One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Amusing!
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 next> last>>
May 13, 2019 18:32:41   #
Nickolai
 
bahmer wrote:
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Amusing!
By Dr. Don Boys - May 10, 2019

Evolutionists, because of the pressure to provide an answer for origins, jump to unsound, unscientific, and untrue conclusions that make them look shallow, silly, and for sure, not scholarly. With feckless lectures and fraudulent books, they make their pitch for goo-to-you evolution but when educated people hear and read the flaky, false, fraudulent fairytale they fall to the floor holding their sides with raucous laughter, gasping for breath.

The evolutionary positions evaluated in this article are for real although they are so ridiculous, I will be accused of exaggerating to make a point. But, I don’t have to exaggerate. The t***h from the pens of evolutionists will finish them off for all studious, sophisticated, and sincere readers.

Before evolutionists can speak about Darwin’s mutations, the fossil record, or natural se******n (which Darwin finally rejected), they have to get everything spinning; therein is their first big problem. The more evolutionists teach about origins, the deeper they slide into a really black hole. The evolutionists’ answer to getting everything started is a Big Bang. Well, it really wasn’t a bang nor was it big! (Of course, the real Big Bang is when God spoke and bang, it happened!)

Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin) there was nothing, well yes there was something. There was space and matter (and Creationists are expected to give them that), and all the matter in the universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a needle point! The small ball or sphere is called the “cosmic egg,” and I hope I’m not too pushy by insisting on knowing where the egg came from. Maybe the cosmic egg was laid by a cosmic chicken! And with time, the egg exploded producing the orderly system of stars, planets, comets!

It seems evolutionists feel no obligation to tell us where time, energy, space, and matter came from; however, God does inform us. Genesis 1:1 reveals:

“In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”
There you have time, space, matter, and energy. The evolutionists say that special creation is too incredible so they came up with their own origin story—that is more unbelievable than God’s account.

We are told that a cosmic egg came out of nowhere and exploded. We are not told what caused the explosion, yet explosions don’t just happen. Moreover, an explosion (wh**ever size) never, under any circumstances, produces order for which the Universe is well known. The colossal Universe, allegedly caused by a massive explosion, runs like a Swiss clock. I demand an explanation if I am expected to consider their story.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates such as gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, planetary motion, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc. I have read more than 40 evolutionary texts and not one even brings up the subject. Where did the scientific laws come from; how did they start; and who caused them? Also, did the scientific laws precede or follow the Big Bang?

Obviously, the Big Bang is in big trouble. It has started to fizzle and has become the Big Bust. World famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term on a BBC broadcast said, a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” Other scientists are running from the Big Bang as if their hair is on fire.

Highly mis-educated people want us to believe that nothing created something that became everything; we are expected to believe nothing plus nothing equals something. However, zero times zero does not equal anything and for sure not everything. Nothing can do nothing and wishing doesn’t help.

Evolutionists must deal with the origin of the Universe before they can sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch life develop—from nothing. Yes, I know, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation more than a hundred years ago, but somehow, someway life must get started and the only possibility available was rocks that eroded into dirt. So, flowers and all plants then small living creatures came from rock and millions of years later the rocks evolved into rock stars.

But to be gracious, after having a good laugh at nothing creating everything, let’s agree for argument’s sake, to Evolutionists’ position on the origin of the Universe and earth. All right, we are here whether by natural se******n or mutations or however, so let’s deal with dinosaurs giving birth to birds! This frantic, false, and fanciful theory was devised because there is a total absence of t***sitional fossils. This is the “hopeful monster” theory first espoused by paleontologist O. H. Schindewolf and geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s and 1940s. This silly theory was resuscitated and nursed back to life by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould because they were convinced (rightly) that no t***sitional fossils existed.

Please note that these two major evolutionists admitted what all paleontologists know, that there are no missing links, necessitating this silly “hopeful monster” theory.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum proved that assertion when he wrote:

“[Stephen] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no t***sitional fossils….I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
That’s from a leading evolutionist! Niles Eldredge, world famous evolutionist and coworker with Gould, confessed in the Guardian:

“The search for missing links is probably fruitless…no one has yet found any evidence of t***sitional forms.”
However, if molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution had happened, there would be billions of in-between fossils all over the earth. But there’s not one.

Realizing his evolutionary world was collapsing around him, Gould grabbed onto the “hopeful monster” theory but gave it more respectability by calling it punctuated equilibrium. Because there are no t***sitional fossils, Gould said that evolution happened in spurts or jerks such as a dinosaur giving birth to a bird then long ages of no change. Then another spurt or jerk with another major birth of an advanced creature. But it is all silly speculation. Some call this “evolution by jerks.”

