Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
56 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Son Goku, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,039 Year: 12,787/23,288 Month: 512/1,527 Week: 191/207 Day: 13/39 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 146 of 323 (525277)
09-22-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


RAZD, for example, has went to GREAT lengths to refute ALL of your claims, 2 or more times, extremely eloquently. You just fail to: a) realize it or B) understand what he is saying since you say things like:

in Message 132

Archangel writes:

Notice how this allegedly scientific thesis with all of its scientific jargon......


shows you are in over your head and don't understand enough "scientific jargon" to have a valid opinion. Would you take my words serious if I said something like "well that jeebus fellar ain't real cuz i caynt understand them jews and the way they talk. If they wasn't telling lies, theyd talk so's I could understand 'em"

You have had your claims slammed to the ground by someone showing you how either a) science showed it was wrong and admitted mistake...LONG ago (while you and other Creo's hold onto the same story as if science still believes it to be a backbone of Evolution or b) a non-scientist purported the claim, and you and other creo's still hold onto it as if science believes it as a backbone of Evolution.

Let me ask you this: YOU, Archangle, somehow become a defendant in a homicide case. The case against you is almost insurmountable: how can you prove you were innocent? DNA? Blood samples? fingerprints? or would you just hope god shows the heathen justice system in a miracle?

How about all of these convicts who have been locked up for decades, only to finally be set free due to DNA evidence, proving them to have been wrongly convicted. These same methods are used today in Evolution.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 148 of 323 (525279)
09-22-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-22-2009 7:32 PM


Go ahead and look at that graph again there Arch. You see that little segment in yellow, with words? Yes, the one that says "THIS IS THE ONLY SEGMENT COVERED BY ORGANIC EVOLUTION"? Does that segment include abiogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 7:32 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 149 of 323 (525280)
09-22-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:55 PM


This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins.

No. YEC have no evidence. The only thing you ever bring to the table are PRATT's against evolution. There IS NO evidence FOR biblical creation. There is faith and belief...that is all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:55 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 157 of 323 (525309)
09-22-2009 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.

Glad we finally have your definition of "false science". Anything that does not agree with the genesis account, is not "real science.

Well, that's a solid foundation. I just hope you, or anyone you care about, is never involved in a trial where DNA is required for evidence. You would have to reject it, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 158 of 323 (525310)
09-22-2009 9:35 PM


Lets just point out here where paleogeneticists ADMITTED they had made some mistakes in the early stages of the field, where present day DNA were intermixed with DNA found. What did they do? Did they stick with the false positives and tell the public, while keeping secret the mistakes they made? No. They modified the science in order to maintain its integrity. Whereas, sites like creation.com continue to use finds that science itself has refuted and ADMITTED mistake.

It is you, and your ilk that are the fraudsters, dear sir.

Edited by hooah212002, : clarification


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020