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.
But that 1.4% makes all the difference. Where did that come from?Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.
Watermelons are 99% similar to clouds. Therefore watermelons "evolved" from clouds.
A>B>C>D.
FURTHERMORE, A1>A2>A3>A4
Just ask Richard Hateful Dawkins.
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
A topnotch WordPress.com siteTheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
An analogy may be inappropriate, but it is never pointless. Apparently, a distinction that is way over your head.A truly pointless attempt at analogy.
It is pointless when utterly unrelated.An analogy may be inappropriate, but it is never pointless. Apparently, a distinction that is way over your head.A truly pointless attempt at analogy.
Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, etc.But that 1.4% makes all the difference. Where did that come from?Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.
You didn't answer anything I said including even on this point.But that 1.4% makes all the difference. Where did that come from?
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
A topnotch WordPress.com site
A truly pointless attempt at analogy.
I suppose when you’re a “thinking challenged” type, you cut and paste from silly web blogs.
It is pointless when utterly unrelated.An analogy may be inappropriate, but it is never pointless. Apparently, a distinction that is way over your head.A truly pointless attempt at analogy.
I took the time to take Woodie apart point for point.While you are on my Ignore List for good reason, I was curious at what my friend JWoodie had to say and pursued the thread.
First, simply declaring that a point is "truly pointless," it is incumbent on you to explain precisely WHY it is "truly pointless." Don't simply make snide and ignorant remarks.
Your second ignorant remark was to call me "thinking challenged."
Superlative thinker that YOU believe YOU are, why don't you explain why the watermelon/cloud analogy is "pointless." Really try.
You called The Evolution Fraud a "silly web log." Read it carefully and show each and every sentence, graph, and quote is "silly."
Nor did I "cut and paste" from it. I assembled it over a period of years, citing quotes from biologists, Nobel Laureates, and bitter evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins.
I don't expect you to respond because you don't have the expertise to do so, nor do you have the initiative to take the time and try to teach anyone anything. The best you can do is to sling your pettiness and bitterness. "Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible
Never more accurate than when you consider the actions and words of today's atheists, Antifa psychos, BLM terrorists, Trump-haters, and angry feminists who think they are so strong and so smart.
You didn't ask any questions.You didn't answer anything I said including even on this point.
True, but I made alot of points rebuttal you can 'answer' if you have any.You didn't ask any questions.
I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?
I think not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.
Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
No, they would not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.
Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
Absolutely, no.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?
Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?
No.
Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?
And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.
So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
It's not about science. Not at all.
The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.
Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.
With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.
Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.
I believe there is a middle ground.
Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.
Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.
That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."
So you don’t accept that the grave site you place flowers on Memorial Day is that of your deceased relatives. You weren’t there for every burial. So you don’t know right ? But you do accept the evidence of “ advertisement “ that taking aspirin will help a headache.Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.
Mainly because they are stupid losers.Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?
I think not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.
Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
No, they would not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.
Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
Absolutely, no.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?
Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?
No.
Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?
And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.
So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
It's not about science. Not at all.
The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.
Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.
With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.
Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.
I believe there is a middle ground.
Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.
Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.
That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."
Depends on how much LSD they took. If people came from apes, why aren't apes still turning into people?I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.
So you don’t accept that the grave site you place flowers on Memorial Day is that of your deceased relatives. You weren’t there for every burial. So you don’t know right ? But you do accept the evidence of “ advertisement “ that taking aspirin will help a headache.
Your-post is ridiculous blather.
Well,it was the egg,by hundreds of millions of years.I still dont know what came first the chicken or the egg
You wrote earlier that I was on your ignore list and yet, obviously not as you read my comments and responded.THAT is PRECISELY THE POINT! They are UNRELATED, like chimps and humans.
HELLO!!!
Denial of the obvious is the standard response from a Leftist/atheist/Darwinist.
You have yet to disprove anything. Just being a big bag of wind is not proof. Calling someone a liar with no evidence makes you the liar. Really, the right now is inundated with snowflakes who need permission to just make up shit.1.; I don't go to cemeteries at all
2. You are lying. I don't accept the evidence that aspirin will cure my headache because I am not allowed to take aspirin.
You are a chronic liar and I don't believe a word you say. From what I have seen here, lots of others don't believe you, either. IGNORE
Woo woo.I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.
You’re nothing special. Maybe you should.1.; I don't go to cemeteries at all
