Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution

Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution

 
Old 03-15-2019, 08:12 PM
  #1001  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
I think the link I posted explains the situation. Itís not a theory, itís a proven fact but itís still called a theory for a specific reason. Did you read the link I posted?
no such thing as fact in science
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:17 PM
  #1002  
jcsperson
CF Senior Member
 
jcsperson's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2010
Location: Hillsborough NC
Posts: 11,544
Thanked 342 Times in 219 Posts
NC Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by FourPennyDoug View Post
Not according to one of our resident evolutionists.

Was the Theory of Evolution ever called a theory when it was just an hypothesis, hunch, or educated guess? I was under the impression those were two distinct scientific classifications.
It was only first proposed in any systematic way by Darwin in On The Origin of Species in 1859. There were others who hypothesized it before, some as early Lucretius in De rerum natura in the first century BCE. But it was Darwin who proposed the mechanism of natural selection as the cause of it.

Much of Darwin's theory was developed by his observations of finches on the Galapagos Islands. The way they adapted to new surroundings is the basis of the theory. (There is an excellent description of this in the video I posted above).

Remember the part about a theory being, "repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method"? That's what's been going on since 1859. The sheer weight of the data is enormous and continually verifies much of Darwin's original concept.

He got a few things wrong. He guessed the earth was 100 million years old when many people believed it was 6000 years old. We know now he was off by more than 4 billion years. Gregor Mendel hadn't discovered genetics yet, so Darwin also misunderstood how traits were passed down from parent to offspring. Of course with modern knowledge of genetics, we know the chemical and biological explanation for what Mendel knew only from observation.

But Darwin got everything else right, especially the two most important concepts; natural selection, how differentiation occurs within a species; and speciation, how new species are split from old ones.

I don't understand what is so threatening to some people about evolution. Unless you are a strict literalist about the Bible, and believe it to be "the infallible word of god," there is nothing about evolution that precludes faith in a deity. Denying the fact of evolution makes one a science denier, at once backward and uneducated. One might as well also believe the sun revolves around the earth or that man existed alongside dinosaurs.
jcsperson is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:23 AM
  #1003  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,313
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FourPennyDoug View Post
You already posted it's a theory. And that it isn't a theory. I don't need to see any links to claim that your first post was poorly worded (as evidenced by you needing to clarify it now).

Where did I post its a theory?
shane p is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:24 AM
  #1004  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
Sure I have, you just want to keep ignoring it applying your willful ignorance thinking you are making an intelligent stance. We have covered multiple examples and you still act like nothing has been presented, which is just normal expected denial when you have nothing to support your position with.

Give me fossils that undeniably demonstrate the systematic divergent process you claim happened. Give me fossils that demonstrate any species you chose, emerged from another. This is exactly the kind of stupid and baseless double standards bullshit you keep trying to peddle. I can give you fossils that show species alive today, that have not changed for million of year and you know it. But you apply your willful ignorance to those fossils because the shut down and crush your narrative.

You want hard evidence, take your willfully ignorant *** outside and look for a bird nest, look for a beehive, a spider web, look at the pollination process plants require and what is taking care of that task, look at any ecosystem you choose and tell me what you see happening in that system and why all the life in that system is dependent upon those things happening? All the hard evidence you need is available for your observation pleasure if you can sit your ignorance on the shelf for a minute and go look instead of repeating you same stupid baseless script over and over. You want to deny observable undeniable evidence as you hold on to a baseless idea, talk about ignorant.

What you can't seem to come to grips with is the process you hold on to, would not have picked or chosen which species to "evolve" and which species to leave alone because that would mean intervention or awareness of some form was involved in the process now wouldn't it?

Let me ask you again, what is the purpose and intent of your response genius?
multiple examples

I've only seen multiple examples of your ignorant double-talk.

bird nest, look for a beehive, a spider web, look at the pollination process plants require and what is taking care of that task, look at any ecosystem

Exactly my point. They are all interconnected-not by "intent", but by random evolutionary changes that occurred over the ages.

go look instead of repeating you (sic) same stupid baseless script over and over. You want to deny observable undeniable evidence as you hold on to a baseless idea, talk about ignorant

Exactly!