This inane theory is being taught to our children in public school classrooms and in The Wonderful Egg (Ipcar, 1958). The book was recommended by the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International. It is also endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science The book tells of a mother dinosaur laying a wonderful egg that hatched into a baby bird—“the first baby bird in the whole world!” The book asks, “Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?” The book answers “no” to various kinds of dinosaurs. Then comes the climax: “It was a wonderful new kind of egg.” And what did the dinosaur egg hatch into? “It hatched into a baby bird, the first bird in the whole world. And the baby bird grew up…with feathers…the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops…of long, long, ago.”

That is not education; it’s called, brainwashing. Moreover, it is academic child abuse to convince children that a dinosaur could hatch a bird. What nonsense. The book should be listed under science fiction, not children’s books.

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that even if the above happened contrary to elementary science then it would have to happen again—a bird of the opposite sex. And it would have to happen in a timely manner and in the same location! And the second bird would have to be fertile; it would also have to be able to breed with the first and only other bird on earth.

Not only is evolution absurd, asinine, and amusing, it’s also wrong, and I challenge evolutionists to speak to the issues; however, my past experience is they will not deal with their unscientific teachings. They find it easier to attack me.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Am... (show quote)







You obviously have no ida what your talking about Every species in earth is a t***sitional form. There is no end to evolution nothing is a finished project-- therefore ever form of life on earth is in t***sition
100 years from now human beans will have crooked necks and elongated thumbs from texting

Reply
May 13, 2019 20:29:47   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
The striking thing about discussing the subject of evolution vs intelligent design is how quickly they devolve into combative, highly opinionated ping pong games. There are no winners, no losers, and no one is keeping score. Or is He?

Reply
May 13, 2019 20:46:18   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The striking thing about discussing the subject of evolution vs intelligent design is how quickly they devolve into combative, highly opinionated ping pong games. There are no winners, no losers, and no one is keeping score. Or is He?


He who??

LOL!

Just playing Blade. I'm pretty much an agnostic, I guess, so I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally, but I do think there might be an intelligence guiding our evolution. But as I have said, who really knows, besides you true believers.

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 01:53:23   #
Nickolai
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The striking thing about discussing the subject of evolution vs intelligent design is how quickly they devolve into combative, highly opinionated ping pong games. There are no winners, no losers, and no one is keeping score. Or is He?







Evolution vs intelligent design is not about opinion its about evidence-- the ID people seem to me to be the neocons of anti-Darwinism, constantly repeating one argument, one slogan, as though the endless repetition of one verbal formula will assure success for their side. t***h is never boring, it’s always new, fresh, and exciting. But the irreducible complexity argument, at least in the hands of the ID people, is boring.

Reply
May 14, 2019 02:11:23   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Nickolai wrote:
Evolution vs intelligent design is not about opinion its about evidence-- the ID people seem to me to be the neocons of anti-Darwinism, constantly repeating one argument, one slogan, as though the endless repetition of one verbal formula will assure success for their side. t***h is never boring, it’s always new, fresh, and exciting. But the irreducible complexity argument, at least in the hands of the ID people, is boring.
The complexity in Intelligent Design is infinitely greater than a bunch of fossils and speculation about how they got there and why. Intelligent Design is spacial and multi-dimensional, evolution is linear and one dimensional.

The thing about believing evolution theory is it is easy, it requires little to no critical thought or intellectual prowess. You don't have to think about it, reason with it, dig into it, all you need to do is deny a Creator and stare at a fossil.

Darwin never came close to considering consciousness, self-awareness, individual will, good and evil. He just played around with rocks.

Reply
May 14, 2019 02:58:21   #
JW
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The complexity in Intelligent Design is infinitely greater than a bunch of fossils and speculation about how they got there and why. Intelligent Design is spacial and multi-dimensional, evolution is linear and one dimensional.

The thing about believing evolution theory is it is easy, it requires little to no critical thought or intellectual prowess. You don't have to think about it, reason with it, dig into it, all you need to do is deny a Creator and stare at a fossil.

Darwin never came close to considering consciousness, self-awareness, individual will, good and evil. He just played around with rocks.
The complexity in Intelligent Design is infinitely... (show quote)


Actually, Darwin had nothing to do with rocks. He was a naturalist and his voyages dealt only with living things, at least, they were living before he collected them. He developed his theory by observing living things in their natural environments and by dissection. It required a prodigious intellectual effort with unending consideration and reevaluations. Attributing everything to God is the easy route to take. All that takes one answer, a single thought and blind acceptance of what every 3 year old child can grasp.

Reply
May 14, 2019 03:40:34   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
JW wrote:
Actually, Darwin had nothing to do with rocks. He was a naturalist and his voyages dealt only with living things, at least, they were living before he collected them. He developed his theory by observing living things in their natural environments and by dissection. It required a prodigious intellectual effort with unending consideration and reevaluations. Attributing everything to God is the easy route to take. All that takes one answer, a single thought and blind acceptance of what every 3 year old child can grasp.
Actually, Darwin had nothing to do with rocks. He ... (show quote)
Yeah, right.

