproduction create changes. This is not only the driving force behind evolution, but is easily observed in humans.


I would like to say this is the most absurd conclusion you have ever given, but that would be wrong. My speakers and my lamp both require a power cord. Does that mean my speakers are 50% lamp? No, that's ridiculous. It means they share similar components because a long time ago a standard was produced, and it pervaded all electronics moving forward. Similarly, standards in genes are produced that work well, and are passed forward.

In this post, you use two types of bad reasoning simultaneously. First is your usual comparison fallacy that goes something like: "if a firetruck is red, and an apple is red, an apple is a type of firetruck." The second is belief that humans evolved from an animal alive today, such as worms or apes. As if my speaker evolved from my lamp because they share something in common.

I have and use many different bibles so I get the right message, ... I don't cherry pick when it comes to God And his word.

Actually that pretty much defines cherry picking.

Prove an offspring came out a different species due to mutations ? You know very well that genetics determine what the offspring will be. At best mutations will make no difference, worse case scenario the offspring will die or will die prematurely or be severely deformed.

Stop with your Neo crap.

You're disengenuious.

Using more than one bible to get the "right" message is cherry picking. You know yourself that every bible says different things.

If you knew anything about evolution you never would have asked someone to prove something so stupid. Again, in another thread, you show how completely clueless you are.

Did you know humans have neanderthal DNA in our own DNA? Yeah, thats right

Sky Dancer, hell is a made up place. It doesnt exist as fundies like to say. All it is is a fake scary place made to make kids be afraid, very afraid, so they will swallow Youwerecreateds' freaky ideas.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Prove an offspring came out a different species due to mutations ? You know very well that genetics determine what the offspring will be. At best mutations will make no difference, worse case scenario the offspring will die or will die prematurely or be severely deformed.

Stop with your Neo crap.

You're disengenuious.

How could I possibly provide evidence of new species to someone who doesn't even understand what speciation is? It would be like explaining multiplication to a hamster who doesn't believe it exists. And I say this because the very wording of your question proves you are completely clueless on the topic. No scientist anywhere has ever believes that a new species has come from a single generation. For you to ask for proof of something that NO ONE believes, attributing it to evolution, demonstrates how you condemn a topic you don't actually understand. This is the definition of ignorance.

Now let's return to what I said: that new genetic material can be seen in offspring that neither parent have. This is true and reproducible, in everything from bacteria to humans. Does a small genetic change create a new species? Of course not. But tons of them over generation lead to speciation. That's the concept that has always been over your head.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable[/url]

I already know how paternity testing works. You have shown yourself to be lacking in that area. Which is why I asked for YOUR reasoning as to why paternity similarity proves ancestry in your mind, but all other forms of the exact same genetic similarity doesn't. Care to try answering the question again, instead of providing unrelated links to things I already understand?

Uh oh! Someone is actually making you support something you say instead of allowing you to derail a conversation with more underhanded misdirection in the form of "you can't answer this unrelated question!" You may need to actually address a topic for once!

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

They do? Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific paper that states the big bang has anything to do with evolution? If by "scientists believe" you mean "I made shit up to further my own red herring straw man argument" then you're right.

Evolution is and always has been separate from all other scientific investigation, including gravity, quantum physics, the big bang, and lightning storms. Evolution is a process, not a beginning. It doesn't matter what materials were given to the process to start with, the process is still running. Similarly, it doesn't matter who turns the key to your car, be it you, your friend, a thief, an alien, or your pet gerbil. The PROCESS of starting the car works exactly the same way.

Do you finally concede that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life? Or will you continue in your ignorance to make things up to suit your own disingenuous fabrications?

 

[rightwinger]

 

[luciferthebased]

you all sound like a bunch of idiots. none of you really know whats going on in the world.

 

[JScott]

you all sound like a bunch of idiots. none of you really know whats going on in the world.

Please tell us oh wise one.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable[/url]

I already know how paternity testing works. You have shown yourself to be lacking in that area. Which is why I asked for YOUR reasoning as to why paternity similarity proves ancestry in your mind, but all other forms of the exact same genetic similarity doesn't. Care to try answering the question again, instead of providing unrelated links to things I already understand?

Uh oh! Someone is actually making you support something you say instead of allowing you to derail a conversation with more underhanded misdirection in the form of "you can't answer this unrelated question!" You may need to actually address a topic for once!