Give me proof, not a line of moronic bullshit.

Read a book, Educate yourself. Think. Don't be an ignorant *** all of your life. Forget that crap you were force-fed. Learn to accept progress. Get out of the First Century. The Earth is not the center of the universe.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:51 AM
  #1005  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,313
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

He may think its flat also.
shane p is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 11:32 AM
  #1006  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcsperson View Post
It was only first proposed in any systematic way by Darwin in On The Origin of Species in 1859. There were others who hypothesized it before, some as early Lucretius in De rerum natura in the first century BCE. But it was Darwin who proposed the mechanism of natural selection as the cause of it.

Much of Darwin's theory was developed by his observations of finches on the Galapagos Islands. The way they adapted to new surroundings is the basis of the theory. (There is an excellent description of this in the video I posted above).

Remember the part about a theory being, "repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method"? That's what's been going on since 1859. The sheer weight of the data is enormous and continually verifies much of Darwin's original concept.

He got a few things wrong. He guessed the earth was 100 million years old when many people believed it was 6000 years old. We know now he was off by more than 4 billion years. Gregor Mendel hadn't discovered genetics yet, so Darwin also misunderstood how traits were passed down from parent to offspring. Of course with modern knowledge of genetics, we know the chemical and biological explanation for what Mendel knew only from observation.

But Darwin got everything else right, especially the two most important concepts; natural selection, how differentiation occurs within a species; and speciation, how new species are split from old ones.

I don't understand what is so threatening to some people about evolution. Unless you are a strict literalist about the Bible, and believe it to be "the infallible word of god," there is nothing about evolution that precludes faith in a deity. Denying the fact of evolution makes one a science denier, at once backward and uneducated. One might as well also believe the sun revolves around the earth or that man existed alongside dinosaurs.
And there it is. This is where the discussion always goes off the rails. People assuming those who donít accept evolution, do so because they feel threatened by it, when the truth is those making those claims, feel threatened by any ideas that challenge the accepted norm. There are multiple reasons why many reject an idea they find no evidence to support and the assumption posed of feeling threatened, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Questionable assumptions and conjectures sans solid evidence, has everything to do with it.

To assume we have solved a riddle via assumption and conjecture and the science is settled on the topic where we no longer need to consider other possibilities, makes one a radical convert, that has chosen to ignore everything else no matter the available evidence. That is the true definition of a science denier, as true science is about investigating and researching all viable conditions and options where the evidence suggests there are other possibilities to be explored. True science operates on the principles of seeking answers without bias and preconceived notions. If through observations we find evidence that counters what we once accepted, denying that evidence just because we are uncomfortable with what that evidence may present, is not now nor has it ever been science, it instead is agenda driving.

Here are some simple facts, those who embrace evolution want to ignore. These are but a few of the reasons why many have rejected the idea of evolution.

Evolution requires stand-alone aspects to support the greater whole of the idea. Without those stand-alone aspects, the idea fails. Let me say this again, adaptation does not need evolution to be viable, it meets every requirement of a theory. Survival of the fittest does not need evolution to be viable, it meets every standard of a theory. However, the idea of evolution and the emergence of divergent species from parent species, has never meet any of the requirements for a theory. It is not observable, predictable, repeatable, testable, measurable, demonstrable or even falsifiable.

Random mutations are not evolution for there is no guarantee a desired or required outcome is assured and there is no evidence to support that was ever the case. Yet evolution needs to present a conjecture and assumption that random mutations were the incremental engine of change. Apparently, it doesnít matter that zero evidence exist to support the assumption and conjecture.

There is no fossil records demonstration one species emerged from another, yet there are fossils records demonstrating many species have not changed since the fossil records. Those fossil records also provide a sampling of what existed in any given slice of time where those fossils are concerned.

Evolution can not be credited with complex processes or systems, yet life embraces complex processes and systems in every single form of life. In the higher life form examples, there could be hundreds of complex systems working in unison and all are critical systems. Meaning they all had to be there functioning in unison, for the species to survive. Any new emergent species of life would require modified processes and systems to support the new species, meaning those processes and systems would need to be specific to support the biological requirements of the new species. Random cannot account for those requirements.