Naturalism is nothing more than the random product of time plus matter plus chance. If we are nothing more than chemistry and physics in motion then we have no intrinsic worth. Our worth then is determined by the state or an extrinsic philosophy.

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.

Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1995) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005)

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 03:43:28   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.


Could you kindly provide proof of the non-existence of Cthulhu?

Thanks... It is appreciated

Reply
May 14, 2019 03:46:48   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:


Naturalism is nothing more than the random product of time plus matter plus chance. If we are nothing more than chemistry and physics in motion then we have no intrinsic worth. Our worth then is determined by the state or an extrinsic philosophy.


How so?
Why would such a situation render us without intrinsic worth?
Explanation?

Quote:

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
br i “Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexist... (show quote)


This entire paragraph is ripe with fallacies....

I provided the first in my prior response above...

I know you can do better...
Are you playing devil's advocate?

Reply
May 14, 2019 03:50:13   #
JW
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Yeah, right.

Naturalism is nothing more than the random product of time plus matter plus chance. If we are nothing more than chemistry and physics in motion then we have no intrinsic worth. Our worth then is determined by the state or an extrinsic philosophy.

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.

Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1995) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005)
Yeah, right. br br Naturalism is nothing more th... (show quote)


I said naturalist, not naturalism. A naturalist is a scientist who studies natural history.

Reply
May 14, 2019 04:46:45   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
Nickolai wrote:
Evolution vs intelligent design is not about opinion its about evidence-- the ID people seem to me to be the neocons of anti-Darwinism, constantly repeating one argument, one slogan, as though the endless repetition of one verbal formula will assure success for their side. t***h is never boring, it’s always new, fresh, and exciting. But the irreducible complexity argument, at least in the hands of the ID people, is boring.


I agree with you on evidence. Do you remember the brontosaurus? I hope so because it's a oddity. It never existed! When the skeletal remains were found, there was a head nearby and was assumed to belong to the main body. That assumption was wrong, which was proven when a complete skeleton was found.
Here's an interesting presentation about some evidence found that disparages evolution.
It's worth a look. I don't know all the answers for sure, but don't we have to look at ALL of the evidence?
Take a look and tell me what you think.

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2019 06:05:57   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
Peewee wrote:
God isn't limited by space, time, or matter. We live in three dimensions, science is pretty sure there are ten or more. He isn't bound by our reality of things. He has always existed. Hope that helps a little.


Yep, Peewee, God has always been, and always will be.

Reply
May 14, 2019 06:07:24   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
maximus wrote:
I don't know all the answers for sure, but I agree with your post AND your opinion. What sticks to me is that many physicists are coming around to " intelligent design" for the universe. So, who is God? Does the Bible not say that he is the "intelligent designer" of ...everything? If this designer is not God, then who is it? And why did this designer make the universe the way it is? What was the purpose? What is the culmination of the designers creation? Why does O2 assist fire and mass have gravity? Why is there anything on earth that's good to eat, air to breathe, and water to drink? One three letter word answers all of these questions AND many, many more...........that word is...............................................


GOD !!!

There is no such thing as a closed door on a theory. It is a theory until it's proven, and then it's no longer a theory! Here's my theory......intelligent design equals God!
I don't know all the answers for sure, but I agree... (show quote)


Amen, me too!

Reply
May 14, 2019 06:21:24   #
jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Fair enough...

And I agree...

He created a beautiful system... Simply gorgeous


👍👍👍👍

Reply
May 14, 2019 07:38:55   #
MR Mister Loc: Washington DC
 
bahmer wrote:
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Amusing!
By Dr. Don Boys - May 10, 2019

Evolutionists, because of the pressure to provide an answer for origins, jump to unsound, unscientific, and untrue conclusions that make them look shallow, silly, and for sure, not scholarly. With feckless lectures and fraudulent books, they make their pitch for goo-to-you evolution but when educated people hear and read the flaky, false, fraudulent fairytale they fall to the floor holding their sides with raucous laughter, gasping for breath.

The evolutionary positions evaluated in this article are for real although they are so ridiculous, I will be accused of exaggerating to make a point. But, I don’t have to exaggerate. The t***h from the pens of evolutionists will finish them off for all studious, sophisticated, and sincere readers.

Before evolutionists can speak about Darwin’s mutations, the fossil record, or natural se******n (which Darwin finally rejected), they have to get everything spinning; therein is their first big problem. The more evolutionists teach about origins, the deeper they slide into a really black hole. The evolutionists’ answer to getting everything started is a Big Bang. Well, it really wasn’t a bang nor was it big! (Of course, the real Big Bang is when God spoke and bang, it happened!)

Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin) there was nothing, well yes there was something. There was space and matter (and Creationists are expected to give them that), and all the matter in the universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a needle point! The small ball or sphere is called the “cosmic egg,” and I hope I’m not too pushy by insisting on knowing where the egg came from. Maybe the cosmic egg was laid by a cosmic chicken! And with time, the egg exploded producing the orderly system of stars, planets, comets!

It seems evolutionists feel no obligation to tell us where time, energy, space, and matter came from; however, God does inform us. Genesis 1:1 reveals:

“In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”
There you have time, space, matter, and energy. The evolutionists say that special creation is too incredible so they came up with their own origin story—that is more unbelievable than God’s account.

We are told that a cosmic egg came out of nowhere and exploded. We are not told what caused the explosion, yet explosions don’t just happen. Moreover, an explosion (wh**ever size) never, under any circumstances, produces order for which the Universe is well known. The colossal Universe, allegedly caused by a massive explosion, runs like a Swiss clock. I demand an explanation if I am expected to consider their story.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates such as gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, planetary motion, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc. I have read more than 40 evolutionary texts and not one even brings up the subject. Where did the scientific laws come from; how did they start; and who caused them? Also, did the scientific laws precede or follow the Big Bang?

Obviously, the Big Bang is in big trouble. It has started to fizzle and has become the Big Bust. World famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term on a BBC broadcast said, a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” Other scientists are running from the Big Bang as if their hair is on fire.

Highly mis-educated people want us to believe that nothing created something that became everything; we are expected to believe nothing plus nothing equals something. However, zero times zero does not equal anything and for sure not everything. Nothing can do nothing and wishing doesn’t help.

Evolutionists must deal with the origin of the Universe before they can sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch life develop—from nothing. Yes, I know, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation more than a hundred years ago, but somehow, someway life must get started and the only possibility available was rocks that eroded into dirt. So, flowers and all plants then small living creatures came from rock and millions of years later the rocks evolved into rock stars.

But to be gracious, after having a good laugh at nothing creating everything, let’s agree for argument’s sake, to Evolutionists’ position on the origin of the Universe and earth. All right, we are here whether by natural se******n or mutations or however, so let’s deal with dinosaurs giving birth to birds! This frantic, false, and fanciful theory was devised because there is a total absence of t***sitional fossils. This is the “hopeful monster” theory first espoused by paleontologist O. H. Schindewolf and geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s and 1940s. This silly theory was resuscitated and nursed back to life by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould because they were convinced (rightly) that no t***sitional fossils existed.

Please note that these two major evolutionists admitted what all paleontologists know, that there are no missing links, necessitating this silly “hopeful monster” theory.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum proved that assertion when he wrote:

“[Stephen] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no t***sitional fossils….I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
That’s from a leading evolutionist! Niles Eldredge, world famous evolutionist and coworker with Gould, confessed in the Guardian:

“The search for missing links is probably fruitless…no one has yet found any evidence of t***sitional forms.”
However, if molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution had happened, there would be billions of in-between fossils all over the earth. But there’s not one.

Realizing his evolutionary world was collapsing around him, Gould grabbed onto the “hopeful monster” theory but gave it more respectability by calling it punctuated equilibrium. Because there are no t***sitional fossils, Gould said that evolution happened in spurts or jerks such as a dinosaur giving birth to a bird then long ages of no change. Then another spurt or jerk with another major birth of an advanced creature. But it is all silly speculation. Some call this “evolution by jerks.”

This inane theory is being taught to our children in public school classrooms and in The Wonderful Egg (Ipcar, 1958). The book was recommended by the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International. It is also endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science The book tells of a mother dinosaur laying a wonderful egg that hatched into a baby bird—“the first baby bird in the whole world!” The book asks, “Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?” The book answers “no” to various kinds of dinosaurs. Then comes the climax: “It was a wonderful new kind of egg.” And what did the dinosaur egg hatch into? “It hatched into a baby bird, the first bird in the whole world. And the baby bird grew up…with feathers…the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops…of long, long, ago.”

That is not education; it’s called, brainwashing. Moreover, it is academic child abuse to convince children that a dinosaur could hatch a bird. What nonsense. The book should be listed under science fiction, not children’s books.

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that even if the above happened contrary to elementary science then it would have to happen again—a bird of the opposite sex. And it would have to happen in a timely manner and in the same location! And the second bird would have to be fertile; it would also have to be able to breed with the first and only other bird on earth.

Not only is evolution absurd, asinine, and amusing, it’s also wrong, and I challenge evolutionists to speak to the issues; however, my past experience is they will not deal with their unscientific teachings. They find it easier to attack me.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Am... (show quote)



Well, I must ask, if GOD created this wonderful world and universe why would he create things like Liberals?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.