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

They do? Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific paper that states the big bang has anything to do with evolution? If by "scientists believe" you mean "I made shit up to further my own red herring straw man argument" then you're right.

Evolution is and always has been separate from all other scientific investigation, including gravity, quantum physics, the big bang, and lightning storms. Evolution is a process, not a beginning. It doesn't matter what materials were given to the process to start with, the process is still running. Similarly, it doesn't matter who turns the key to your car, be it you, your friend, a thief, an alien, or your pet gerbil. The PROCESS of starting the car works exactly the same way.

Do you finally concede that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life? Or will you continue in your ignorance to make things up to suit your own disingenuous fabrications?

did you not understand they can prove or disprove a parent. So that means it is not based off similarity which is what you're basing your argument on. If you would have read and understood what you read you would have picked up on that. Your argument is similarity period.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Like I said earlier hick point out your peer reviewed articles that agrees with you that the similarity between a humans dna and chimp prove ancestry. You are the one that brought up the peer reviews and made the claim now I am asking you to back up your claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable[/url]

I already know how paternity testing works. You have shown yourself to be lacking in that area. Which is why I asked for YOUR reasoning as to why paternity similarity proves ancestry in your mind, but all other forms of the exact same genetic similarity doesn't. Care to try answering the question again, instead of providing unrelated links to things I already understand?

Uh oh! Someone is actually making you support something you say instead of allowing you to derail a conversation with more underhanded misdirection in the form of "you can't answer this unrelated question!" You may need to actually address a topic for once!

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

They do? Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific paper that states the big bang has anything to do with evolution? If by "scientists believe" you mean "I made shit up to further my own red herring straw man argument" then you're right.

Evolution is and always has been separate from all other scientific investigation, including gravity, quantum physics, the big bang, and lightning storms. Evolution is a process, not a beginning. It doesn't matter what materials were given to the process to start with, the process is still running. Similarly, it doesn't matter who turns the key to your car, be it you, your friend, a thief, an alien, or your pet gerbil. The PROCESS of starting the car works exactly the same way.

Do you finally concede that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life? Or will you continue in your ignorance to make things up to suit your own disingenuous fabrications?

Similarity,let's look at other examples.

The grey wolf's DNA difference from a domestic dog is 0.02 % the coyote is 0.04% the amazing thing is they can both cross breed with the domestic dog.

That is a big difference between human and chimp comparitively. So what were the apelike creatures that's DNA was close enough to cross breed with humans ?

Where are the transitional fossils ?

A viodeo was brought to my attention.

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/8/103-bones-in-stones/

 

[Dr.Drock]

Paternity Testing: Blood Types and DNA | Learn Science at Scitable[/url]

I already know how paternity testing works. You have shown yourself to be lacking in that area. Which is why I asked for YOUR reasoning as to why paternity similarity proves ancestry in your mind, but all other forms of the exact same genetic similarity doesn't. Care to try answering the question again, instead of providing unrelated links to things I already understand?

Uh oh! Someone is actually making you support something you say instead of allowing you to derail a conversation with more underhanded misdirection in the form of "you can't answer this unrelated question!" You may need to actually address a topic for once!

I still say according to scientists they believe the Big Bang is what put evolution into motion so they're related according to science. But I don't believe in the Big Bang.

According to evolutionist how did evolution begin ?

They do? Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific paper that states the big bang has anything to do with evolution? If by "scientists believe" you mean "I made shit up to further my own red herring straw man argument" then you're right.

Evolution is and always has been separate from all other scientific investigation, including gravity, quantum physics, the big bang, and lightning storms. Evolution is a process, not a beginning. It doesn't matter what materials were given to the process to start with, the process is still running. Similarly, it doesn't matter who turns the key to your car, be it you, your friend, a thief, an alien, or your pet gerbil. The PROCESS of starting the car works exactly the same way.

Do you finally concede that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life? Or will you continue in your ignorance to make things up to suit your own disingenuous fabrications?

Similarity,let's look at other examples.

The grey wolf's DNA difference from a domestic dog is 0.02 % the coyote is 0.04% the amazing thing is they can both cross breed with the domestic dog.

That is a big difference between human and chimp comparitively. So what were the apelike creatures that's DNA was close enough to cross breed with humans ?

Where are the transitional fossils ?

A viodeo was brought to my attention.

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This would be funner if it weren't so easy to debunk.