These systems and processes are also dependent upon specific chemicals, enzymes, electrical impulses and other attributes required for the systems to function as intended. Not just the specific chemicals, but in specific quantities. An example, calcium is required for nerve impulse transmissions in the human body to function correctly, as well as serving other biological needs. If the required calcium levels fall, there is an immediate detrimental outcome and if they remain low, there is a long-term detrimental outcome. The human body requires a given amount of blood carrying oxygen for our muscles to function correctly, our brain to function correctly, our organs to function correctly, etc. These are not just random situations here, there are specific minimums that must be maintained for the systems to function.

Evolution has never been observed in the lab. Every attempt made to mimic the assumptions of evolution has failed to deliver the desired outcome, even with the deck stacked in favor of the outcome, including a controlled environment that does not exist in nature.

There is no natural observable, predictable repeatable or demonstrable experiments that can be performed to validate evolution as presented, deriving a new divergent species from a parent species. If this cannot be accomplished with the most basic and simplest forms of life, why would anyone even assume far more complicated forms of life arrived via a process that has never been validated?

Evolution is based solely on applying assumption and conjecture after the fact, of what happened to produce the varying diversity of life and attributes of life. Neither assumption of conjecture is the basis for a theory. They at best fall in the realm of a hypothesis.
30YR W8T is online now  
Old 03-16-2019, 11:44 AM
  #1007  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
multiple examples

I've only seen multiple examples of your ignorant double-talk.

bird nest, look for a beehive, a spider web, look at the pollination process plants require and what is taking care of that task, look at any ecosystem

Exactly my point. They are all interconnected-not by "intent", but by random evolutionary changes that occurred over the ages.

go look instead of repeating you (sic) same stupid baseless script over and over. You want to deny observable undeniable evidence as you hold on to a baseless idea, talk about ignorant

Exactly!

Give me proof, not a line of moronic bullshit.

Read a book, Educate yourself. Think. Don't be an ignorant *** all of your life. Forget that crap you were force-fed. Learn to accept progress. Get out of the First Century. The Earth is not the center of the universe.

All I keep hearing from you is denial. You have yet to provide one single shred of evidence to support your position. You just stated interconnected, which again eludes to awareness genius. Make up your mind already as all you have been doing since you entered into this discussion is trying to make a circular argument that ends up going nowhere. Problem is you aren't smart enough to see it.

The moronic bullshit line, is continuing to arguing a baseless point of assumption and conjecture. You have nothing to offer other than noise, lip flapping and your childish anger in not being able to support what you want to believe. You can keep your concept of progress, accepting a 160 year old idea that has never been proven. I will look to the future embracing new discoveries and understanding that is helping us see the complexities of life in a whole new perspective.

Last edited by 30YR W8T; 03-16-2019 at 02:27 PM.
30YR W8T is online now  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:32 PM
  #1008  
FourPennyDoug
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
FourPennyDoug's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2016
Location: Add 36k UD posts :-) Hills of N.Ga
Posts: 15,755
Thanked 62 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
Where did I post its a theory?
Right here. Look not trying to play the semantics game and go around in circles but your first post needed a couple sentences after "it's not a theory" to better explain what you were attempting to say.

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
Its still called the theory of evolution...
FourPennyDoug is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:44 PM
  #1009  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,313
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FourPennyDoug View Post
Right here. Look not trying to play the semantics game and go around in circles but your first post needed a couple sentences after "it's not a theory" to better explain what you were attempting to say.
Sorry for the confusion. The link I posted kinda explains it. Itís a fact but still called a theory.
shane p is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:58 PM
  #1010  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
And there it is. This is where the discussion always goes off the rails. People assuming those who donít accept evolution, do so because they feel threatened by it, when the truth is those making those claims, feel threatened by any ideas that challenge the accepted norm. There are multiple reasons why many reject an idea they find no evidence to support and the assumption posed of feeling threatened, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Questionable assumptions and conjectures sans solid evidence, has everything to do with it.

To assume we have solved a riddle via assumption and conjecture and the science is settled on the topic where we no longer need to consider other possibilities, makes one a radical convert, that has chosen to ignore everything else no matter the available evidence. That is the true definition of a science denier, as true science is about investigating and researching all viable conditions and options where the evidence suggests there are other possibilities to be explored. True science operates on the principles of seeking answers without bias and preconceived notions. If through observations we find evidence that counters what we once accepted, denying that evidence just because we are uncomfortable with what that evidence may present, is not now nor has it ever been science, it instead is agenda driving.

