Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.Are you?
If I were a paleontologist, you can bet that I would look at bones, not drawings of bones.
Well, this is certainly an emotional topic for you.
Yes, Piltdown Man is not 100% identical to H. Naledi. Mainly because no one thing is ever 100% identical to anything else.
Maybe I should see if there are any other hoaxes of evolutionary science and start a thread about that.
Ya think?
a fraud that was science for decades.I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.
You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.
You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.
`
No it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.a fraud that was science for decades.
41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - WikipediaNo it wasn't. Now you're just kind of flailing.
That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - Wikipedia
Evolution has been going 160 years and throughout an explosion of new sciences in that time.41 years it was accepted. Piltdown Man - Wikipedia
It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."I think/KNOW you're a FRAUD, who in fact 'replies' but Never Answers.
You can't discredit Millions of Fossils found/unearthed by Tens of thousands of scientists with your Idiotic citing of a 100 year old One-man fraud.
That one man fraud debunked BY science.
You're a non sequitur clown whose looking for tiny exceptions.
`
OK, then.That does not mean "it was science". furthermore, it was just a hoax example of ideas that have been confirmed many times over from 1000s of other fossil finds.
Christianity is false.This would be like me pointing at a time when Christians said the world would end, when it then didn't, and saying "Therefore Christianity is false."
Do people ever seriously respond to statements like that from you, or is not giving them anything that can be logically responded to part of the plan to cover up your incredible ignorance on topics that you debate?But you are so rabid, desperate, and eager to have ANYTHING AT ALL here that you are just clinging to embarrassing horseshit.
Christianity is false.
The large number of hoaxes that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity are indeed evidence of its falseness.
Assumes facts not in evidence.So ""WHO Sent the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs just at the right time""?
`
But that was YOUR statement.Assumes facts not in evidence.
No one knows how dinosaurs died off. My favorite among the theories is that nocturnal mammals ate their eggs. Unlike Darwinians with their favorite theory, I openly admit that my favorite theory is just a theory that I happen to like.
MY statement?But that was YOUR statement.
And in fact, the meteor itself is Certainly In evidence. Just not Your claim that anyone "sent it."
What an idiot.
Allah?
Vishnu?
`
MY statement?
I don't remember making any statement about meteor's killing off dinosaurs.
But if you have a picture of that meteor with proof that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'd like to see it.
I'll happily change my mind if enough evidence is provided. Unlike Darwinians, my whole self-worth is not tied up in one particular theory about
www.usmessageboard.com
Seymour Flops said:
Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?
There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.It isn't the fossils that need to be "debunked."
It's the fact that researchers (I can't call them scientists) take fossil that are bone fragments and embellish them in drawings and modelling material to make them seem to show things that they simply do not show.
Oh good!There are obviously complete fossils, more than 6,000 years old, that document a planet which produced an astonishingly broad spectrum of life. Ignorance and denial of facts on your part is your problem to deal with.
On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.Oh good!
Now maybe we're getting somewhere.
Show me - in your very next reply, please - three of the best examples of complete fossils and how they prove that Darwinian evolution is fact, not theory.
Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.On the other hand, you can find examples of complete fossils with a search engine. I can think of three museums that have displays of many examples. With a search engine, you can find those. Change in populations over time subject to environmental factors is a component of Darwinian theory. That has been proven.
I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?Show me the ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of The Gawds Did It''. As you rattle on with your frantic, anti-science Jihad, you refuse to make any defendable case for your gods and why those gods played such a cruel joke on you.
False.Yes, changes cause other changes. If theres a freeze, and 95% of a species population die out the remaining 5% would likely be the ones with more fur, more fat, more traits that resist cold.
Could that be how new species originate? That's a possibility but it is far to great a leap to declare that possibility a fact.
The species population whose less resistant to cold individuals have died out are still the same species. If the cold persists, so will they. As THE SAME SPECIES. If the cold recedes, the species will regress toward the mean. As THE SAME SPECIES.
Darwin presented a somewhat plausible but highly unlikely theory of the origin of species. It has been seized on by those desperate to cling to and validate their non-deist faith.
I guess I should Do that if I were insisting on "the Gawds did it." I'm not, so why bother?
Which proves nothing about evolution.False.
Many species are Extinct. Period.
If by "microevolution," you mean changes in population within species, there is evidence for that, so it is credible. Changing from one species to another via natural selection? As soon as you have evidence for that, I want to see it!Like Most Creationists and IDers you believe only in 'microevolution,' not scientific evolution. (or even modern taxonomy)
No, I call species "species." What is your evidence that I call them "kinds," and where is your quote from me where I discuss "divine intervention?"Like most Creationists you believe in CREATED 'Kinds' (Not 'species') that cannot change without divine intervention.
When have we observed that in modern times? Or when at any time have we directly observed it?And even in the case of adaptation, they do become become different species, Families, and genera.
Just blurting out the word "DNA," doesn't prove anything. If species were brought about by a designer, why would that designer have started from scratch with each new species? Is that what human designers of houses, cars, bridges, factories, clothing, video games, or anything else do?The evidence for Common descent of all life is overwhelming. It's on all our bodies and in our DNA.
`