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabrera's fraudulent stones

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

 

[Youwerecreated]

I already know how paternity testing works. You have shown yourself to be lacking in that area. Which is why I asked for YOUR reasoning as to why paternity similarity proves ancestry in your mind, but all other forms of the exact same genetic similarity doesn't. Care to try answering the question again, instead of providing unrelated links to things I already understand?

Uh oh! Someone is actually making you support something you say instead of allowing you to derail a conversation with more underhanded misdirection in the form of "you can't answer this unrelated question!" You may need to actually address a topic for once!



They do? Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific paper that states the big bang has anything to do with evolution? If by "scientists believe" you mean "I made shit up to further my own red herring straw man argument" then you're right.

Evolution is and always has been separate from all other scientific investigation, including gravity, quantum physics, the big bang, and lightning storms. Evolution is a process, not a beginning. It doesn't matter what materials were given to the process to start with, the process is still running. Similarly, it doesn't matter who turns the key to your car, be it you, your friend, a thief, an alien, or your pet gerbil. The PROCESS of starting the car works exactly the same way.

Do you finally concede that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life? Or will you continue in your ignorance to make things up to suit your own disingenuous fabrications?

Similarity,let's look at other examples.

The grey wolf's DNA difference from a domestic dog is 0.02 % the coyote is 0.04% the amazing thing is they can both cross breed with the domestic dog.

That is a big difference between human and chimp comparitively. So what were the apelike creatures that's DNA was close enough to cross breed with humans ?

Where are the transitional fossils ?

A viodeo was brought to my attention.

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This would be funner if it weren't so easy to debunk.

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabrera's fraudulent stones

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

So if ica stones are a hoax so be it, but what about all the other drawings found in caves and writings of historians ? do you simply ignore that ?

Do you simply ignore that most complex organisms appeared at the same time ?

How can complex organisms all appear at the same time if they were a product of evolution ?

Why does the fossil record show no gradualism ?

Why are fossils said to be millions of years old show no change today ?

So you point to one item he brought up that might be wrong and you simply ignore the rest ? No one can be 100% accurate can he not even science is 100% accurate true or not true ?

What's really fun is using your logic again'st you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Similarity,let's look at other examples.

The grey wolf's DNA difference from a domestic dog is 0.02 % the coyote is 0.04% the amazing thing is they can both cross breed with the domestic dog.

That is a big difference between human and chimp comparitively. So what were the apelike creatures that's DNA was close enough to cross breed with humans ?

Where are the transitional fossils ?

A viodeo was brought to my attention.

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This would be funner if it weren't so easy to debunk.

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabrera's fraudulent stones

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

So if ica stones are a hoax so be it, but what about all the other drawings found in caves and writings of historians ? do you simply ignore that ?

Do you simply ignore that most complex organisms appeared at the same time ?

How can complex organisms all appear at the same time if they were a product of evolution ?

Why does the fossil record show no gradualism ?

Why are fossils said to be millions of years old show no change today ?

So you point to one item he brought up that might be wrong and you simply ignore the rest ? No one can be 100% accurate can he not even science is 100% accurate true or not true ?

What's really fun is using your logic again'st you.

A lot of cave drawings aren't real, they were ignorant people. When I was an ignorant kid I made drawings of things that weren't real. Should we alert the scientific community of this great discovery?

They didn't ever "appear" and zero science shows it all happened around the same time.

They didn't.

They do show gradualism in most cases.

Some millions of year old fossils are the same today, MANY MANY MANY are not.

I didn't watch the video, I can't at work, but one of the commenters on the site says he brought up the stones which an easily be explained. If it's that easy to explain one of his "great points" I'm not going to put a lot of thought into the rest of it.

You didn't use any of my logic, let alone any of it against me. You're using your same old strawmen that get debunked every time you post them, yet you keep posting them. Maybe out of "faith" you think if you keep repeating incorrect things they'll become correct. Is that what you mean when you say you have faith?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This would be funner if it weren't so easy to debunk.

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabrera's fraudulent stones

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

So if ica stones are a hoax so be it, but what about all the other drawings found in caves and writings of historians ? do you simply ignore that ?

Do you simply ignore that most complex organisms appeared at the same time ?

How can complex organisms all appear at the same time if they were a product of evolution ?

Why does the fossil record show no gradualism ?

Why are fossils said to be millions of years old show no change today ?

So you point to one item he brought up that might be wrong and you simply ignore the rest ? No one can be 100% accurate can he not even science is 100% accurate true or not true ?

What's really fun is using your logic again'st you.

A lot of cave drawings aren't real, they were ignorant people. When I was an ignorant kid I made drawings of things that weren't real. Should we alert the scientific community of this great discovery?

They didn't ever "appear" and zero science shows it all happened around the same time.

They didn't.

They do show gradualism in most cases.

Some millions of year old fossils are the same today, MANY MANY MANY are not.

I didn't watch the video, I can't at work, but one of the commenters on the site says he brought up the stones which an easily be explained. If it's that easy to explain one of his "great points" I'm not going to put a lot of thought into the rest of it.

You didn't use any of my logic, let alone any of it against me. You're using your same old strawmen that get debunked every time you post them, yet you keep posting them. Maybe out of "faith" you think if you keep repeating incorrect things they'll become correct. Is that what you mean when you say you have faith?

Wrong .wrong,and wrong again.

People drew accurate drawings of things they supposedly never laid eyes on.

Historians described beasts that evolutionist said went extinct millions of years ago.

How can this be ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This would be funner if it weren't so easy to debunk.

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabrera's fraudulent stones

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

So if ica stones are a hoax so be it, but what about all the other drawings found in caves and writings of historians ? do you simply ignore that ?

Do you simply ignore that most complex organisms appeared at the same time ?

How can complex organisms all appear at the same time if they were a product of evolution ?

Why does the fossil record show no gradualism ?

Why are fossils said to be millions of years old show no change today ?

So you point to one item he brought up that might be wrong and you simply ignore the rest ? No one can be 100% accurate can he not even science is 100% accurate true or not true ?

What's really fun is using your logic again'st you.

A lot of cave drawings aren't real, they were ignorant people. When I was an ignorant kid I made drawings of things that weren't real. Should we alert the scientific community of this great discovery?

They didn't ever "appear" and zero science shows it all happened around the same time.

They didn't.

They do show gradualism in most cases.

Some millions of year old fossils are the same today, MANY MANY MANY are not.

I didn't watch the video, I can't at work, but one of the commenters on the site says he brought up the stones which an easily be explained. If it's that easy to explain one of his "great points" I'm not going to put a lot of thought into the rest of it.

You didn't use any of my logic, let alone any of it against me. You're using your same old strawmen that get debunked every time you post them, yet you keep posting them. Maybe out of "faith" you think if you keep repeating incorrect things they'll become correct. Is that what you mean when you say you have faith?

Only in your mind do you see gradualism.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So if ica stones are a hoax so be it, but what about all the other drawings found in caves and writings of historians ? do you simply ignore that ?

Do you simply ignore that most complex organisms appeared at the same time ?

How can complex organisms all appear at the same time if they were a product of evolution ?

Why does the fossil record show no gradualism ?

Why are fossils said to be millions of years old show no change today ?

So you point to one item he brought up that might be wrong and you simply ignore the rest ? No one can be 100% accurate can he not even science is 100% accurate true or not true ?

What's really fun is using your logic again'st you.

A lot of cave drawings aren't real, they were ignorant people. When I was an ignorant kid I made drawings of things that weren't real. Should we alert the scientific community of this great discovery?

They didn't ever "appear" and zero science shows it all happened around the same time.

They didn't.

They do show gradualism in most cases.

Some millions of year old fossils are the same today, MANY MANY MANY are not.

I didn't watch the video, I can't at work, but one of the commenters on the site says he brought up the stones which an easily be explained. If it's that easy to explain one of his "great points" I'm not going to put a lot of thought into the rest of it.

You didn't use any of my logic, let alone any of it against me. You're using your same old strawmen that get debunked every time you post them, yet you keep posting them. Maybe out of "faith" you think if you keep repeating incorrect things they'll become correct. Is that what you mean when you say you have faith?

Wrong .wrong,and wrong again.

People drew accurate drawings of things they supposedly never laid eyes on.

Historians described beasts that evolutionist said went extinct millions of years ago.

How can this be ?

People also drew drawings of things that never existed, just because some of them appear to be animals that did exist doesn't mean we can ignore all the ones that were wrong.

No they didn't.

And if they did, simply seeing a skeleton that was exposed through plate tectonics or simply digging and erosion could've shown them that.

Lol you wish only my mind said gradualism happens in evolution, that's actually the entire world of respected biological scientists.