Here are some simple facts, those who embrace evolution want to ignore. These are but a few of the reasons why many have rejected the idea of evolution.

Evolution requires stand-alone aspects to support the greater whole of the idea. Without those stand-alone aspects, the idea fails. Let me say this again, adaptation does not need evolution to be viable, it meets every requirement of a theory. Survival of the fittest does not need evolution to be viable, it meets every standard of a theory. However, the idea of evolution and the emergence of divergent species from parent species, has never meet any of the requirements for a theory. It is not observable, predictable, repeatable, testable, measurable, demonstrable or even falsifiable.

Random mutations are not evolution for there is no guarantee a desired or required outcome is assured and there is no evidence to support that was ever the case. Yet evolution needs to present a conjecture and assumption that random mutations were the incremental engine of change. Apparently, it doesnít matter that zero evidence exist to support the assumption and conjecture.

There is no fossil records demonstration one species emerged from another, yet there are fossils records demonstrating many species have not changed since the fossil records. Those fossil records also provide a sampling of what existed in any given slice of time where those fossils are concerned.

Evolution can not be credited with complex processes or systems, yet life embraces complex processes and systems in every single form of life. In the higher life form examples, there could be hundreds of complex systems working in unison and all are critical systems. Meaning they all had to be there functioning in unison, for the species to survive. Any new emergent species of life would require modified processes and systems to support the new species, meaning those processes and systems would need to be specific to support the biological requirements of the new species. Random cannot account for those requirements.

These systems and processes are also dependent upon specific chemicals, enzymes, electrical impulses and other attributes required for the systems to function as intended. Not just the specific chemicals, but in specific quantities. An example, calcium is required for nerve impulse transmissions in the human body to function correctly, as well as serving other biological needs. If the required calcium levels fall, there is an immediate detrimental outcome and if they remain low, there is a long-term detrimental outcome. The human body requires a given amount of blood carrying oxygen for our muscles to function correctly, our brain to function correctly, our organs to function correctly, etc. These are not just random situations here, there are specific minimums that must be maintained for the systems to function.

Evolution has never been observed in the lab. Every attempt made to mimic the assumptions of evolution has failed to deliver the desired outcome, even with the deck stacked in favor of the outcome, including a controlled environment that does not exist in nature.

There is no natural observable, predictable repeatable or demonstrable experiments that can be performed to validate evolution as presented, deriving a new divergent species from a parent species. If this cannot be accomplished with the most basic and simplest forms of life, why would anyone even assume far more complicated forms of life arrived via a process that has never been validated?

Evolution is based solely on applying assumption and conjecture after the fact, of what happened to produce the varying diversity of life and attributes of life. Neither assumption of conjecture is the basis for a theory. They at best fall in the realm of a hypothesis.
You again make many unsubstantiated statements, offering absolutely no proof beyond your use of underlining.

I'll insult you one more time.

Only the most ignorant person would doubt one of the most basic ideas of modern science.

Only a total ignoramus would claim "intent" was responsible for the myriad life forms that exist today.

Only a damn fool that had absolutely no advanced education would challenge the combined knowledge of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. Knowledge gained piecemeal over may years and many lifetimes.

Only a moron would babble on in an effort to portray himself as an expert that "knows" that the randomness of evolution could not possibly result in the earth as we see it today.

Only a childishly naive adult would accept the banal preaching of others who are equally inept and misinformed.

I must assume that you continue posting these ridiculous claims with no other motive in mind other than to irritate "evolutionists". But I must ask, do you enjoy being labeled the most vapid cretin on he forum?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:02 PM
  #1011  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
You again make many unsubstantiated statements, offering absolutely no proof beyond your use of underlining.

I'll insult you one more time.

Only the most ignorant person would doubt one of the most basic ideas of modern science.

Only a total ignoramus would claim "intent" was responsible for the myriad life forms that exist today.

Only a damn fool that had absolutely no advanced education would challenge the combined knowledge of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. Knowledge gained piecemeal over may years and many lifetimes.

Only a moron would babble on in an effort to portray himself as an expert that "knows" that the randomness of evolution could not possibly result in the earth as we see it today.

Only a childishly naive adult would accept the banal preaching of others who are equally inept and misinformed.

I must assume that you continue posting these ridiculous claims with no other motive in mind other than to irritate "evolutionists". But I must ask, do you enjoy being labeled the most vapid cretin on he forum?
I think I felt some wind and heard lips flapping away. Sounded like blah..blah...blah bla. blah. blah.....blah. Nothing legible, just blah..blah.
30YR W8T is online now  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:33 PM
  #1012  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
Sorry for the confusion. The link I posted kinda explains it. Itís a fact but still called a theory.
There are no facts in science.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:47 PM
  #1013  
69427
Tech Contributor
 
69427's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own either a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 12,472
Thanked 185 Times in 158 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sleezy E View Post
Can you link the post where I gave my opinion about the appendix?

I asked what the purpose and intent of an appendix was
Oh please. We know what your opinion/belief is about the appendix. You didn't ask him about the heart or the liver or the lungs, blah, blah, blah. You went straight to the appendix, one of the favorite organs in the vestigial body part philosophy. You were just playing a game, and nobody went along.
69427 is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 08:01 AM
  #1014  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,313
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
I think I felt some wind and heard lips flapping away. Sounded like blah..blah...blah bla. blah. blah.....blah. Nothing legible, just blah..blah.
And we still havenít seen anything as far as proof for whatever your theory is.
shane p is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 11:19 AM
  #1015  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
And we still havenít seen anything as far as proof for whatever your theory is.
You won't see anything, unless it is institution approved and you are told it is okay to look.
30YR W8T is online now  
Old 03-17-2019, 04:55 PM
  #1016  
69427
Tech Contributor
 
69427's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own either a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 12,472
Thanked 185 Times in 158 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
You again make many unsubstantiated statements, offering absolutely no proof beyond your use of underlining.

I'll insult you one more time.

Only the most ignorant person would doubt one of the most basic ideas of modern science.

Only a total ignoramus would claim "intent" was responsible for the myriad life forms that exist today.

Only a damn fool that had absolutely no advanced education would challenge the combined knowledge of hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. Knowledge gained piecemeal over may years and many lifetimes.

Only a moron would babble on in an effort to portray himself as an expert that "knows" that the randomness of evolution could not possibly result in the earth as we see it today.

Only a childishly naive adult would accept the banal preaching of others who are equally inept and misinformed.

I must assume that you continue posting these ridiculous claims with no other motive in mind other than to irritate "evolutionists". But I must ask, do you enjoy being labeled the most vapid cretin on he forum?
Just curious, do contractors get discounts on those broad brushes you use?

WTH, I'll bet two can play that game. How 'bout a broad brush claim that only total ignoramuses believe that the constants and laws of physics of the universe that have interacted so well together promoting the continued growth of life on this planet for billions of years was just the result of randomness at the moment of the big bang.

Wow, that was easy.
69427 is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 06:41 PM
  #1017  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,313
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
You won't see anything, unless it is institution approved and you are told it is okay to look.

So you cant provide any proof? Just a simple yes or no will work.
shane p is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 12:28 AM
  #1018  
SLO VETTE
CF Senior Member
 
SLO VETTE's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2001
Posts: 12,483
Thanked 40 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Tissue is not that complicated. Either go with soft two-ply or single ply with aloe for sensitive skin.



Originally Posted by Kingtal0n View Post
In tissue engineering I read that evolution cannot account for the complexity of the eye

It is just one of many things that we don't have answers for
SLO VETTE is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 01:48 AM
  #1019  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 33,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shane p View Post
So you cant provide any proof? Just a simple yes or no will work.
So you going to keep denying what has been presented? Just a simple yes or no will work.
30YR W8T is online now  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:15 AM
  #1020  
juanvaldez
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2014
Posts: 18,081
Thanked 348 Times in 264 Posts
Default

A this bullshit about dinosaurs and such is just a giant hoax. God created all the animals and they ended up on the Ark with Noah.
juanvaldez is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: